Quite immaterial. Being a psycho or not has no relation whatsoever to your claim that "she seduced him".
The father didn't come into her life until she was older.
This has no relation whatsoever to your claim that "she seduced him".
The fact that she committed murder shows she is an aggressor in personality type, not passive/submissive.
Again, this crackpot pop psychology has no bearing whatsoever on your claim that "she seduced him". She sure knew how to be an aggressor against helpless infants. There is no evidence that you've presented that she knew how to be against a grown man.
If the father was the aggressor, the odds of collapse of their little relationship would be far higher
A collapse, by for example murdering his children? This once again is just an assertion that you're throwing out there.
If the father had been the aggressor, he would have tired of her soon enough and sought another victim as opposed to settling down for a prolonged period and having kids.
It's funny that you make up an entire backstory, motivations and all sorts of actions based on a headline. What you made up in no way relates to your claim that "she seduced him".
The fact that he was given a wrist slap plea deal to a misdemeanor was a tacit admission they had no case against him, which means they had no proof he was the aggressor. If it wasn't a high profile case he would have had the charges dropped. It's a Big Lie in US courts that the younger woman can NEVER be the aggressor, when in truth it is more often than not the case.
Whatever US courts do in no way relates to who in this specific instance was the "aggressor" as you say.
I don't expect you to understand or agree, but there are a lot of factors I am considering based on having a lot of knowledge regarding women in general and crazy women specifically. I have a high degree of certainty that I'm right.
I don't doubt that you do, as always. However, you have presented no evidence at all, let alone anything that would demonstrate your outright assertion that "she seduced him".
If you're going to be close minded, argumentative, and hostile, that's the last time I ever put any effort into explaining anything to you. Duly noted to just ignore you next time you hit me with a dO yOu hAvE a SoUrCe bRo??
It's not "closed-minded" to point out that you made an argument that you could not back up. And yes, if you're going to claim that "she seduced him", you need to back it up with receipts, not with "if not he would have tired of her".
Quite immaterial. Being a psycho or not has no relation whatsoever to your claim that "she seduced him".
This has no relation whatsoever to your claim that "she seduced him".
Again, this crackpot pop psychology has no bearing whatsoever on your claim that "she seduced him". She sure knew how to be an aggressor against helpless infants. There is no evidence that you've presented that she knew how to be against a grown man.
A collapse, by for example murdering his children? This once again is just an assertion that you're throwing out there.
It's funny that you make up an entire backstory, motivations and all sorts of actions based on a headline. What you made up in no way relates to your claim that "she seduced him".
Whatever US courts do in no way relates to who in this specific instance was the "aggressor" as you say.
I don't doubt that you do, as always. However, you have presented no evidence at all, let alone anything that would demonstrate your outright assertion that "she seduced him".
If you're going to be close minded, argumentative, and hostile, that's the last time I ever put any effort into explaining anything to you. Duly noted to just ignore you next time you hit me with a dO yOu hAvE a SoUrCe bRo??
It's not "closed-minded" to point out that you made an argument that you could not back up. And yes, if you're going to claim that "she seduced him", you need to back it up with receipts, not with "if not he would have tired of her".