Community Chat

[KKJ]

---

@Nancy Drew wrote:

I am not judging just curious why you want to write her? Unanswered questions? Sympathetic? Religious teachings? Curiosity?

---

I too am curious as to why anyone would want to write to her or any convicted killer. Not something I desire to do but to each his own.

[Johnnyeager]

Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were found Not Guilty of the charges. They were Not found innocent.

There is all the difference in the world between the two, but they are often confused.

[Love my grandkids]

@catlover Why on earth would you write to a cold blooded killer who blames her VICTIMS for her crimes?

I see you refuse to answer, tho many have asked.

What's your motive?

[Johnnyeager]

Poster is under no regulatory authority of the Forums to explain, although it would be interesting to hear. But doesn't need to respond to demands to do so.

[Puzzle Piece]

No.  Not to Betty Broderick.  I understand her husband laid out his standards and 'rules' to her when they were to be married.  He didn't want children.  He didn't want an overweight wife. 

She wanted revenge because he went on with his life after divorcing her.  She elected to break in and murder him and his new wife. 

She purchased the firearm and practiced how to shoot after they divorced.  Seems like she had bad intention all along.   

[KKJ]

@Johnnyeager True, however, since she posted this in a public forum she must've expected to get different questions/comments regarding her wanting to do this.

[suzyQ3]

I think it's natural to want to know what motivated the OP to start this thread.

[Silver Lining]

---

@Love my grandkids wrote:

@catlover Why on earth would you write to a cold blooded killer who blames her VICTIMS for her crimes?

I see you refuse to answer, tho many have asked.

What's your motive?

---

"Refuse to answer" is a huge overreaction. Cool it.

The OP might be out shopping or maybe outside picking flowers or at work or any of hundreds of other reasons. Maybe she's not glued to the QVC forum. 

[vsm]

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@KKJ wrote:

@Silver Lining  ITA!   I mean, if the child killer Casey Anthony can go scot-free then I say let BB out as she's already served many years for the crime.

---

@KKJ    Casey Anthony was found not guilty.... Broderick was found guilty and confessed to the murder of two people. There is a huge difference. Not that Anthony was REALLY INNOCENT... but like in the OJ murder case... the jurors found anthony and OJ inocent.  

 Brodrick took the lives of two people in cold blood  and  confessed to doing so. Why should she be let out?  Who is to say she would not do it again as she is still CRAZY as all get out. Have you seen interviews with her... scary.

---

I agree with your post, @SeaMaiden , except with your statement that the juries in the Anthony and Simpson cases found them "innocent."  Juries are offered two options:  guilty or not guilty.  A not-guilty verdict is NOT a finding of "innocence " -- it means only that, in the jurors' view, guilt was not proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There's a huge difference.

[Silver Lining]

---

@vsm wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@KKJ wrote:

@Silver Lining  ITA!   I mean, if the child killer Casey Anthony can go scot-free then I say let BB out as she's already served many years for the crime.

---

@KKJ    Casey Anthony was found not guilty.... Broderick was found guilty and confessed to the murder of two people. There is a huge difference. Not that Anthony was REALLY INNOCENT... but like in the OJ murder case... the jurors found anthony and OJ inocent.  

 Brodrick took the lives of two people in cold blood  and  confessed to doing so. Why should she be let out?  Who is to say she would not do it again as she is still CRAZY as all get out. Have you seen interviews with her... scary.

---

I agree with your post, @SeaMaiden , except with your statement that the juries in the Anthony and Simpson cases found them "innocent."  Juries are offered two options:  guilty or not guilty.  A not-guilty verdict is NOT a finding of "innocence " -- it means only that, in the jurors' view, guilt was not proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There's a huge difference.

---

Correct! "Innocent" is not an option. The accused is either "guilty" or "not guilty" of the charge(s).