The Case of Susan Wright

The other night I saw one of those true crime shows on the TV. It was about the case of Susan Wright, who killed her husband by stabbing him 193 times back on Jan. 13, 2003. She was found guilty and is currently serving a 25 year sentence.

The prosecution lawyer enacted a very gripping, and most likely extremely condemning demonstration in the Court-room. A double bed designed to mimic the marriage bed was wheeled into the Courtroom where an effigy, connected to the bedposts with cords of cloth was tied down whilst the prosecution attorney mounted the effigy to demonstrate a rage that enabled 193 stab marks.

I daresay that this demonstration was instrumental in gaining the conviction against Susan Wright.

Susan Wright buried the body in a hole her husband had dug already for some home renovations. There was also a claim that their young son may have witnessed the attack.

Susan claimed she was in a 'mental fog' and that although she had known she had killed her husband she continued to act as though he was still alive. Indeed she told the Court that she didn't believe he was dead even after she had stabbed him multiple times and buried him.

Susan's sister claimed in Court that their family was abusive and their mother testified this to be patently untrue.

Susan's claimed 'mental fog' (that lasted for nearly a month), the 'overkill' and the fact that it appeared she could have lured her husband into a trap where she tied him to the bed and killed him all can be seen to mitigate her guilt.

She also continued in daily routines doing housework, attending to their children, running shopping errands and even talking to people on the phone in a way that intimated that her husband was still alive.

There were apparently no records of emergency calls or any medical records to support abuse though witnesses did testify that, at times they had seen injuries.
Friends and family of the deceased testified that they were 'an ideal and happy couple'.

So - is Susan Wright guilty?

I've facilitated many groups with 'beaten' women and have also been abused myself in my childhood and later in my marriage. In some of my groups (both inside and outside of the prisons) there have been women who have murdered their spouses.
One thing emerges; that is they "make sure they do a good job of it".
And I too can relate to this. When being overpowered and abused you just want it to stop but usually the perpetrator is stronger and far more powerful. In moments like this fantasies have flashed through my mind that if there were a nearby weapon and I felt a sense of guarantee that the weapon could not be used against me and that I felt pretty certain of being able to overpower my husband (the perpetrator) rendering him, in some way of being incapable of further abuse at that moment I would have done so.

Invariably all of the women in my group could relate to this and this explains what appears to be 'overkill' in such cases.

Many women who kill their husbands do so when their husbands are sleeping or are in other ways unable to fight back. Often the women go beyond what is required to kill.

As an interesting aside is the fact that murderers are very often haunted and plagued by 'the dead who return' to them in some way. They often have thoughts and fantasies that their victims are not dead, or have somehow returned from the dead to haunt and taunt them in some way. Interestingly enough this fantasy often seems to haunt women or 'more gentle' men who have murdered. It particularly seems to manifest in cases of spousal murder. I never quantified these facts and am unsure of anyone else already has.

This certainly also explains why Susan acted as though her husband was still alive. She would have been in an extremely dis-associated mental state after his death.

The trauma of abuse from our loved ones, both family and significant others tends to 'mount up'. In other words people who have been abused in childhood usually end up in abusive relationships. Hence I would tend to believe Susan's sister instead of her mother. Her mother, still in the relationship would obviously be in denial and as such, defensive and unable to support her daughter's claims about childhood abuse.

Interestingly enough too is that Susan's mother actually asked Susan if she had killed her husband. I would say that her mother was able to suspect this as she too was in an abusive situation and that this fact enabled her an insight into Susan's behavior, despite that fact that she herself had never acted upon such impulses.

Her mother's seemingly peculiar question also helped convince me of the fact that Susan had suffered abuse both during childhood and in her marriage. Like they say, "takes one to know one".

The aforementioned 'accumulation of abuse' can erupt quite violently when given an opportunity. Women who have been abused or raped are often very angry after they have escaped or feel safe enough to retaliate.
So given a relatively 'safe' situation where their anger can be vented without fear of harm or backfire this anger can then, and only then manifest itself.
I'm unsure exactly how such a 'safe' situation arose for Susan and if her attorneys are looking for elements to support her defense this aspect should be more closely considered.

There was some suggestion that she 'lured' him into some 'kinky' sex that involved tying him up. From experience I would say this to be unlikely in that abusive men like to, and indeed insist on remaining in control.

In fact I used to jokingly ask my potential boyfriends if I could tie them up; my aim was not to cold-bloodedly murder them but instead to help me gauge whether or not they could really trust me. An abusive man might try to see if you are open to the reverse situation whereas a non-abusive man is more likely to be shocked. If he quickly answers, "yes please" this also arouses my suspicions.

Therefore the cloth ties are something to confuse me in this case and I would like to know more about the crime scene and its details before offering an explanation of them. But having said that I believe there are many other consistent elements that help support Susan's case.

Susan made her first complaint of domestic abuse a couple of days after she had murdered him. This also was made much of by the prosecutor. To me this shows that Susan had only then begun to feel 'safe' or 'far away' enough from the danger of further abuse or retaliation and this gave her the impetus to report it and admit it in a more open way.

Thus far in my argument for Susan I have ignored that fact that her husband had been criminally convicted of cocaine use and that he had been found guilty and served probation for assaulting a stripper he had briefly dated. He apparently met Susan in the bars he regularly attended.
A witness for the prosecution said that she was a topless barmaid. If this is true I tend to think it further highlights the likelihood that Susan had come from a childhood background of abuse (most likely sexual).

Keep posted.