|
Posts:
404
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(43 of 43)
Oct 11, 2006 3:55 PM
|
All of this happened because one person could not compromise, and had to win at all costs. And contrary to popular opinion, that one person wasn't Betty....it was Dan.
I completely agree with you.
And yet, the naysayers claim that Betty was the greedy one. How awful, to actually want the money you're entitled to, that you EARNED. Geez, what a crime.
I, too, can't understand all the people who think Betty should have been happy with the unbelievably low financial settlement Dan (legally?) maneuvered.
And you are so right about the unnecessary tactics, MEW. All of this could have been avoided if Dan had been fair from the outset. I believe Betty, because of her personality disorders, still would have had a breakdown, but would have eventually recovered and gotten on with her life, had Dan (and Linda) allowed her to do so.
I think so, too. IMO, Dan was hoping that Betty would eventually take her own life, ending his "problem" forever.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,746
From:
canada
Registered:
6/2/06
|
|
(42 of 43)
Oct 10, 2006 3:00 AM
|
|
It is never ending!
|
|
|
Posts:
265
Registered:
1/4/04
|
|
(41 of 43)
Oct 9, 2006 11:39 PM
|
> Blacksheep; man, do you hit it right on the mark!!
> I agree with everything you say and feel you have a
> a real handle on this case.
Thanks, MEW. You made a lot of excellent points too. Such as below:
>No one is saying they
> like Betty or think she did the right thing. Man, if
> you don't completely bash her, then your in her "fan
> club."
Finally, someone who understands the frustration of trying to have a simple debate with people who apparently haven't seen much more than the TV movies, or whose nic is yet another handle of Dr. D's.
> Why can't we just say what we want and make
> our points and respect each other.
Amen. I find it ironic, that if you go back to past posts, the majority of the namecalling comes from the ones who want Betty drawn and quartered.
>I feel that Dan
> used all of his pull to destroy Betty when it didn't
> really have to happen. This is what makes me want to
> puke about this case. All the DRAMA was so
> unnecessary to say the least.
You got that right. All of this happened because one person could not compromise, and had to win at all costs. And contrary to popular opinion, that one person wasn't Betty....it was Dan.
> As far as saying Betty
> should have been satisfied with the $16,00.00/month,
> Blacksheep you put it so right on about this amount
> was peanuts compared to what D/L were pulling in.
> Linda was making about $60,000./month and Dan nearly
> y $140,000. Well, I can almost understand Dan's
> salary, but the bimbo's? WHAT on earth was that
> chick doing that warrented her getting that much
> dough, besides the obvious.
And yet, the naysayers claim that Betty was the greedy one. How awful, to actually want the money you're entitled to, that you EARNED. Geez, what a crime.
> I wanted to puke when,
> in the movie, Dan tells Linda (after she broke into
> Betty's house) she had to take back the manuscript
> because you know so much about the law or everything
> about the law. Or however he put it. HE spent YEARS
> in law school. WHERE or should I say WHEN did SHE
> learn everything about the law?
Heh. Even when Linda's friends tried to paint her as an "asset to Dan's business", it was laughable. Really, a woman with no college and no typing skills was essential to the law firm? She was doing what exactly? Taking up space in a beautiful window office with an absolutely stunning view of downtown San Diego? Taking four-hour lunches to go shopping during work hours, when she wasn't taking care of her boss? Conducting client interviews based on reading written notes by Dan? Doing so-called law research with Dan holding her hand the whole time, guiding her? Listening to Dan's endless tales about his multi-million dollar cases? Gee, I can't imagine why she had to spend all those prior years as a failed flight attendant (those fuddy-duddies, objecting to sex in the workplace john!), or as a temp, answering phones, with all those marketable job skills she had. The movie was pretty shameless in its accuracies. No wonder, when you consider that the movie's main consultant was Dan's lying thief of a brother, Larry Broderick. Not to mention the other main consultant, Sharon Blanchet, who dodged the uncomfortable question of whether Linda harrassed Betty via mail with the retort, "Let's say she did--so what?".
> I also agree with your comments that this would be
> different if Dan had killed Bety or if Betty had been
> ANY man.
As so many people have pointed out, this story never would have been front page news if it had been a man who killed, or the killings had taken place in a lower-middle class neighborhood, or ghetto area. Sadly, because it's so commonplace.
> We DO excuse a man when he loses it and
> kills his old lady. I know several cases here in my
> own state. The man either got completely off or got
> a slap on the wrist.
You're so right. I challenge any of the naysayers to show me a death row case where adultery was involved. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Period. That's called mitigating circumstances. Death row cases involve thrill killers like the Manson family, or people who bump off their spouses for insurance money. Geez, even the State of California knew that they would never get Betty on death row, based on that factor alone. Even the Menendez brothers didn't get death. Wealthy, white and male goes a long way in the Good Ol' Boy USA.
> Man, if Dan had killed Betty,
> there probably wouldn't have been a trial. All of his
> buddies would have testified and completely cleared
> him.
I agree. But let's not forget, Dan was the guy who said, "Never negotiate until you're sitting on his chest". He wasn't going to take a chance on getting caught, ever. Dan was not one to gamble--he wanted all odds in his favor. Plus, he was such a narcissist, he probably knew that the scandal alone would have ruined him. He had to try to kill Betty in a way that made him look like an innocent bystander, a victim. And he nearly succeeded.
> I don't understand why he felt he couldn't go
> through with having that cabby do the job for him.
> Even if it had been traced back to him, his "good
> d ole boys' would have gotten him off. If ANYONE
> could manipulate the law, it was Dan Broderick.
I agree with that too, scary as it is. My guess is that Dan opted for the "slow kill" because he didn't want to take the risk of getting busted by an outsider, someone who wasn't one of his San Diego buddies. Someone with ethics.
And you are so right about the unnecessary tactics, MEW. All of this could have been avoided if Dan had been fair from the outset. I believe Betty, because of her personality disorders, still would have had a breakdown, but would have eventually recovered and gotten on with her life, had Dan (and Linda) allowed her to do so.
|
|
|
Posts:
8
Registered:
9/17/06
|
|
(40 of 43)
Oct 9, 2006 9:51 PM
|
Blacksheep; man, do you hit it right on the mark!! I agree with everything you say and feel you have a real handle on this case. No one is saying they like Betty or think she did the right thing. Man, if you don't completely bash her, then your in her "fan club." Why can't we just say what we want and make our points and respect each other. I feel that Dan used all of his pull to destroy Betty when it didn't really have to happen. This is what makes me want to puke about this case. All the DRAMA was so unnecessary to say the least. As far as saying Betty should have been satisfied with the $16,00.00/month, Blacksheep you put it so right on about this amount was peanuts compared to what D/L were pulling in. Linda was making about $60,000./month and Dan nearly $140,000. Well, I can almost understand Dan's salary, but the bimbo's? WHAT on earth was that chick doing that warrented her getting that much dough, besides the obvious. I wanted to puke when, in the movie, Dan tells Linda (after she broke into Betty's house) she had to take back the manuscript because you know so much about the law or everything about the law. Or however he put it. HE spent YEARS in law school. WHERE or should I say WHEN did SHE learn everything about the law?
I also agree with your comments that this would be different if Dan had killed Bety or if Betty had been ANY man. We DO excuse a man when he loses it and kills his old lady. I know several cases here in my own state. The man either got completely off or got a slap on the wrist. Man, if Dan had killed Betty, there probably wouldn't have been a trial. All of his buddies would have testified and completely cleared him. I don't understand why he felt he couldn't go through with having that cabby do the job for him. Even if it had been traced back to him, his "good ole boys' would have gotten him off. If ANYONE could manipulate the law, it was Dan Broderick.
JMO![]:)](http://boards.aetv.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif)
|
|
|
Posts:
265
Registered:
1/4/04
|
|
(39 of 43)
Oct 9, 2006 8:55 PM
|
> You people make me sick.
Well, Dr. D., maybe you should stop posting here under your multiple nics if you don't want people to challenge your facile arguments.
> If this was Bobby Broderick
> that committed these murders, he waould face the
> death penalty
LOL. Yeah right. A wealthy, white man who put his wife through law school, only to have her cheat on him, and rub her new boy toy in his face for 7 years, would get the DEATH PENALTY. Geez, you really have no clue about how the clogged justice system works, do you? In the first place, a MAN would have been offered a plea bargain for manslaughter or gotten slapped on the wrist and ended up doing 6 years of community service with some anger management courses. Even a woman who killed an ordinary joe and his new young jane would have gotten 2 manslaughter counts, and been shown some sympathy because of the circumstances that led up to the killings. Betty Broderick was shown no such compassion because she killed the President of the San Diego Bar. She was jailed for SWEARING because she went up against the Pres of the Bar. She had to fight for custody for over 7 years, and was fined for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS because of USING BAD LANGUAGE. That doesn't happen in an ordinary case. Dan Broderick wouldn't have been able to cheat his wife out of millions in an ordinary case. He wouldn't have been allowed full custody, especially when he had his chicky poo spending every night at his house. And most certainly, the courts wouldn't have looked kindly upon the stunts he and his young mistress pulled to purposely enrage Betty. However, when you're a well-connected, powerful, wealthy lawyer with friends in high places who pull strings and bend rules for you, you're free to be as corrupt and cruel as you want to be. And Dan Broderick WANTED TO BE.
but because it is Betty that is the
> cold calculated premeditated murderer, she is looked
> at as a victim.
Yeah, it's "just because she's a woman". Give me a break. If Betty had been the high-powered lawyer who had done this to Dan after he put her through school, I would think her just as despicable and culpable as I think Dan and Linda were for what they actually did to Betty. Plus, there's no way Dan would have been thrown in jail for such an absurd "crime" as swearing at his rival's voice on his children's voice machine. Show me any man who did jail time for that. And there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone would have felt pity for Betty, had the tables been turned in this situation. She would have been crucified as a wh*re, no matter how high-powered a lawyer she was. Society has been conditioned to accept violent reactions from men with wives that stray as "natural", but women are supposed to be "ladies" when their husbands run off with another woman (and in some cases, the lawyers in the courthouse seem to think being a "lady" means being a doormat, not standing up for yourself, and not fighting for your fair share). The reason Betty gets sympathy is because people who have researched the facts of this case are aware of the injustices of the San Diego courts. I don't think she's the most likeable person (especially now that she's snapped), but I certainly sympathize for what she went through, for what was done to her by the very courts that were supposed to protect her from people like Dan Broderick.
> I wish I had $16,000. a month income
> and a new condo. geessssshhhhhh! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
You probably wish that you spent more than a decade putting your spouse through school, too, helping your spouse become a multimillionaire, and losing over 80% of your income to your spouse's new squeeze while you try to pay off your HEAVILY TAXED monthly support (which is only going to continue until FURTHER ORDER FROM THE COURT), and digging your way out of $100K of lawyers' fees. All for losing a case to your disgustingly greedy and well-connected spouse. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Posts:
130
From:
CA
Registered:
5/6/06
|
|
(38 of 43)
Oct 9, 2006 6:34 PM
|
|
Hey don't be thinking Betty B has the overall support of people here. This forum thrives on opposite opinions and there's plenty who feel she's where she deserves to be! For me, she could get out eventually and maybe even go on to live a productive life where she's actually making a positive difference to others' lives, but on balance that doesn't seem possible with her. She boasts and giggles about the crime and the only thing she thinks was wrong with it is how it affected her. Always her. The day Betty wakes up to reality and admits she ruined so many lives is one of those "hell freezing over" scenarios. That broad's too full of herself to see anyone else!
|
|
|
Posts:
616
Registered:
9/29/06
|
|
(37 of 43)
Oct 8, 2006 10:09 PM
|
|
You people make me sick. If this was Bobby Broderick that committed these murders, he waould face the death penalty, but because it is Betty that is the cold calculated premeditated murderer, she is looked at as a victim. I wish I had $16,000. a month income and a new condo. geessssshhhhhh! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
|
|
|
Posts:
404
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(36 of 43)
Sep 1, 2006 5:29 PM
|
Oh, I never said that it was simply about adultery ... you & other posters keep bringing up Dan's adultery with Linda - as an excuse for BB to slaughter them in their beds.
Let's see: There was Dan's adultery; Dan's horrendous (legal?????) financial divorce settlement; years of emotional abuse inflicted on Betty. I'm sure there are more examples of Dan's cruel treatment of Betty, but can't think of any specifics at this time.
I do not think it was right for Betty to murder them, but I do not feel sympathy toward Dan and Linda.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,746
From:
canada
Registered:
6/2/06
|
|
(35 of 43)
Sep 1, 2006 3:37 PM
|
> > These things I do not understand.
> > How anyone can take such joy in coldblooded
> murder.
>
> Well, to being with, it wasn't cold blooded murder by
> any stretch. Want to hear a cold-blooded murder?
> About 15 years ago, a man named Vitalis Pilius got
> t out of work late and walked to his car in a parking
> garage that was pretty much deserted at that hour. A
> young thug with a long rap sheet named DOntay Carter
> accosted him as he approached his car, beat him to
> death with a lead pipe, stole his wallet and then
> went on a spending spree with the dead man's credit
> cards. Never laid eyes on him before her killed him,
> never had any interaction with him, just killed him
> because he happened to be there. And no remorse
> either, just glee because he had so much money on him
> and a bunch of credit cards to boot. Oh, and no
> simple bullets. The poor man sustained at least 50
> blows to the head and chest and, as well as several
> to his trunk and legs. His head was smashed beyond
> recognition and almost every bone in his body was
> broken. And he never did a thing to Dontay Carter.
> Nothing. He was just in the wrong place at the
> e wrong time. THAT is a cold blooded, brutal murder.
> Betty's crime doesn't even come close.
So ... the difference in this convaluted point that you are so desperately trying to make, is ...?
Do you actually believe that other that Betty using a gun, there is ANY difference here?
>
> > And, in case that you've forgotten, Betty's
> telephone
> > conversation - filled with expletives - with her
> > young son showed that this person had no respect
> or
> > caring for her own flesh & blood.
>
> Right, the one during which her son again and again
> expresses his desire to live with HER and makes it
> clear that if they don't all follow Dan's rules, he's
> not going to ever be able to be with her. Why is
> that basic point ALWAYS forgotten?
I have absolutely no idea where you are dekuded into believin this explaination, because the child specifically stated in this taped conversation - through crying - that he did not want to see his mother while she was being so mean and swearing all the time.
> > It was always about Betty in her mind.
> > Adultery is never forgivable - but slaughtering
> > people is FAR worse.
>
> ANd if you think this case is about simple adultery,
> you've REALLY missed the boat.
Oh, I never said that it was simply about adultery ... you & other posters keep bringing up Dan's adultery with Linda - as an excuse for BB to slaughter them in their beds.
And yet, you say that 'I've' missed the boat?
Sneaking into a person's home & skaughtering them with ANY form of weapon, IS cold-blooded murder.
|
|
|
Posts:
404
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(34 of 43)
Sep 1, 2006 10:51 AM
|
ANd if you think this case is about simple adultery, you've REALLY missed the boat.
No, it certainly was not about "simple adultery". It was about subjecting Betty to years of emotional torture; cheating her out of a fair financial settlement; and treating her so disrespectfully that it is difficult for me (and many others - the "Betty Fan Club"  ) to feel sadness about their deaths.
Murder is wrong, but... to say I feel sympathy toward Dan and Linda would be a lie.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,712
Registered:
3/8/04
|
|
(33 of 43)
Aug 31, 2006 11:19 PM
|
|
Jenna, if that thank you was for me...you're welcome.
|
|
|
Posts:
629
Registered:
11/5/03
|
|
(32 of 43)
Aug 31, 2006 10:36 PM
|
> These things I do not understand.
> How anyone can take such joy in coldblooded murder.
Well, to being with, it wasn't cold blooded murder by any stretch. Want to hear a cold-blooded murder? About 15 years ago, a man named Vitalis Pilius got out of work late and walked to his car in a parking garage that was pretty much deserted at that hour. A young thug with a long rap sheet named DOntay Carter accosted him as he approached his car, beat him to death with a lead pipe, stole his wallet and then went on a spending spree with the dead man's credit cards. Never laid eyes on him before her killed him, never had any interaction with him, just killed him because he happened to be there. And no remorse either, just glee because he had so much money on him and a bunch of credit cards to boot. Oh, and no simple bullets. The poor man sustained at least 50 blows to the head and chest and, as well as several to his trunk and legs. His head was smashed beyond recognition and almost every bone in his body was broken. And he never did a thing to Dontay Carter. Nothing. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. THAT is a cold blooded, brutal murder. Betty's crime doesn't even come close.
> And, in case that you've forgotten, Betty's telephone
> conversation - filled with expletives - with her
> young son showed that this person had no respect or
> caring for her own flesh & blood.
Right, the one during which her son again and again expresses his desire to live with HER and makes it clear that if they don't all follow Dan's rules, he's not going to ever be able to be with her. Why is that basic point ALWAYS forgotten?
> It was always about Betty in her mind.
> Adultery is never forgivable - but slaughtering
> people is FAR worse.
ANd if you think this case is about simple adultery, you've REALLY missed the boat.
|
|
|
Posts:
629
Registered:
11/5/03
|
|
(31 of 43)
Aug 31, 2006 10:29 PM
|
> Jenna. I've not attacked you at all.
Oh you didn't? Pardon me, but YOU brought my personal life into this. Because I tell it like it is, something similar MUST ahve heppened to me. Well it didn't. That doesn't mean I can't show compassion where it is due and can't simply see and state that Dan and Linda were two of the most deserving crime victims ever.
> I've asked you valid questions to which you have
> answered with anger.
> I don't attack. It's counterproductive.
Valid questions? Sorry, but my marriage and my home life are not relevant to this discussion or any of your business. You are simply one of the throngs on this board who simply dimsiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a woman dumped by a man and thus, their opinion isn't worthy. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,746
From:
canada
Registered:
6/2/06
|
|
(30 of 43)
Aug 30, 2006 4:28 PM
|
sutton, where have you come up with this convoluted theory?
Betty was speaking directly to her young son.
Where do you get this stuff? Your own imagination? It certainly is no where near factual.
|
|
|
Posts:
404
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(29 of 43)
Aug 30, 2006 1:32 PM
|
Those expletives, in case you've forgotten were for Linda who put her voice on her KIDS private line! She wasn't saying that to her kids. And how many woman have used those words toward their husbands mistresses.
Many other women have used those expletives regarding their husbands' mistresses.
Dan and Linda had long historys of being conivers, whereas Betty didn't by all accounts. She only started acting batty due to what they put her through, Dan and Linda certainly were nothing short of evil.
I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
