The wife of a killer: did she know what he was capable of?
What do her words say?
Here, I’m going to look at the words of the wife of Wayne Couzens. He’s the policeman who abducted, raped and murdered a young woman in 2021. The crime shook the United Kingdom and beyond.
She gave an interview after he pleaded guilty.
Let’s break it down.
I keep on asking 'why?' What Wayne did wasn't human behaviour.
She refers to the murderer by his first name. It’s understandable, but it shows that he is still a human and a person in her eyes. If she considered him only a monster, she would refer to him with more distance or disgust, along that lines of “what he did” or “what that man did”.
She minimises Couzens’ actions—he abducted, raped and murdered a woman. She refers to that as “what Wayne did”. This may be because she can’t bear to verbalise it or because she’s seeking to play down the actions that she is, indirectly, associated with.
None of this would have happened
If I had any idea what was going on in Wayne's head, then none of this would've happened but I didn't know anything.
There is an indication that this person is in self-preservation mode, but this one line leaks a lot of information.
She sets out to give the impression that she was completely unaware of her husband’s darkness, but the words don’t say that. She says there was something going on in Wayne’s head, but she had no “idea what” that was. If she didn’t have any idea, how does she know that something was “going on”? And how does she know that, if she did have an idea, then she could have stopped it? The wording here suggests that she at least had an inkling as to her husband’s true character.
She says none of “this” would have happened? What does she mean by “this”? Is it a way of minimising the rape and murder, or is it a wider “this” including the repercussions that she has felt for her husband’s violent action?
He didn't appear to be acting strangely. I didn't notice anything was wrong. I'm working full time, most of the time I'm dropping the children off at school and picking them up, I have a really busy lifestyle.
Once more, I can see things being qualified. This technique enables the person talking to stay honest, while at the same time setting out to disguise or minimise how much she knew.
Why say “he didn’t appear to be acting strangely” rather than “he wasn’t acting strangely”? What I get from this is an acknowledgement that he was acting strangely. This is another example of her seeking to show that her husband wasn’t being normal, but she didn’t notice it.
The use of “appear” could be a caveat. Maybe he sounded strange, maybe he felt strange. But he appeared normal.
It is the same with “I didn’t notice anything was wrong”. Notice is another visual word like “appear” and there is another implication that she knows something was wrong, but she didn’t notice it.
If this was a relationship, where one half of it wasn’t a vile murderer, I would worry about this description of their marriage. She is saying that her husband was acting strangely and there was something wrong, but she didn’t realise because she was too busy with work and the children. This is not the basis for a healthy marriage. So, is she trying too hard to persuade us that she didn’t know of the dangers her husband posed, or is she saying this was a troubled and strained marriage? It is possible both are true.
No glimpse
I can't comprehend it because he never once previously showed any glimpse of violence, he was never that way. I'm just as puzzled as everyone else.
The first thing I noticed in this line is more visual language in “showed any glimpse”. It’s possible she has a natural tendency to use visual words. It is also possible that she is using these to narrow down what she is talking about. If she heard his violence or felt his violence, she can stay truthful in saying she didn’t see his violence.
This is the first time I note that she doesn’t minimise Couzens’ actions. Compared to “this” and “what Wayne did” the use of “violence” is strong.
In two lines, she uses the word “never” twice. Never is often used to imply a totality when it doesn’t mean such an absolute. Think of the people who say “I’d never do that” when we know they have. It’s not an outright indication of a lie, but when I see “never”, I look at what is around it.
READ MORE: The words that indicate you are being lied to
She tries to give a feeling of “I’m one of you, I’m not like him” when she says “I’m just as puzzled as everyone else”. It’s a phrase used to say “I’m just like you” in the hope that, if people can identify with her, they won’t judge her so harshly.
However, is everyone else “puzzled”? Or do most people think Couzens was a vile, sadistic murderer and there is no puzzle as to what happened. And “puzzled” is a playful word. Its use is normally much lighter, “I’m puzzled as to why my phone won’t work” or “the dog keeps lying down on the grass, I’m puzzled as to why”.
I saw nothing wrong. He had a beautiful family, a good house… what else did he need? I'm constantly asking myself 'where I did miss the signs?' How on earth could this have happened?
She starts this answer with another visual reference, “I saw nothing wrong”. I’m now starting to veer towards thinking this is deliberate. I’m sure now that she felt something was wrong with Couzens. Possibly, from some things he said, she heard things were wrong too.
Once more, I can see signs of a strained marriage. There is no unity displayed, it wasn’t “we had a beautiful family”, it is “HE had a beautiful family”.
The mention of “signs” is visual again, and for her to know that she missed the signs, then she must know that the signs were there.
The only thing I can think of is manic depression. I know he suffered from depression, but it was always such a subtle thing, you couldn't always tell what it was.
“I know he suffered from depression” is a form of words that you would use for someone you are distant from. If you know it for sure, and you are close to the person, you are more likely to say the more straightforward “he suffered from depression”.
There is yet another example of her saying that something existed, but she didn’t know it existed, in which case who can she now say it existed? Here it is, “it was always such a subtle thing, you couldn’t always tell what it was”.
I’ve seen enough of these now to say that she is attempting to hide how much she was aware that her husband was not a normal person.
Energised
He'd be up and down. Sometimes he'd feel really happy and energised and he'd start doing things around the house. But I cannot explain why he did this.
Previously, she said his depression was subtle, too subtle to notice sometimes. Now she gives a vivid description of it being “up and down” and he’d be “energised”.
What she steers away from describing is what would happen when he was down. Why is that?
And once more, she describes the horrible murder of a woman and the aftermath as “this”.
Prank?
When the police arrived at the house, I was in shock. At first I thought it was a prank. I thought these are his friends playing a joke.
This is deceptive. She says when the police arrived, she was in shock. Then she says, “at first” she thought it was a prank. Both can’t be true. Furthermore, from her words, she was already in shock when the police arrived saying “when the police arrived I was in shock” rather than “it was shocking when the police arrived”.
Even an hour into the police search, I remember thinking this is a bit much for a prank but that's when I started asking questions.
The children were here but luckily the police were very professional and the kids didn't have a clue about what was going on. They were just taken away.
Back to the prank. With police searching her house and with her children taken away, she thought it was a prank. So her children were taken away, her house is being searched by police and an hour has gone by, and she still thinks it’s a prank played by her husband’s friends?
What kind of monster would play a horrible prank like that? Did she think her husband could be cruel and callous enough to set that up? Or is she still endeavouring to persuade us that she thought her husband is such and angel, that, to her, the only explanation for what was happening could be a prank?
Finally, what is missing in these words? There is no condemnation towards her husband, no anger and no disgust.
Conclusion
There is a lot of deception in these words. I don’t find the descriptions of his depression or the police search convincing.
She uses many word linguistics to create the impression she couldn’t and didn’t see this coming, but it is the lack of straightforward words that point to much more going on.
All the way through, she is at pains to give the impression she had no thoughts that her husband was capable of violence, but her wording reveals that she was aware and that she is attempting to hide that.
She displays a lack of anger or disgust about the man her husband is or his actions. She could feel those things, but her priority here was to manage her own image.
This is a perfectly understandable position for her to take. I don’t place any blame on her for the vile acts of her husband. I do believe that if you are going to talk publicly about events such as these, you have a duty to be honest.
That’s just some of what I see in these words? What do you notice? Put your observations in the comments below.
