Good film, some questions though (spoilers)

This was a difficult subject because so little truth is known. But a couple of things were odd to me:

1. In NY, divorce is 50/50, it was back then also. It doesn't matter if his family had his money protected in a trust, the lawyer was clearly giving her bad advice. if she had divorced him and asked for several million dollars and the house in Westchester and medical school payment she would easily have gotten at least that and maybe more. Was the point of that scene to make her more confused by her bad luck in going to a clueless lawyer or was it that they had paid the lawyer off to give her bad advice? They weren't actually trying to pass off that nonsense about protected trust as truth were they?

2. How do you get just 9 months in prison for killing a man then hacking up his body in little pieces and throwing it in a lake. Trying to hide a body is one thing, cutting it up is another. This makes no sense unless, again, the film makers were implying that his family paid off the judges and the jury, if so, then that sentence makes sense. They didn't show this in any way though, but looking at the story overall, virtually everything he did wrong was paid off by his father and brother.

I heard the film makers contacted the real david marks after he saw the film and said that he said that he liked his portrayal; how strange. What a strange story. An empty, dopey life, whose only meaning and relevance was because of ungodly money and power in his family, he personally was a nothing personality and a cruel and aimless, selfish jerk, killer.