No One's Victim

Isn't it always the way? People accused and held responsible for social crimes that are unspeakable in their nature always have in their background the support of others who were casually in the background of their lives. Neighbours and co-workers, who recall the person in question as normal, friendly, outgoing and helpful to others. Within the tight confines of an individual's direct community he/she always appears to be one of them, a well-regarded neighbour, friendly enough and familiarly-trusted.

Initial denials of belief in the dreadful acts imputed against a former acquaintance, neighbour, friend - from those who worked closely with the accused and held him in high regard as a professional whose calibre of performance was outstanding, to those who knew him only slightly as someone to speak casually with - inevitably give way to stunned acceptance when the accused for whatever reason makes a public statement of guilt.

So that is finally settled. the realization that someone with whom some part of one's life has been invested - as a co-worker, a casual acquaintance, a distant family member, a neighbour - has betrayed the trust of society. Which is a polite understatement for an individual presenting as a psychopathic, sadistic murderer. Society must, on occasion, confront the reality that these monsters exist.

And that social scientists, psychiatrists, like to remind the public that these are not monsters, they are human beings whose investment in normalcy has been side-tracked by some neurological inheritance that left them bereft of humane impulse. A starkly dark neurosis of brutal dysfunction that eventually matured to manifest itself as a person entirely dedicated to his puerile ego, with no inner constraints, and no empathy nor conscience, entirely invested in sadistically-derived pleasure.

Which leaves society wondering at the other half of the equation, the women married for several decades to this monster-in-waiting, who ostensibly gave no clue to his inner turmoil, whose impeccable outward manner as a military man whose punctilious attention to detail and order, came unhinged in a black inchoate desire to inflict pain and suffering on innocent strangers. And no clue whatever presented itself with respect to the dysfunction of this man.

Which, to a degree, can be accepted as feasible. What is far more difficult to digest is the woman, married to the man who inflicted such horrible suffering and pain, disgust and terror, feels herself completely disengaged from the matter. Uppermost is her concern for her material well-being. Above all, her concern that she not be involved in a lawsuit that might have the effect of diminishing her cash and property reserves.

How is it possible for any woman to disengage herself to the degree that her concern fixates on the condition of the floors of her new prized-possession home, after a police investigation, rather than on the raw knowledge of her husband's deadly predations? How can it be that a cold-blooded decision is made, which Russell Williams' wife labels a "domestic contract", meant to transfer property from her husband to herself, to protect her investment, taking precedence over the pain and suffering of one of her husband's unfortunate victims?

Ms. Harriman denies that she has any underhanded intentions: "I had absolutely no intention whatsoever to have the matrimonial home fraudulently conveyed to me for the purpose of defeating the claims of the plaintiff. At all times, my intent on executing the conveyance was to provide for my financial security." However, to do so would, absolutely, lead to the intention of 'defeating the claims of the plaintiff'. Clearly enough; one is not accomplished without the other.

We do not accept arguments of 'guilt by association'. But the association is there, and there remains and always will remain, the question of how might it be possible that there were no questionable or troubling quirks or vague yet problematic indications that anything might be amiss in the behaviour of a man with whom a woman had very intimate relations. On the other hand, there must surely be an element of residual responsibility engrained in someone's consciousness.

That the person they were most closely, intimately associated with in a partnership that was firm and reciprocal, somehow was transformed into a strange, ravening beast whose appetite was horrendous and whose humane conscience was absent. Is there not some moral compulsion to demonstrate some modicum of understanding for the suffering of her husband's victims? Is it there, residing deep within her psyche, overshadowed by her insistent quest for her own financial security?

This woman is no one's victim.