Manslaughter by Susan Mouat
Susan Mouat caused the death of her husband by pushing him and thereby causing him to fall and fatally hit his head. She then lied about the event for years to avoid responsibility. Our previous comment in September was as follows:
Yes, well spotted DJ Ward #15. The case is another example of one form of police favouritism towards women. Man fell down stairs, died, police investigated “on the basis that it may have been a homicide”, which may have involved them asking the man’s wife Susan Mouat if she did it then believing her immediately when she denied it. After all, it’s men who are violent. However, (for some reason we are not seen fit to be told) the police charged her six years later with manslaugther and she eventually pleaded guilty…
And you are correct also DJ Ward about Susan Mouat’s pending pussy pass with the judge asking for a report regarding home detention. So for a crime with a maximum tariff of life imprisonment this woman is considered for a sentence at home that can only be a maximum of one year. Manslaughter is this woman’s laughter.
Interestingly, this weekend’s article about the case shows Ms Mouat with a big smile. And, as predicted, she received a pussy pass of generous proportions: 11 months home detention for a crime that carries a maximum tariff of life imprisonment.
She was reported as stating to police:
“I’d just like, as I mentioned before, I would like…this to be over and to say that…the night Bruce died, previous to this I maintained that I had nothing to do with his death, but on the night that Bruce died… I had pushed him in a form of self defence because he was excessively drunk and I asked him to leave and that push resulted in his falling down the stairs and hitting his head which then resulted in his death”
“I have been very unwell as a result of trying to keep that lie. I just wish for it now to be over and I’m ready. Please God everything will just be as it’s meant to, so that’s all I’d like to say.”
So Ms Mouat claimed that it was ‘a form of self defence’ to push her husband out of his own home simply because he was drunk and she disapproved of this. There was no mention that he had been violent to her or there was any such risk when drunk. No, she just decided that he didn’t deserve to be allowed into his own house and she enforced this by pushing him out. Now that’s an interesting new feminist interpretation of ‘self defence’.
Ms Mouat’s language and focus highlighted her avoidance of responsibility for her crime. She referred to “the night that Bruce died” typical language to distance one’s self from the crime (instead of ‘the night I killed Bruce’). Her main concern appeared to be how bad it was for her to have to live with her lies since the event. The judge obviously felt for her.
If it had been the husband who pushed his drunk wife causing her death, his refusal to let her into her home would be seen as ‘patriarchal power and control’. The fact that she was very drunk would have been seen as an aggravating factor because she was vulnerable and needed her spouse to protect and care for her. The increased risk that she would fall awkwardly due to drunkenness would have been seen as another aggravating factor in that he could have predicted the serious fall and risk of severe injury.
But it wasn’t a husband being violent to his wife, it was the other way around so that’s ok. Only another dead male. The priority is to support the woman given her unfortunate predicament. Oh, she was violent? Didn’t notice.