Is anyone watching Dirty John tonight? Betty Broderick's story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

A lot! I wouldn’t trust her to not pull a gun on me if I pissed her off for whatever reason.

If she's under house arrest and the parole board stipulates no weapons in the house? Don't think you, or anyone else, would have anything to fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

Usually expressing remorse is a condition of parole. Has she ever admitted it was wrong to kill them? During her first couple of hearings, she would not admit to being wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So interesting how the Lifetime movies portrayed her so differently just 25 odd years ago. Dan and Linda were definitely portrayed as sympathetic and Betty was nuts.

Because those two movies were based on details provided by Dan’s family and friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

Usually expressing remorse is a condition of parole. Has she ever admitted it was wrong to kill them? During her first couple of hearings, she would not admit to being wrong.

In one of her parole hearings, she did express remorse. Maybe it wasn't perceived as sincere? I have to say after reading about all of his despicable behavior, I can imagine it would be hard for her to be anything but relieved. But she should be able to say, genuinely, that she was wrong to handle her anger the way she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

A lot! I wouldn’t trust her to not pull a gun on me if I pissed her off for whatever reason.

If she's under house arrest and the parole board stipulates no weapons in the house? Don't think you, or anyone else, would have anything to fear.

My mom has borderline personality disorder and I wouldn’t want another person out there like Betty. It’s obvious that she’s unwell and ought to stay in prison for taking the lives of two people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

She wanted him. Period.

All three were awful people. Dan thought of himself as the smartest person in the state, let alone San Diego. Betty obviously has her own mental health issues, probably always has. It worked when she and Dan were feeding each other's illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

He said he was willing to give her half of the practice, yet that wasn't part of the settlement. Doesn't matter if 16K was a lot of money--it did not reflect an equitable settlement. Her emotional spending problem is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

She wanted him. Period.

All three were awful people. Dan thought of himself as the smartest person in the state, let alone San Diego. Betty obviously has her own mental health issues, probably always has. It worked when she and Dan were feeding each other's illness.

I agree with you and a PP that all three were awful people, but Dan takes the prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

He said he was willing to give her half of the practice, yet that wasn't part of the settlement. Doesn't matter if 16K was a lot of money--it did not reflect an equitable settlement. Her emotional spending problem is irrelevant.

The problem was no amount of money was going to be enough for Betty. It wasn't about money but about control. Why else would she try to badmouth him and Linda and warn people against going to their wedding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

Usually expressing remorse is a condition of parole. Has she ever admitted it was wrong to kill them? During her first couple of hearings, she would not admit to being wrong.

In one of her parole hearings, she did express remorse. Maybe it wasn't perceived as sincere? I have to say after reading about all of his despicable behavior, I can imagine it would be hard for her to be anything but relieved. But she should be able to say, genuinely, that she was wrong to handle her anger the way she did.

Probably because she was remorseful that not everyone viewed her as the victim and that she was still in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

He said he was willing to give her half of the practice, yet that wasn't part of the settlement. Doesn't matter if 16K was a lot of money--it did not reflect an equitable settlement. Her emotional spending problem is irrelevant.

The problem was no amount of money was going to be enough for Betty. It wasn't about money but about control. Why else would she try to badmouth him and Linda and warn people against going to their wedding?

Well we've never know since she was not treated in a decent and respectful manner. Had she been, I'd be completely on board with your statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I missing something? Betty still got a generous monthly allowance in spite of the vandalism and vile phone messages she left. Who in their right mind would burn her husband’s clothes and smear cake over the bed? She really had it good. It wasn’t like she was left with nothing. She could have gotten help but didn’t want it. I’m team Dan and I’m a woman.

She ended up with something like 30K and no house for the property settlement. Does that seem equitable, in light of their joint assets? He was bringing in 100-140K/month and she received between 6 and 16K, depending. Again, equitable? Not to mention being stripped of custody.

I read he "loaned" his brother 450K and withdrew 200K from their bank account before he filed for divorce as well.

Dan and his mistress/child bride, who wouldn't let Betty have her bridal china when she had already purchased her own, were horrible people. They truly seemed to enjoy twisting the knife. Betty was no angel, but why torment someone so obviously suffering and unstable? She had nine pregnancies and supported him through two grad schools, devoted her entire adult life to their home and family and his career, and he couldn't be decent enough to propose an equitable settlement? Or treat her in anything resembling a decent and compassionate manner? I think all three of them were very sick people.

She drove a vehicle into their house, vandalized, and damaged their property several times. As Linda said in the show, Betty wouldn’t have allowed her to have the China. She was getting $16,000 a month and 50 per cent of the law practice. Seems equitable to me. If she really wanted custody, she would have behaved like a normal person and listened to her attorneys. It’s ridiculous that people keep saying she was screwed by Dan and didn’t know the legal system. That’s why you hire an attorney! I did watch the series and it’s so apparent that she wallows in being a victim.

I don't believe that's true. Link? And you believe 16k vs 100K+/month is equitable?

You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

He said he was willing to give her half of the practice, yet that wasn't part of the settlement. Doesn't matter if 16K was a lot of money--it did not reflect an equitable settlement. Her emotional spending problem is irrelevant.

The problem was no amount of money was going to be enough for Betty. It wasn't about money but about control. Why else would she try to badmouth him and Linda and warn people against going to their wedding?

Well we've never know since she was not treated in a decent and respectful manner. Had she been, I'd be completely on board with your statement.

*we'll not we've