Replies

Here’s the testimony. I guess you could listen to it and be informed, or just continue to speculate. BTW, in her first trial, there was a hung jury because they couldn’t agree that she was guilty.

No. The jury was hung because they couldn't agree on premeditation. Betty turned herself in and never denied she had pulled the trigger.

As for Betty's testimony, that's all it is - her testimony. The jury never got to hear Dan's or Linda's testimony because Betty shot and killed them both after sneaking into Dan's and Linda's house.

Betty CLAIMED that she never planned to kill Dan and Linda. (Yet she took a key from their daughter, and snuck into Dan and Linda's house at 5:30 AM with a loaded handgun - how that's not premeditation is beyond anyone except the two jurors).

Betty CLAIMED that Dan confessed he had been having an affair with Linda.

Betty CLAIMED that Dan made it extremely difficult for her to find an attorney willing to represent her in the divorce, which put her at a distinct disadvantage.

Betty BELIEVED that Dan used his legal influence to win sole custody of their children, sell their house against her wishes, and cheat her out of her rightful share of his income.

After Dan and Linda got married, Betty CLAIMED that Linda taunted her by mailing her facial cream and slimming treatment ads.

Betty's defense lawyers CLAIMED that she was a battered wife driven over the edge by years of psychological, physical, and mental abuse inflicted by her ex-husband.

All just her claims.

What's not just a claim is that Betty left hundreds of profane messages on Dan's answering machine and ignored numerous restraining orders that forbade her from setting foot on Dan's property. She vandalized Dan's home and drove her car into his front door, despite the fact that their children were inside the house at the time. Evidence presented at trial indicated that Betty had removed an answering machine from Dan's bedroom before she shot him so that he could not call for help .

Forensic psychiatrist and criminologist Dr. Park Dietz, for the prosecution, used the analysis of Dr. Melvin Goldzband, who previously worked on the case for the prosecution. Dietz said Broderick had histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. Goldzband diagnosed Broderick as "severely narcissistic" and "histrionic".

Clinical psychologist Katherine DiFrancesca, testifying for the defense, concluded Broderick was "histrionic" with "narcissistic features".

Yet, you refer to the decease victim as "a pig". (Post 76)

You claim she couldn't get good legal representation because of his status in the system and that "all attorneys were afraid to cross him". (Post 76) Yet she and you are the only ones who make that claim. She could have moved and filed for divorce in ANY state where big bad evil Dan couldn't intimidate every lawyer so that she wouldn't get adequate representation.

You claim he "dumped her" "after she sacrificed her life to get him educated". (Post 77) Sacrifice? She was the one who would benefit from his increased earnings if she wasn't a narcissist (narcissist as her defense team claimed).

You claim the husband was guilty of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” based on HER testimony. And there it is: #believeallwomen, ignoring murderous women whose own defense teams points out their mental disorders.