It's clear, to me at least, that BB was abused and controlled by US and that doesn't excuse her but I keep seeing people say that they think she was the more sadistic. Possibly justified in this case because of the "probable human bite marks". However, I think it's interesting that this is what people are preferring to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Even after evidence has been given in court that US was biting and burning children before he ever knew BB, I'm still seeing that narrative. It's strange to me that we, as society, would rather think that US was just a violent oaf, beating and punching because that's natural to men, unthinking, primal violence but it's BB who's scheming and inventing torture methods. I wonder why we prefer that version? Men have been inventing and carrying out torture methods for centuries but as soon as a woman becomes involved in a crime of this nature, she's the one that is seen as sadistic