That's an opinion. She may have been guilty of "intentionally inflicting emotional distress".
...no attorney would help her because of his juice in the legal community.
That's her claim. Maybe no lawyer would take her case because A. they realized she had none, B. they realized she was willing to murder anyone she felt wronged her, or both A and B.
Apparently, you didn’t follow the case back in the day.
Here’s the testimony. I guess you could listen to it and be informed, or just continue to speculate.
https://www.courttv.com/trials/california-v-elisabeth-betty-broderick-1991/
BTW, in her first trial, there was a hung jury because they couldn’t agree that she was guilty.
No. I have a relative who was persecuted by a member of the criminal justice system. No one within 200 miles would take the case because of conflict of interest.
Lawyers are scum.