The fundamental sickness at the heart of true crime as a mass media institution is the endless, fruitless attempts to pathologise the void. Not every awful act begets a complex inner. Erin Patterson's triple-homicide via death-cap-mushroom-infused-beef-wellington is perhaps the most publicised criminal case of my adult life, unquestionably so from the vantage point of local Oz media, and yet not once, not in the TV news spots, the splashy front-page grabs, the courtroom livetweet threads, nor in any of the cash-in 'what really happened???' books that were rushed to shelves, and that I've idly thumbed through in the off hours at work, has anyone managed to explain what about this trial has captured the minds of a nation. I'm not sure anyone has successfully convinced me that it even has. Is this crime compelling, or novel, or does it just have the appearance of novelty? Did the media cycle spin so fast that the coverage became the story? Are we reacting to a modern myth, or are we projecting heightened philosophies onto a story that only seems to hold the shape of one? Is there actually anything to glean from this trial past the simple evil of the act that spurred it?
Recent reviews
Recent lists
Recent writings
✦
✦
✦

i'm not a true crime guy, but even i understand why certain cases capture the public imagination. this one always leaves me wondering why the media was so obsessed with it it seems like our cultures (globalized individualized neoliberal capitalist etc.) do not equip people with the capacity for accepting that some people are boring psychopaths. idk lol