When women kill, we look for reasons to justify their actions

Contrary to what many people think, the world of forensic psychology is not glamorous. We rarely profile people, we don’t do stakeouts, and we have a lot of meetings.

On Monday afternoon, as I filed into yet another meeting, things were a little different. My phone lit up with messages. “GUILTY!” Others in the room received the same kinds of texts – a verdict in the Erin Patterson case had been delivered. An animated discussion about the trial and the verdict immediately ensued.

The bizarre uniqueness of the Erin Patterson trial kept us transfixed.

Even in forensic circles, where we are typically inured to stories of murder and mayhem, there’s been much fascination and conjecture about this case.

Generally, we meet each offence with a shrug and prepare for a file to cross our desks someday, when we’ll launch into the usual business of risk assessments, formulating the offence and planning treatment. But this case elicited a different reaction in us for the same reasons the public have been riveted by the investigation and the trial: it’s very rare for a woman to engage in acts of serial or mass murder. Violent female offenders intrigue us by virtue of bucking the typical, expected female personality pattern of being law-abiding, self-sacrificial and compliant.

The nature of Patterson’s offending with multiple victims, the seeming lack of motive, her staunch denial and use of a naturally occurring poison were all additional factors piquing our interest.

By nature, humans are pattern-seeking creatures. Anything out of the norm tends to draw significant interest as we try to make sense of it. We’ve seen similar interest directed at other alleged female offenders – Lindy Chamberlain, Kathleen Folbigg, Keli Lane and Lucy Letby, among others. Though Chamberlain and Folbigg were ultimately found not guilty, to this day they remain subjects of fascination.

As with Patterson’s case, each of their respective trials was accompanied by a media frenzy, huge public interest and questions around their alleged motive.

Most of us have strong opinions about women who offend. We find it difficult to believe that some women might offend just as men do, and easier to believe that a woman who offends is either an innocent victim, or terribly deviant in some way. Here, the public splits, with the narrative of the long-suffering woman acting in self-defence, or as a trauma response, competing with that of the harsh, unemotional woman who is a “psychopath” who “should be locked away forever”.

This social split reflects our experiences and beliefs about women. Often, we unconsciously decide which narrative we will rely on based on the age and attractiveness of the perpetrator, their race, how closely their lives mirror our own experiences, and the perceived likeability and vulnerability of the victims.

The way we treat female offenders is often vastly different to male offenders, with a much greater emphasis placed on understanding associated factors such as childhood trauma or domestic violence. Conversely, we also see harsher commentary and calls for punishment, especially when a woman harms someone seen as vulnerable, such as a child or an elderly person. There’s rarely a middle ground.

On her motive for murdering Heather Wilkinson and Don and Gail Patterson, Erin Patterson hasn’t been forthcoming. While there is no good reason for one person to kill another, most murders have some clear motive – whether passion, jealousy, anger, or for instrumental reasons such as finances. A seemingly motiveless act is extremely rare.

Yet, at the end of this trial, beyond a fuzzy “might be because she was angry at the family”, we are no clearer on why this happened. And where there is a gap, conjecture rushes in to fill the space.

The use of food as a tool for murder undoubtedly adds to the intrigue for many. Female murderers often tend to use indirect means, such as arson or poison, which is likely related to lower physical strength. These acts are often secretive and hidden, and the conjecture about the procurement of the murder weapons adds to the mystery. Because any one of us could mistakenly consume a toxic mushroom, or has in-laws who we don’t get along with, these murders feel much closer to home than other acts of physical violence.

Patterson has consistently denied the offending, which is not uncommon. I’ve worked with many offenders who state their innocence – sometimes even after pleading guilty. Denial can be a way of evading punishment or accountability. For some, it can be a means of reducing shame and maintaining self-esteem.

Though the public and judiciary make much of denial and “remorse” as indicators of rehabilitation, in forensic psychology it is not seen as a relevant risk factor for potential reoffending. But denial makes understanding a crime much more difficult.

Perhaps our fascination with female offenders is reflective of the general human drive to understand darkness and the splits within our own psyches, and true crime allows us to explore these factors from a safe distance.

However, despite the media attention paid to certain women who have offended violently, female offenders are rare. So rare, in fact, that we do not yet fully understand what drives certain offending behaviours in women.

There’s much to think about as we consider the Patterson case, most notably what our cultural obsession with certain types of crimes says about us, the beliefs we hold, and the comforting fictions we like to tell ourselves.

Dr Ahona Guha is a clinical and forensic psychologist, trauma expert and author based in Melbourne.