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?

Adjusted for inflation, that would be the equivalent of over $400,000 a year today. I think that’s plenty equitable.

So then Dan would have been making about 2.7 million a year plus hid or retained 95% of what should have been joint assets. So equitable!

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?

Adjusted for inflation, that would be the equivalent of over $400,000 a year today. I think that’s plenty equitable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Wow, way to minimize her contributions to the family. They were together for 18 years--close enough to 20 for you?

By all accounts she was an excellent mother to four children, all of whom did sports, music lessons and various other extracurriculars. She attended all their events and handled all aspects of their care. Dan was at work of course, rarely if ever present, including on family vacations which she usually handled solo. She entertained his clients and colleagues and basically devoted her life to their family, managing the household and supporting his career. He never had to cook, clean, or be involved in the kids' lives in any meaningful way. Do you really think she didn't work at least 40 hours a week doing all this? She was an asset in every way, other than getting older. And where is the evidence Dan was willing to give her full custody and equitable financial support?

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No I wouldn’t hire her, she should stay in prison, but I’m happy she’s unapologetic. I can at least appreciate that honesty.

I also don’t feel sorry for Dan or Linda. Good riddance.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a scorned spouse. They certainly contributed to her mental break.

I'd be curious to know more about what therapists said in the two trials. Even though there is evidence of premeditation, it still does look like a psychotic break after years of emotional abuse (which she consistently responded to in a powerless, pathetic, and histrionic manner because she had zero power).

Connecticut is enacting legislation that expands the definition of domestic violence to include "coercive control"--this includes psychological, emotional, financial, and legal abuse. Betty clearly suffered from all of these at Dan's hands.

"Narcissists tend to blow their own trumpets. They appear outwardly charming and are intelligent and manipulative. They are usually not physically violent but use coercive control and emotional manipulation to hurt their victims instead."

THIS.

Back in the 80's, the awareness about this was almost non-existent.

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No I wouldn’t hire her, she should stay in prison, but I’m happy she’s unapologetic. I can at least appreciate that honesty.

I also don’t feel sorry for Dan or Linda. Good riddance.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a scorned spouse. They certainly contributed to her mental break.

I'd be curious to know more about what therapists said in the two trials. Even though there is evidence of premeditation, it still does look like a psychotic break after years of emotional abuse (which she consistently responded to in a powerless, pathetic, and histrionic manner because she had zero power).

Connecticut is enacting legislation that expands the definition of domestic violence to include "coercive control"--this includes psychological, emotional, financial, and legal abuse. Betty clearly suffered from all of these at Dan's hands.

"Narcissists tend to blow their own trumpets. They appear outwardly charming and are intelligent and manipulative. They are usually not physically violent but use coercive control and emotional manipulation to hurt their victims instead."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No I wouldn’t hire her, she should stay in prison, but I’m happy she’s unapologetic. I can at least appreciate that honesty.

I also don’t feel sorry for Dan or Linda. Good riddance.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a scorned spouse. They certainly contributed to her mental break.

I'd be curious to know more about what therapists said in the two trials. Even though there is evidence of premeditation, it still does look like a psychotic break after years of emotional abuse (which she consistently responded to in a powerless, pathetic, and histrionic manner because she had zero power).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No I wouldn’t hire her, she should stay in prison, but I’m happy she’s unapologetic. I can at least appreciate that honesty.

I also don’t feel sorry for Dan or Linda. Good riddance.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a scorned spouse. They certainly contributed to her mental break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No I wouldn’t hire her, she should stay in prison, but I’m happy she’s unapologetic. I can at least appreciate that honesty.

I also don’t feel sorry for Dan or Linda. Good riddance.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a scorned spouse. They certainly contributed to her mental break.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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?