I enjoy reading a wide variety of books, and two months ago I read one that made the opposite arguments. The first was On Character by General Stanley McChrystal. I would encourage everyone to read the book, but I would summarize its premise as choosing your values deliberately and living by them consistently. The general’s book argues that doing so is essential for a meaningful life. The second book I was was Guilty Creatures by Mikita Brottman. Throughout her book, she made several points I could agree with, such as the idea that women in love triangles gone awry, which are a staple of true crime, receive harsher treatment than the man or men involved. The writing was excellent, and all the characters, the victim and perpetrators, were portrayed in their complexity. The ending conclusion is that, as a society, we throw stones at murderers because we are uncomfortable with any familiarity we may have with someone accused of such a heinous crime. There was also an ongoing case being made that we should really feel compassion, if not even pity, for the perpetrators of the murder, and they were capable of loving and caring relationships, even if they killed their best friend/ husband.
If one wants the details, then I would recommend reading the book; it is well written. In brief, the story centers on two couples: Denise and Mike Williams, and Brian and Kathy Winchester. I first came across this case on an episode of the Investigation Discovery show Disappeared. Denise and Brian have a long-term affair, and Brian eventually kills Mike, planning the murder with Denise’s assistance. The reader is provided a backdrop of a restrictive religious upbringing, private school education, and the damage that purity culture wreaks upon the development of an individual’s understanding of desire. I will go ahead and poke a hole in the author’s argument that those who consume true crime aren’t capable of seeing any similarities. The religious background I came from was steeped in purity culture. I agree it sends damaging messages to young people and sets up adolescents for complicated relationships, if not failure, when it comes to romantic relationships. The problem I had was that purity culture could explain the cruel and evil behavior of these two individuals. It might be plausible to argue that it laid a foundation for poor coping mechanisms when it comes to the affair, but once you get into the planning and carrying out of a murder, I am lost on its relevance.
Since many of my peers and I who were raised with and steeped in the purity culturea nd did not plan similar crimes, then there has to be another reason. I would argue that, for Brian, it comes down to selfishness, as it does for Denise. They also wanted the life insurance money. In my mind, their lack of good character and their values set them along this path. They both desire comfort, wealth, and maintaining an appearance of not filing for divorce over resolving conflict, equitable division of assets, and developing character through sacrifice. Religion takes a beating throughout the book, and I’m all for calling out toxic organized religious organizations, but mentioning an overpriced marriage conference they went to, and how one of the churches they attend together asks for tithes as a way to prop up the argument that their religion contributed to their instability that led to the murder, I find laughable. They had agency throughout the book to make choices that would have led to different results.
If their religion was causing harm and if they were deluding themselves into thinking that God was ordaining the murder of Mike, it was their responsibility to change their religion and not to cause harm to another human being. What saddens and angers me the most when I watch true crime, especially when a killer tries to shift blame or say that they didn’t have another option, is that there are, most of the time, clearly opportunities to avoid a tragic outcome. That was the case here. Instead of feeling pity for a domestic abuser and a woman who, at a minimum, was complicit in the murder of her husband, I spent a lot of time while reading the book thinking about the voiceless victims of the crime, the children of Denise and Bryan. Bryan’s son and Denise’s daughter will undoubtedly have trauma and other challenges from the choices their parents made. Mike’s mother featured prominently in the book and consistently advocated over the years to keep his case in the public eye. Crime never affects just one person. It has a ripple effect that changes many lives forever and damages relationships, often irreparably. Mike’s mother eventually lost contact with her granddaughter. The layers of loss can make dealing with the initial loss even more difficult.
As I finished Guilty Creatures, all I could keep thinking was, if Denise and Bryan had lived by the values they said they valued, Mike wouldn’t have died. I’m not even sure there would have been a long-term affair to begin with. Whenever we aren’t living in alignment with the values we profess to hold, there is a price to pay. If we start creating two different worlds to exist with, the people around us can tell. Mike had noticed differences in Denise’s behavior and had started asking questions. I’ve been thinking about ways I can align with what is important to me. Most people are not living separate lives, having planned a murder for life insurance money, but I know that I’m not always aligned with my values, or I understand why it would be tempting to deviate.
The author went on to make a point that the community had turned a blind eye to the disappearance of Mike, and even those who were suspicious of Brian and Denise attended their wedding, for example. I didn’t quite understand the greater point; maybe it was that if there had been wider community pressure on the couple, Brian would have cracked sooner and revealed the location of Mike’s remains? Or was the point that the community at large was complicit in the uncomfortable truth that they were likely socializing with murderers? I felt as though I understood the points the book, Guilty Creatures, was making most of the time, but this point stumped me. I felt as though it was cruel to say that people in the community, especially those who had known Mike, should have done more. His own mother could not have done more for years, and it was only the confession of the murderer that brought closure to the case. There was a lot of time spent examining the motivations and consequences for the guilty; what about the classmates of Mike’s daughter? Let’s create a hypothetical situation. You’re a parent whose child interacts with Anslee, the child of Denise and Mike, whether it’s at school, sports, etc. Is it looking the other way to attend said wedding to support Anslee? Are you somehow siding with Denise or saying you think she’s innocent if you invite Anslee to your child’s birthday party, and that requires you to socialize with Denise? You, the parent of Anslee’s classmate, are very uncomfortable with Mike’s disappearance, and you really haven’t heard good things about Denise’s current husband, Brian, but you don’t want to penalize a child.
All of us have to interact with people we don’t like, at a minimum, and, at worst, think might be dangerous. As a society, we have decided to lean away from mob justice and towards laws, courts, and systems that hold people accountable. Those systems are not perfect, and sometimes the guilty go free. The values of justice and innocent until proven guilty are values we try to live by in the U.S. One of the complications of the human condition is striving towards the ideals we hold dear and falling short. General McChrystal’s book, On Character, acknowledges this complication by using an example of saying “ it would be most accurate to say I’m against stealing in most circumstances” because there are some instances where stealing he found to be understandable and not in conflict with his values. What was unbearable about Guilty Creatures and the main characters was their lack of self-awareness and honesty. If someone is honest with themselves and others about where they fall short of their values, it’s much easier to extend grace. Denise and Brian judged others harshly, weren’t honest about their own shortcomings, and contributed mightily to the suffering of those around them.
After I had read these two books, I sat, thinking, what lessons could I take with me that would be most useful? The first is that understanding that consistently interrogating my values, why they are what they are, and whether I am living aligned with them, is helpful. The second is that choices made in moments of selfishness can ripple through generations and cause intergenerational trauma that can destroy lives. I’ve started thinking about what choices my future self and future children will be glad I made.
Living on the Spectrum 
Leave a comment