S02.E03: Marriage Encounter

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quote

A worried Betty takes a desperate step to save her marriage.

Original air date: 6/9/20

[cardigirl]

That was interesting to watch. Betty's slow realization that she owns nothing, because she controls nothing was sort of painful.  I know on the first two episode threads, it's been said that marriage was NOT like that in the 70s and early 80s and that women were not such doormats, but honestly, a large number of women were raised to believe in the Church (Catholic), which meant save yourself for marriage, obey your husband and no birth control.  Betty worked but only until it no longer suited Dan to have her working.  She didn't have the benefit of our point of view.  Knowing that most women end up in much poorer financial situations after divorce than their exhusbands do, because their husbands have the benefit of being able to build careers is a fact. In the 80s, women were starting to understand they needed to have careers too. But they were just beginning to understand that on a wider scale. I knew very few peers who planned on a career.  Teaching for a few years, maybe.  But not a 30-year career. So for most women, unless they got a great settlement in the divorce, their standard of living was reduced dramatically, and their exes went off to live like nothing had happened.

And she didn't want anything more than to be his wife and the mother of his children, because that is what she thought she was supposed to want. The lunch scene where the men are discussing how to exit a marriage with the least amount of financial damage was very telling. Poor Betty trying to stand up for her friend, being offended that everyone is celebrating the second marriage as if it was okay.  Today that seems so old-fashioned, but from that point of view in the 80s, she was taking a stand for her beliefs about marriage. 

I guess when you watch this show, your sympathies will be determined by how you feel about marriage and the legalities of divorce. Should a man be able to divorce his wife and not give her half of everything (or more)?  It's his life. He earned it.  Her contribution was ...?

I've seen many women go through what happened to Betty. They were married to doctors, lawyers, professional men, who divorced them after 20-25 years of marriage and then married women much younger than themselves, and in the process, chose to vengefully not give their ex-wives any settlement at all.  It's heart-breaking.  They divorce their kids too. And now that they are in their 80s, they are still miserable men, but they never suffered financially, while their children and exes did.  None of the women I know ever chose to shoot their exhusbands. But the grief and anguish they felt at the loss of their lives (total package) and the loss of the person they thought they knew, was real.

I'm not saying that Betty was right to do what she did.  But I am saying that the pain of realizing that everything she had built her life on was built on sand and was not real anymore is tough to watch.  It can be devastating and difficult to overcome that. Loads of women do, but it is a HUGE and long process. 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by cardigirl

[Persnickety1]

I agree with you, @cardigirl.  It was appalling watching Dan and his colleagues/friends sitting around sharing legal expertise about how to get out of a marriage, hide/shuffle assets around, etc., to screw over their current wives.  Absolutely disgusting.  

I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Strumbo book that Linda reportedly looked like a younger version of Betty, so I'm curious to see if Rachel Keller has any resemblance to Amanda Peet.  I also seem to recall Kolkena jumped onto the "let's torment Betty" bandwagon, sending her ads for wrinkle creams and weight loss, and I believe even a clipping of she (Linda) sending Betty a newspaper clipping of Linda and Dan together with the comment, "Don't we look alike?"  Guess Dan and Linda never figured out that, if you poke the rattlesnake long enough, it will eventually strike and the results could be fatal.  

My best friend got revenge on her "Dan" the usual way...she gave herself time to grieve the end of the marriage, found a mate much better suited to her, and essentially lived happily ever after.  I wish Betty would have done the same.  "Living well is the best revenge."  

While I definitely don't condone Betty's actions, I do understand them.  I'll always remember the line from the Lifetime movie and the Strumbo book, "I don't know what took her so long."  

 

[poeticlicensed]

No fault divorce, passed in many jurisdictions in the 1970s was a gift from male legislators to men everywhere. It meant that women like Betty, who relied completely on their husbands, could find themselves in a bad situation, because the courts no longer found fault and meted out financial punishment. If a man could successfully hide enough assests not subject to community property laws, a woman who stayed home and raised kids coukld be left destitute. 

That said, I think the images of the women  all sittng around at lunch fearing they were all going to left was a bit overplayed. Fortunately, I think women today are much more tuned in to their finances and their rights. But there's no denying that the 70s and 80s were super painful, particularly for women like Betty who married when there was one set on cultural norms and divorced in a completely different era, despite the fact that it was less than 20 years. 

I read Bella Stumbo's book and yeah, it's really hard to capture what a marriage was like in a TV miniseries, but it wasn't like they had a super happy marriage and suddenly Dan fell in love with someoen else. Apparently they fought all the time, for years. Betty just never considered, being Catholic, that they would ever break up. You just put up with it, like good Catholics. She should have gotten a clue (and a lawyer) when Dan said he no longer was religious. I think his Catholic guilt kept him from leaving for a long time. 

Looking at Betty through 2020 eyes, I just want to take her and slap her and knock some sense into her head. 

ETA: I am rereading Stumbo's book while watching. Thank you Internet Archive! I didn't realized she passed away until I saw it online. Apparently the consensus is that this is the definitive book on the Broderick story

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[poeticlicensed]

1 hour ago, cardigirl said:

In the 80s, women were starting to understand they needed to have careers too.

I am 61, and I graduated from college and got married in 1982. Many of my friends planned to work a few years and then stay home, while others planned on a career and family. I feel like my generation marked the beginning of it being widely accepted to have a real career, not just work a few years until kids came. Thank goodness. I can't imagine my life without my career. 

[cardigirl]

Just now, poeticlicensed said:

I am 61, and I graduated from college and got married in 1982. Many of my friends planned to work a few years and then stay home, while others planned on a career and family. I feel like my generation marked the beginning of it being widely accepted to have a real career, not just work a few years until kids came. Thank goodness. I can't imagine my life without my career. 

Yes, I agree that was when it was really beginning. Betty was a product of the 50s and 60s. The expectations were different. I graduated in the 70s and often wished I had gone for a different degree.  I've ended up having a 'career' anyway, but it might have been more, had I had more foresight. 

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, cardigirl said:

 

I guess when you watch this show, your sympathies will be determined by how you feel about marriage and the legalities of divorce. Should a man be able to divorce his wife and not give her half of everything (or more)?  It's his life. He earned it.  Her contribution was ...?

My understanding was that Betty was awarded about $16,000.00 a month in alimony as part of her divorce in the 80s.  Today, that would be about $33,400.00 a month, which would be the equivalent of a annual salary of over $400,000.00. 

I think there is a real issue about division of assets when one spouse largely is a homemaker, while the other is the primary breadwinner, but Betty's story is not that.  The reality is that Betty alienated her attorneys, did not show up for scheduled hearings, and violated court orders during the divorce process.  She dragged out and blew up the process into something that only hurt her in the end, I think.    

[poeticlicensed]

7 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

My understanding was that Betty was awarded about $16,000.00 a month in alimony as part of her divorce in the 80s.  Today, that would be about $33,400.00 a month, which would be the equivalent of a annual salary of over $400,000.00. 

I think there is a real issue about division of assets when one spouse largely is a homemaker, while the other is the primary breadwinner, but Betty's story is not that.  The reality is that Betty alienated her attorneys, did not show up for scheduled hearings, and violated court orders during the divorce process.  She dragged out and blew up the process into something that only hurt her in the end, I think.    

While $16000 a month sounds enormous, apparently Dan was bringing home more than 300k a month which means that 16k is roughly 5%. 

I totally agree that Betty was a terrible client. She didnt listen because she didnt face reality. If she had hired a shark from day 1 and sat back she would have ended up in a better position financially. She couldn't separate her emotions so her mouth and her actions were the cause of her eventual loss in the courtroom during the divorce.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[Armchair Critic]

Oh shit Linda enters the picture.....

[ElectricBoogaloo]

It was really horrible to watch all those men sit around at lunch telling their friend how to screw his wife out of all their assets. Unfortunately, Dan's attitude at the end ("I pay for your life") was all too common back then. There were many men like him whose wives sacrificed and worked to support the family while their husbands went to law school or med school, essentially raising the kids on their own during the day and then helping their husbands study at night in addition to all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, housework, grocery shopping, and other necessary errands, and their husbands saw no value in all the work that their wives did so their attitude was "I do all the work and I earn all the money so you can just shut up and be grateful that I let you spend MY money." When their husbands got successful/had their midlife crisis and filed for divorce, they left these women with nothing because, like Dan's friends, they planned it far in advance and did shady ass stuff to ensure that everything was in their name before the paperwork was filed.

Even if Betty weren't jealous/insecure/worried that Dan had hired a young pretty assistant, the questions that she raised were valid - does this receptionist have a college degree, have experience working in a law firm, or even know how to type? It was obvious how stung Betty was when Dan told her that Linda didn't need to know how to type. After all the nights she spent typing his papers in law school, he found a pretty young thing who didn't even have to be competent at the most basic skill needed for an office job.

Not that I'm defending what Betty did later, but the stereotypical good Catholic girl was raised to believe that no matter what happened in your marriage, you took a vow to be together for life. I'm guessing that she just thought that whatever rough patches they hit, they would work through them because divorce was not an option that either of them would consider.

Semi-related anecdote: a girl I knew in high school was Mormon. She had two sisters. Fast forward to some point into adulthood after college - both of her sisters left the church. The girl I knew felt shocked and betrayed by this. I imagine that Betty finding out that Dan no longer believed in the Catholic church's teachings (and later asking for a divorce) was similar. It can be very disconcerting when you and someone you love share certain beliefs and then one day they don't.

[Persnickety1]

14 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

While $16000 a month sounds enormous, apparently Dan was bringing home more than 300k a month which means that 16k is roughly 5%. 

I totally agree that Betty was a terrible client. She didnt listen because she didnt face reality. If she had hired a shark from day 1 and sat back she would have ended up in a better position financially. She couldn't separate her emotions so her mouth and her actions were the cause of her eventual loss in the courtroom during the divorce.

 

I agree.  It almost seemed like Betty felt if she dragged the process out and made it as difficult as possible, somehow miraculously Dan would give up and go back to her.  Delusion at its finest, unfortunately.  

Edited June 11, 2020 by Persnickety1

[poeticlicensed]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

 

nvm

Edited June 10, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[txhorns79]

14 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

Not that I'm defending what Betty did later, but the stereotypical good Catholic girl was raised to believe that no matter what happened in your marriage, you took a vow to be together for life. I'm guessing that she just thought that whatever rough patches they hit, they would work through them because divorce was not an option that either of them would consider.

I mean, then the question is: how deeply religious were the Brodericks or we are supposed to believe that a college educated upper middle class woman in her 30s/40s living in San Diego in the 1980s is really going to believe that her husband won't consider divorce because of his Catholicism?  I mean, the Catholic Church has a whole process to erase your first marriage so you can marry again in the Church, so she would at least be aware that Catholics divorce. 

[Persnickety1]

2 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

While $16000 a month sounds huge, remember that Dan was bringing home over 300K a month, so 16K is less than 5%, which is far less than most state guidelines are. Plus every time he wrote a check, he wrangled it so it came off her settlement. If she had settled sooner, she would have ended up in a better financial position. She simply decided to ignore and fight, which cost her (and Dan adn Linda) in the end. 

As I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Stumbo book, he also assessed "fines" to that monthly payment which ranged anywhere from using profanity to any other number of things.  I understand from my sister-in-law who worked in the San Diego legal community that Dan was very powerful and had many a judge in his proverbial pocket because of his prowess.  

[txhorns79]

Quote

As I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Stumbo book, he also assessed "fines" to that monthly payment which ranged anywhere from using profanity to any other number of things. 

From at least the the movie, I recall that he would assess fines against her based on the profane messages she was leaving on Dan's answering machine and her vandalizing his home.

[poeticlicensed]

10 minutes ago, Persnickety1 said:

As I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Stumbo book, he also assessed "fines" to that monthly payment which ranged anywhere from using profanity to any other number of things.  I understand from my sister-in-law who worked in the San Diego legal community that Dan was very powerful and had many a judge in his proverbial pocket because of his prowess.  

Yes, and also everytime he wrote a 16Kcheck, he deducted it from her lump sum settlement. She dragged the process out for so long that she ended up with nearly nothing in the end. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

I mean, then the question is: how deeply religious were the Brodericks or we are supposed to believe that a college educated upper middle class woman in her 30s/40s living in San Diego in the 1980s is really going to believe that her husband won't consider divorce because of his Catholicism?  I mean, the Catholic Church has a whole process to erase your first marriage so you can marry again in the Church, so she would at least be aware that Catholics divorce. 

Even people who aren't deeply religious can have the church's beliefs drilled into them. One of my friends is in her 40s and grew up in San Diego. She has a master's degree and a separate PhD. She isn't super religious but she was raised Catholic so she had the major milestones (first communion, confirmation) but she wasn't the kind of person who went to church and confession every week as an adult. She told me that she had a church wedding because if she didn't get married in a church, it wouldn't be real. If you're told something long enough, you start to believe it and that's how we end up with otherwise logical people truly believing that they will go to hell if they get a divorce. (For the record, my friend is happily married so thankfully we won't be finding out if her light religious beliefs extend to not getting a divorce)

Although people definitely got divorced well before the 80s, there was still a lot of social stigma attached to it at the time that Betty and Dan were divorced (and to being a single parent), especially in the social circles she was in. I'm guessing that once Betty saw how everyone dropped Yvonne and showed up to her ex-husband's new wedding, that probably showed Betty what she was in for once Dan decided he wanted a divorce. The wives of the lawyers at Dan's old firm who were supposed to be her friends were not going to be loyal to her. She would just be the ex-wife that nobody mentioned once Linda was publicly in the picture.

[txhorns79]

17 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Even people who aren't deeply religious can have the church's beliefs drilled into them.

I tend to think people hear certain things about a person, i.e. that they were raised a good Catholic, and then attribute characteristics to them that are not necessarily true.  With Betty, I do have sympathy for the idea of the wife who sacrifices to support her husband only to be dumped at some point and left with very little.  However, Betty is also a violent narcissist who was so wrapped up in her image that when it was taken away, had no compunctions about putting everyone in her life, including her kids, through absolute hell.  I do not pretend Dan was an angel.  For me, it's just that whatever he did to her, it's never going to be enough to justify her actions.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

25 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I tend to think people hear certain things about a person, i.e. that they were raised a good Catholic, and then attribute characteristics to them that are not necessarily true.  With Betty, I do have sympathy for the idea of the wife who sacrifices to support her husband only to be dumped at some point and left with very little.  However, Betty is also a violent narcissist who was so wrapped up in her image that when it was taken away, had no compunctions about putting everyone in her life, including her kids, through absolute hell.  I do not pretend Dan was an angel.  For me, it's just that whatever he did to her, it's never going to be enough to justify her actions.

I'm not trying to justify that she murdered two people. I'm just saying that as a Catholic, she probably didn't think divorce was an option which would have made Dan's actions stunningly unbelievable to her. Again, not justifying murder, which we haven't even gotten to yet on the show. I think she was probably completely blindsided by the fact that Dan even considered divorcing her. Having fights is one thing. Divorce is another. I'm guessing she assumed she would have to live with the former but never considered that the latter would ever happen.

[txhorns79]

25 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Again, not justifying murder, which we haven't even gotten to yet on the show.

I'm not saying anyone is trying to justify murder.  I just think there is a tendency to try to play both sides, when for me, the reality is that Betty's actions were ultimately less about a woman scorned and more about Betty's refusal to accept reality.   

Though the prior episode used one of the trials as its bookend, so we have gotten there, in that we've already seen Betty after the murders happened. 

 

25 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I'm just saying that as a Catholic, she probably didn't think divorce was an option which would have made Dan's actions stunningly unbelievable to her.

I mean, my understanding is that the divorce took four years.  Even presuming that initially she had not believed it could happen, how long does one get to maintain that perspective? 

[cardigirl]

In every divorce, grief plays a HUGE role. Betty was faced with the loss of her life. Everything was gone, Dan, her friends, her future (that she had been planning), her status.  It's a lot. The fact that she thought she had leverage, either through religion (aka the Church will protect me), or through her history with Dan (he'll come to his senses eventually) are all realistic responses from someone who is grieving. She's not seeing reality. She can't see reality.  

And then when he starts playing "hardball," whether he does or she thinks he does, it just adds to her feelings of not being able to control anything in her life. Dan controls everything. 

She's the extreme reaction to what happens, but it sounds like he was extreme also. I dunno, I just think divorce, especially no-fault divorce, sucks for the spouse who really didn't want to get divorced. 

[poeticlicensed]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I'm just saying that as a Catholic, she probably didn't think divorce was an option which would have made Dan's actions stunningly unbelievable to her.

I think this is the key. Betty thought that being a good Catholic means never getting a divorce and she thought that as a Catholic, Dan would never divorce her, no matter how much they fought or he cheated on her. She always figured their faith and the fact that they were married in the church made it impossible for him to leave. Even when he left, she figured he'd come back. The fact that she dragged it out for years speaks to her level of denial. She thought that if she fought and denied, eventually he would come crawling back.

 

I also thought the scene in the restaurant where she spoke about how far he had come (food stamps to 5 star restaurants) spoke volumes about how little Betty knew her husband. He was a prig who wanted to fit in with the country club set, and wanted no reminders that he wasn't to the manor born. Betty OTOH didn't understand that at all. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[poeticlicensed]

5 hours ago, Persnickety1 said:

I also seem to recall Kolkena jumped onto the "let's torment Betty" bandwagon, sending her ads for wrinkle creams and weight loss, and I believe even a clipping of she (Linda) sending Betty a newspaper clipping of Linda and Dan together with the comment, "Don't we look alike?"  Guess Dan and Linda never figured out that, if you poke the rattlesnake long enough, it will eventually strike and the results could be fatal.  

If you listen to the "it was Simple" podcast, which I recommend, they interview one of Linda's best friends who swears up and down that Linda would never, ever engage in that kind of behavior. Who do I believe? I honestly don't know, 

[Armchair Critic]

This website has some good posts about Betty and Dan. I tend to side with Betty like she does because not only did Dan replace Betty, he (and his new wife) tormented her. Of course I am not saying she should have murdered them but I can see how she was driven to it.

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-betty-broderick-case-truth-about.html

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2010/11/betty-broderick-this-message-is-for.html

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2010/11/photos-liebchen-and-count-du-money.html

Edited June 10, 2020 by Armchair Critic

[cameron]

7 hours ago, cardigirl said:

That was interesting to watch. Betty's slow realization that she owns nothing, because she controls nothing was sort of painful.  I know on the first two episode threads, it's been said that marriage was NOT like that in the 70s and early 80s and that women were not such doormats, but honestly, a large number of women were raised to believe in the Church (Catholic), which meant save yourself for marriage, obey your husband and no birth control.  Betty worked but only until it no longer suited Dan to have her working.  She didn't have the benefit of our point of view.  Knowing that most women end up in much poorer financial situations after divorce than their exhusbands do, because their husbands have the benefit of being able to build careers is a fact. In the 80s, women were starting to understand they needed to have careers too. But they were just beginning to understand that on a wider scale. I knew very few peers who planned on a career.  Teaching for a few years, maybe.  But not a 30-year career. So for most women, unless they got a great settlement in the divorce, their standard of living was reduced dramatically, and their exes went off to live like nothing had happened.

And she didn't want anything more than to be his wife and the mother of his children, because that is what she thought she was supposed to want. The lunch scene where the men are discussing how to exit a marriage with the least amount of financial damage was very telling. Poor Betty trying to stand up for her friend, being offended that everyone is celebrating the second marriage as if it was okay.  Today that seems so old-fashioned, but from that point of view in the 80s, she was taking a stand for her beliefs about marriage. 

I guess when you watch this show, your sympathies will be determined by how you feel about marriage and the legalities of divorce. Should a man be able to divorce his wife and not give her half of everything (or more)?  It's his life. He earned it.  Her contribution was ...?

I've seen many women go through what happened to Betty. They were married to doctors, lawyers, professional men, who divorced them after 20-25 years of marriage and then married women much younger than themselves, and in the process, chose to vengefully not give their ex-wives any settlement at all.  It's heart-breaking.  They divorce their kids too. And now that they are in their 80s, they are still miserable men, but they never suffered financially, while their children and exes did.  None of the women I know ever chose to shoot their exhusbands. But the grief and anguish they felt at the loss of their lives (total package) and the loss of the person they thought they knew, was real.

I'm not saying that Betty was right to do what she did.  But I am saying that the pain of realizing that everything she had built her life on was built on sand and was not real anymore is tough to watch.  It can be devastating and difficult to overcome that. Loads of women do, but it is a HUGE and long process. 

 

I am a practicing Catholic who has been married 52 years and was never taught or told to believe that you should obey your husband.  Not in my books.

[cardigirl]

14 minutes ago, cameron said:

I am a practicing Catholic who has been married 52 years and was never taught or told to believe that you should obey your husband.  Not in my books.

I think the word "obey" was made optional in the 1920s but I got married in the 70s and they still asked if I wanted it in or not.  

[Annber03]

6 hours ago, Persnickety1 said:

I agree with you, @cardigirl.  It was appalling watching Dan and his colleagues/friends sitting around sharing legal expertise about how to get out of a marriage, hide/shuffle assets around, etc., to screw over their current wives.  Absolutely disgusting.  

God, this. That whole scene was the definition of the "Good ol' boys' club" in action. 

And then when Betty confronts Dan about going to the wedding for his friend, knowing said friend is marrying the woman with whom he'd cheated on his wife, Dan's all, "It's none of my business!" Sure seemed to be your business when you were talking to your friend about all of this, Dan, but okay. He's right that he can't stop his friend from doing what he wants, it's his life and all, but even if he doesn't have a problem with it and wants to go, he could at least acknowledge Betty's point of view, which is just as valid. And besides that, she's not required to attend every single function with him. 

(On that note, hi, Lynette's husband from "Desperate Housewives"! Rather appropriate someone from that show is on a show like this :p.)

I did like Betty trying to check in on her friend throughout the day to see how she was doing. For a brief time there I was worried her friend might try and do something to herself, given how distraught she was over the end of her marriage. 

6 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

Looking at Betty through 2020 eyes, I just want to take her and slap her and knock some sense into her head. 

Same. I said this in a discussion elsewhere, but this story always inevitably reminds me of the one about Clara Harris. A lot of similar elements in both stories-a husband who taunts his wife and takes up with a younger woman, a wife who bends over backwards to try and do everything possible to win her husband back and get her "perfect" life back again, and the wife's revenge leading to a tragic ending. Both these women just needed someone to sit them down and tell them, "He's not worth it. Let him go and move on." But of course, sometimes that's easier said than done. 

4 hours ago, Persnickety1 said:

As I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Stumbo book, he also assessed "fines" to that monthly payment which ranged anywhere from using profanity to any other number of things.  I understand from my sister-in-law who worked in the San Diego legal community that Dan was very powerful and had many a judge in his proverbial pocket because of his prowess.  

That's pretty slick. He has a valid argument about the awful messages Betty would leave that her children could hear, but yeah, it doesn't surprise me he'd pull that kind of thing. And it's even sadder to know he can get away with that kind of activity because he's got enough people around him who'll let him do whatever he wants.

4 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Even if Betty weren't jealous/insecure/worried that Dan had hired a young pretty assistant, the questions that she raised were valid - does this receptionist have a college degree, have experience working in a law firm, or even know how to type? It was obvious how stung Betty was when Dan told her that Linda didn't need to know how to type. After all the nights she spent typing his papers in law school, he found a pretty young thing who didn't even have to be competent at the most basic skill needed for an office job.

It's also an insult to Linda. "Oh, we know you don't have the skills for this job, we're just hiring you 'cause you're pretty." Really shows how little these guys valued the women in their lives, both personally and professionally. 

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

I also thought the scene in the restaurant where she spoke about how far he had come (food stamps to 5 star restaurants) spoke volumes about how little Betty knew her husband. He was a prig who wanted to fit in with the country club set, and wanted no reminders that he wasn't to the manor born. Betty OTOH didn't understand that at all. 

Mmhm. It was yet another person in her life insisting on everything being perfect and presenting a certain image to the world. She had to deal with that from her parents, she heard some of that stuff in church, as discussed here, and now her husband's out there adding to that attitude. No wonder she felt so much pressure to have everything just so. 

And it's a slap in the face to Betty and her support of him all these years. She stuck with him through all that struggle. She knew him before he was a big deal hotshot doctor/lawyer. She made so many sacrifices to ensure that he was able to work his way up the ladder. And he doesn't want to acknowledge any of that publicly, because god forbid anyone find out, what would his rich buddies think?! It's an insult of the highest order, and the fact he'd rather spend time with people who would judge him for things like being on food stamps than be with those who wouldn't speaks volumes. 

Regarding the whole thing about divorce in the Catholic church, it reminds me a lot of those stories you see on "Dateline" and other shows where somebody says they can't get a divorce 'cause it's against their religious beliefs...but they're more than willing to murder their spouse. I wonder if that was part of Betty's mindset here, too. I get people struggling with the idea of divorce if they've had it drilled into them how sinful it is and whatnot, but...last I checked, murder is against religious beliefs, too. It's always weird to me how they're willing to overlook religion's view on murder, but not divorce. 

[poeticlicensed]

8 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Regarding the whole thing about divorce in the Catholic church, it reminds me a lot of those stories you see on "Dateline" and other shows where somebody says they can't get a divorce 'cause it's against their religious beliefs...but they're more than willing to murder their spouse. I wonder if that was part of Betty's mindset here, too. I get people struggling with the idea of divorce if they've had it drilled into them how sinful it is and whatnot, but...last I checked, murder is against religious beliefs, too. It's always weird to me how they're willing to overlook religion's view on murder, but not divorce. 

Lots of sinister ministers and deacons and such murdering their wives. Remember the case of Martin McNeil (sp?). He was the mormon doctor with a gaggle of kids who murdered his wife to be with his mistress because of money and because he didn't want folks in the church to look down on him for being divorced. But I guess it was ok to kill her. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[mamadrama]

7 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

I am 61, and I graduated from college and got married in 1982. Many of my friends planned to work a few years and then stay home, while others planned on a career and family. I feel like my generation marked the beginning of it being widely accepted to have a real career, not just work a few years until kids came. Thank goodness. I can't imagine my life without my career. 

I think this is a good point and this may explain the discrepancy in views on this board. Betty and Dan were middle-aged by the mid-late 80s. They came of age in a time that really did put a focus on the woman staying home. The majority of the women/wives I knew in the 80s had lifetime career aspirations. They owned businesses, were realtors, worked in factories, taught, were doctors, etc. I only knew a handful of SAHMs. However, the adult women in MY orbit were much younger than Betty. So I think it's a little more nuanced than "women in the 80s...". It definitely depended on the age, generation, location, and religion. 

[mamadrama]

3 hours ago, Armchair Critic said:

This website has some good posts about Betty and Dan. I tend to side with Betty like she does because not only did Dan replace Betty, he (and his new wife) tormented her. Of course I am not saying she should have murdered them but I can see how she was driven to it.

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-betty-broderick-case-truth-about.html

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2010/11/betty-broderick-this-message-is-for.html

http://atouchoftuesdayweld.blogspot.com/2010/11/photos-liebchen-and-count-du-money.html

Betty has always been an interesting case for me. On paper I side with her. As a personality I really don't like her. I guess it's one of those "I don't have to like you to take your side when you've clearly been wronged"kind of things.

[Nordly Beaumont]

14 hours ago, Persnickety1 said:

I believe even a clipping of she (Linda) sending Betty a newspaper clipping of Linda and Dan together with the comment, "Don't we look alike?" 

In the movie, Betty sent her holiday cards with a pic of Linda and Dan and "Gee, don't we look alike?" written in the card.

8 hours ago, Annber03 said:

That's pretty slick. He has a valid argument about the awful messages Betty would leave that her children could hear, but yeah, it doesn't surprise me he'd pull that kind of thing. And it's even sadder to know he can get away with that kind of activity because he's got enough people around him who'll let him do whatever he wants.

True, he shouldn't have been allowed to make up rules. On the other hand, she didn't have to keep continuing to call and leaving messages. 

I hope with the introduction of Linda this thing picks up. It's just so generic so far.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Nordly Beaumont

[Razzberry]

I didn't get the impression they were rigidly Catholic.  After all, they aborted two of her pregnancies.

Man, I've known people who just become obsessed and out of their damn mind with a breakup, seriously wanting to kill the other person, but it passes eventually.  You'd think shooting them would at least shock Betty back to reality, but I think she was bitter to the end, still obsessing.

[geauxaway]

7 hours ago, Razzberry said:

You'd think shooting them would at least shock Betty back to reality, but I think she was bitter to the end, still obsessing.

Spoiler

One would think!  But to this day she still has not shown remorse.  That’s why she has been denied parole.  

 

[poeticlicensed]

31 minutes ago, geauxaway said:

  Hide contents

One would think!  But to this day she still has not shown remorse.  That’s why she has been denied parole.  

 

Yes, apparently at her last parole hearing, she read a generic I feel remorse statement, but upon questioning, it was clear she didn't. They set her next heaing date for 2030, she will be 85. Her lawyer is trying to get her released because there is Covid in her prison and she has health issues. 

The last episode of the It was Simple podcast pointed out that Betty has been in jail nearly twice as long as she was married to Dan. That's a long time to go to not be able to reflect and take accountability. It was also heartbreaking to hear that to this day, the kids (I shouldn't say kids, they are all middle aged now) are divided on her release and she has grandkids that she has only seen in prison. What a waste. 

WRT her religiousity, I don't think Betty or Dan were particularly religious. It was just something you did. I think Betty was appalled that the life she thought she  built with Dan was falling away and she was being replaced by a younger model. She felt that she sacrificed and if Dan wasn't happy, well too bad, he owed her. He owed her money, but in Betty's eyes that wasn't enough, he owed her everything, including staying with her no matter what, even if their marriage was shitty. 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by poeticlicensed

[geauxaway]

On 6/10/2020 at 10:26 AM, Persnickety1 said:

As I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Stumbo book, he also assessed "fines" to that monthly payment which ranged anywhere from using profanity to any other number of things.  I understand from my sister-in-law who worked in the San Diego legal community that Dan was very powerful and had many a judge in his proverbial pocket because of his prowess.  

I mean, I’d probably deduct the cost of damage if someone drove their car into my house.  🤷🏻‍♀️

[EdnasEdibles]

It is interesting to watch this when the LIfetime movie was super sympathetic to Dan and this show is very sympathetic to Betty.

I'm in camp "Both are jerks" - I mean, Betty did sacrifice a lot for Dan. She did raise his kids and live a life of wealth . . . but nothing is guaranteed. Sure going from $300,000/month to $40,000/month would be jarring but she was hardly on food stamps again. Life goes on. Dan could have easily have dropped dead of a heart attack before meeting Linda and Betty would have had to figure out how to make do. Being rich at one point in your life does not mean you get to be rich forever.

Dan was clearly manipulative and narcissistic but Betty was also petulant and unhinged. So I am in Camp "I feel bad for the kids" 

I mean, I'm divorced. I didn't expect it to happen. I live much more frugally now than I did when I was married. My ex has moved on and has a girlfriend living with him. Do I get the desire to drive your car through the front of someone's house? YES. Oh my god. Yes. There are some days that I have little bleeding marks in my palm from clenching my fists so tightly so I don't scream at him. But I clench my fists. I found a therapist. I joined dating apps. I signed up for an adult ballet class and some running groups and I am trying to live my best life. Life happens when you're making other plans and you can either shut down or you can move on. Betty had the choice. She shut down and marinated in her anger. 

[txhorns79]

2 hours ago, EdnasEdibles said:

Betty had the choice. She shut down and marinated in her anger. 

True.  She could have moved to Peekskill, burned down your store and opened Over our Heads with you.  😉 

More seriously, I agree entirely.  She had choices.  She chose the worst possible outcome for everyone. 

[Annber03]

8 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

It was also heartbreaking to hear that to this day, the kids (I shouldn't say kids, they are all middle aged now) are divided on her release and she has grandkids that she has only seen in prison. What a waste. 

Oof. That's rough. 

I don't blame her kids one bit for whatever complicated mix of emotions they may be feeling about all of this. It's always so tough to hear about how the kids in these kinds of cases deal with the fallout, 'cause it feels like a no-win situation no matter which side they choose. 

[cardigirl]

18 hours ago, EdnasEdibles said:

It is interesting to watch this when the LIfetime movie was super sympathetic to Dan and this show is very sympathetic to Betty.

I'm in camp "Both are jerks" - I mean, Betty did sacrifice a lot for Dan. She did raise his kids and live a life of wealth . . . but nothing is guaranteed. Sure going from $300,000/month to $40,000/month would be jarring but she was hardly on food stamps again. Life goes on. Dan could have easily have dropped dead of a heart attack before meeting Linda and Betty would have had to figure out how to make do. Being rich at one point in your life does not mean you get to be rich forever.

Dan was clearly manipulative and narcissistic but Betty was also petulant and unhinged. So I am in Camp "I feel bad for the kids" 

I mean, I'm divorced. I didn't expect it to happen. I live much more frugally now than I did when I was married. My ex has moved on and has a girlfriend living with him. Do I get the desire to drive your car through the front of someone's house? YES. Oh my god. Yes. There are some days that I have little bleeding marks in my palm from clenching my fists so tightly so I don't scream at him. But I clench my fists. I found a therapist. I joined dating apps. I signed up for an adult ballet class and some running groups and I am trying to live my best life. Life happens when you're making other plans and you can either shut down or you can move on. Betty had the choice. She shut down and marinated in her anger. 

I always feel bad for the kids. Divorce is such a tough thing for the unwilling spouse and the kids to go through, there is no need to make it even harder on them. But people do. They get so wrapped up in their own pain, they cannot think about anybody else's feelings but their own. 

In the 80s, divorce had become more prevalent, but there still weren't a lot of resources available at ithe time for Betty to turn to.  She was literally cast aside. There was a scene in one of the earlier episodes where she talks about going back to teaching, and when the men are having lunch discussing how their friend can 'ease' his first wife into divorce, they suggest he be supportive of her finding a job and returning to work. For most women, it was really a strange new world.  

I'm not saying divorce is easy, ever, but today you can avail yourself of a lot of resources, and counseling and therapy do not carry the stigma they used to. If Betty had been able to get "real" help when she was committed by Dan, maybe things would have turned out differently, but she was scared that he would use this against her in the custody battle.  I don't know, it just sounds like she felt she couldn't trust anyone. 

Anyway, the entire thing is a tragedy, and the worst part of it all is those kids lost their father and their mother. 

[Razzberry]

I'm reading the book by their eldest daughter now.   It seems pretty even-handed, but sounds like that whole household was toxic for a very long time before the divorce.  Even the kids fought constantly among themselves. 

One thing she points out is that the devastating fire which completely destroyed their first house in San Diego is never mentioned in movies or books about the case.   That it remains unmentioned here is odd indeed.

[chlban]

On 6/12/2020 at 11:17 AM, Razzberry said:

I'm reading the book by their eldest daughter now.   It seems pretty even-handed, but sounds like that whole household was toxic for a very long time before the divorce.  Even the kids fought constantly among themselves. 

One thing she points out is that the devastating fire which completely destroyed their first house in San Diego is never mentioned in movies or books about the case.   That it remains unmentioned here is odd indeed.

What is the name of the book? I would love to read it.

[Kelly]

On 6/14/2020 at 6:05 PM, chlban said:

What is the name of the book? I would love to read it.

I’m not the OP but the book she’s probably referring to is “Betty Broderick, My Mom - The Kim Broderick Story” as told by Nanette Elkins

Although, I don’t think Kim had anything to do with the writing of the book (did not support it), but I could be remembering wrong.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Kelly

[divsc]

On 6/10/2020 at 9:16 AM, Persnickety1 said:

I agree with you, @cardigirl.  It was appalling watching Dan and his colleagues/friends sitting around sharing legal expertise about how to get out of a marriage, hide/shuffle assets around, etc., to screw over their current wives.  Absolutely disgusting.  

I recall from the Lifetime movie and the Strumbo book that Linda reportedly looked like a younger version of Betty, so I'm curious to see if Rachel Keller has any resemblance to Amanda Peet.  I also seem to recall Kolkena jumped onto the "let's torment Betty" bandwagon, sending her ads for wrinkle creams and weight loss, and I believe even a clipping of she (Linda) sending Betty a newspaper clipping of Linda and Dan together with the comment, "Don't we look alike?"  Guess Dan and Linda never figured out that, if you poke the rattlesnake long enough, it will eventually strike and the results could be fatal.  

My best friend got revenge on her "Dan" the usual way...she gave herself time to grieve the end of the marriage, found a mate much better suited to her, and essentially lived happily ever after.  I wish Betty would have done the same.  "Living well is the best revenge."  

While I definitely don't condone Betty's actions, I do understand them.  I'll always remember the line from the Lifetime movie and the Strumbo book, "I don't know what took her so long."  

 

In Stumbo's book, she wrote that Betty received a newspaper clipping with a picture of Dan and Linda anonymously in the mail and that someone had written on the photo, "EAT YOUR HEART OUT, BITCH!!!"

However, in Stumbo's book, she writes that Betty showed the photo note to everyone and that her friends looked at it and the all capital letters and three exclamation points looked like Betty's own notes. Nearly everyone suspected that Betty had sent the photo to herself. (Pages 225-226)

[Whimsy]

6 hours ago, divsc said:

In Stumbo's book, she wrote that Betty received a newspaper clipping with a picture of Dan and Linda anonymously in the mail and that someone had written on the photo, "EAT YOUR HEART OUT, BITCH!!!"

However, in Stumbo's book, she writes that Betty showed the photo note to everyone and that her friends looked at it and the all capital letters and three exclamation points looked like Betty's own notes. Nearly everyone suspected that Betty had sent the photo to herself. (Pages 225-226)

She probably did because she was seeking sympathy.

[Razzberry]

22 hours ago, Kelly said:

I’m not the OP but the book she’s probably referring to is “Betty Broderick, My Mom - The Kim Broderick Story” as told by Nanette Elkins

Although, I don’t think Kim had anything to do with the writing of the book (did not support it), but I could be remembering wrong.

I think that's the one, except now it's called "Betty Broderick, the mother the murderer"?.  It says written by a Charles Dennis, but it's completely from Kim's perspective, so I'm not sure what's going on. She had to have some input, but maybe was disappointed in how repetitive and wordy it is. If you can get it from a library it may be good but I wouldn't pay money for it.

Here is the Amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/Broderick-mother-murderer-Charles-Dennis-ebook/dp/B01DEDKKXQ?pf_rd_r=HMCQ2XXNC1D26VG3Z9XT&pf_rd_p=be25f964-4afb-442f-819e-9e628b270a7c&pd_rd_r=8db76570-9e0c-442c-8c12-6fca1b4b524e&pd_rd_w=u5n80&pd_rd_wg=iQ8QG&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mr_hp_d

[Kelly]

13 hours ago, Razzberry said:

I think that's the one, except now it's called "Betty Broderick, the mother the murderer"?.  It says written by a Charles Dennis, but it's completely from Kim's perspective, so I'm not sure what's going on. She had to have some input, but maybe was disappointed in how repetitive and wordy it is. If you can get it from a library it may be good but I wouldn't pay money for it.

Here is the Amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/Broderick-mother-murderer-Charles-Dennis-ebook/dp/B01DEDKKXQ?pf_rd_r=HMCQ2XXNC1D26VG3Z9XT&pf_rd_p=be25f964-4afb-442f-819e-9e628b270a7c&pd_rd_r=8db76570-9e0c-442c-8c12-6fca1b4b524e&pd_rd_w=u5n80&pd_rd_wg=iQ8QG&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mr_hp_d

Interesting!  I thought maybe it was a new book about the case (and I needed to try to get it from the library!), but then I read one of the reviews (below) that indicates it's the same book that was originally by Nanette Elkins, but the children's names have been changed.

Amazon Review:

I bought this book as soon as I saw it, living in San Diego I have always been interested in Betty Broderick's story and after reading a bit I realized I already owned this book only then it was called "Betty Broderick, My Mom, The Kim Broderick Story" the only difference is that in this new book the Children's names were changed, I wrote a review and Kim answered saying She had nothing to do with writing this book, I apologized to her and couldn't believe someone had written about her after all she and her family had been through and now it seems it has happened again, I wish the Broderick family well and after all that I confess I did enjoy the book again but its all rather strange to say the least...

[KoKo]

On 6/16/2020 at 4:49 AM, divsc said:

In Stumbo's book, she wrote that Betty received a newspaper clipping with a picture of Dan and Linda anonymously in the mail and that someone had written on the photo, "EAT YOUR HEART OUT, BITCH!!!"

However, in Stumbo's book, she writes that Betty showed the photo note to everyone and that her friends looked at it and the all capital letters and three exclamation points looked like Betty's own notes. Nearly everyone suspected that Betty had sent the photo to herself. (Pages 225-226)

Obviously, I'm waaaaay behind....... I've GOT to read this book !!!   What is the title and the author is XXX Stumbo/ or Strumbo ?  

[divsc]

54 minutes ago, KoKo said:

Obviously, I'm waaaaay behind....... I've GOT to read this book !!!   What is the title and the author is XXX Stumbo/ or Strumbo ?  

It's called "Until the twelfth of never: the deadly divorce of Dan & Betty Broderick" by Bella Stumbo.

Can borrow free on Open Library!

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17735327W/Until_the_twelfth_of_never

[divsc]

Article about Epstein credits -

https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/epstein-credits-used-betty-broderick-divorce-daniel-broderick

[Armchair Critic]

2 hours ago, divsc said:

Can borrow free on Open Library!

I have it borrowed right now (reading it again) and probably some others, there may be a waiting list.