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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I believe Dan's brother and a close relative of Linda were the consultants. No-one from Betty's side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I believe Dan's brother and a close relative of Linda were the consultants. No-one from Betty's side.

Betty’s parents also seem like abusive asshats. I’m sure her issues stem from childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I believe Dan's brother and a close relative of Linda were the consultants. No-one from Betty's side.

Betty’s parents also seem like abusive asshats. I’m sure her issues stem from childhood.

I wonder if things would have turned out differently if she could have turned to a loving family for support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

If I'm not mistaken, she worked organizing the prison psychologist's office for a while. So seems there is therapeutic support available, but who knows how good it is or whether she took advantage of it. I wonder how beneficial it would be for someone who has no empathy for two people who gaslit her and treated her like complete and utter trash. I wonder how she'd be able to work through that to at least admit that murder is wrong, even in the face of psychological abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

If I'm not mistaken, she worked organizing the prison psychologist's office for a while. So seems there is therapeutic support available, but who knows how good it is or whether she took advantage of it. I wonder how beneficial it would be for someone who has no empathy for two people who gaslit her and treated her like complete and utter trash. I wonder how she'd be able to work through that to at least admit that murder is wrong, even in the face of psychological abuse.

Yes, prisons provide some mental health services. But I doubt she could receive what was truly needed for her issues. There’s too many other inmates that would need services as well to be able to support her intensive need.

She should have pled not guilty by reason of insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

If I'm not mistaken, she worked organizing the prison psychologist's office for a while. So seems there is therapeutic support available, but who knows how good it is or whether she took advantage of it. I wonder how beneficial it would be for someone who has no empathy for two people who gaslit her and treated her like complete and utter trash. I wonder how she'd be able to work through that to at least admit that murder is wrong, even in the face of psychological abuse.

Yes, prisons provide some mental health services. But I doubt she could receive what was truly needed for her issues. There’s too many other inmates that would need services as well to be able to support her intensive need.

She should have pled not guilty by reason of insanity.

That was pretty much the basis of her defense, but couldn't be the formal plea since there was too much evidence of premeditation.

[Anonymous]

Even with prison resources, Betty is one of the “saner” prisoners. Sure we can see her issues, but it’s only directed toward two people. The fact that she’s not sorry is actually a pretty rational thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even with prison resources, Betty is one of the “saner” prisoners. Sure we can see her issues, but it’s only directed toward two people. The fact that she’s not sorry is actually a pretty rational thought.

I agree but it would be tough for a parole board to release someone who still won't admit what she did, keeps obfuscating the truth. She bought the gun not long before the second marriage and practiced shooting. She stole her daughter's key and entered a house she was legally barred from entering at 4AM. Her claim that she intended suicide or wanted to talk to them just isn't credible. The parole board said something like she still had not insight into her actions and they didn't believe she had remorse. From a CNN article about the 2010 hearing:

"I allowed the voices in my head to completely take over," Broderick told the parole board. "I took the lives of two wonderful people who were loved by many."
Yet when pressed for details on her actions, Broderick repeated what she had said during her trials: "Linda came at me and the gun went off."
"She was totally not remorseful, didn't even try," said Richard Sachs, a San Diego prosecutor who handles so-called "lifer hearings." Broderick won't be eligible for another parole hearing for 15 years -- the maximum time the law allows.


Does anyone really think Betty believes she took the lives of "two wonderful people"? Lmao. Even if I agree it's pretty rational under the circumstances, she still won't tell the truth or concede it was wrong. If she fundamentally believes murder is justified when she's victimized, a parole board can't release her. Severity of the crime plus remorse are two of the factors they consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

If I'm not mistaken, she worked organizing the prison psychologist's office for a while. So seems there is therapeutic support available, but who knows how good it is or whether she took advantage of it. I wonder how beneficial it would be for someone who has no empathy for two people who gaslit her and treated her like complete and utter trash. I wonder how she'd be able to work through that to at least admit that murder is wrong, even in the face of psychological abuse.

I read an interesting psych analysis stating she was diagnosed as having narcissistic personality disorder and that a major trigger for narc rage is any kind of large blow to the ego plus loss of control. Now of course seems clear Dan also had NPD, a profound lack of empathy for sure, and he had all the financial and legal power and stripped her of all control. That is one toxic stew. So is her lack of empathy for the victims due to narcissism, an understandable response to gaslighting and emotional abuse, or some combo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with prison resources, Betty is one of the “saner” prisoners. Sure we can see her issues, but it’s only directed toward two people. The fact that she’s not sorry is actually a pretty rational thought.

I agree but it would be tough for a parole board to release someone who still won't admit what she did, keeps obfuscating the truth. She bought the gun not long before the second marriage and practiced shooting. She stole her daughter's key and entered a house she was legally barred from entering at 4AM. Her claim that she intended suicide or wanted to talk to them just isn't credible. The parole board said something like she still had not insight into her actions and they didn't believe she had remorse. From a CNN article about the 2010 hearing:

"I allowed the voices in my head to completely take over," Broderick told the parole board. "I took the lives of two wonderful people who were loved by many."
Yet when pressed for details on her actions, Broderick repeated what she had said during her trials: "Linda came at me and the gun went off."
"She was totally not remorseful, didn't even try," said Richard Sachs, a San Diego prosecutor who handles so-called "lifer hearings." Broderick won't be eligible for another parole hearing for 15 years -- the maximum time the law allows.


Does anyone really think Betty believes she took the lives of "two wonderful people"? Lmao. Even if I agree it's pretty rational under the circumstances, she still won't tell the truth or concede it was wrong. If she fundamentally believes murder is justified when she's victimized, a parole board can't release her. Severity of the crime plus remorse are two of the factors they consider.

Would any of you actually hire her if she were out and free? I doubt so. Her line of thinking is frankly nuts. I didn’t get what I want from my ex so I kill him and his wife in their sleep. As if her life would have been improved by going to prison. She deserves to stay in prison until her death. And have her $8K Oscar what’s the brand dresses sell for $8 at her estate sale.