DOCUMENT: Bizarre, Crime

Gauguin Attacker Angered By "Very Homosexual" Art

Suspect said she was "CIA" with "a radio in my head"

UPDATE: Portrait (mug shot) of Susan Burns, from a previous arrest

APRIL 4--The woman who allegedly tried to tear a Gauguin painting off a wall at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. has been identified as a 53-year-old convicted felon who, after her arrest Friday, told an investigator that the French artist was “evil” and that his artwork “has nudity and is bad for the children.”

Suspect Susan Burns, who turned 53 Friday, also said that the Gauguin painting “Two Tahitian Women,” which is pictured at right and valued at $80 million, is “very homosexual. I was trying to remove it. I think it should be burned,” according to a criminal complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court. “I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you,” added Burns, who lives in Alexandria, Virginia.

On Friday afternoon, Burns allegedly walked over to the Gauguin painting in Gallery 214-C and “grabbed the frame holding said painting on its left side and attempted to pull it off the wall.” Burns, the misdemeanor complaint charges, then “struck the middle of the painting with her right fist.” However, since the painting was “protected by a transparent acrylic shield on the front,” no damage was observed.

A further analysis today of the painting revealed no damage to it, according to Deborah Ziska, a National Gallery of Art spokesperson. The complaint reveals that the “entire sequence of events was also recorded on videotape.”

Burns, who pleaded not guilty Saturday to a pair of misdemeanor counts related to the attempted Gauguin assault, appears to have a lengthy rap sheet that includes convictions for carjacking, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and assault on a law enforcement officer. (2 pages)

Comments (112)

Now that I got that out of my system, this woman is a nutter. glad she was put behind bars before she went back to that museum with a can of gasoline.
Up Next: Michelle Bachmann sues Susan Burns for "Stealing Her Act".
unfortunately i wasnt there that day with my trusty bucket of water. i would have thrown onto poor mentally deranged susan and watched as she screamed"im melllllting!! im melttttting" as she began to melt away into nothing. whenever evil takes possession of someone they always do things like what susan did lol
This woman is not schizophrenic. This appears more like a scam to get government medical assistance. The rap sheet only proves she is institutionalized. She either cannot or does not want to cope with the challenges of living in an unforgiving society. She may or may not be educated. This looks more like a scheme to enter the prison system for the three squares a day, shelter, and the many other tax dollar funded benefits prisoners have by being incarcerated. Heck, they even get free college and or vocational training at tax payers' expense. It's a racket for some. She is not as mentally sick as she wants you to think. Her actions are part of "playing crazy." But she probably has other health issues that she hopes will be tended to, at no cost to herself. Frankly, I'm not buying it.
you know what-Fark her. not because she is mentally ill-not because she lost her job-those are things that happen all the time to people both on and off medications. If she loses her job/benefits its HER responsibility to MAKE SURE SHE FINDS A WAY to get more-not the museum, or the general public. There are any number of public health options and private options for getting medications that cost NO money. As someone who was taking these drugs, she was well aware what not taking them leads to-as her long criminal rap sheet attests to. No, what actually bothers me is-even in her delusions she is still a homophobic bigot. Reality does not alter your values or their expression-please don't try and cover that by blaming her schizophrenia. it is not a get out of jail free card here. How long until she goes off and kills someone, even if she just perceives them to be "homosexual?" We need to stop babying people forever and acknowledge that some people are just NOT going to do well in a normal society and DO something about it. better that than cycling these people endlessly through the mental health /criminal justice systems.
Dude. She thinks the CIA put a radio in her brain. Do you honestly think the meds are going to work right all the time? Hell no, she will relapse. She will have moments. Think about that.
Thank God this can't happen to me - I have a tinfoil hat!
I hope the courts get this woman the help she so desperately needs. Schizophrenics can't help themselves, folks.
Why has the comments section become a Political forum/battleground? Repub vs dem, Tea Party Vs liberal. Just STFU! READ The stories! This site is more about crimes not politics
Republicans are more likely to be schizophrenic, everyone knows this. Except Republicans.
For the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the House vote was: Democrats -- 152 for, 96 against; Republicans -- 138 for, 34 against. In the Senate: Democrats – 46 for, 21 against; Republicans – 27 for, 6 against. That refutes statements like “The Democrats stood almost unanimously against the civil rights act of 1964. (bryanabbott)” and “And more Republicans voted for the civil rights bill than Dems. (Japes MacFarland).” Mr. Abbott and Mr. MacFarland would have gotten the correct figures had they Googled +”Civil Rights Act” +1964 +congress +vote. I honestly don't get their mindset, so here’s a question for them: Why did you try to prove a point with falsehoods that you could have easily checked?
If one does a little math using your figures you will find 80% of Republican house members voted for the civil rights act. 61% of Democrat house members voted for the civil rights act. 81% of Senate Republicans voted for the civil rights act. 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the civil rights act. The civil rights act would never have passed without such strong support from Republicans. As you can see a significant larger percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act than Democrats. Another little piece of history you might not be aware of is Eisenhower initially proposed the civil rights act however, there was a very strong Democrat from Texas that fought him. Who was this Democrat you ask? Why not other than Lyndon Johnson. So Democrats (liberals) have always been for civil rights. What 20th century president rounded up the Germans during WW1? Answer---liberal progressive democrat Woodrow Wilson What 20 century president rounded up Americans of Japanese decent and put them in camps? Answer--The liberal progressive democrat icon FDR
There's no question that the Civil Rights Act would not have passed had it not been with the support of Senate and House Republicans. I'll go you one better: Republicans provided the critical cloture votes for ending a filibuster organized by Southern Democrats to tie up the bill in the Senate. In your comments you're overlooking that this was 1964, not 2011. There was still a spirit of bipartisanship, and social liberals were found in both parties. The cause of civil rights was long championed by liberals, Republicans as well as Democrats. Someone here suggested that Lyndon Johnson had to be forced to sign the bill into law. Not true. It was drafted by Johnson's administration, chiefly by the Justice Department headed by Robert F. Kennedy. Johnson saw that the time had come -- he had good will following the Kennedy assassination, and the country had become sympathetic to *** activism, a far cry from when he was Senate majority leader and advised President Eisenhower not to submit a civil rights bill. When he signed the bill he did so even though he foresaw that the Democrats would lose the South, a key component of the Democratic coalition
My take on this has always been that southern racists quit the democratic party when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Then the Republicans began the Southern Strategy to absorb them. As LBJ said "I have just given the South to the Republican party for thirty years". That is why today Republicans control the (red) South while the Democrats control the (blue) Aggressor states, when before 1964 it was the opposite.
In the early Seventies, Richard Nixon seized on the Southern Strategy initiative popularized by Kevin Phillips (in "The Coming Republican Majority"). The GOP successfully exploited the race issue so that segregationists switched parties. One result is that for national elections Republicans have maintained a solid bloc in the South (though they almost certainly would have lost Florida if the 2000 election was not corrupted by improper disqualifications of presumably Democratic voters and obstructions at polling places in Democratic strongholds, not to mention a badly designed ballot in Palm Beach County). I don't think Democrats have the same hold on Blue states. What's an "Agressor" state?
I'll bet you that Japes and Cincy are married working on laptops in separate rooms :-)
My wife worked with Susan up until recently when Susan was let go from her job. My wife told me several times over the past few months that one of her coworkers was "off her meds" and showing obvious signs of mental illness. I don't know why she was fired and I don't know whether anyone tried to help her with her illness, but she has serious mental problems. You don't need to have worked with her to know that; it's obvious from what's written above. And it's a sad story. It has funny elements, as do most tales of extreme behavior, but at its core it's about a woman who is in a very bad state. The comments here are also pretty sad. She is neither a right-winger nor a left-winger. She is mentally ill. Those of you who have made statements about her politics are projecting. Anyway, continue as you were. Enjoy yourselves.
swiftcall wrote: "The KKK isn't terrorism? What about MLK?" You opened it up! Repubs fought FOR civil rights. Dems didn't, much. My Grandpa raised me to be a strong Democrat. Totally blow-off ANYTHING the Republicans said. Gramps would go door to door every election pushing for the Dems. He figured by making me help, I'd go the same way. Grampa was also a big wig of my states KKK group. He'd go to all of the meetings, cross burnings, etc. and of course, drag me along too many times. That was about the time I became a Republican. The difference was remarkable. No hate speeches, no hangings of the ones they considered ignorant. I'm glad Gramps is dead now. It would drive him crazy that we have a black man in the White House, even if he is a Democrat. THAT, along with my being Conservative probably has Pops spinning in his grave. Remember folks. Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The Republican Party was born out of the concept that all people should be free regardless of their skin color. When slavery ended the Southern Democrats ingeniously developed systems to maintain a plantation mentality in the form of entitlements. When that began to fail they used fear in the form of the KKK. Now they've perfected their techniques using economic slavery. Lyndon Johnson had to be dragged to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Robert Byrd was a proud KKK member. And people of color still flock to them like a crack addict to a dealer. One other thing: Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican, as was Abraham Lincoln!!! Go ahead Dims, make your 'spins' and show your ignorance. As for me, I know the history, I LIVED IT!!! btw! Did you see the fact that King was a Republican along with honest Abe?!?!?
Your statements are not totally true, but being a rebuplican that is typical! Dr. MLK was not a republican, his daddy was a republican, Dr. MLK was Democratic and a civil rights activist. As were the people who fought for equal rights for all humans, they were called then and still to this date LIBERALS. And yes! I would rather be a liberal, the ones who fought for civil rights, the women's suffrage, rights for people with disablities, for fair wages, better working conditions for the low income, for social security for the elderly, and the list of compassions for everyone, not just the once that look like them or live in their neighborhoods, and for that I am PROUD to call myself a Liberal and Democratic. You take care and God bless you and your family espeically your Grandfather for all the hard work he did for mankind. I will lift you up in prayers, because you seem so bitter and full of hate.
Yeah, you're right: Republicans have lost their way.
Wow....... teabagger nonsense. It is not uncommon for political parties to swap ideologies over time. The current "neocons" would absolutely hate Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower and Berry Goldwater (and visa versa) if they ran today on their original platforms. Currently the major party championing any civil rights is the Democratic Party. .... and most of the loonies and haters tend to come from the GOP these days.
No matter how many screen names this ignorant teabagger posts under, he still continues to spew one lie after another. MLK was not a republican. That right wing meme was shot down long ago.
Interesting comment from someone who joined not even an hour before making this post. I smell a rat. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Wow Cincy, you really are an ignorant c***.
I was surprised that the other fellow was wrong. It looks like you are, again! lol :)
Lincoln was., genius. (you know, "honest Abe") And most of the people who fought to end slavery were devout Christians. And it was Democrats who started the KKK. And more Republicans voted for the civil rights bill than Dems. You lose. Also, if any college kid read any speech by JFK without his name on it today, they'd guess it was written by a Republican. The left has taken over the Democratic party, and there are no real Liberals left. I just thought you should know that. :)
Nice try Japes. The KKK was not founded by 'democrats', it was founded by a few racist southerners who were at the time democrats. All of those racist southerners were chased out of the party when the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act. All of those racist KKK members became members of the GOP, where they and their descendants are now permanently embedded.
And you might look up that bigot Al Gore Sr. He is on record as not only lobbying against the civil rights act of 1964 but also for voting AGAINST it.
Cincy, Do your homework!!! The Democrats stood almost unanimously against the civil rights act of 1964. It's all on record. Read up! And MLK's niece stands by her assertion that he was a Republican. His very Partisan, liberal son disputes it. Republicans led the charge to free the slaves and they took charge of the 1964 civil rights act and passed it by a strong majority. These are indisputable facts.
"All of those racist KKK members became members of the GOP..." Thomas Sowell and many other very dignified and respected, highly intelligent black Republicans today would strongly disagree with you. MLK said he had a dream that people would stop judging others by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. This is a primary tenant of conservatism. I'm sure you know this, don't you?
Yet right wingers are supremely concerned with making sure that brown people can't vote.....
Don't worry about it Japes. I was there, I know the truth. Remember with Dims, you can't fix stupid.
The only place that 'rick' has been is in his mommy's basement eating cheetos. And telling lies about MLK, who was NOT a republican.
Everywhere else I try to look it seems confirmed that MLK was a Republican. Still, what matters to me is his wonderful dream about a color blind society. This is, obviously, the dream of an individual who has conservative values, whether he was a Republican or not. ...makes no diff. to this discussion :)
"... it was founded by a few racist southerners who were at the time democrats. " Okay, fair enough, thanks for the distinction. :)
Its been fun everyone but I have to catch a few zzssss before going to work. Night!
Gauguin certainly looks evil with that pose. The suspect may have thought he was putting thoughts in her head...."Susan Burns, destroy my work of art and I'll tell you the secret the two Tahitian women are sharing in the portrait." It's all about the secrets with crazy people (thus the CIA thing). OR, maybe Burns acted out because as a child, she was once frightened by a pair of boobs named swiftcall and Mo Ma'.
... she hadn't yet made it the the Robert Maplethorpe exhibit...
I don't understand... the CIA hates Gauguin?
Yeah, listening to Rush and watching Beck will make you do this stuff. That's why it happens a million+ times per day.Beck and Rush have that kind of control. By the way, I listen to Rush, watch Beck and read Drudge but I think the "Two Tahitian Women" are hot. I'd be lokking too if I were the other chick. Meow!!!
Seconded
Art is what it is, especially dated art from our distant past, but 80 million? The entirety of our whole monetary system is so out of whack and things like that while 'deemed' priceless prove it. it's screwy. 80 million dollars isn't worth 80 million ya know? Not even close. It's like rents around the country, say you're paying 2000 a month for a 200,000 house 3 years ago, now the house is worth what it should be, around 100.000, but these people still want 2000 a month and renters really have no recourse because they're all holding the line so the rich don't get poorer like the rest of us out here are It's fuuuuuuc7ed is what it is. Then you have people getting their rent food and medical paid and haven't worked a day in three generations. God help us all...
Are you a homeowner? Doesn't sound like it, because if you were, and had a $200,000 home that you rented out that was now worth $100,000, you'd quickly realize that your mortage payment and taxes, and upkeep/repair costs, are STILL THE SAME! Ha ha.
She probably also thought one of the women in the paintings was Sarah Palin. She sounds and acts like a typical hateful liberal.
Your comment is ridiculous. "Typical liberals" are not the folks who call works of art containing bare breasts "evil", who think homosexuality is evil, and who worry about children being corrupted by Gauguin. There is however, another group of people who could fit this description. I'll let you rub a couple braincells together and see if you can make the connection. This lady in particular seems to be insane. Political affiliation kinda has to take a backseat to crazy.
"Your comment is ridiculous. "Typical liberals" are not the folks who call works of art containing bare breasts "evil"" But they are the ones who have irrational hatred for a decent woman who took on corrupt aspects of her own party once she became governor, put herself through college, has raised a great family and didn't abort a downs kid (like 90% of other people who find out their kid has downs) She has stood up and strong to multiple creeps like yourself, who put their agenda before truth and try and portray her as far worse than she is. I think that was his obvious point, to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells that is. (...and I insult you as a stupid creep, because you insulted that stranger unjustly (no evidence and unfair) for making an obvious point I've just clarified for you.)
Uh, part of my point is-- what the *** does this have to do with Sarah Palin? And yes, that comment was ridiculous, and made by someone who isn't too smart most likely, as evidenced by the ridiculous nature of the statement! So why are we talking about Sarah Palin? And why are you calling me a creep? I thought the comment was nonsensical, so I made my reply to that end. And I stand by it. And I repeat, the woman who attacked the painting is suffering from mental illness, and she did it *for that reason*. Politics really don't matter in that case. But if you feel such a need to put a label on it, you shouldn't be looking in the direction of "typical liberals" as having issues with art, boobs, and evil lesbians corrupting the children. And if you do attempt to make that point, then you're not very bright.
"There is however, another group of people who could fit this description." ---- ummm ... Islamic Extremists?
And Christian extremists too...they have a lot in common with their Islamic brethren.
Cincy, who lit the fuse on your Tampon?