True crime fans v criminal lawyers: Obsession shaking up courtrooms

Bill Doogue, director and criminal defence lawyer at Doogue + George – the firm retained by Patterson – told Lawyers Weekly there were “at least two times” where public observers had been caught trying to take selfies with Patterson in the background.

He added there had been a “call-out” on a true crime site for people to try and get photos of the trial’s participants. Doogue, a criminal lawyer for over three decades, said he has never seen this before.

From the moment three people died and another fell gravely ill after eating toxic-mushrooms in a meal prepared by Patterson, there has been a frenzy among the true crime community. This reached new heights during the trial and has continued after the guilty verdict.

Social media platforms like Reddit and X were inundated with theories that speculated on her guilt (or lack thereof), examined even the smallest pieces of information, and debated legal procedure. This fascination often spilled over in the courtroom.

“I suppose what was interesting was there were people that follow a large number of cases, and they come up and talk to you about them. To be fair to them, some of them are quite interesting, engaged, smart people and some of the things they say [have] quite interesting perspectives. That’s the advantage of the citizen journalist.

“The disadvantage is their really strange views and they are problematic in their behaviour, in terms of trying to approach a client when she is in the dock so they could talk to her. [It’s] the sort of thing you wouldn’t see in a normal case,” Doogue said.

VIEW ALL

Doogue said some of the behaviour could make people feel “on edge”, particularly after the legal team was made aware of a person “who they thought was oddly obsessed with her in particular”.

Former journalist and professor of media at the University of Sydney, Professor Catharine Lumby, said the true crime fascination is a “very old obsession”, with roots that trace back to the 19th century.

In Patterson’s case, Professor Lumby told Lawyers Weekly it was likely fanatics became so attached because she was a woman accused of murdering members of her own family by cooking for them.

“Stereotypically, women are meant to nurture people, and one of the primary ways we do that is through feeding them. The idea that rather than nurturing and caring for your family through preparing food, you’re seeking to poison them, it’s very Shakesperean,” she said.

In a similar vein, fanatics followed the trial of Chris Dawson, a man convicted for the 1982 murder of his wife, Lynette Simms. Professor Lumby explained the true crime obsession in Dawson’s case was because the circumstances of crime was out of the ordinary, “but it’s also on the edge of our psyche in the sense that it’s our worst fear”.

“Part of this is the mythic status we attach to family, to the bonds of family, and when someone absolutely defies these norms, it brings our worst fears to light that maybe families aren’t as harmonious or normal as we think. It’s like a rupture in the social contract,” she said.

Joseph Stephenson, criminal law expert and co-director at Elbob & Stephenson Legal, said while Patterson’s trial brought the true crime fascination more into the open, there has been an increasing number of people who want to watch live proceedings unfold.

“We found over the last six to 12 months, there are more people in the court now just observing, and I think that has become more prevalent because a lot of courts allow you to observe online.

“The last time I have been in court, there were maybe four or five people simply observing. It’s very, very common now to have people observing where previously, probably pre-COVID, unless you had a real vested interest in the matter, you never had observers,” he said.

Much like Doogue, Stephenson said the lawyers at his firm have a lot of people from the public come up to ask questions about what has happened in court. Stephenson said this is likely because, to an outsider, the law “is a foreign concept and a foreign procedure”.

“Everyone loves true crime and now to be able to see what goes on in a courtroom, a lot of people get on that. The observers in court are not just limited to students and journalist, there are just people generally observing … [and] anything they hear in court, they are entitled to hear. There’s no barrier for them to observe,” he added.

Where true crime fanatics may step over the line

From a criminal lawyer’s perspective, Stephenson explained having so much fascination in and outside of the courtroom can pose a risk to the integrity of a jury trial. While jurors are tightly regulated on what they can and cannot do, they may accidently stumble across information – especially if the case attracts huge attention.

“There’s a fine balance between people being interested, and providing commentary and their opinions on things. It’s a very, very fine line to walk, but it’s not something that is easily dealt with because you can’t stop people from observing court, you can’t stop people from providing their opinion,” Stephenson said.

Professor Lumby said while trained journalists and legal professionals understand contempt of court, sub judice, and can abide by suppression and non-publication orders, the general public may have “no knowledge” of these restrictions.

For instance, after Adrian Bayley was charged with the rape and murder of Jill Meagher, a member of the public discovered his priors and “blithely tweeted” about them. It was retweeted 30,000 times.

“What are you going to do with those people, call them all before the court and say you’re in contempt? Of course not. That’s the other thing about social media, is there are people engaging in dialogue that is sometimes flagrantly in contempt of court,” the professor said.

Reflecting on past matters, Stephenson added the true crime fascination can have “absolutely devastating” impacts on an accused person’s mental health and their support networks.

Even if the accused person is found not guilty or has their convictions later acquitted, Stephenson said the damage from social media commentary has already been done. Former clients have lost jobs and family, “all because of allegations plastered over social media”.

Doogue acknowledged the fascination some have with true crime and said members of the public should always be entitled to walk into and observe any open courtroom, but shared there seemed to be a lack of understanding when it came to their behaviour.

“In a matter where the subject is serious and sad, there is a level of respect that should be the starting point, [and that is] respect to the family of the deceased. Anything you do that detracts from the respectful nature of court proceedings might impact on them, and people don’t seem to get that,” Doogue said.

Educating members of the public – and keeping the doors to courtrooms open – can be a powerful tool to moderating both online and offline behaviour, Professor Lumby said. This was especially evident in Justice Michael Lee’s decision to livestream Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation action against Network Ten.

“In the age of social media, you are not going to stop rogue commentators. We can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube. The best thing we can do is have well-trained journalists and judges with a contemporary mindset, like Justice Lee,” Professor Lumby said.

“They live in the modern world and have accepted there is high public interest in some matters, so are meeting the public halfway.

“They are going to be there no matter what, so why not let them see how the justice process works? The more people who understand the justice system, the more faith they will have in it. Let everybody into the courtrooms virtually and let them have the opportunity to see justice works, rather than speculating about it.”