S02.E05: Scream Therapy

[lovesnark]

3 hours ago, chlban said:

But, the book makes it clear the marriage was troubled. During divorce proceedings Dan brought up that they had discussed divorce almost from the day of the marriage and Betty agreed. It was likely only a threat on her part, but throwing the D word can be very damaging. In the book, it also covers that there was a period where Dan and Linda did break up and Linda was actually in a relationship with another man, although she never stopped working for him. The book also talks about how Betty threw a fit that Christmas because a ring he bought for her was not up to what she thought she deserved, and she ruined everyone's Christmas over it. In the Stumbo book, she refers to it as "the best gift Betty could have given Linda"  Dan moved out two months later.

Yes! In the book we're told Betty had been threatening divorce for years and would routinely tell the kids they had to choose who they wanted to live with on the spot. Sadly, it almost became a joke with the kids.

The fit she pitched over the ring really did help push Dan out the door. She'd found a very expensive emerald ring and told him about it. When he bought her something different, she had an epic fit and ruined Christmas for the everyone. I bet those kids probably still feel anxious every year when Christmas rolls around. 

I watched this episode again this afternoon and gleaned a couple of things. When she was served the final divorce papers and went on and on about how underhanded it was because she wasn't even there, she was full of shit. She had been notified over and over and over again of every hearing and ignored it. She did not attempt to contact anyone to try to move any of the hearings to a later date so she could try to have a lawyer represent her. She'd been married to one for 16 years. There is no way in hell she didn't know that court cases don't just get postponed forever if one party ignores them. She did the same thing with the Coral Reef house. She refused an offer of the asking price and said she would only accept an offer of $1 million. For a $325k house. After she'd held up two potential sales by refusing to sign the papers, her attorney told her Dan could sell it without her agreeing to it and she would be wise to take the offer. She chose to ignore what he said, then went ballistic and smashed into Dan's house with her Suburban when it happened.

The Easter chase wasn't simply a case of Dan changing his mind. The kids spending the weekend with her was contingent upon her not leaving filthy messages on the answering machine and not having the boys sneak out of the house to meet her on the street like she'd been doing all along. She did both of those things. One of the boys got caught sneaking back into the house a couple days before the weekend. That's why she lost her Easter visit. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by lovesnark

[Bulldog]

17 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

The person who I felt the most sorry for in this episode was Dan's secretary/assistant who had to transcribe all of the answering machine tapes he kept tossing at her.

I felt sorry for her because Dan apparently didn't pay her enough to buy more than one work outfit. 

I remember this case well from back when it was first in the news.  This episode finally got around to showing the truly batshit crazy Betty that I remember from interviews back then.  Until this episode, she had definitely been getting the sympathetic edit.  That said, I've always wondered about Dan's "fining" system.  IANAL, but seems that if the divorce terms didn't specifically allow him to impose these fines, anyway halfway decent judge would have ordered him to knock it off and pay her the agreed upon monthly support.  And yeah, $16K per month was ALOT of money back then.  Heck, most people would live quite comfortably on that today.  I realize it was a small fraction of what Dan was earning.  I, personally, would have taken it and been glad to be rid of him (and had my kids, to boot.)  But then, I am not batshit crazy.  

[chocolatine]

Can someone who's knowledgeable about spousal support explain whether the $9k/month was reasonable? I'm not a lawyer and have never been married or divorced, but my understanding is there's a big difference between dividing assets accrued during the marriage (community property), and alimony payments after divorce. I thought it was only the former that's supposed to be equitable, the latter is supposed to be temporary and only in the amount necessary to meet essential needs. Kind of like a "bridge" for the non-working spouse to re-enter the workforce or establish another income stream. And if the non-working spouse retains primary custody of the children, they are also awarded child support for each child until the child turns 18.

In other words, if Betty had let any of her lawyers do their job, they would have gotten her an equitable split of assets (making sure to uncover anything Dan was trying to hide), right? Those assets could have been a substantial source of income if properly invested, with or without the alimony, and Dan wouldn't be able to control them after the divorce, correct?

[Madding crowd]

I had a different take on the Christmas gift incident. To me it seemed obvious Dan only took into consideration what he wanted. When Betty told him what she wanted he purposely bought something completely different so she couldn’t have her way. He may have spent even more on the gift he picked out, but he also knew it wasn’t her taste.

[lovesnark]

42 minutes ago, Bulldog said:

I felt sorry for her because Dan apparently didn't pay her enough to buy more than one work outfit. 

I remember this case well from back when it was first in the news.  This episode finally got around to showing the truly batshit crazy Betty that I remember from interviews back then.  Until this episode, she had definitely been getting the sympathetic edit.  That said, I've always wondered about Dan's "fining" system.  IANAL, but seems that if the divorce terms didn't specifically allow him to impose these fines, anyway halfway decent judge would have ordered him to knock it off and pay her the agreed upon monthly support.  And yeah, $16K per month was ALOT of money back then.  Heck, most people would live quite comfortably on that today.  I realize it was a small fraction of what Dan was earning.  I, personally, would have taken it and been glad to be rid of him (and had my kids, to boot.)  But then, I am not batshit crazy.  

Dan was imposing fines because the $9k he was giving her every month wasn't court ordered and he could get away with doing whatever he wanted. The second lawyer she had, the one portrayed last night, was able to secure the $16k a month through court. Since it was court ordered spousal support, he couldn't deduct from it any longer. If Betty wasn't batshit crazy and hellbent on revenge, she could have continued to get the 16k and gotten a hefty child support check every month once the kids were back with her. I'm sure Dan would've been fine with the typical every other weekend and a night or two during the week, so Betty would have been the primary custodian. 

Even though she complained about not having enough money to make ends meet, she did a lot of renovations and redecorating on her house. She had a new, bigger pool put in along with a very nice pool house. Not bad for someone who was barely getting by.

[lovesnark]

14 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Can someone who's knowledgeable about spousal support explain whether the $9k/month was reasonable? I'm not a lawyer and have never been married or divorced, but my understanding is there's a big difference between dividing assets accrued during the marriage (community property), and alimony payments after divorce. I thought it was only the former that's supposed to be equitable, the latter is supposed to be temporary and only in the amount necessary to meet essential needs. Kind of like a "bridge" for the non-working spouse to re-enter the workforce or establish another income stream. And if the non-working spouse retains primary custody of the children, they are also awarded child support for each child until the child turns 18.

In other words, if Betty had let any of her lawyers do their job, they would have gotten her an equitable split of assets (making sure to uncover anything Dan was trying to hide), right? Those assets could have been a substantial source of income if properly invested, with or without the alimony, and Dan wouldn't be able to control them after the divorce, correct?

Correct. If she'd listened to either of the two lawyers she briefly had and paid them, she could have done well for herself. The first one, the one from Beverly Hills that ran between Dan's lawyers office and his car the day she refused to sign the papers to sell the house, was a very skilled big money divorce lawyer. The second one was also very good and was already digging into Dan's financials.

The $9k a month was before any court ordered support. Dan came up with the amount and was giving it to her willingly. That's why he could impose fines for her behavior and get away with it. Her second lawyer got the court to order $16k a month and that's what she was getting when she killed them.

22 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

I had a different take on the Christmas gift incident. To me it seemed obvious Dan only took into consideration what he wanted. When Betty told him what she wanted he purposely bought something completely different so she couldn’t have her way. He may have spent even more on the gift he picked out, but he also knew it wasn’t her taste.

From the book, her big complaint was she thought the gift he picked out was cheap. She was pissed because she thought she was worth more than his cheap gift. 

[CraftyHazel]

1 hour ago, lovesnark said:

Correct. If she'd listened to either of the two lawyers she briefly had and paid them, she could have done well for herself. The first one, the one from Beverly Hills that ran between Dan's lawyers office and his car the day she refused to sign the papers to sell the house, was a very skilled big money divorce lawyer. The second one was also very good and was already digging into Dan's financials.

The $9k a month was before any court ordered support. Dan came up with the amount and was giving it to her willingly. That's why he could impose fines for her behavior and get away with it. Her second lawyer got the court to order $16k a month and that's what she was getting when she killed them.

From the book, her big complaint was she thought the gift he picked out was cheap. She was pissed because she thought she was worth more than his cheap gift. 

It’s been over 30 years, and I could live very well on the $16,000 a month...not even increasing it for inflation, which would be over $33K a month now.  

Look, Dan was an ass.  But Betty knew he was an ass, and she knew that he was having an affair.  She was deluded to think he was going to buy her a ring which I can only assume must have been outrageously expensive at that point in their marriage.  He wanted OUT.

I don’t like Dan.  I think he took great pleasure in seeing Betty squirm.  He liked the fight (he thrived on it, in fact).  He was not a good parent to those kids or they’d have been better cared for.  He had the money to have a nanny to help those boys with their bath times, their homework, and keep them home from school when they were sick.  He just didn’t care enough to be bothered.  He also used them as weapons against their mother, allowing and perhaps (probably?) even encouraging those phone calls to go to that level.  He was a creep...mean, unkind to the point of blatant cruelty, and vindictive as hell, with his little fines against his wife of many years, the mother of his children.  He still didn’t deserve what Betty did to him.

I understand some of Betty’s frustrations.  I divorced my husband of about 14 years in the early 90’s.  I, too, had been a stay-home wife and mom.  I had no money, no job, no resources.  My ex didn’t make anything like Dan Broderick levels of money, but he sure tried to keep every penny he could.  I hated his guts at that point (and for a long time after).  But I took great pleasure in finding out what all he had squirreled away (while we were married and living on a dime) and In getting my half of it.  I loved seeing the bitter twist of his smile when I pointed out in our settlement conference that both attorneys had missed adding in one of the accounts, nearly costing me a few thousand dollars.  He had worked hard for “his” money, in his opinion, and I didn’t deserve any of it.  Guess again.

Bette had a couple of really great attorneys in there, and she could have actually screwed Dan to the wall, if she had been willing to cooperate.  But she didn’t just want Dan’s money and their kids, despite her saying so.  She wanted to still be Mrs. Dan Broderick, to be attending the parties and the charity events on his arm, to be able to name drop her way in to clubs and parties by virtue of her marriage.  Instead, that went to Linda.  

She just didn’t have the mindset to be happy with a huge chunk of money, the kind that would have given her a great deal of freedom to travel and live well with her children and whatever man she chose.  She wanted what she wanted, and nothing else would do.

I think it’s really telling that,  in interviews for the first several years after her incarceration, at least, she expressed how happy she was in prison, and that she didn’t really want to get out.  It was never about living well for Betty, it was about getting her way.  And her way was for Dan (and Linda) to not be allowed to live happily together.  Mrs. Daniel T. Broderick III was her title alone, and once she made sure that no one else could ever claim it again, she was at peace.

Personally, I’d have taken every dime I could get and enjoyed the hell out of knowing he and Linda weren’t getting it.  But then, I’m not unhinged.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Marmiarmo
Because they were Dan’s kids, too.

[3girlsforus]

6 hours ago, Marmiarmo said:

He had worked hard for “his” money, in his opinion, and I didn’t deserve any of it.  Guess again.

Bette had a couple of really great attorneys in there, and she could have actually screwed Dan to the wall, if she had been willing to cooperate.  But she didn’t just want Dan’s money and their kids, despite her saying so.  She wanted to still be Mrs. Dan Broderick, to be attending the parties and the charity events on his arm, to be able to name drop her way in to clubs and parties by virtue of her marriage.  Instead, that went to Linda.  

First - you absolutely deserved it. Good for you for getting it. But what you say here I think if at least as much, if not more, the crux of the issue for Betty. Your ex worked for “his” money and didn’t believe you deserved any of it. Dan felt the same way about Betty. While yes I think she still wanted to be Mrs. Dan Broderick, I think more than that she wanted Dan to acknowledge that she earned whatever settlement they agreed to because of her contributions to their marriage and her efforts to allow Dan to be the BMOC he became. She wanted Dan to make an offer saying ‘I am so grateful to you for all you’ve done for me’. No way in hell an asshole like Dan was going to do that.

Now the big difference between what you describe in your life and the Broderick divorce is that Betty didn’t see that she just needed to demand her worth and then go get it. She wanted to Dan to acknowledge her worth. She probably even thought if he looked at her that way he might change his mind. But Betty was bat-shit crazy and Dan was a sadistic bastard - so we got murder and life in prison instead.

[divsc]

Regarding Betty's language, there is a part in Bella Stumbo's book where a psychologist was testifying about how Betty's increasingly crass and vulgar language showed insight into how her mental health was spiraling downhill.

The psychologist DiFrancesca, who specialized in forensic questions for the San Diego mental health division, said that Betty also suffered from severe depression.

The end of her marriage, and the loss of her core identity as Dan Broderick's wife and mother of his children, brought about a total breakdown as the years progressed and the stress progressed.

She felt devalued, DiFrancesca said. Woman in Betty's situation are "rageful." They are devaluing everything around them. Even the obscene messages were a symptom. They are "so explosive," she said, the language "really shows how out of control she was." The stress she was under, DiFrancesca explained, caused Betty to lose the "executive function to control emotions."

(page 210)

[Starlight925]

The fact that this was the '80's gives Betty no excuses.  Remember in this episode where she shrugged off the idea of working in a gallery?  She could have easily started a new life, taken her $16,000/month plus 50/50 custody, and with her bubbly, great personality (apparently that's how she was known prior to all this), she'd have done great.

Instead, we saw two narcissistic sociopaths collide.

I was divorced twice in the '80's.  The first one, I was making $14,000 a YEAR.  So yeah, it could have been done.  Oh, and neither of mine had any drama at all, so I can't imagine all of this.  

[Starlight925]

7 hours ago, Marmiarmo said:

I understand some of Betty’s frustrations.  I divorced my husband of about 14 years in the early 90’s.  I, too, had been a stay-home wife and mom.  I had no money, no job, no resources.  My ex didn’t make anything like Dan Broderick levels of money, but he sure tried to keep every penny he could.  I hated his guts at that point (and for a long time after).  But I took great pleasure in finding out what all he had squirreled away (while we were married and living on a dime) and In getting my half of it.  I loved seeing the bitter twist of his smile when I pointed out in our settlement conference that both attorneys had missed adding in one of the accounts, nearly costing me a few thousand dollars.  He had worked hard for “his” money, in his opinion, and I didn’t deserve any of it.  Guess again.

Good for you!  Your ex sounds like a jerk.  I was married to one of those once.  He didn't bank on the fact that my attorney not only worked up a fair settlement, but that my attorney uncovered that my then soon-to-be ex was paying his ex, the mother of his child, about 30% less than she deserved, and my attorney asked if I'd like to help her get her 30%.  She was always lovely to me, and a great mom, and when I shared this tidbit with him, he shoved me a check.  Literally, said, "HERE!!!".  Ha.  

Oh, turned out, he had been cheating all along.  Idiot was accidentally using my credit card number at a hotel he had been using in town.  I still smile when I think of all this.  So while yes, I can understand Betty's rage, there is one bridge we simply cannot cross.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Sterling

[sadie]

I think this ep did a good job showing Dan enjoyed power tripping on Betty and ultimately couldn’t see the forest for the trees anymore than Betty could. Instead of just letting her have the kids for Easter, he was going to punish her for leaving more phone messages. Why would you have your girlfriends voice on the answering machine other than to rub it in Bettys face? Or Instead of just unplugging the answering machine or using a service he ENJOYED setting Betty up to trap herself. Every time he made a point of telling her it was HIS money you really got insight into his mind. He didn’t credit her at all for helping him get where he got, and thus the circle just kept going round and round and HE was angry SHE wouldn’t roll over and give up.

They were both caught up on the fact that neither would do what they wanted. Betty just happened to be mentally ill and more dangerous than him but his ego wouldn’t allow him to see it. HE had power over her in his mind so he wouldn’t believe she would hurt him because HE wouldn’t allow it. When a psychiatrist calls you and says your ex is dangerous, BELIEVE THEM. But big man ego blinded him to that reality. Stumbos book outlines that the shrink called him TWICE TO WARN HIM.  For as smart as he was as a lawyer you would think he would respect other experts in their field like the shrink that warned him but his ego dismissed HER too. Ultimately his ego was his demise.

[Starlight925]

39 minutes ago, sadie said:

I think this ep did a good job showing Dan enjoyed power tripping on Betty and ultimately couldn’t see the forest for the trees anymore than Betty could. Instead of just letting her have the kids for Easter, he was going to punish her for leaving more phone messages. Why would you have your girlfriends voice on the answering machine other than to rub it in Bettys face? Or Instead of just unplugging the answering machine or using a service he ENJOYED setting Betty up to trap herself. Every time he made a point of telling her it was HIS money you really got insight into his mind. He didn’t credit her at all for helping him get where he got, and thus the circle just kept going round and round and HE was angry SHE wouldn’t roll over and give up.

They were both caught up on the fact that neither would do what they wanted. Betty just happened to be mentally ill and more dangerous than him but his ego wouldn’t allow him to see it. HE had power over her in his mind so he wouldn’t believe she would hurt him because HE wouldn’t allow it. When a psychiatrist calls you and says your ex is dangerous, BELIEVE THEM. But big man ego blinded him to that reality. Stumbos book outlines that the shrink called him TWICE TO WARN HIM.  For as smart as he was as a lawyer you would think he would respect other experts in their field like the shrink that warned him but his ego dismissed HER too. Ultimately his ego was his demise.

Perfect sum of this story!

Dan was such an extreme narcissist, that he couldn't allow himself to see anything other than what he wanted:  To watch Betty squirm.  And unfortunately for him, Betty wasn't a shy wallflower girl; she too was a raging narcissist with (probably) BPD and/or other Cluster B stuff going on.

There's a professionally diagnosed narcissist who goes by the pseudonym H.G. Tudor who talks about how narcissists need one thing:  Fuel.  Fuel comes in any form, positive or negative.  Basically, it's simply attention paid to the narcissist.  For Dan, when Betty left hundreds of raging messages, it provided fuel for him.  The more horrid she got, the better it made him feel.  Like, look at all this attention being paid to ME.  Look at all the energy being expended for ME.

Like the way he publicly proposed to Linda, at that bar that all the attorneys frequented.  It was attention-grabbing, plus he knew it would get back to Betty and infuriate her even more.  Positive fuel, plus negative fuel.  A huge narcissistic win for Dan.

Even the cheaper ring he bought for Betty:  Had he bought her the expensive emerald that she wanted, he'd have gotten positive fuel.  But I'm betting he knew her well enough that he'd get even more fuel, albeit negative, if he gifted her with the cheaper ring.  He knew her well enough to know she'd go into a rage, which again, fueled him, as to how much energy she expended.

If Dan really wanted Betty to stop calling, why didn't he ever change to an unlisted number?  Why didn't he make sure his security system was always working?  Heck, with all his money, he & Linda could have moved and built an iron gate.  It was more fun for him to simply wait for Betty's next explosion.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Sterling

[lovesnark]

25 minutes ago, Sterling said:

Perfect sum of this story!

Dan was such an extreme narcissist, that he couldn't allow himself to see anything other than what he wanted:  To watch Betty squirm.  And unfortunately for him, Betty wasn't a shy wallflower girl; she too was a raging narcissist with (probably) BPD and/or other Cluster B stuff going on.

There's a professionally diagnosed narcissist who goes by the pseudonym H.G. Tudor who talks about how narcissists need one thing:  Fuel.  Fuel comes in any form, positive or negative.  Basically, it's simply attention paid to the narcissist.  For Dan, when Betty left hundreds of raging messages, it provided fuel for him.  The more horrid she got, the better it made him feel.  Like, look at all this attention being paid to ME.  Look at all the energy being expended to ME.

Like the way he publicly proposed to Linda, at that bar that all the attorneys frequented.  It was attention-grabbing, plus he knew it would get back to Betty and infuriate her even more.  Positive fuel, plus negative fuel.  A huge narcissistic win for Dan.

Even the cheaper ring he bought for Betty:  Had he bought her the expensive emerald that she wanted, he'd have gotten positive fuel.  But I'm betting he knew her well enough that he'd get even more fuel, albeit negative, if he gifted her with the cheaper ring.  He knew her well enough to know she'd go into a rage, which again, fueled him, as to how much energy she expended.

If Dan really wanted Betty to stop calling, why didn't he ever change to an unlisted number?  Why didn't he make sure his security system was always working?  Heck, with all his money, he & Linda could have moved and built an iron gate.  It was more fun for him to simply wait for Linda's next explosion.

It was definitely the war of the narcissists. They behaved like toddlers, any attention is good attention! They all needed a long time out.

Dan changed his  number and had a separate line put in for the kids. He had to keep phone communication available for the kids. After the judge told him to get the girlfriend off the answering machine, that line had a different greeting. But, after they got married, Linda recorded a new greeting. She just had to assert herself as the new Mrs, kids be damned.

[EdnasEdibles]

I have no sympathy for her with the $16,000. I always get really prickly when people think they're "owed" a certain amount of money in life. Like when people get upset that they don't get a lot of money when someone dies and they expected it. Things happen. There's no guarantee that even if she had stayed married to Dan she would have been rich her whole life. Maybe he would have died of a heart attack? Maybe he would have lost his practice? Who knows? She did pay her dues but that's no guarantee. You can pay your dues in a career only for a recession to hit. You can expect an inheritance and then the person donates it to their college. Money is not a guarantee. Nothing is. Work with what you got. You can't count your chickens before their hatched. You only have the chickens you have at any given moment. And $16,000 worth of chickens is a damn good amount.

A divorce almost always negatively affects the wife's income more than the man's. I certainly have less money now than I did when I was married. But I have 100% control over the money I do have and that makes quite a bit of difference. If Betty had worked the gallery job and also had her $16,000/month she would have been just fine.  

But even with the money issue, she was insane with the phone messages and the smearing of the cake and the shattering of the Christmas tree. That's bonkers. I mean, my ex-husband is nowhere close to Dan. Our divorce was not contentious and there have been MANY times I have wanted to take a bat to something. But I see a therapist. I have a number of amazing friends who will listen to me rant on the phone or take me out for margaritas and I move on. 

[poeticlicensed]

2 hours ago, Sterling said:

Why would you have your girlfriends voice on the answering machine other than to rub it in Bettys face? 

And did you notice that he had Linda sign as notary on the legal papers he sent her? If he was trying to de-escalate the situation, this is the opposite of that. 

[poeticlicensed]

26 minutes ago, EdnasEdibles said:

But I have 100% control over the money I do have and that makes quite a bit of difference.

My millenial daughter and her husband keep their money separate. They both have careers and both contribute to a household account, but outside of that, the money is separate. That's what they both wanted. When they first got married I was like what? My husband and I co-mingled our funds from day 1. But it works for them. Hopefully the days where a wife would not only be financially dependant on her husband, but woefully uneducated about finances are long gone, but I suspect they probably aren't. 

[sadie]

I think people get distracted by the $16,000. The point isn’t whether it was a lot of money, it was/is. The point is community property doesn’t work this way. Dan, due to his legal connections, was able to withhold COMMUNITY funds from Betty because he is the one that held the checkbook. HE was deciding how much to give her, HE was deciding he would fine her and how much HE decided each infraction was worth. THATS NOT HOW COMMUNITY PROPERTY WORKS. That was the point I think this ep was trying to show us.
 

Dan was earning $100,000 a month at this point, he was GIVING Betty $16k (only after being forced to), legally she should have had access to ALL THEIR money, she didn’t because he cut off her access to it. He was giving her a 16% cut when she should have been getting 50%. For everyone saying she should just have been happy with that, think of it this way: you are OWED $50, you only get $16 and everyone is telling you to be happy with that.

It isn’t about keeping separate bank accounts. It’s that Dan and only Dan had CONTROL of their money. Dan and Bettys agreement had been she would stay home and he was the one that worked. Just because he changed his mind doesn’t make what he did legal. Part of the outrage here was he was skirting the law and because of his connections he was able to get away with it. If you dont accept that premise it makes it hard to understand how Betty felt screwed over, she WAS getting screwed over. I’m not defending her murdering them but it was partly what added fuel to her madness.

[DanaK]

Betty may have become a double murderer, but both she and Dan seemed to be psychopaths of some variation. Dan just didn't live to further show how nuts he was

Is Betty getting any psychiatric treatment while in jail?

[Pj3422]

22 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

PATTY McCORMACK!

Betty always hunches her shoulders toward a table when she's eating with friends. Is this a Betty thing or an Amanda Peet thing?

YES! Brilliant casting to have “The Bad Seed” play the court-ordered psychiatrist.

[cardigirl]

16 minutes ago, sadie said:

It isn’t about keeping separate bank accounts. It’s that Dan and only Dan had CONTROL of their money. Dan and Bettys agreement had been she would stay home and he was the one that worked. Just because he changed his mind doesn’t make what he did legal. Part of the outrage here was he was skirting the law and because of his connections he was able to get away with it. If you dont accept that premise it makes it hard to understand how Betty felt screwed over, she WAS getting screwed over. I’m not defending her murdering them but it was partly what added fuel to her madness.

This. For everyone who says she should have been fine with what she was getting, it is a slap in the face to all women who have married someone, helped them through their careers, and raised their children, only to be told they are no longer of any value. 

Yes, 16 grand a month is a lot of money, even by today's standards, but the percentages are not correct. But Betty's avenues for seeking redress for her situation were all controlled by Dan and she became increasingly paranoid of everyone who could possibly help her.  

This is such a tragic tragic story.

[poeticlicensed]

10 minutes ago, sadie said:

He was giving her a 16% cut when she should have been getting 50%.

Most jurisdictions have a formula for calculating spousal and child support. It isn't just a straight 50%. Generally spousal support is 30-40% of the higher earner's income minus 40-50% of the lower earners income. And many times it's time limited. When my brother divorced, he was in his 20s. He had to pay alminony for just 5 years until his wife was able to secure employment (and they had a disabled child). Lifetime alimony without exentuating circumstances (age, health, etc)  is pretty much a thing of the past . In Betty's case, she would have gotten it, given that she gave up her career. I do remember that divorce laws were changing a lot back then. Betty was a smart person. I never understood why she didn't push to take a more active role in family finances. But then again, Dan seemed to be the ultimate controller. He didn't want Betty involved and just speculating, I bet he was quite the misogynist also, thinking women were too stupid to understand money.

[divsc]

Yes, one issue was that they had a bifurcated divorce - meaning they were legally no longer married and Dan was free to remarry - but the financial settlement, especially when there are multiple properties and assets involved, could be worked out later. It's a nightmare.

But it sounds like during that time, there was no court ordered mandate, so Dan had control over how much he was going to give Betty, what he would pay for, what he would fine her - and this went on for years. They probably would have been better off if a settlement was finalized, even an unfavorable one, and moving forward, than having all these toxic personalities legally entwined for several more years with no resolution, and just needling each other.

My husband's first marriage ended with a bifurcated divorce - in a community property state. Except his ex was the one who was making more money than he did at the time. She left him, they legally divorced, I met him a few years later, we got married -- but It took SEVEN years after his divorce before the financial part was FINALLY settled - through mediation. (A few hours before the trial was set to start.) It was nothing close to level of this case and no one ended up murdered, but his ex was on her fifth lawyer by the time this thing ended which is usually a sign that someone is being contentious and unreasonable more out of spite than even acting in their own best interest.

[poeticlicensed]

5 minutes ago, divsc said:

It was nothing close to level of this case and no one ended up murdered, but his ex was on her fifth lawyer by the time this thing ended which is usually a sign that someone is being contentious and unreasonable more out of spite than even acting in their own best interest.

The people getting rich off acrimonious and drawn out divorce proceedings are definitely the lawyers!

[lovesnark]

4 hours ago, Sterling said:

The fact that this was the '80's gives Betty no excuses.  Remember in this episode where she shrugged off the idea of working in a gallery?  She could have easily started a new life, taken her $16,000/month plus 50/50 custody, and with her bubbly, great personality (apparently that's how she was known prior to all this), she'd have done great.

Instead, we saw two narcissistic sociopaths collide.

I was divorced twice in the '80's.  The first one, I was making $14,000 a YEAR.  So yeah, it could have been done.  Oh, and neither of mine had any drama at all, so I can't imagine all of this.  

She landed the job in the gallery, worked for a little while and quit. She also got a job teaching at a private school and said she loved it, but she quit.

She was famous in their circle for her epic party planning and holiday decorating skills. Before she went completely off the rails, her oldest daughter and several of her friends tried to convince her to start a party planning business. She was smart, energetic and before she alienated everyone, had connections with some very wealthy people in the La Jolla and San Diego communities. I bet she would have been very successful and could have lived the adage that the best revenge is living well.

[poeticlicensed]

3 minutes ago, lovesnark said:

She was famous in their circle for her epic party planning and holiday decorating skills.

She also planned and decorated Dan's offices and all their homes. People were astonished that she could decorate beautifully on big budget or a shoestring. 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

And yeah, $16K per month was ALOT of money back then.  Heck, most people would live quite comfortably on that today. 

Most?! OK, what I need to know is who are these people who couldn't live comfortably on this per month?!

I make less than 1/3 of that per month in North Jersey and I would consider myself comfortable.

Edited June 25, 2020 by TattleTeeny

[lovesnark]

6 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Most?! OK, what I need to know is who are these people who couldn't live comfortably on this per month?!

I make less than 1/3 of that per month in North Jersey and I would consider myself comfortable.

People like Betty and Dan who didn't bat an eye at spending tens of thousands on designer and custom made clothing. I'll have to see if I can find it in the book, but Betty asked for a crazy high monthly clothing budget in one of the alimony talks she had with her second lawyer. It was astounding, something like $5k for her and the kids..........for shoes and clothing😳

[TattleTeeny]

I am not saying I wouldn't be more comfortable, hahaahaa! But I think if you can't be at least comfortable on that amount today, you need a reality check. "Most people" do not earn anything close to $16,000 per month.

Gimme even $1,000 more a month--oooh, I would like that. Not that there's much I can do with it right now in "these uncertain times"!

Edited June 25, 2020 by TattleTeeny

[divsc]

Reminds me of when Michael Strahan got divorced - he had to pay something like $180,000 a month in child support, including $27,000 on clothing, because his ex said their toddler twin daughters "love accessories." 

I guess when you get accustomed to a standard of living, you feel entitled to continuing to live that way, even if it seems ridiculous and absurd in the big picture,

[3girlsforus]

17 hours ago, Armchair Critic said:

She used to have a swear jar for the kids so no her swearing wasn't that bad before. From accounts of her children's teachers and other parents she used to be a great mom. She just lost her head when Dan started fooling around and then left her. I am not saying Betty is innocent but Dan and Linda kept poking the bear and it backfired on them.

So Dan and Betty had a swear jar as a punishment for their children. Then the divorce comes and Dan institutes a more expensive version of the swear jar for Betty. Just another way he treated her as beneath him. You don’t punish an adult, especially your spouse, with the same methods you do a child. 

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, lovesnark said:

People like Betty and Dan who didn't bat an eye at spending tens of thousands on designer and custom made clothing. I'll have to see if I can find it in the book, but Betty asked for a crazy high monthly clothing budget in one of the alimony talks she had with her second lawyer. It was astounding, something like $5k for her and the kids..........for shoes and clothing😳

IIRC in the last episode Betty mentioned paying $8,000 for a designer dress - that's half of the monthly support budget just for *one* piece of clothing. And Dan was apparently getting all his clothes custom-made, so they were both spendthrift. 

1 hour ago, divsc said:

I guess when you get accustomed to a standard of living, you feel entitled to continuing to live that way, even if it seems ridiculous and absurd in the big picture,

I think it's more about not wanting to accept a lower standard while the ex-spouse continues with the same standard they've had before. That's what feels so unfair when someone (usually the wife) gets screwed over financially in the divorce. The husband goes on with the same lifestyle plus a young hot new wife, and the first wife is suddenly alone, older/less attractive by conventional standards, usually responsible for most of the childrearing, and having less money on top of that is just adding insult to injury.

[CraftyHazel]

50% of marital assets does not mean 50% of his income.  It means 50% of what they accumulated together during the marriage.  Also, Dan had custody of all four minor children, and was not collecting any support for them from Betty.  $16,000...which was the amount the judge ordered...was approximately 1/6 of Dan’s income, and she didn’t have to pay child support out of that.  I could see her being given some more, but what she wanted was over $25,000 a month for life, plus a cash settlement, etc.  Whether she “deserved” that or not is a matter of opinion.  My ex was bringing home about $6K a month when we divorced.  I had custody of both children and was awarded $865 a month in child support, half the assets, and not a nickel in support.  I never felt entitled to half of his income just because he was married to me when he began to earn it.

Where I do believe she got royally screwed is in the Epstein credits, and in Dan letting his deadbeat brother “invest” and “lose” money for them. Dan was very shady in his ways of hiding money, but if Betty had just hired an attorney and let them do their job, she’d have got her money.  I just don’t believe that was her ultimate goal, though.  She wanted Dan punished, and she wanted to be the one to do it.

[lovesnark]

15 minutes ago, Marmiarmo said:

50% of marital assets does not mean 50% of his income.  It means 50% of what they accumulated together during the marriage.  Also, Dan had custody of all four minor children, and was not collecting any support for them from Betty.  $16,000...which was the amount the judge ordered...was approximately 1/6 of Dan’s income, and she didn’t have to pay child support out of that.  I could see her being given some more, but what she wanted was over $25,000 a month for life, plus a cash settlement, etc.  Whether she “deserved” that or not is a matter of opinion.  My ex was bringing home about $6K a month when we divorced.  I had custody of both children and was awarded $865 a month in child support, half the assets, and not a nickel in support.  I never felt entitled to half of his income just because he was married to me when he began to earn it.

Where I do believe she got royally screwed is in the Epstein credits, and in Dan letting his deadbeat brother “invest” and “lose” money for them. Dan was very shady in his ways of hiding money, but if Betty had just hired an attorney and let them do their job, she’d have got her money.  I just don’t believe that was her ultimate goal, though.  She wanted Dan punished, and she wanted to be the one to do it.

And, the longer it dragged on, more and more Epstein credits added up. If only she'd agreed to pay the first attorney out of her proceeds from the sale of the Coral Reef house! It would have been wrapped up so much sooner and Dan's financials would have been looked at with a magnifying glass.

After Dan and Linda were killed, estate attorneys working for the children found Dan had given his brother an unsecured $450k 'loan'. He was ordered to pay it back and it went into the estate funds for the kids.

[Annber03]

8 hours ago, Sterling said:

Good for you!  Your ex sounds like a jerk.  I was married to one of those once.  He didn't bank on the fact that my attorney not only worked up a fair settlement, but that my attorney uncovered that my then soon-to-be ex was paying his ex, the mother of his child, about 30% less than she deserved, and my attorney asked if I'd like to help her get her 30%.  She was always lovely to me, and a great mom, and when I shared this tidbit with him, he shoved me a check.  Literally, said, "HERE!!!".  Ha.  

Oh, turned out, he had been cheating all along.  Idiot was accidentally using my credit card number at a hotel he had been using in town.  I still smile when I think of all this.  So while yes, I can understand Betty's rage, there is one bridge we simply cannot cross.

That's hilarious. What a jerk. I'm glad you called him out and managed to help his ex in the process :D. 

4 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

My millenial daughter and her husband keep their money separate. They both have careers and both contribute to a household account, but outside of that, the money is separate. That's what they both wanted. When they first got married I was like what? My husband and I co-mingled our funds from day 1. But it works for them. Hopefully the days where a wife would not only be financially dependant on her husband, but woefully uneducated about finances are long gone, but I suspect they probably aren't. 

Yeah, I think a lot of younger people in general are doing that nowadays. I probably would if I ever get married. Or I'd have a joint account and another one that's just mine if possible, because yeah, as stated above, you never know what'll happen. 

2 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I am not saying I wouldn't be more comfortable, hahaahaa! But I think if you can't be at least comfortable on that amount today, you need a reality check. "Most people" do not earn anything close to $16,000 per month.

Gimme even $1,000 more a month--oooh, I would like that. Not that there's much I can do with it right now in "these uncertain times"!

Same here :D. My mom and I could definitely live just fine on that kind of income. 

I do appreciate the further explanations from some here about the issues with Dan and Betty's finances, though, and just how shady Dan was being in regards to them. 

3 hours ago, poeticlicensed said:

The people getting rich off acrimonious and drawn out divorce proceedings are definitely the lawyers!

I remember reading once about how some lawyers will definitely try and egg on an already contentious divorce, because they know full well they'll get more money out of it, and I can totally believe that happens. Especially if the people getting divorced are wealthy. Certainly would explain some of what happens in the nastier celebrity divorces we've seen over the years. 

[3girlsforus]

2 hours ago, lovesnark said:

.After Dan and Linda were killed, estate attorneys working for the children found Dan had given his brother an unsecured $450k 'loan'. He was ordered to pay it back and it went into the estate funds for the kids.

I heard about that. Seems that being shady and nasty runs in the family. In the first movie they make his brother out to be this nice guy just worried about Dan and the kids. But it seems he was actively helping Dan illegally hide assets. And we know Dan disinherited one of his daughters so it seems he didn’t just use money as a weapon with Betty.  Nice guys there. 

[txhorns79]

54 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

And we know Dan disinherited one of his daughters so it seems he didn’t just use money as a weapon with Betty. 

Why was she disinherited?

 

3 hours ago, lovesnark said:

If only she'd agreed to pay the first attorney out of her proceeds from the sale of the Coral Reef house! It would have been wrapped up so much sooner and Dan's financials would have been looked at with a magnifying glass.

If only Betty remained at all rational, everything would have been so much better. 

[chlban]

18 hours ago, Marmiarmo said:

It’s been over 30 years, and I could live very well on the $16,000 a month...not even increasing it for inflation, which would be over $33K a month now.  

Look, Dan was an ass.  But Betty knew he was an ass, and she knew that he was having an affair.  She was deluded to think he was going to buy her a ring which I can only assume must have been outrageously expensive at that point in their marriage.  He wanted OUT.

I don’t like Dan.  I think he took great pleasure in seeing Betty squirm.  He liked the fight (he thrived on it, in fact).  He was not a good parent to those kids or they’d have been better cared for.  He had the money to have a nanny to help those boys with their bath times, their homework, and keep them home from school when they were sick.  He just didn’t care enough to be bothered.  He also used them as weapons against their mother, allowing and perhaps (probably?) even encouraging those phone calls to go to that level.  He was a creep...mean, unkind to the point of blatant cruelty, and vindictive as hell, with his little fines against his wife of many years, the mother of his children.  He still didn’t deserve what Betty did to him.

I understand some of Betty’s frustrations.  I divorced my husband of about 14 years in the early 90’s.  I, too, had been a stay-home wife and mom.  I had no money, no job, no resources.  My ex didn’t make anything like Dan Broderick levels of money, but he sure tried to keep every penny he could.  I hated his guts at that point (and for a long time after).  But I took great pleasure in finding out what all he had squirreled away (while we were married and living on a dime) and In getting my half of it.  I loved seeing the bitter twist of his smile when I pointed out in our settlement conference that both attorneys had missed adding in one of the accounts, nearly costing me a few thousand dollars.  He had worked hard for “his” money, in his opinion, and I didn’t deserve any of it.  Guess again.

Bette had a couple of really great attorneys in there, and she could have actually screwed Dan to the wall, if she had been willing to cooperate.  But she didn’t just want Dan’s money and their kids, despite her saying so.  She wanted to still be Mrs. Dan Broderick, to be attending the parties and the charity events on his arm, to be able to name drop her way in to clubs and parties by virtue of her marriage.  Instead, that went to Linda.  

She just didn’t have the mindset to be happy with a huge chunk of money, the kind that would have given her a great deal of freedom to travel and live well with her children and whatever man she chose.  She wanted what she wanted, and nothing else would do.

I think it’s really telling that,  in interviews for the first several years after her incarceration, at least, she expressed how happy she was in prison, and that she didn’t really want to get out.  It was never about living well for Betty, it was about getting her way.  And her way was for Dan (and Linda) to not be allowed to live happily together.  Mrs. Daniel T. Broderick III was her title alone, and once she made sure that no one else could ever claim it again, she was at peace.

Personally, I’d have taken every dime I could get and enjoyed the hell out of knowing he and Linda weren’t getting it.  But then, I’m not unhinged.

I think you are spot on. It was about being Mrs. Daniel Broderick, with all the perks. Since she could not have that, nothing else was ever going to be enough. Regarding the money, I remember when this case was going on. I lived in Orange County, CA, less than 2 hours from La Jolla, so we followed the case. One morning, over the paper, my husband jokingly asked me if I would shoot him if he was paying me 16,000 a month, even if he was cheating. I told him if he paid me 16 grand a month I would cater his next wedding. I was joking, if course. Sort of

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by chlban

[lovesnark]

8 hours ago, EdnasEdibles said:

I have no sympathy for her with the $16,000. I always get really prickly when people think they're "owed" a certain amount of money in life. Like when people get upset that they don't get a lot of money when someone dies and they expected it. Things happen. There's no guarantee that even if she had stayed married to Dan she would have been rich her whole life. Maybe he would have died of a heart attack? Maybe he would have lost his practice? Who knows? She did pay her dues but that's no guarantee. You can pay your dues in a career only for a recession to hit. You can expect an inheritance and then the person donates it to their college. Money is not a guarantee. Nothing is. Work with what you got. You can't count your chickens before their hatched. You only have the chickens you have at any given moment. And $16,000 worth of chickens is a damn good amount.

A divorce almost always negatively affects the wife's income more than the man's. I certainly have less money now than I did when I was married. But I have 100% control over the money I do have and that makes quite a bit of difference. If Betty had worked the gallery job and also had her $16,000/month she would have been just fine.  

But even with the money issue, she was insane with the phone messages and the smearing of the cake and the shattering of the Christmas tree. That's bonkers. I mean, my ex-husband is nowhere close to Dan. Our divorce was not contentious and there have been MANY times I have wanted to take a bat to something. But I see a therapist. I have a number of amazing friends who will listen to me rant on the phone or take me out for margaritas and I move on. 

No kidding. At the time of his death, the almighty Daniel T Broderick III  was being sued for $6.3 million dollars. I can't find any info on it with a simple google search, but it was mentioned in both books. I believe it was by a former client, I'll have to charge my tablet and try to find it. He could have lost everything, married to Betty or not.

When my Dad died, aside from a few things he specifically wanted to give to individual grandkids, he left all decisions regarding his estate up to me. My Mom and brothers were gone, so I was the only one left of our family. My oldest niece (his first and much loved grandchild) hadn't had any contact with any of us for 12 years, her doing for reasons unknown. A few days after Pop's obituary was in the newspaper, I got a phone call. Not from my niece, but her bitchy, entitled mother. She was calling to make sure I had my niece's current address to send her check to. I was speechless for a moment then asked her if she was fucking kidding me. She acted all offended until I cut her off and told her that her daughter wasn't getting a dime. That for 12 years she hadn't even taken a minute of her life to pick up the phone and call her grandpa to say hello, let alone spent time with him. She got all huffy and told me I'd be hearing from her attorney. Before I hung up I told her to bring it on, bitch. Shortly after Mom died, Pop had me meet him at the bank and added me to all of his accounts. When he sold his house and built one on our property, as far as property records go, my husband and I owned it because we didn't sell the 5 acres to him. I did get a letter from an attorney asking about my niece's inheritance. I called the office and told them there was no inheritance, I owned everything long before Pop died and it was fully my decision to give anyone anything. Never heard from them again😂Pop was a smart man. He wanted to make everything as easy for me as he could and he did!

Edited June 26, 2020 by lovesnark

[3girlsforus]

33 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

Why was she disinherited?

 

If only Betty remained at all rational, everything would have been so much better. 

My understanding is that it was because of her loyalty to her mother and/or desire to live with her. 

And yes - people being rational usually leads to better results.

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, 3girlsforus said:

My understanding is that it was because of her loyalty to her mother and/or desire to live with her. 

Wow, that's really shitty. Yes, how dare a child express which parent they want to live with. 

Again, that just makes all of this that much sadder. Her kids did want to see her. They did want to live with her, as you indicate here. They clearly still loved her. And yet she blew that opportunity in every possible way. 

[lovesnark]

46 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

Why was she disinherited?

 

If only Betty remained at all rational, everything would have been so much better. 

She got into drugs, was flunking out of school and had been stealing from Dan. He took her to rehab on two different occasions and she called Betty and told her 'she wasn't like these people' and Betty went and picked her up both times. After that, she lived off and on with Betty, with her boyfriend and then Dan let her move into the pool house. They were getting along and working on mending their relationship when he died.

Edited June 26, 2020 by lovesnark

[divsc]

I think the younger daughter had a lot of issues with drugs etc. It's in Stumbo's book. She would disappear for weeks, etc. I think dropped out of school at one point. I can't remember all the details, don't have the book in front of me, but I think there were some issues beyond her wanting to live with Betty. I don't think she wanted to live with Betty either. It's not hard to see how both mom and dad's total dysfunction impacted her.

[Annber03]

Yeah, it's rather hypocritical to get mad at the kids for screwing up when the parents are too self-absorbed and involved in their own crap to notice something's wrong with their children for the longest time. And given how shady Dan was with some of his antics, getting mad at his daughter for stealing from him is....kind of rich. 

Dan wanting to keep the kids from Betty once she started getting violent and threatening obviously makes sense, but if any of the kids had expressed a desire to live with her and he got mad at them for that, well, that' not fair to them. It's only natural that a child would miss their mom and want to see her again in and of itself, even if they understand on some level why they can't. Same would apply to any time Betty would be mad that her kids wanted to be with their dad. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Annber03

[txhorns79]

18 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

And given how shady Dan was with some of his antics, getting mad at his daughter for stealing from him is....kind of rich. 

To me, it sounds like the girl was very troubled, and Dan was actually trying to help.  If things were as bad as they sound, cutting her off may have been the best of bad options. 

[mamadrama]

43 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Wow, that's really shitty. Yes, how dare a child express which parent they want to live with. 

Again, that just makes all of this that much sadder. Her kids did want to see her. They did want to live with her, as you indicate here. They clearly still loved her. And yet she blew that opportunity in every possible way. 

This whole episode frustrated me to the point where I almost couldn't watch it. She blew every opportunity. To think my kids were being neglected and yet STILL refuse to take them? I'd live in a shoe if I had to. 

[3girlsforus]

9 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

To me, it sounds like the girl was very troubled, and Dan was actually trying to help.  If things were as bad as they sound, cutting her off may have been the best of bad options. 

Disinheriting someone is very different from cutting someone off. He wrote her out of his will. If he stopped giving her money in present time - then sure. That makes sense. Saying when I die, which at the time he probably assumed was a while away and the daughter would be well into adulthood, you get nothing is completely different. Usually when a rich person is dealing with a trouble teen and for obviously reasons doesn’t want that person to have a financial windfall that they blow on drugs or whatever else is the issue, they put the bequeath in a trust with stipulations - must be 30 years old, sober X number of years etc. He just wrote her off.

 

[divsc]

Even though kids should never be used as pawns, every one of Betty's attorneys was trying to tell her to play the game, "behave," get custody of the kids, mothers almost always got custody if she would just cooperate, and then if she had the kids, she would get child support and a much more favorable settlement. 

She just kept being stubborn and doubling down. She also couldn't seem to let go of her plan that Dan would find being a father on his own annoying and come back home to her. She was in denial and delusional. 

She claims Dan was screwing her over with money but also that it wasn't about money. If it was all about the money, she would have listened to one of her high priced attorneys and gotten custody and gotten a nice big settlement. 

She really could not even stop herself from engaging with him. It's like Dan moved on, he wasn't trying to save the marriage or figure things out, and she was left with no recourse but to harass, scream, vandalize, and do things to get a reaction out of him. It was the only way she could get him to engage with her, even if it was in a negative way. Some attention was better than no attention. I think she had major personality disorders long before this divorce or Dan's affair. This may have accelerated it, and the rage is understandable - maybe breaking a dish or two, but for a pretty smart lady, she was not playing with a full deck.

[lovesnark]

2 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

To me, it sounds like the girl was very troubled, and Dan was actually trying to help.  If things were as bad as they sound, cutting her off may have been the best of bad options. 

He was trying to help her. He set boundaries and twice tried to get her to accept treatment. If she was using, she couldn't be around her little brothers. He took the keys to his house away because she was sneaking in and stealing stuff when no one was home. She was 16 or 17 at the time, so there really wasn't a whole lot he could do when she called Betty to come and get her out of the treatment facilities. If he called the cops, they would have told him she's almost an adult, leave it alone.

Disinheriting her was a bit drastic, though. I think he'd planned on changing his will and never got around to it before he died.

[Cheyanne11]

On 6/23/2020 at 9:16 PM, Annber03 said:

Maybe try saving your calls to Betty about things regarding your divorce for when you're not at work and quit expecting the people who work for you to do things like transcribe the awful answering machine messages.

That really pissed me off.  Why didn't he hand them over to his divorce lawyer and have them transcribe it?  I feel like it a guy pulled that in today's climate, the assistant being asked to transcribe would have cause to file a complaint against him. 

I do still have a *touch* of empathy for Betty, but she's making it hard, that's for sure.  She could've lived a very financially comfortable life, and had her kids in her life, if she could've just reigned in the crazy.  Not saying she should've just smiled and made nice, but there's a lot of mileage between being a bitter ex-wife and the stunts she pulled.