A (3:16)

And I suppose for a clinician in a way it's an incredible opportunity. There are some people there who are from such extremes that it's really an opportunity to apply. Apply what you've learned, what you're learning.

B (3:29)

Look, it was an opportunity at the time though. I mean, you know, as an example, I'd been seeing someone in the university, weekly supervision with a driving phobia. Then the first person I saw in G division was a man who had been, you know, sexually abused as a child and who killed the perpetrator. And so it was a huge jump. And at that time there was no in G division, there was no psychologist or attached to the physician facility on site. There was in the community, but not on site. And there were a couple of very good forensic psychiatrists. But I do remember feeling really quite alone with it and definitely amongst psychology colleagues, sort of alone because there was nobody in the forensic field. And so it was difficult from that point of view as well. And that's really when I started to read psychoanalytic literature and that was to help me understand some of the cases and the things underneath. And I definitely had my psychotherapy and I remember increasing to an extra session a week in order to handle in a way, the sequel I to, you know, seeing people who had murdered.

A (4:46)

So you're in your own therapy?

B (4:49)

Yes, in my own therapy. But yeah, it was definitely an opportunity and one that where I learned an enormous amount. But it was also a hard one.

A (5:01)

But it seems to have become your passion at some point.

B (5:04)

It did, yeah. Yeah, I became very engrossed in the work and very interested in the work and you know, it was very salutary to realize that the so called monsters were human.

A (5:19)

That is such a simple sentence but such a massive thing to really be able to believe.

B (5:27)

Yeah.

A (5:28)

One thing I've noticed, Pamela, from your book and I've read a couple of books recently, just coincidentally by forensic psychs is how much you're checking in on yourself during sessions on your own, as you call them, biases, your own feelings. And apart from sort of keeping yourself in check, is there also an intuitive side to that?

B (5:49)

Look, there is an intuitive side. I mean, I think you sort of hit the mark in terms of using A more psychoanalytic approach, because what you call, I think, intuition, there is intuition, gut feelings, of course, but it's what we would call sort of trademark tool would be the counter transference. So you monitor in a way how you go in. And so I had to sort of prepare myself. And that wouldn't be just beforehand, that would be over a week or something if I knew something about the case that I was having a reaction to. So you'd be very mindful of going in neutrally and then you would monitor your feelings. Because in a way, from a psychoanalytic perspective, we would say there is a lot of non verbal communication going on via what might get projected into you. And if you find that you're starting to feel very afraid, you know, you have to determine, is it your fear? Is it the fear of the offender in this case, is it going to be actual? Could it, you know, become physical? Or is it that he's communicating, he or she, a really deep seated fear. And so it is a. It's a really, it's a form of deep listening. And it's a really important tool from a psychoanalytic perspective in terms of how one works. And I think particularly well, I talk about it in the book and it's not used explicitly in the justice system because you have to be trained in it and in a way to be really effective at it. You do need in a way to have had your own therapy because you need to know what's inside you, what you might be identifying with, what's yours, what's theirs, and so on.

A (7:42)

It makes complete sense. And yet I'd never thought of it before. You know, I've seen psychologists and psychiatrists myself. I mean, we talk about them a lot. And it just never occurred to me that of course you're checking with yourself constantly as well.

B (7:55)

Absolutely. And it sort of made me think that we also work very much in the here and now. So, you know, often, either over time or in a session, you might find there's a sort of offense reenactment between you and the offender, since we'll keep it to offenders. And again, that's where one needs to be very mindful of, I think certainly the index offense, but. And therefore what might be being enacted in the session, which is between you and the other person, what you might represent to that person. So that's where it becomes really useful as well. And it's very interesting because sometimes I was thinking the other day how I had to sometimes sort of fight to get sentencing comments about people who I was going to see because I would say, well, I need to know what they've done. I'm not going to sit in a room with an offender and not know what they've done. Because one also needs to be mindful that there could be reenactments. And so, again, we focus very much on the here and now and what might get replayed in terms of either the trauma, the offense, relationships, interrelational conflicts and so on.

A (9:08)

And I'm also thinking about your physicality. I mean, all of our physicalities will play into every meeting that we have. And I'm thinking about a lady we met a couple of years ago who's a prison warden in the New South Wales prison system who is tiny.

B (9:23)

She is, yeah.

A (9:25)

And I was just thinking, when you, you know, knowing that you are a woman, you are slight of build and you're going into situations with sometimes violent offenders, many times who've been violent towards women, is there a way that you assert yourself or, you know, begin that relationship?

B (9:48)

Well, it can vary, really. Often the safest place to be was the prison because. Or prison, because you could ensure that there was a prison officer nearby if you were particularly worried, or you'd word them up beforehand and say, can you keep checking in? Or you might. I always, I think, resisted having anyone actually in the room, although it was offered. So in fact, in a maximum security prison, you're often the safest because that.

A (10:17)

Would impact the session. Surely if there was a guard in the room, the prisoner's not going to want to open up or say anything.

B (10:24)

Definitely, definitely. And they're an agent of control, et cetera. So, yes, one would really not want to do that. But I think, yes, I think I was certainly younger then and, you know, in a way, vulnerable. So I think one was always very mindful of it. I think I learned over time to. It's almost sort of paradoxical, but I learned to cut to the chase. So I didn't sort of beat around the bush and make, you know, nice pleasantries too much, which sometimes people see as a way of, you know, developing a good relationship. So you talk about anything, the weather, the football, you know, whatever. And I found it was much better to cut to the chase and. Because I think there was always like a mutual anxiety, but particularly from the offender who, you know, always would see a psychologist as an agent of control as well. And you hire the system, right? Exactly, yes. Who might be giving them a favorable or unfavorable report to be released or not to be released. So I think it was always helpful just to say, sort of straight out, so, you know, talk about the crime or the offense or I've read your sentencing comments or, you know, you've pleaded not guilty or guilty and go straight, in a way, what one might say for the jugular. But in a way, I think that reassured both parties and certainly the offender, that they knew that the cards were on the table.

A (12:00)

Yeah, they, I guess, are probably pretty frightened of manipulation, frightened of what things can mean. They can come up later in court and it can be something they didn't realise at the time. That's a gut feeling.

B (12:12)

Definitely, definitely. And they could be quite vigilant about it, as could a psychologist, because he didn't want to be manipulated, you know, in the assessment or in the early interviews. And then there were things like, I mean, later on, security became much more of an issue in community facilities. It wasn't necessarily at the outset and there'd be things about, you know, where you would sit, would you sit behind the desk or near the door? And generally you would sit near the door where there was some kind of escape if you needed to move quickly. Then there used to be a duress alarm which was placed under the desk. But then there was always a thing about, well, you know, if I go to put my hand under the desk and, you know, it's a really potentially volatile situation, you feel like you'd be drawing attention to it and it could escalate. So, yes, you're always mindful of potential fracting out.

A (13:05)

That is a lot to take on at work, you know, as you're sort of daily living.

B (13:11)

Yes, yes. And I think I mentioned we actually in the community facility did get paid danger money and it was, you know, as a token, but it was a recognition that it could be dangerous.

A (13:26)

Cause in the community facility, I think this was oftentimes offenders who'd been released from prison, is that correct?

B (13:33)

Yes. Who are on parole or a community order. And I do remember one situation, again, which I mention in the book, but where. And he was a loose cannon. He was pretty volatile personality and he rang saying he was coming in with a gun and it was entirely plausible that that was possible. And so there was a sort of panic and, you know, I remember speaking to the manager immediately and that time security wasn't great and so we immediately had to put a sign up saying, you know, all luggage or baggage is going to be checked. And so. And again, there was always a fine line between later, you know, do you check baggage or don't you how much security do you put in? Don't you particularly, you know, in community psychiatric facilities as well, you know, does that heighten the vigilance or anxiety of an offender or someone out in the community or not? How much does it protect you? So, yes, I mean, in the end, he wasn't armed, but I think for.

A (14:40)

Most of us, it doesn't seem like a question. It seems like just have all the security. Pamela, why would you not just search every bag? And I'm sorry if someone feels uncomfortable because you've seen something in their bag, but, like, the potential consequences are so terrible. And also.

B (14:58)

I would agree. I agree now. Yes.

A (15:00)

They're offenders. They're people who are there for a reason, for their own choices and behaviours.

B (15:05)

Yeah. Why not? Well, not all of them are there, because most of them are there sort of involuntarily. They have to fulfill parole conditions or community orders, which can create resentment, frustration, you know, so they can. Or life's been difficult for them, often on the outside, so they can come in with all sorts of emotional baggage and you can be in the firing line for that as well.

A (15:30)

You talked about one guy who, when you. I think in your first session, he said it was one of you who put me in here. So it is that, that transference of responsibility.

B (15:40)

Yep. That kind of mentality? Absolutely, yeah.

A (15:44)

A former client of yours went on to commit a violent crime. I'm thinking specifically of the man who assaulted men in a sauna.

B (15:53)

Right.

A (15:55)

Tell us about that, about having a client. And there's no suggestion that you're responsible in any way, but certainly there must be a feeling of, could I have prevented it? Did I miss something? Is that.

B (16:06)

That was a very challenging time and it often catches you unaware. So, you know, you're often tracking somebody else and being hypervigilant about somebody else's high risk. And so I think I'm not, certainly not the only one, people would say it could happen out of left field. And in a way, this one did, because not initially, initially he was up for manslaughter and I always felt like it was potentially murder. And so I was watching him from the day he was admitted and I took the case on and I would take him to every clinical meeting because I was worried about his risk. And then, you know, I started to see him over a couple of years and, you know, he became sort of sick and more disabled. And, you know, the last time he sort of shuffled in, and this is just before the attack, and, you know, he was asking for leave to Go interstate. And he was working with a correctional officer about this. And at this point, you know, if you'd asked me, he was not somebody I was watching by that stage. I felt totally lulled by him. And again, we would refer to that now as a sort of simulation, that there was a sort of deliberate compliance, but really other things were being harbored. And so I think in that. I think it was almost a couple of days after I'd seen him, which had been a delay because I hadn't seen him quite as regularly. And that's where I think I felt some responsibility. And then I got a phone call during the week, and it was from the secretary. And she said, you know, there's been this assault, and haven't you heard about it? And so suddenly I tuned in, and then the parole officer rang, and then I realized it was my client and from the community facility. And that's quite a. You know, it certainly creates trepidation and sense of responsibility. I think two people had been seriously. Well, three people are involved, and one man was seriously injured, another injured, and there was a question of life and death for one man. And I remember in that week, that whole week, you know, every day, just watching it, and I really did feel like I had blood on my hands. And I think that's the feeling it can create. And I had external supervision also at the time. And there were questions slightly raised about the intervals of time I'd been seeing this person. And then, of course, you know, there's issues for the facility. So then, of course, they're very concerned about the welfare of the psychologist, but also for, you know, what might have transpired that could have protected or prevented this crime. As it happens, the man survived, but.

A (19:00)

With injuries, and had he not, there could well have been a big inquest. I'm thinking about, for example, the Gargasulas case, when the man who drove down Bourke Street Mall and killed a lot of people. And in the aftermath, there were lots of conversations about his. What was known about him as an offender, what was known about his psychological state and all that. So, I mean, that it's got the potential for you to. There's a lot of people who'd sort of say to you, why. Why bother? Why do this job when you work so hard, you give so much of it of yourself to people, and then you could be dragged through a process later on with people accusing you of not doing enough or.

B (19:39)

I mean, I certainly wasn't, you know, within the institution. I wasn't accused, but one can't help feeling the responsibility. And I remember talking to a very senior forensic psychiatrist at the time where he experienced something similar. And because you always err on the side of caution, you know, he said, just like you said, he felt like giving up, like, what's the point at that point. And I think I became really, in the next month, super vigilant and really like a control agent and checking in with the parole officer every week and really being much more on the control side of things and therapeutic, which I was aware of. But one became so hypervigilant and so, I mean, then things settled down. But it does create a shock and a fright and a sense of responsibility. And, I mean, only recently, actually, in supervision, a case came up which, you know, say a couple of months ago, turned up in the paper and, you know, he had had a history of very high risk, very serious offences. Now, both of us had deemed him to be high risk and were surprised that he'd been let out, et cetera, on parole. And, you know, eventually, more recently, he committed another very serious off. So, again, you go back to your notes, you start checking things and yeah, it is something that you have to live with. So I think even though one really, and I have always erred on the side of caution, things can happen.

A (21:29)

If you'd like to talk to someone about abuse that's taken place in your life, no matter how long ago it happened, your GP is always a good place to start. If that's not going to work for you, you can contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or via their website, 1-800-Respect.org au. Or you can call Lifeline's 24 hour phone counselling service on 13, 11, 14. It seems like you can't be egocentric in this line of work. I mean, these things happen. Plus there's a lot that's out of your control. You can write the report that says someone's high risk and someone else further up the chain can deem them, you know, ready for parole. You talk in the book a number of times about realising you'd been conned by someone you were working with. That would be a big admission for a lot of people. A lot of people can never admit they fell for something. They were conned. But here you are, so experienced, so well educated, and I love the way you say, and then I realise I was conned. How does it feel when you realise that about an offender, a violent offender?

B (22:44)

Well, of course, one can feel like very angry, very foolish, even, that most.

A (22:51)

Of us can't even connect to the anger of that. Most of us will say, I don't know what we'll say. No, I realised all along I always knew, I kind of had a funny feeling about this person. Like most of us can't admit, A, that we were conned or B that we were angry. We realized.

B (23:07)

Yes. And I think you made a good point about not being egocentric. I'll come back to that because again, it comes back to the countertransference which you know, I always say, like those feelings, even those feelings still sort of refer back to the offender and to the original offense and to their feelings as well. So at some point, I suspect in their lives they have felt conned themselves and then it gets sort of enacted and projected out and then you get conned. But yes, it is very disconcerting when it happens and you think you're being vigilant and you're sort of apprised of what you think might be going on in the transference kind of transference field. And then, you know, things happen.

A (23:51)

Yeah, you're making me think of those. Some of the hardest men in the history of Australian crime. The famous guys, the Neddy Smiths, the Chopper Reeds, those guys all have very similar backgrounds in terms of neglect at home, ending up in boys homes and sexual assault. And I've read a report, obviously it's secondhand cause I never met Neddy Smith, but that he was, he was a hard man in Sydney Gang Circus and. Yep. That he was sexually assaulted and abused at the boy's home and that he made the decision to never be vulnerable again. Correct. And became a very violent offender.

B (24:29)

Yeah.

A (24:30)

I'm just tapping into something that you talk about a lot in the book that eventually it seems like in your sessions you realise, ah, okay, this is the way this person was treated by their mother. So now they want to be in the powerful position.

B (24:45)

Yes, look, exactly. You know, there then becomes an identification with the aggressor. So then when they become the aggressor, they don't feel the feelings of fear that's sort of instilled into the victim. And there is a sense of trying to regain a sense of control and omnipotence and to certainly avoid those feelings of fear. And I think for men who've been sexually abused, I certainly came across this with working with men who'd been charged with paedophilia, that for them to admit to a sexual abuse, particularly if it was maternal, was extremely painful and difficult and that obviously had long lasting Effects. But I think really, you know, what you're referring to is that, yes, most of these people, including a lot of absent fathers in this cohort, would reenact earlier trauma that hadn't been remembered, but they were sort of repeating repeatedly in different actions like rape or violent thoughts or so on. And I think one of the cases that I mentioned, for example, in the book, was where a young youth had been charged with rape, which he, at the time denied. And he had become mute when he was young, but it wasn't clear why from talking to him. And he had moved to England and moved from England to Australia. And when I was trying to get a handle on the case, I brought the mother in to talk to. And it had emerged in that session with this young offender and the mother that she had actually been violently raped and he'd witnessed it and he became mute afterwards. Now, the youth never recalled that and she had never talked about it, but in a way, he then reenacted the rape. And it was a very powerful, you know, aha, moment session also, because we don't.

A (26:47)

We're still coming to terms with how much children absorb. I'm just thinking. She probably felt relieved in thinking that he'd forgotten that that happened. He'd forgotten that he saw that as he grew older.

B (26:59)

Yes.

A (26:59)

As a mum, you would. You would think, good, I don't want you to remember that.

B (27:02)

Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. Very important point. Yeah, yeah. And for her, the triggering point had been the police arriving at the door. There was a group of them, apparently, and they sort of burst into the house to arrest him. And for her, that was the absolute triggering point for her memory, which she conveyed to him. But he was completely oblivious consciously to what had transpired. So, yes, there's neglect and all sorts of poverty, abuse, absent fathers, alcoholism, prostitution, a lot of physical violence that people have endured. And also, though I think working psychoanalytically, one would say that they're also sort of unconscious traumas or internal conflicts which are sort of. They sort of reside unconsciously, which can also play out. So it is a interaction between internal and external forces.

A (28:03)

So is it a constant sort of attempt to resolve those things? You know, feeling victimized, let's say, down, dead. If I victimize someone else, it might resolve. That feeling in me, might finish it.

B (28:16)

Yeah, I think that's a good question. It's certainly not conscious. And, you know, Freud would talk about that. There's repetition versus remembering. So, you know, I think people want to avoid remembering and the pain gets buried. And, of course, it's often not talked about or recognized, so it's not metabolized. And I think that's another purpose of the book is to say, you know, you need to be alert to these. When children appear to be delinquent or obviously going into gangs, but when they're younger, hyperactivity disorders, psychopathic behavior from toxic home environments that actually they need help, not just discipline and sort of punishment, but also understanding and a place to talk and to be able to.

A (29:10)

That's a really complex area, isn't it? Because I'm immediately thinking, well, okay, all those things require funding. So there's like, there's that aspect of it. There's a lot of talk at the moment about youth crime, about youth offenders, about this generation of youth, and a lot of talk of early intervention. What does that mean? What would that look like? You talk about an offender in the book who attempted suicide at the age of three. Yes.

B (29:35)

Extreme.

A (29:36)

And you talk about the fact that that obviously was an incredibly loud cry for help from a tiny person and it wasn't heard and it wasn't acted on. What does early intervention look like in an ideal world for you?

B (29:51)

Well, in that case, in an ideal world, and to point out that this young child, as a man, went on to murder, from my perspective, I would say this child needs therapy. And yes, then the home situation needs to be assessed carefully. But if he could have been placed in intensive therapy, then I think there could be a turnaround in an ideal world. And I think when we talk about psychotherapy, again, that doesn't exist in Australia in the justice system. It does in England and so on, but it doesn't here. And you know what? Well, what does exist is cognitive behavioral therapy, but that's very different. And so I think early intervention at that level, certainly the work that I've done in the territory, when we're working with youth crime, we've developed along with the people, the elders and the parents and the families and the youth programs which are very culturally ground and therefore are inherently therapeutic. So we have the Shields for Living, Tools for Life program. And that's where the children, or, sorry, the youth and children might make traditional tools so that we take them out on camps. And in that context, you might talk about violence or violent behavior, or there might be. I was going to say in vivo violence, but we've really almost never had a situation on a camp, except once when I was there present, and we were able then to talk about the incident. But it's remarkable that in those situations, being away with Youth, they're using axes.

A (31:32)

I was just thinking that you're taking them to make weapons. That's not something most of us would think would be a positive outlet.

B (31:38)

Yes. And in fact, they were deemed weapons by the police and they were confiscated. But they're actually traditional tools so that even the youth recognize them as being part of traditional culture and their elders and their fathers, you know, teaching them how to make it. And, you know, the spirit of the grandfather is seen to be inside these tools. So we were working with the high risk and we were working with the police and with family services, and you'd be told, well, you know, here is the most high risk person. And it was, you know, to this day, it's always staggering to see who the high risk person is. They often look like children. And then when we have a group of them, how collaboratively they work together, the teamwork, you know, they'll be around a campfire, all sharing up the task, quite spontaneously, cooking their kangaroo, making their tools, listening to the elders talking about. About crime and, you know, their lives, often, of course, in language, because they're much more comfortable to do so. So in a way, you know, having jumped to that, that is a sort of model that could be used perhaps in, you know, Victoria, in a different cultural context, but with youth, but not putting them necessarily, you know, into jail where it's punishment, but where they might be in a. Much more in. In a place of rehabilitation.

A (33:00)

And that's a really good example too, the indigenous example of. Of, I guess, engaging the parents. Because when you were. When we were talking before about the offender who tried to kill himself at three, and I was thinking about his mother, you talk about the relationship that they had. She was negligent, she was abusive. But then it feels like approaching a parent and saying, you need help, your child needs help, we need to intervene. A lot of parents will reject this, that, and a lot of parents will minimise what's going on at home in the indigenous space. There is the very real fear of having children removed, stolen, if you will.

B (33:38)

Absolutely. Very important point.

A (33:40)

How have you. How do you engage parents who might be ashamed and reluctant to admit there's even a problem?

B (33:48)

Yeah, look, that's a very. I mean, it's a very good point and it's a hard question. And maybe there might be, because a lot of the parents, parents, you know, have been. Yeah. Sort of missing in action for various reasons. So I think it's a slightly different model in the indigenous situation, if they're missing in action, there are Aunties or uncles or other elders. I think you may then need to fall back on or to utilize psychologists, social workers, people in the field to be the sort of the mentors as well as the therapeutics agents to work with the youth. But where it's, you know, very much more in a rehab model, like, you know, there are other camps for horse training and, you know, training horses and breaking them in. You know, you could be doing things like that with the youth in Victoria.

A (34:41)

But how do you break through the parents? Shame, reluctance to admit that there is a problem in their home? You know, surely it's. Well, obviously the parents have to be engaged in this process. And it's. If someone came to me and said, we're intervening on you and your kids, I would not be happy. I would not be excited about that. I would feel embarrassed. I would feel, you know, all those feelings get out of my family.

B (35:12)

So if they're not missing in action, like, if they're not absent or whatever, then I think talking to. And it reminds me of a case that I've worked with in the territory where there were two youth who broke into a government building. They turned out to be cousins. And one of them, you know, they smashed through the windows and created havoc. One of them ended up, you know, cutting his head and, you know, requiring bandages and things in the hospital. And we went out to. It was a town camp, which, you know, you could say signals impoverishment and marginalization, dispossession. And myself and my worker, we were talking to this mother, and there had been a horrific domestic murder of a woman. And it turned out, and I knew that this was very much in the minds of everybody at the time, but it turned out that she was a very close mother, literally, to these two boys. And on talking further, just before this, the mother had been very angry with Family Services and with the magistrate. Anyway, so she's telling me this story, but, you know, she hadn't made the connection that quite understandably, but that the crimes that they committed had happened a day after they witnessed the mother who was murdered in the morgue. One of them couldn't go in, and one did. Then the next day following, they broke into the government buildings and committed havoc. So, you know, I said, my goodness, this happened a day before. And it was like, you know, an aha moment for her. She hadn't realized. And then she associated to another time that her son had committed a crime. And that's when there'd been another tragic incident. And it was a day after again. And Then, you know, we went on talking and then she went on to say how the son who had been standing there all the time, not talking, very silent, and said that he then started to ask where his father was and that who did he belong to? So all of this came out in this interview and interview, inverted commas, conversation. And I think if there can be people who can sit down and talk to the parents and see what's happened, like the mother who was raped and the son became mute, like connections like that aren't necessarily consciously made. And if they can be overted and talked about, that's so helpful because then there's understanding about, you know, the bad actions, the bad boys, the rape, et cetera. And that understanding at that point becomes so important, so salutary.

A (38:17)

There are many people in the community, you will know better than anyone who say, I'm sick of hearing about offenders childhoods, I don't care. They'll say, lots of people have terrible childhoods and they don't grow up to murder people.

B (38:31)

Yep. So I think as a counterpoint to that, I just, I mean, I used to say, really, every time there go I, by the grace of God, because I would think if I was plunged into those situations, honestly, one, you'd have so much less containment, you'd be much more impulsive, you know, you've been abandoned, neglected, like, what hope is there for you? So on. But I was thinking that while you say that, then you have the opposite sort of crime in a way. Like the Erin Patterson case, where she seemingly came from a more normal, stable environment, well, privileged if anything.

A (39:10)

There seemed to be plenty of money and educated parents. Yes, she had a great education.

B (39:16)

Yes, true. So how does that crime transpire? And I think that has raised, you know, a lot of concern and interest, fascination about the case, because it's not just the obvious. And just to go back to the obvious, you know, often you'll be sitting there, you might be supervising whatever. And some are saying there's been this abuse and that and that, and that that is a red flag. But then you have to be able to make connections to what I would say is the internal crime scene and what is it that has been enacted in the offense that is really about the original trauma. And with Erin Patterson, for example, it's far less obvious. But I would say that if one was able to, that there is unconscious motivation there.

A (40:02)

Yes, that's so interesting because everyone's saying, what's the motive? There's no motive. These people were so kind to her and she Loved them. And the other interesting is that no psychological report was submitted to the court.

B (40:13)

Correct. And I think, I mean, and whether or not they seek it in the appeal is going to be an interesting question or for sentencing, but. And perhaps she said she didn't want one, but it amazes me that, you know, these evaluations are not required.

A (40:30)

Yeah, I thought they were until this case. I was sort of waiting for it.

B (40:33)

To pop up at some stage. In some of the cases, it hasn't been the murder cases of children. But I think, you know, in her case that while she was privileged, there was still unconscious conflict. And, you know, you might say, well, like, you know, did her mother, she was a writer of stories. Did she actually know her own daughter's story? You say that she was privileged. You know, she was in a family of love and religious family who loved her. There was obviously enormous sense of rejection and hurt and resentment. But I suspect, you know, that whilst there might be psychopathy and I think, you know, people have oscillated. Is she guilty? Wasn't she guilty? Now she's been found guilty, but that there definitely has been internal world of pain and distress flagged by, for example, being weighed at the dinner table. And, you know, the murder happens in a way, at the dinner table. Her mother was distant, robotic, weird. She committed a sort of hands off murder of the family in a way, killing off the loved objects. And you might say, from a psychoanalytic point of view, might have been revenge either against the bad parts of herself or attacking the good parts of herself, which she identified with the religious family at another level. But there is a story there. And I think, as you say, people say no motive and, you know, it's elusive. And then what happens is that the perpetrator gets monstered, evil. She deserves to be locked up. And of course now she's going to be locked up in solitary confinement, you know, for however many years. And of course for people, it can be very hard to feel sympathy for her under those circumstances. But I think if we don't try to understand, and there are attempts to understand, and there's almost been a fetishism of trying to understand, dissect what her conscious motives might have been. And as you say, if there could have been, I would say a psychoanalytic assessment, I'm quite sure what some of the conscious manifestations appear to be about. Motive could be linked back to an unconscious world of distress and psychic conflict. And a compliant father, distant mother, the rage stirred up by a compliant father feeling abandoned by the robotic Mother, hatred for the robotic mother, et cetera, that there would be things that might make it more explicable, not excusable, but explicable, and then that there might be more understanding given for her, for other people and for others.

A (43:22)

Surely that's the point of trying to understand, is to try to then apply that understanding to others before they commit crimes.

B (43:32)

Absolutely, yeah. And I think, you know, that's one of the things that I would say, is that if you can talk and try to understand, and if the offender can understand, they're far less likely to go out and act again. They're not just seen as this buildup of, you know, I'm a bad person, I'm monstering, you know, that's my life. Then if there's understanding, you know, like, I think with this youth who committed wrong, he'll never rape again. I'm quite sure that he won't rape again because he had such an understanding of what had happened to his mother and what he had done in the enactment. So I think it's not, of course, a blueprint, but it could help.

A (44:16)

Can psychopathy be treated? You talk about another patient who. And this is one of the cases where you say you realise you'd been conned. This young man came week in, week out talking about his puppy and how much he loved this dog, what a great dog it was, Australia he'd found and then trained and all that. And then he came one week and said he'd killed it and brutally murdered this dog. And you said, I realised I'd been conned. This whole puppy love you called it was not real. Can you treat psychopathy? Can you fix a psychopath?

B (44:48)

Yeah, look, I think the jury's out on that. In the forensic field, there are definitely people who believe that it's possible over time and again, sort of from a psychotherapy point of view. There are others who would believe that it's not possible. But there is a lot of work in group programs with violent offenders, but also more from a psychotherapy point of view, where people are, I think, trying to work with psychopathy. Obviously, it's very challenging to work with it and I think it can take time. But definitely there are people who believe that it's possible because with that particular.

A (45:32)

Offender you wrote about that being the moment that you realised he was a psychopath, that you realised, oh, he never loved the dog, he doesn't probably know how to love. And then when the dog became annoying, I think his mother was abusive to him when he felt like, when he Annoyed her or something. But you made the connections that the dog was just doing normal dog stuff, but it reached a point where it was too irritating to him and so he killed the dog. And brutally. Does your treatment then change. You change tack with the guy when you think, oh, he's a psycho?

B (46:10)

Well, yes and no. I mean, certainly that was a huge thud in the session when that was divulged. And admittedly, I'd started my psychoanalytic training and really was thinking about the puppy as sort of the love object and as a form of reparation. Now, in a way, whilst I talk about being conned, it's still possible that, you know, there was in some intent of reparation there, and then the frustrations of the dog, the puppy, you know, became too much and so the dog gets killed. So, you know, that could take some time. I think it can. Again, then, the way of working with that would be to avert that and to talk about the intensity of the feelings. Because also, in a way, whilst I felt a terrible thud at some point, that was also a communication about. Whilst. I don't think I necessarily write about it, but I would say now it was a communication from him about some kinds of thuds that he'd experienced as a vulnerable puppy, infant, whatever. And again it got reenacted.

A (47:24)

And again, putting himself in the position of the aggressor. Aggressor of the powerful one.

B (47:30)

Absolutely, yeah. So I think, yes, it is possible, again, if it gets overted and talked about, metabolized, mentalized, and that might have to happen over and over and it might be that things happen in the here and now between the therapist and the offender that need to be averted. So, yeah, I think it's possible. And not to foreclose it. But then you'd also have to say that, yes, there have been some severe cases of psychopathy where I would say, in the end, perhaps it's not possible.

A (48:06)

Well, similarly, sex offenders, pedophiles, can they. I think there's a sense in the community amongst most of us that they're irredeemable, can't be fixed. If it's happened once, it's gonna happen again. And you've worked quite a bit with female sex offenders. Tell us about that.

B (48:23)

All the work mainly in the field had been with male sex offenders. All the groups in the community were for male sex offenders. And when I was doing the assessments, I started doing assessments in the prison for the parole board. And I must admit, the first case I did was very, again, salutary. And I learned a lot. I really had a lot of trouble dread going to see that case. And then it really, you know, it was remarkable because it turned out to be such an enactment of what had happened to this woman again, who had no recollection or memory until it was overt, that she did to her daughter what had been done to her. And that was like the first offender I saw. And that had a significant impact and it was quite a well known case or where certain psychologists did not want to have to do an assessment on her.

A (49:16)

Well, some refused, didn't they? I mean, by the time the case came to you, one did.

B (49:19)

Yeah. And that person was male, so perhaps that's understandable and I certainly didn't want to do the case. But it really was a turning point because, you know, as I say, it was a very clear reenactment. And then I started to be given other assessments for female sex offenders. There weren't that many. So at the forensic facility where I was working, there was a decision to, you know, to encourage women to be able to come. And then there'd been a visiting professor and we started to do collect evidence, you know, empirical evidence and started to do some research. But what was interesting is that the women, you know, you could tell who they were because they often came in wearing dark sunglasses and didn't want to be identified and they'd be sort of hanging their heads and bearing into the shoulders and sort of creep in. And of course, not all of them of course fitted the diagnosis of, you know, paedophilia. I think it is rarer to find, you know, pure pediophilia, you might say, as a diagnosis versus having committed an act. But it won't be repeated necessarily again.

A (50:32)

Because that's the case for most sex crimes against children, isn't it? That it's the perpetrator's, not a paedophile in terms of diagnosable and having a predilection or being sexually attracted to children. It's more an opportunistic crime, is that correct? Or driven by other factors, not necessarily lust.

B (50:51)

Yes, but I think that there are a significant proportion of males who are paedophilic who would fit the diagnosis. And I think just to put something in there, you know, Glasser, as psychoanalysis, psychotherapist had said that and I think it's often forgotten that often the victims are at the same age as they either may have experienced trauma and that there is a way of trying to seek love. Actually, you know, they talk about loving the child and that's usually regarded with, you know, disbelief or contempt, but actually there can be some truth in that.

A (51:30)

I just remembered who I thought of when, and I got to that part of your book. When you were talking about people from adults from backgrounds that lacked love, feeling loved, and then them sort of genuinely believing they're giving love to children, I thought of Michael Jackson. Yes, that's the first thing I thought of.

B (51:49)

Yep. I think that would fit the bill. Yes, absolutely.

A (51:53)

And again, as you said earlier, it's not excusable, but it makes it explainable.

B (51:59)

Yes. And again, that's also bearing in mind that possibly, like with Michael Jackson, there is a grooming process. So, you know, children can be tempted, you know, with lollies and treats and excursions.

A (52:13)

Theme parks.

B (52:14)

Yeah, theme parks. But at the same time, there can be a part of them that wants what? Wants to give them love and to be loved. And sometimes the victims also represent a child that they knew or a sibling who was loved and they weren't. And. And, you know, again, there can be importance around the characteristics of the victim as well. So, like I mentioned one case in the book where the offender, and he again, hadn't made the connection, but it emerged in the material that the victim resembled the favored sister. And so, again, you know, there can be those sorts of. You know, there can be more complexity around the motivation than just they love or they are sexually attracted to children, which can be a baseline characteristic of pedophiles. They can be attracted to children, but. And they can be quite fixated on children. And then you have others who have committed incest and not necessarily. Or the female sex offenders who might have been in crisis in their marriage and, you know, it's safer and more secure for them to, you know, be with a younger offender, et cetera. So you can create topologies of different paedophilic behaviour and different sort of motivations. But, you know, you could still say that there is a diet, you know, a very valid diagnostic category of paediaphilia.

A (53:44)

How powerful, in your experience, is it when someone makes the connection, when someone who has been a child sex offender, is it helped to make the connection to their own childhood to somebody else? How powerful is that in preventing the behaviour and changing their behaviour?

B (54:05)

Well, one would hope that it could be. I think in this case, it was vehemently denied initially when I put it to him. But then, you know, the unconscious can receive this sort of information and things can be done with it, so to speak. But again, then, going back to your original question, I Think it'd be true to say, too, that some, you know, some paediaphiles are very fixated in their behaviour and what they might want is to be able to control it so they don't come to the attention of authorities, or they can go on, you know, offending, but where they don't end up in jail, et cetera, but they don't necessarily want a cure. And I think to make, as a therapist, crossing that line is quite difficult in the world work. It can be quite difficult.

A (54:51)

We culturally lump offenders together. We'll say, oh, that'll be a shit childhood. Or he was probably, you know, molested as a kid and that's why he's molesting kids. Obviously, from your perspective, every individual is much more complicated than that.

B (55:06)

Yeah, and I think that's a really important point. So what you, in a way have to try, you sort of investigate is, you know, who is this person person? What is the internal crime scene? What has happened to them? How, like you might have. Two people have been sexually abused, but from very different circumstances, who've responded very differently to what's happened, who have sustained original trauma in different ways, you know, where there's different unconscious relations, conflicts and so on. So that's where I think the work also becomes. You know, it's important to be able to see who is the individual behind the crime and not just to lump everybody into categories. And that can be a danger in the work. As I say, people can come and say, oh, they've been sexually abused, this and this. You sort of think, yeah, but that's just descriptive. Now what? Where's the rest of it? So, I mean, it's a flag, but then you say, well, what's underneath all of that? Let's go deeper.

A (56:06)

Thank you to our guest today, Pamela Nate. Pamela's book Pain Bleeds Crime is available now and there's a link in the show notes to this episode to help you get your copy. If you need support after listening to this podcast, you can call Lifeline on 131114 or contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732 or 1-800-Respect. Org AU. Indigenous Australians can contact 13UN on 139276 or 13yarn.org AU.

B (56:46)

The producers of this podcast recognise the traditional owners of the land on which it's recorded. They pay respect to the Aboriginal elders, past, present and those emerging.