The word “snapped” suggests that the person could not take it anymore and did the deed, thus mitigating any crime that a woman may make against her husband and there were plenty of interviewees to enforce that, as well as that awful female narrator.
I have no idea if Susan Walls was abused but there is something called a door and she could have taken her daughters out through it. Even neighbours testified that if this was happening, they would take her in.
This excuse is used time after time in the case of the murder of a male partner. If my wife, who had pulled a 12 inch kitchen knife on me, after getting it out of a drawer, had used it and killed me, she would have used the defence of protecting herself even though we were 20 feet apart. She would have turned on the tears and she would have got away with it.
I am sorry but I just do not believe it. If someone has the will to kill someone else, they have the will to get in a car and drive off. If no car, go to the neighbours.
Susan Wills convinced two boys to kill her husband and further, her daughter gave them a credit card to buy the necessary items for the deed. That is not just snapping, even if it was true, that is PURE PREMEDITATION.
Of course, in the yank system and in this country, you can get a lesser sentence or even immunity if you give evidence against someone else. Dan Wells gave evidence against her mother but still got 21 years.
It is clear to me that the two women both planned it together and Dawn Wells should have got the same sentence as her mother.
But one of the boys, who had been conned, got a longer sentence than Dawn Wells. You could argue that he could have said no but, take it from me, women can be very manipulating and can easily brainwash anyone;
I was brainwashed.
Yes, the lads both got heavier sentences than Dawn Wells but should they really have got such harsh sentences? I do not believe so. Both should have got the same or lesser sentences than Dawn Wells (if you apply the sentence that she actually got, not what she deserved)