Triple murderer Erin Patterson: When did violent crime become light entertainment?

After Erin Patterson was found guilty, Nine media ran an article roughly diagnosing her as a narcissist by someone who’d never met her. When did violent crime become light entertainment?

Erin Patterson has been found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. Let a thousand podcasts launch. Books, films, documentary studies are being rushed into production as we speak.

The true-crime industry, for an industry it is, is going into hyperdrive in an effort to satisfy the overwhelming interest in this case.

Her victims have become almost a postscript in this appalling case of death by poisoning. Gail Patterson, 70, Heather Wilkinson, 66, and Don Patterson, 70, died at the Austin Hospital. Don had received a liver transplant but died within a day of surgery. Ian Wilkinson, then 69, remained hospitalised for more than seven weeks but survived the attempt on his life. His evidence in the trial went a long way to convincing the jury of Erin Patterson’s guilt.

When the story broke in The Australian almost two years ago, it was apparent this was no tale with a two-day shelf life.

Within days it ran on major news networks around the world.

Erin Patterson arriving in the back of a prison transport vehicle at Latrobe Valley Magistrate's Court in Morwell, Australia. Picture: AFP

Global interest bubbles away to this day. Book deals have been signed.

Podcasters are running audio checks and clearing their throats.

My contacts in television tell me they are being inundated with pitches from production companies, each with their own exclusive offerings on Patterson and her disgraceful crimes.

It is understandable this case would attract an enormous amount of attention. The real question is, why are we fascinated when we should be appalled?

Patterson murdered three people and seriously injured another.

It was no spontaneous outburst of violence, often referred to in the true-crime genre as a crime of passion. This was a cold, calculating decision to commit mass murder, planned and organised across weeks, if not months.

True crime is at its worst when it veers from the victim’s perspective. More often it is little more than a voyeuristic replay of humanity at its worst. The growing true-crime obsession has produced ugly results in recent times.

Ethan Chapin, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Madison Mogen, 21, were brutally stabbed to death at their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho, in what has become known as the 2022 University of Idaho murders.

While police conducted their investigation in secret, TikTokers, podcasters and social media influencers began their own dismal inquiries.

Hundreds of misguided conclusions were offered on social media, including allegations family members of the victims had perpetrated the killings.

When Bryan Kohberger, a PhD student at the neighbouring Washington State University, was charged with the murders, amateur internet sleuths did not believe he was the killer and continued to make wild accusations.

A week ago Kohberger, now 30, pleaded guilty to burglary and four counts of murder in a plea deal in which he will avoid the death penalty and be imprisoned for life without prospect of parole.

Don’t expect any apologies from self-appointed internet detectives. Rather, with his guilty plea, there is now an expectation of a rush to release a raft of voyeuristic true-crime programs based on the case, ignoring the raw grief of friends and family members.

Bryan Kohberger, charged in the murders of four University of Idaho students, appears at the Ada County Courthouse. Picture: AP

On cue, the ABC has announced a program, Crime Night! According to the description in Variety magazine, host Julia Zemiro will “lead a panel of criminologists and comedians to dissect infamous true-crime cases, discovering the science behind the crime and using those same techniques to examine panellists’ own lives”.

The show is supposed to screen in August. There is no indication of the crimes to be examined in this conceptual hell of a program, but when did violent offending become light entertainment?

When did it become acceptable for victims of crime, historical or contemporary, to become comedy fodder?

After Patterson was found guilty on all counts on Monday, a lot of forgettable takes followed. Much of the analysis didn’t even bother to name the victims.

One waste of ink suggested the case showed Australians were engaged in a pursuit of truth over misinformation.

The violent deaths of three people was almost a triviality.

The nation’s temperature had been taken and, the writer inferred, the hubbub revealed we were collectively in rude health.

‘I’M A PSYCHOLOGIST’

On Tuesday, Nine media ran an article with the clickbait headline, “I’m a Psychologist. I know this kind of personality.” In this piece of eye-glazing nonsense, Patterson was roughly diagnosed as a narcissist by someone who had never met her, replete with references to ancient Greek mythology.

The established facts are that Patterson was much worse than a ruthless controller of people. Rather, she was out of control.

She sought not to manipulate or dominate her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson or Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson and Heather’s husband Ian, at her home in Leongatha. She sought to destroy them.

Clearly there is more to the psychology of Patterson than narcissism.

The results of the real psychiatric assessments conducted as part of the sentencing process will be intriguing.

Without wanting to contribute to the street-corner babble, I expect it will be determined that she presents with a complex array of personality disorders.

Top of that list will be a pronounced lack of empathy for her victims, three of whom died in excruciating pain from multiple organ failures while Patterson desperately tried to cover her tracks.

The sole survivor, Wilkinson, also experienced almost unimaginable pain and suffering and is deeply immersed in grief.

He woke from a deep delirium to discover his wife and two best friends were dead.

While demand exceeds supply, the clamour for content is likely to produce some truly horrific efforts, all racing against the clock to get their products to a market with a bloodlust. True crime has its place when the focus is on victims. When it becomes a salacious reiteration that essentially trivialises violence and victims’ suffering, we need to vote early and often with our feet.