#1320 Vibeke Ottesen: How the Media Deal with Criminal Cases

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricard Lops, and today I'm joined by a regular guest, Doctor Vibeca Ottesen, and today we're going to talk about how the media deal with criminal cases. So Doctor Ottesen, welcome back to the show. It's always a pleasure to have everyone.

00:21 Vibeke Ottesen: Well, thank you for having me, and we were discussing how many times I've actually been on this show, and the 5th time.

00:28 Ricardo Lopes: Yes, I, I think it is the 5th time. Well,

00:31 Vibeke Ottesen: it's lovely to be back. Thank you for having me.

00:34 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and it's always, of course, a pleasure to everyone. So, um, let me start with a more general question before we get into more specific things here. I mean, just generally, what is your impression of how the media tend. To deal with criminal cases, I mean the way that the media presents criminal cases, the way the media deals with the supposed perpetrators, uh, the, the way they deal with, uh, the victims and so on.

01:10 Vibeke Ottesen: Well, I'm going to be my answer is obviously going to be colored by the fact that I live in Norway. Um, I that I am continuously in the media being interviewed about crime, uh, in most cases than homicide as I'm a homicide researcher. Um, AND in Norway, Um, generally, I think they have been responsible, um, it's been a responsible news coverage. Um, BUT I have seen a clear shift in the past few years, um, of it becoming. I think affected by how social media has become a larger Source of information for the public and that the regular traditional media, uh, seem to believe they should compete with social media, rather than being the sober alternative, the responsible alternative. And so I've seen a shift towards a news coverage of crime that I can't get behind and that worries me. But again, I, I'm colored by having lived in Norway and doing my interviews in Norway and reading the news in Norway, whereas I know that things are Much worse in other countries where the news agencies Seldom have been sober over several decades. Um, SO my impression, it's, it's depending on what country, but if I should talk about Norway specifically, and that would also then, um, I think would extend to the other Nordic countries. Um, IT has been responsible. It has been sober, and I have enjoyed. Uh, A very productive collaboration with journalists up until the past few years, and I blame social media, but it's always going to be an editorial choice. That they're competing with social media.

03:27 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah uh yeah, yeah, I was going to ask you, uh, do you in Norway have those sort of, uh, talk shows that are exclusively about really obsessively going into a criminal cases or at least segments of talk shows where they bring in, uh, I don't know. Sometimes a psychologist, sometimes a criminologist, and they have a reporter on the street trying to talk with the police or with the investigators or with the family of the victim or the family of the perpetrator or the of the suspect and so. I mean, do you have things like that in Norway because here in Portugal we do so.

04:16 Vibeke Ottesen: Not the talk show format. Um, WE'VE got programs. Uh, AND we have documentaries and you have true crime shows and you've got the news doing all of those things, but not in the format of a talk show. The format of a talk show, uh, just immediately worries me. Um, BECAUSE like I have As of yet, I have never assisted any true crime shows. I have been contacted over the years for several uh uh true crime shows, and I've always said no. And um there are several reasons, but one of them, um. Which is also the reason why I'm worried when you say the talk show format, um, is that that sounds as if it necessarily is then going to be entertainment more than educational. Um, AND every interview that I do, my ambition as my interviews with you, uh, all the, uh, all, all the interviews I do, the ambition is that it's going to be informative so that we can work towards, um, Well, um, prevention, and I don't see a talk show format doing that. That worries me mostly, mainly because, um, I get worried that it's then driven by the idea of it being entertainment and any crime will have a victim and this, this is not entertainment. I mean, when I tell people that I'm a homicide researcher that their response more often than not is, oh, how exciting to which I have to. Arrest them and say absolutely not exciting, but very important, um, vital, um, but not, not exciting, not entertainment. And so when you say talk show, these are the entertainment programs.

06:20 Ricardo Lopes: Yes, yes, I, I mean, usually now and then it's like uh half an hour, 1 hour, uh, talk show about criminal cases. Other times, which is more common, it's like, for example, a morning talk show or an afternoon talk show that runs for 3 hours and then there's, uh, I don't know. 20 minute segment with a criminal case that is just that has just blown up and is all over the media and social media and it's like uh crammed in the middle of uh I I don't I don't know, just regular talks with regular people and music and all of that, so yeah, it's part of the entertainment.

07:11 Vibeke Ottesen: Yeah, no, that, that, that. Well, as, as someone who, you know, as a homicide researcher who reads these cases um in, in detail. THAT'S, um, I find that very distasteful and It's, it's not something I would, uh, I, I wouldn't do an interview for that. I have been on a morning show, uh, for one of the larger TV companies in Norway. Uh, BUT it's, and they've, they've maybe had a TV chef before I came on and got interviewed and Then there was some music and but but the interview with me has always then been a very sober interview, um, where again my ambition is to inform the public so that they have a realistic idea about the phenomenon. One is discussing, um, most often homicide, but can also be juvenile delinquency or adolescent crime or something like that. Um, I always make sure so on these talk shows, those, those experts. How, what's their approach? Is their approach also that this is entertainment and a fun thing to talk about, or do they have a sober approach and try to educate? What's your, I,

08:32 Ricardo Lopes: I, I, I mean, it depends. Some of them are serious people and tend to be as rigorous as they can, but then it also depends a little bit on the host, right, because there are hosts who really want to amp up the, uh, sensationalism and ask just absolutely ridiculous questions just to see if they can get. Particular, uh, uh uh uh uh partic particular soundbites from the guests and things like that, but then there's also the guests who present themselves as experts, and I'm not necessarily denying that they don't have the expertise, but they have particular kinds of, uh, political positions that color their views and then they go around sensational. Alyzing things, I don't know, I, I mean, I can give you two examples. A recent one from, uh, from this year from last year was of a host who at a certain point they were talking about a criminal case where, uh, a young girl, she was an adolescent, uh, an adolescent got, uh, violated by 3 or 4 of her, uh, male, uh, friends from school, and then. Uh, THE host at a certain point turned to the, uh, cri uh to the forensic psychology, I think it was a forensic psychologist, and she asked her, oh, but, uh, I, I mean, isn't it hard when, uh, uh, boys are in the middle of the act just if she said no, I mean, should we really blame them if she, if they didn't stop, uh, uh. Raping her because I mean they are excited and this and that and people were like what the heck is this woman asking here? I mean this is just insane. Are you saying that if, if someone says no in the middle of a sex act, then we can't really blame the perpetrator because he's already in the middle of it and he does, he's not supposed to listen to that. I, I mean, are you insane? But, uh, but then, uh, and then another example was just, uh, uh, this was just a few days ago. I, I mean, there's um, a case from 2010, 2011 where a Portuguese young guy, or at least he was young back then in his early twenties, I believe he was living in New York with a very famous, uh, Portuguese, um, actor. Uh, AND then, I mean, he was being taken advantage of because he, he wanted to become famous or an actor himself and, uh, I mean he was abused by the older guy, but he, he then because of that abuse, he ended up killing the older guy and now he's, he's been in prison in the US for the past 15 years or so. And then er they showed a er a current picture of him and he now because he's in prison, he has a long beard and long hair, and one of the er experts, one of the guests, er she said, oh, he looks like a Muslim, and I'm like, what? What's er implying that, oh yeah, of course we have to associate Muslims with crime. I mean, come on.

12:20 Vibeke Ottesen: And uh yeah, in the first case you described there, it sounds as if the talk show host was prosecuting the case in media. Um, AND that's, that's a huge problem on many levels, um, because we know that people get their information about crime and their ideas about guilt, uh, and you know, who's a real perpetrator and not through through the media, and they have to be responsible. They have to be open for that people are guilty and innocent, all in the same coverage. Um, SO prosecuting a case is very, very problematic. Um, THE defense that she presented is something that, and it, it pains me to say, it pains me to say, but the defense of Uh, that she was presenting that you, as I understood through you, um, is what you'll see in court. Um, SO you have courts in Norway and any country you can imagine discussing whether or not young girls and women want to be treated in this manner or not. And you've got defenses, um, of that, um, men just can't stop themselves. Um, AND it's, it's shocking enough that you've still got narratives like that being constructed in the court. Um, BUT when it's also being constructed by talk show hosts, I find this very worrying, um, because Yeah. Media is a powerful thing. Um, AND then the second case is just shocking because Well, but, but I understand that there was reactions in the public in both of those cases. Yeah. So there is some, um, some, some backfire on making claims like this in a talk show. And because then you know like it's a whole discussion of how seriously shall we take these talk shows that are trying to get like ratings, viewer ratings by having shocking cases, presenting them in graphic details, and they're making quite controversial. Uh, STATEMENTS. Um, BUT yeah, we're not quite there yet in Norway. Um, BUT of course, the very same comments, the absolute very same comments you're presenting that is made in social media in Norway. I did an interview, was it earlier this year on a very serious, very sober, uh, uh, debate show, um, on the Norwegian broadcasting. Uh, AND My first question, uh, I'd. There'd been a school shooting in Sweden. And people had been killed. Um, AND the perpetrator was, was also dead. I believe he shot himself before the police shot him. Either he shot himself or the police shot him. Classic, classic case for mass shootings. Uh, THEY are suicidal. Um, BUT in the hours before I came on the show, I'd I'd I understood that there's been a lot of speculation in social media on his background and why he had done it, etc. um, THAT were shocking on the same same level as the examples you presented there. People can say shocking things and they can think shocking things about crimes, uh, perpetrators, victims that are just not empirically valid. Um, SO the first question I got was with regards to how can we understand these things was don't go on social media. And I would also say don't go on a talk show to get information about perpetrators, their backgrounds, victims, etc. Just go to, go to research and go to sober experts. But also in Norway we have people who will Um, answer questions from the media without necessarily knowing much about what they're being asked about. Um, BECAUSE even if you are like a specialist in psychology, or you have a PhD in criminology, whatever, um, you might also be just wanting the attention that you can get, um, in the same way as the talk shows want to get viewers, you have experts that also lend themselves because they want attention. I think the most historically, um, famous researcher who's going down in history as someone who just really wanted attention was Zimbardo with his prison experiment. When you look at his research and what he actually could say, uh, from what he had documented at all to the public attention that he's enjoyed over the decades since his experiment. Um, IF you read his original research on what he actually did and what he actually could claim versus what he ended up claiming. And that's a slippery slope for for an expert who gets a lot of attention in media, um, you know, how they, how they deal with it.

17:40 Ricardo Lopes: So let, let me, uh let let me ask you then, uh, I mean before we uh get into more detail when it comes to, uh, the aspects that the media sometimes explores about the suspects, the victims and so on that might be damaging. Uh, WHAT would you say is a responsible way of communicating criminal cases on the media? I mean, what kind, and when do you, would you say it is important for people to learn or to know about a, a specific Criminal case because I would imagine that not all of them are worth knowing about. I mean, when do you think people should know about criminal cases and what kinds of information should be shown to people?

18:37 Vibeke Ottesen: Um, A general rule for that. That's a tall order. Um, I think it is. I think my answer might not be answering your question directly, but the closest I can come to answering your question would be. Answering that, I think it's more important that people know about general tendency within the crime category that you know, uh, the specifics of singular cases. Uh, THE knowledge that the public can get from single cases, I think is limited compared to what's the general tendency. Um, SO more than in domestic homicide cases, do they need to know if in this specific case, um, there had been violence prior, or do they need to know what's the general tendency? Is there generally. A tendency for violence prior or not um. I think more than knowing the graphic details of a given rape case than more knowing are there any areas in the city that are more dangerous than others um and you know what, what are the rates so I think. When, when I do interviews, I always start off by saying I'm not commentating. I'm I'm, I'm not commenting on this specific case. I I'm talking about, you know, intimate partner violence generally or, you know, familiaride, suicide generally. Um, I think it's very important that the public are, um, informed about. The various forms of crime, about what can create a vulnerability both for someone committing the crime or being victimized, um, always with the idea of that, that's very key to preventing these things. More than that, it's necessary for them to know the details. With the exception of that, you do have cases also in Norway, also more recently than we than we care to admit, but you have cases where people have been convicted when, as it turned out, they were actually innocent. Um, AND every country has this where people are false, uh, uh, wrongly, uh, convicted, and then it becomes important that, Details are provided to the public, uh, of, because, well, there was one case, which is If not the most, then one of the most horrific criminal cases in Norway in modern time, where two little girls. Um, THEY were killed, but they were also raped. And for a couple of decades, the whole of Norway thought they knew who had done it. But it's just a couple of years ago that the guy who was convicted of being the main perpetrator, the driver of this, uh, uh, this crime, that he was actually completely innocent of it. And the guy who claimed that he was pressured into doing it was this probably, probably the sole perpetrator. In that case, it became. When there were people working in media, uh, people with journalistic backgrounds, etc. WHEN they became aware of this case. And, you know, really dived into the details and the documentation and realized that Oh dear, the main perpetrator probably is absolutely innocent. Um, THEIR way of making sure that this case was brought for the courts yet again was. It was absolutely necessary for that to happen, that the the whole of Norway got to know details about the case that could then say that he was innocent. But that's not with regards to what happened to the little girls. That's with regards to uh mobile phone data, DNA data, that sort of thing. Um. I mean, there's there's a reason for why the courts should be open. The courts should be open so that journalists who are sober and can deal with it in a responsible manner. Um. But we've just had this case in Norway where the, our new queen, her son, Um, so not the king's son, um, but the queen's son, uh, from before she met our now current king. Um, WHERE he's, he's been convicted of, um, Numerous rapes and domestic abuse, domestic violence. And because he was, is the son of the then Queen to be, and the stepson of the king to be, then this got massive worldwide, massive attention. Um, AND then the courts decided that there has to be a limit to what's going to get reported before the case started, before it was prosecuting, prosecuting the case before the courts. The courts decided there will have to be a limit on what the media are allowed to report. Uh, AND that's to As I understood it, the emphasis was on protecting the girls, the young women who allegedly had been subjected to severe violence and also rape, um, rapes that they weren't always aware of was happening, um, until the police found video footage. Um, SOME of these, um, these women hadn't gone to the police. There was a police who approached these women. And to protect these women who didn't, they did, they didn't want, they didn't necessarily want their cases to be prosecuted before the courts. But when the police get to know that someone has been raped and has been subjected to abuse, it's their responsibility when they've got the proof to prosecute the case, right? So these, but then the media in Norway was an outrage, and it was in particular, particular one commentator who, who was so upset that she was actually in tears. Um, WORRIED about this, um, defendant, this young man. Uh, JUST in case maybe something went wrong in the courts that he was like convicted by media and public opinion and then the courts would follow it. And so she wanted to share as much information as possible and was frustrated that she wasn't allowed to do this. Um, BUT regardless, the amount of details coming out of that court case was absolutely beyond what was necessary for the public to have an idea about. What goes on in the prosecution of these courses, these cases, and was the grounds for saying that he was guilty or not. And the, the, the level of detail was. Yeah. It was vulgar. It became like a talk show. It became entertainment. There was, like, this continuous update. She said, he said, she said, he said. Um, AND from my point of view, uh, that I have repeated, repeatedly, um, shared here is it, it just becomes entertainment more than, um, necessary

26:41 Ricardo Lopes: information. But, but by the way, when someone, when, uh, I mean the criminal justice system. DETERMINES that someone who was convicted of a crime is actually innocent and that information is put out there on the media and other places. Uh, I mean, to what extent, or do, do you know to what extent it's possible to rehabilitate the image of someone and for them to recover their reputation if beforehand they had been shown across the media as criminals?

27:23 Vibeke Ottesen: Yeah, um, I mean, just, you know, I haven't read any specific research on that. You know, there's no, I haven't read any research article entitled, Is it too late convicted by media. Um, BUT everything we know from social psychology. And how the human mind operates is, I think. I think it's, it's harder to I think it's quite impossible. I think this man who was claimed for a couple of decades to be the most horrific man in Norway for what he did. I think people will because his because his face and name was splattered across the media, um, associated them with pictures of these two adorable precious little girls. I think if people meet him on the streets, they will still You know, the immediate response from people. I don't know if I, I think. I think he will never, even though, even though Norway now officially agrees. Yes, he was innocent and what we did to him was horrific, and we should, we should give him all the money we have. Um, I still think that I don't know if he will be integrated into society. I don't think I don't think people can go back to a blank slate on that. And Yeah, I think, I think once media has said this person's done it, I think, I think that's it. And, and that is also why when people have been Wrongly accused or even wrongly convicted. Um, YOU know, the the the the money they get to compensate it. Includes compensation for having been portrayed us. Someone who had done these things because the human mind is, is very frail. And when we first decide someone is a good person or a bad person, it's very hard from humans. We know this from social psychology in general. Once we decide someone is a good person or a bad person, we have a tendency to not shift our opinion much. Um.

29:43 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, but, but that's the thing, right? I mean, isn't it always or almost always a bit irresponsible for the media to be presenting uh personal information about someone who's been accused or is a suspect of a particular crime before uh they get uh properly uh judged. In in a court of law and and there's a determination as to whether they're innocent or guilty because I I I mean the people or at least I'm not saying everyone behaves that way, but uh I mean most people that I see their immediate reaction is to uh associate that person with. Uh, WITH being a criminal, right? I, I mean, it's not that, uh, if, uh, the media simply says, oh, this is the suspect, it's not like people still treat him or her as simply a suspect, right? There's always that immediate stigma, uh,

30:56 Vibeke Ottesen: attached to

30:57 Ricardo Lopes: them,

30:58 Vibeke Ottesen: right. Um, JUST recently, just this year, um, I was shocked, appalled, dismayed by the, uh, coverage of, uh, possible. Possible homicide case. Um, JUST a couple of months ago in Norway, a young woman. Uh, WELL, I say young woman. She was, I think she was in her 30s, but a young woman, um, died, and her body showed signs of trauma. Um, AND it took minutes before. The larger newspapers, online newspapers were claiming she was killed, but one didn't have the autopsy yet. And homicide was one of the hypothesis that the police were investigating because they're supposed to have several hypotheses, you know, nothing untoward has happened or there's been a crime, and then if there's been a crime, what was the crime and who was the perpetrator that's supposed to have, they're not supposed to lock themselves to one hypothesis, uh, you know, in the first day of investigating, uh, someone's death. Unexpected death. Um, BUT the the headlines were homicide, homicide, homicide. And I could see all of these journalists from different news agencies looking for interviews and documentation and rumors and speculations and stories of that it was her boyfriend who had done it. And Yeah, these were the titles, homicide. And then I went in and I read the articles as well. And yet they're very convincing. They are building a narrative of that he did it. But one didn't have an autopsy report. Then one got a preliminary autopsy report, which did suggest that there was, um, you know, trauma caused death, but not if when one didn't know, did she fall down a staircase or was she pushed down a staircase. You still don't know. You just know it was trauma, like it wasn't a heart attack. It wasn't poison, you know. Um, BUT then you still get headlines, homicide, homicide, homicide. And then you've got stories about this man that an ex of his had claimed that he had been violent towards her. And that it it's building a very convincing narrative of that, well, if he's done it once before, he's probably done it again. Turns out in those previous case, in that previous case, the police had Shut down the investigation. Mhm. Um. So there was no prosecution and there was no conviction. And of course any man who has a record of that, an exclaimed the police investigated. It really does. We all think, oh, he's probably done it. We all do that. Um. But it doesn't mean that he did. It doesn't mean that he did then. It doesn't mean that he's done now, but it becomes a narrative. And then suddenly the the media coverage went completely silent. Um, I believe there should be, uh, an official autopsy by now. Um. But I haven't heard anything more of the case, um. But if he is acquitted in court, You know, if this case goes to court, if he is actually a suspect, a defendant, and then convicted, You might think that, well, then it was OK what the media did. Then it was OK with the newspapers did because they told us before the police did before the courts did that this man is, you know, he's he's a homicide perpetrator. Uh, AND he should be called out as one. But it, it isn't the journalist's job to do a homicide investigation. It isn't their job to be judge and jury. That's not their job, but it is their job to make sure that the police do their job. It is their job to make sure that the courts do their job, but it's not their job to actually investigate, and it's not their job to make conviction. And I think that's also your point that you're making there as well, that maybe they are straying from what the mandate is. Now a talk show has a very different mandate from the news media and I'm Mostly concerned with news media because we don't have these horrific, and dare I say vulgar talk shows that you've described, um, but then there's another case in Norway. Uh, WHICH I did a case study on, um. And that's a case where A woman in her 40s and her 8 year old daughter was found in a in their private home, and they had clearly been killed. Uh, THE preliminary autopsy also said, yes, killed. Sometimes people are killed in a manner where a preliminary autopsy or just the police entering the flat. You can tell the preliminary autopsy confirms that you'll get a real autopsy as well. But sometimes homicides are performed in such a manner that there is absolutely no doubt. So there was doubt in that first case I told you about physical trauma. Yes, but who did it? Did she even do it herself? No, no one knew at that point when they were having titles homicide. But this other case, this familiaride case, um, By the next day after the victims had been found, the ex-partner of the woman and the biological father of the little girl, eight year old girl, um, he was, um, he was like formerly. Uh, A suspect in the police investigation. And they were supposed to have several hypotheses as they're supposed to do. But in this media coverage, uh, of this particular case, that kind of, um, that kind of backfired because One of the major newspapers, online newspapers, who also made this mistake of saying homicide in that the latest case, they were a bit too open about The police not knowing who was the actual perpetrator, and they opened up for that. It could be someone else who had committed the homicide. But that's highly unlikely. In Norway, when a woman and her daughter is found. Killed It's only going to be her partner or ex-partner who's done it. Um, WE don't have random. You know, Ax killers breaking into private homes and killing women and their children. That's just not a thing in Norway. It's a very safe country, even though I still keep hearing the sirens out in the street here. Um, um, BUT

38:09 Ricardo Lopes: well, well, it's good to know that you're not living in a slasher movie.

38:14 Vibeke Ottesen: So I am absolutely not. Although I'll, I will, I never go down to my own basement, even though I know better. I know better, but I can't do better. I'm terrified of going down there, um, but, uh, no, in this case. It was problematic that the that they kept saying that, you know, for. You know, as a news media, we are taking our responsibility seriously and saying there can be someone else behind this homicide because. Everyone in the community was doing interviews about this man saying what a lovely family father he was, what a loving family father he was. They couldn't imagine he had done this. And so when the news media was presenting, well maybe he hasn't, the police are investigating other people. That was probably a great comfort to that community. Oh, there's probably someone else who's done it. Oh, maybe it wasn't him after all. The problem with this is that in 80% of homicide, uh sorry, 80% of famiicide cases in Norway, and this is, this is my research, 80% of famiicide cases in Norway where it's the biological father. Who has perpetrated uh the crime, uh he's suicidal. And this man was missing, and he was missing for a week. And After a week, they finally find him, and yes, he is deceased, and yes, it is by suicide. As long as one was having the story of someone else might have done it, displacing a more realistic narrative of, do you know what, it's probably him and he's probably suicidal. Can we find him and help him so that we avoid a further loss of life? Yeah. So, I mean, it's a double-edged Soared, um, but I think the best solution is for the newsrooms to always just keep eye on target. You're not supposed to investigate and you're not supposed to convict, but you're supposed to cover the investigation and cover the court proceedings and conviction, um, but, but stay in your lane.

40:26 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and I, and I think that there's also, and later I, I want to go to talk a little bit about true crime shows, at least ask you a question about them or what is your opinion on them, but Um, I mean, I, I also think that there's missed opportunities here by the media even to perhaps educate people a little bit, of course, uh, I, I mean, uh, it's, uh, the media is not going to turn to be able to turn people into criminal experts. I mean, that's not the point. I mean, I mean, for, for you to become a criminal expert, it takes a long time, long years, you have to. Learn to learn a lot, to be able to uh uh uh be able to properly evaluate all the evidence and all of that, and even with all those tools, many times people uh things are inconclusive and people have doubts. So I mean, but, but I mean I, I still think that there's missed opportunities to just tell people even if it's in broad terms, in general terms that, OK, so whenever someone. IS deemed a suspect. I mean they have to go through a trial and and during the trial this and that type of evidence, if it's available, is presented and there are these different types of evidence you have to evaluate it in this and that way and I mean even just when it comes to trying to I mean, trying to win heights in hindsight, reconstruct what happened when the crime, when the crime happened, if it is a crime, because sometimes there are things that are labeled as a criminal that aren't even a criminal, but anyway, I mean, I I I I guess that there are those missed opportunities, right, because if people at least learned, look, it's not because. Uh, A case is presented to you that seems to be obviously, er, a criminal case and it seems to have been obviously perpetrated by a particular person. That, uh, that's the conclusion you should immediately arrive at. I mean, it's much more complicated than just the narratives that are presented to you on the media, social media, etc. RIGHT.

43:08 Vibeke Ottesen: Yeah, because I can think of several cases, uh, off the top of my head just over the past 5 years, several cases where one thought it was intimate partner homicide, and then it turned out that it wasn't after all. Yeah. And for every time it's presented as that, people are rightly outraged in the public. The public is rightly outraged when they hear of yet another intimate partner homicide. I have no argument with that. But what if it actually isn't? And I can think of several cases that was presented in Norwegian media, which I at the start of this interview said is probably amongst the most sober in the world, um,

43:52 Ricardo Lopes: good for you, good for you, because you're in Portugal. I mean, it's usually not like that, believe me. Yeah, no,

43:58 Vibeke Ottesen: I'm, I'm quite horrified by your examples from those talk shows. I just think talk show, no, like I've been on morning shows and uh. Yeah. No, I've been on morning shows, but that's it. But, but, like, whenever Whenever a journalist calls me and I can tell already by the voice in the other end, um, if this is a journalist who's going to be sober or not in handling what, you know, what type of questions and how will they handle my answers, etc. Um, AND anyone who starts off by asking, are you the homicide researcher because this is so exciting. That's a very short conversation and never leads to an interview. I have to be certain that This will not be a missed opportunity or even worse, even worse than a missed opportunity to educate the people, is when you preclude education, you preclude them. You know, having an empirically valid understanding because something else has displaced. Fact. With like speculation or a wrong fact, an empirically invalid fact. Um, SO worse than a missed opportunity to for for science dissemination is when falsehoods are being presented. Um, AND when I first started doing interviews with media, Years and years and years and years ago. I'm not going to say how many years, but years and years and years and years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I started I started

45:41 Ricardo Lopes: my Yeah, when, when there were the blood in Norway or whatever,

45:46 Vibeke Ottesen: homicide rates were due to the T. REX back in those days with black and white TV when I first started doing interviews was when I first started on my um PhD work on domestic homicides in Norway. And when I first started doing interviews, it was because of The weird. And empirically and valid things that were being said about homicide in the media. There were people who were presented as experts who had never researched homicide, uh, who were saying things like homicide, uh, happens because people have a lack of moral or they are evil and just things that, you know, that's, that's not what science says. So I started doing interviews. Because I wanted science dissemination, believing wholeheartedly, but also having read the science, the research that, um, if people have realistic understandings of a phenomenon, and they can handle it better and you can prevent it better. And in particular because like I said with regards to familiar side, but also filicide, uh, both filicide and familiar side. The difference being filicide is when a child is killed by its parent or its step parent or the parent's new partner. Uh, SO that can be a girlfriend or boyfriend. Um, BUT also in familiar side where a partner, former partner is also killed, 80% of the men who do this are, uh, suicidal. And with regards to famiicide, the remaining 20% are psychotic. And then you can't say that it's a lack of moral, and then you can't say it's because they're evil. What it is is severe mental health issues. Now if people know it's severe mental health issues, their approach to prevention and the role they will understand that they have in preventing this is very different from if it's just pure evil.

47:49 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. Yeah, but, but you know, sometimes it's like. It's as if, and, and again, it's because those cases are presented on the media, because if they weren't, uh people wouldn't have to sort of have an opinion on them because no one would know about uh uh even about those cases, but sometimes it also feels like er in your own social circle, people uh try to force you to have an opinion because it's like, oh, there. There's this case which is a horrific case, uh, let me hear about your opinion because if you don't have one or if you have the wrong opinion, then you also have to be condemned. I mean, sometimes it feels like that, right? That, 000, if I don't say openly that, oh yeah, of course that guy, uh, that guy who is the suspect, of course he was the perpetrator. I mean, it's obviously if you say just like. Look, I don't know. Uh, uh, HOW, uh, how should I know? I don't even have access to any of the evidence. How could I know? And, uh, or if you say,

48:59 Vibeke Ottesen: yeah, I,

49:00 Ricardo Lopes: I mean, there are things here and there, uh, I'm not sure, maybe he isn't really the perpetrator, uh, it, it's in the, in the court of public opinion. You're like, oh yeah, uh yeah, maybe,

49:14 Vibeke Ottesen: maybe you're

49:14 Ricardo Lopes: also

49:17 Vibeke Ottesen: criminal.

49:18 Ricardo Lopes: Maybe you're

49:19 Vibeke Ottesen: defending criminals. Well, I'm sorry to hear about your friends, Ricardo. Maybe you should get some new friends. Uh,

49:26 Ricardo Lopes: I

49:26 Vibeke Ottesen: mean,

49:27 Ricardo Lopes: I mean, I, I'm not, let me be clear, I'm not necessarily talking about my own friends, but I, I've seen those kinds of things happening to people,

49:35 Vibeke Ottesen: so, uh, um. Obviously my friends know better than to ask me any questions like that because they know that I'll just, you know, I'll kill the buzz with my science and my facts and reference to my degree versus their lack of, um, so I, I don't get much of that. Um. But I have had journalists calling me and putting, um, inappropriate pressure on me and trying to twist my words and trying to make my statements fit with their headlines and their editorial angles, their journalistic framings. And that's an immense pressure to be in we had in, um, 2024. I mean, To give you some context, in a country of just over 5 billion people, we can have less than 30 homicide cases a year. We are a country with the lowest homicide rate, uh, with one exception, Iceland. So the only place you're safer than in Norway is Iceland, uh, where in Iceland they can panic if they have 5 homicides a year. Um, BUT in Norway, one had an absolute panic in January, February of 2024 because you had what if you work with statistics, if you have any education in statistics, it can be, you know, undergraduate studies that included one course in statistics. You're supposed to know this fact. Things can appear in clusters. Mhm. You wait for a bus, there's no bus, there's no bus, then 3 buses come. That's a cluster. It doesn't mean anything. Um, YOU have rain for 3 days, then it's sunshine, and then rain for another 3 days. That looks like a pattern to a human being. It's just two clusters. It's nothing special. Everyone working with statistics knows that this is just, it's a thing and it's called the poison. Effect. Um, AND when it comes to human behavior, you definitely will have clusters and you have clusters with regards to homicide. And when you have a country like Norway where there's By by statistical measurements, and, and from a global perspective, we barely have homicides, which means that when we do get them, we notice them as we should. It's part of our humanity to notice someone being killed and caring about that. Um, SO there was this January, February of 2024 where we had a cluster that we had. A few more homicides than what you usually have. If you have an average of 3 a month, less than 3 a month, the fact that we had like 5678. You noticed it, but it was a cluster. And the media just couldn't handle this, and there was an absolute panic about it. And whenever we've had these clusters, um, the media will call me and ask me if I'm worried. Which is asking a scientist. Uh, AND And also let us just be frank about this, a female scientist to share emotions. But my work isn't about my experience of things. It's about numbers and understanding them and trying to use that understanding to prevent the numbers. That I work with. So, whenever I get these phone calls, And some of these homicides in this cluster later turned out to not be homicides after all, by the way, yeah. Um, BUT there was just this continuous endless stream of, are you worried? Are you worried? Are you worried? And when I say no, because this is statistics. You, you can imagine the portrayal of this cold hearted female, because it was for a female to be cold hearted than for a man to be cold hearted. Yeah. So this hearted female researcher who didn't care. Of course I care. I've dedicated my whole entire adult life and being to research on the side and suddenly I'm not supposed to be caring. I care. It's just I'm not worried, and the rest of 2024 was, there was nothing special about the numbers for 2024. We had a cluster which can happen in January and February. Yes, but then the rest of the year. It wasn't anything special. And 2025 and also by any measures of 2026 so far unless we suddenly have another cluster, because this interview is now happening in October 2026. If we do have a cluster before Christmas, then, but it looks as if fewer homicides than previous. Yes. So I'm not, I'm not worried when we have a cluster, but I always have to say that. Um, EVERY single homicide is one too many. But of course as an evolutionary psychologist and even without being an evolutionary psychologist, just by being a homicide researcher it would be impossible to have some kind of uh Vision of there never ever being any homicides at all. I mean, if the Icelandic people can't do it. Even they might have one homicide, yeah. Um, BUT yeah, one can get pressured into making statements. Whether it's like you at a dinner party or me on the phone with a journalist, you can get pressured into making statements that you don't want to make. And if you don't make them, you're still going to be framed because one thing is the social framing of a social network, whether it's physically friends or it's in social media, but also the journalistic framings. Um, YEAH, which is, um, Is detrimental to perpetrators, is detrimental to victims if they are not perceived as, you know, worthy victims like in this um court case of the son of our new queen, um, the tactic is of his defendant, his defense attorneys, of course is to question whether they are victims or not. Um, THAT'S also something that then can be communicated by the media. And then the media are sitting there making their judgments via the media, via defense attorneys on whether or not they are worthy victims and whether these things happen to them or not. And I can't stress enough these women didn't necessarily go to the police themselves.

56:20 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, no, I, I mean, I just imagine that whenever there's a cluster in Norway, because you have so few homicides, people immediately say, OK, so this is it, brace yourselves, Ragnarok is coming.

56:36 Vibeke Ottesen: Ragnarok, we're all gonna die. We're going to meet Odin. Yeah. Um, AND then you can imagine how I then look when I say, although every single homicide is gruesome. And is a crime. Um, WE aren't all going to get killed now. This is, this is a cluster. You can understand it with statistics, um. Yeah, It's a it's a hard message to sell while people are panicking and a panic

57:07 Ricardo Lopes: but but but I think, but I think that. Yeah, but I think that you Norwegian people should do better. I mean, because, uh, come on, what, what, what, what, what, what is, is there anything exciting going on there? I mean, apart from the royal family and Erling Holland and, uh, oil and uh uh cool Nordic gods, I mean, is there anything, I mean, you don't even have a proper homicide rate.

57:35 Vibeke Ottesen: I mean,

57:36 Ricardo Lopes: come on.

57:37 Vibeke Ottesen: It's all we got. And now Holan's even cut his hair, so, you know. It's a sad. So yeah, when a cluster comes, it gets attention. Yeah.

57:50 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so, uh, but let me ask you this because of course we've been talking about how, uh, the image of people who are shown as suspects on the media might get permanently damaged, but what about the victims? I mean, is it even good. Does it do any good to the victims for them to be also shown on the media because I mean sometimes, and I think I had these conversations on the show with, for example, feminists when they talk about uh I mean women going on court. Uh, OR, or even going to the police to report them having been the victim of domestic violence or rape, so, I mean, horrific crime like that, that they are, they are re-victimized because they have to relive that. Very horrific episode in their lives. I, I mean, the, uh, do you think that it's even good for the victims themselves to have this sort of media exposition?

59:04 Vibeke Ottesen: No, um, Unless They are extremely lucky with a narrative that is conveyed. By And through the courts and then via the media, uh, they have to be extremely lucky, um. But it's, um, my heart bleeds for every woman. And also when it happens to men, my, my heart, my heart bleeds for them. It's a, uh, one is trying to do things to improve on that situation. It's been decades, decades, decades of hard work by feminists, whether they are activists or researchers or activist researchers. Uh, IT'S been a lot of lobbying. A lot of work, and we should all be exceedingly grateful for all the work they have done to make sure that, for instance, that you can show video footage of witness statements and the descriptions by these um the victims in these cases that you can use video footage instead, that they can leave the room when the defendant is there, that when they talk, the defendant is uh is removed from the court. Um. It was really awful, for I'm again returning to the court case of our now new queen's son, where his victims. Um, HAD to, uh, enter and leave through the main entrance of the courts. And people then speculated in that they were just doing this for attention. And the police had to go out and say, no, this is on us. We were the one, you know, we brought them to court. We brought the case to court. They are not here, you know, they're here out of civil duty, not for attention, and we're the ones who said they have to use the main entrance because we don't have the security at the other entrances or whatever the reason was for that. Um. People are so eager and quick to doubt victims. And I mean, within the the field of research is called victimology. There is this phrase where you use, uh, of being a worthy victim, that there are certain things that a victim needs to do to be a worthy victim. One of, one of the women. Subjected to the violence from the now queen's uh, uh, son. Um, She is, um, she's an influencer. And her public persona, because we have to be open for what you see in on social media might not be what goes on at home, uh, in in the privacy of a private home. Um, BUT her public persona is as a strong, independent woman and going through the main entrance and exiting the main entrance in this court case. She appeared to be strong, and so then people were questioning, well, how bad could it have been? It could be absolutely a living nightmare, and yet you can be strong when entering and exiting the court. But it doesn't just doesn't fit with people's idea of, of uh being a worthy victim. It's only one court case I can think of in Norway, where victims were allowed to be strong in the aftermath. When they were allowed to be, they were celebrated for being strong in the aftermath of what they were victimized of, without anyone questioning how bad could it then have been. And that was, um, when the terrorists killed all those young children on the island. Here in Oslo, uh, that terrorist action that the right wing terrorist. Um, Those kids, because they were just teenagers, um, those kids were allowed to be strong in court. But the general rule is, is that if you're strong in court, If you appear strong, if you're not crying, etc. THEN you're not a worthy victim. If you are a party girl, um. You're not necessarily a worthy victim. If there is like then a case of domestic abuse or rape, suddenly you're not a worthy victim. We have these ideas of You know, how should a woman be for us to, you know, feel sorry for her and turn against him. But then you also have ideas about what should a perpetrator do. There was a court case in Norway where I was called in as an expert witness. It was in the 2nd round of courts. In the 1st round of courts, they, that, you know, the the the the the verdict from the case referred to that the defendant, he had been 15 at the time when he committed a double homicide. He'd killed one boy he was in a conflict with. And when, uh, an adult woman walked past and saw something happening and she came over to to help the boys because she thought something was wrong, then he killed her as well after first trying to make her go away, but she still approached and so he killed her as well. And he was 15 when this happened. When the court case was going, he first had been 16, and I think he was closer to 17 when it was the second round in court, and I came in as an expert witness. And one of the problems with the first court case and what was going on in the second court case, um, was that they were referring to things like he's not crying in court, and so we don't think he regrets what he's done. And it Mind boggling. Absolutely, it's, it's an absolute scandal really, because this was also then conveyed by the media. The media was were, you know, the journalist was writing completely without any critical view on this or second opinions on it, just, he's not crying in court. He clearly doesn't regret, he must be a monster. But yeah, it took someone with a PhD to go in there and say, you can't give a child an indetermined sentence because they were going to give him an indetermined sentence, which is, of course, breaching with human rights, even when you do it for adults. Uh, BUT we still do that, you know, we still give independent indetermined sentences to, for instance, the terrorist who killed all those children. Um, WE'RE still giving indeterminate sentences, but You certainly shouldn't do that to kids because you are one of its human rights, but then it's also You know, children's human rights. Um, BUT it took me to go into the courts to say, Hey, you cannot, you cannot give a child an indetermined sentence, referring to him not crying in the courts. So we also have like, we have ideas about who is a worthy victim and how we treat them, but then we also have ideas of You know, how are you supposed to show regret to who are you supposed to show regret when, in what manner, to what extent? Um, WHICH has absolutely nothing to do with level of guilt or any, you know, um, any prospects you can have of rehabilitation or change or anything like that. But it's, it's a lot of folk psychology out there. There's a lot of folk psychology that people. I mean, it's it's in human nature to make narratives, whether it's like statistical clusters, we make narratives of it, or ideas about who does what and who deserves what. And Media is a fantastic arena has been for me a fantastic arena to come with science dissemination. Uh, MUCH harder to do in the courts, but I've done that several times as a as as an expert witness. It's always the defense who invites me in because, um, the courts are saying crazy shit about homicide. Like literally that's that's like the scholarly term for it. There's the spouting crazy shit. And so I come in and I say, well, actually research says Um,

1:07:47 Ricardo Lopes: but yeah, but, but I, but I think that definitely, yeah, I, I think that definitely there are people always have these expectations of how people should behave or react, uh, in different sorts of situations. I mean, another example is if someone, he is. HIS or her father's funeral and they don't cry. Oh, I mean, they didn't cry. I mean they, they, they don't even feel sad that their father's passed. I mean they're

1:08:20 Vibeke Ottesen: monsters. They should be criminals. They're probably

1:08:24 Ricardo Lopes: criminals as

1:08:25 Vibeke Ottesen: well. And, and you have absolutely no idea about what the family dynamics were. I mean, maybe he was a celebrated figure in his local community, but he was an awful father that doesn't deserve his son's tears. I mean, we don't know

1:08:40 Ricardo Lopes: or even sometimes people are sad and they just don't cry in public or something like that. I mean, it can just be something as simple as that,

1:08:50 Vibeke Ottesen: which I told the courts that maybe you can't demand that a teenage boy does cry in court. You know, that's that's not, that's not a measurement. Um, IT'S really, it's really not a measurement. Tears are not much of a measurement. Um, BUT we do believe that people cry, we have a tendency to believe them more. I've I've read the research on this, you see, uh, because obvious, obviously the Norwegian courts measure things by tears in Norway. Um,

1:09:24 Ricardo Lopes: SO I, I mean, I mean, is, is that, is that because people usually don't cry in Norway?

1:09:30 Vibeke Ottesen: Unless the Uh, you get a lot of emotions from, uh, from Nordic countries if they are drunk. Otherwise, not so much. Um, NO, but I've I've read the research on, on crying and, and people. People are perceived as being more sincere if they're crying, but here's another thing, men seem more sincere than women if they cry.

1:09:56 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, OK, because that's, it's less expected for men to cry. Yeah, I mean, if, if it's a woman crying, if it's, it's like if it's, if it's a woman crying, ah, yeah, OK, that's, that's just what, what they spend 24 hours a day.

1:10:16 Vibeke Ottesen: Exactly, uh, whereas if a man does it, wow, that's profound, that was. And I don't think the Norwegian courts who do apparently, clearly, clearly do use tears as a measurement of guilt, regret, prospects of rehabilitation. It's absolutely mental that they do this in this day and age. But if they do that, then if men know this, then every man in Norwegian courts should just, you know, Go for it.

1:10:50 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, maybe, maybe take some acting lessons to learn how to cry on demand.

1:10:58 Vibeke Ottesen: Exactly. It's, it's very worrying. Um, AND of course this is also something that was, I mean, I knew that the courts were doing this because it was reported in the media, right? So that's also a Double edged sword there because I don't think the public should have been reading about this teenage boy, you know, reading a narrative of him being a monster that didn't cry. But because I knew this, I could also then protest and say, It stop Stop, you can't stop. Um, SO it's. It's, it's, it's not an, it's not an easy judgment of, uh, returning to your question. It's not an easy judgment of how much detail should be given. Um, BUT, but there has to be a consciousness behind the sharing, and it can't be something driven by a want for attention, clicks, money, sponsorship. Career enhancement. The humans are very frail and, and they're The motivation for doing things, whether they are journalists, so-called experts. It's, it's worrying.

1:12:17 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm. So, uh, I, I have two more topics that I would like to explore with you. I mean, uh, how about copycat effects? I mean, isn't there a risk, and I know that that's been studied by sociologists and criminologists when it comes specifically to, for example, in the US school shootings, I mean, and, and, and shootings that are politically motivated if they show uh the. The face, the picture, and the name of the perpetrator on TV, there's a risk that someone will imitate him, that there's a risk that there's going to be copycat effects. I mean, uh, isn't that something that the media should also take into consideration when, um, I mean, informing people about particular crimes.

1:13:14 Vibeke Ottesen: Particular certain crimes, yes, because it's not all crimes in general, but any crime that is motivated by attention. WILL be motivated by attention. Mhm. Any crime motivated by attention is motivated motivated by attention. So if someone does things for attention, and then the media gives them that attention, then other people will look at it and say, hey, you could get attention for that. I want attention Um, so you, yeah, but then it is like for school shootings and you say political violence, but as we, I think we discussed that on a previous, I think

1:13:53 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, it it it

1:13:56 Vibeke Ottesen: was our previous conversation.

1:13:56 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah.

1:13:58 Vibeke Ottesen: Uh, AND as I said, they're not necessarily that politically motivated after all. Uh, AND that's why in the investigation of these cases, uh, the police always like stunned, like, oh, the radicalization of this. YOUNG man only went over a couple of months. That's fast. So everyone be aware you can be radicalized within a couple of months. Yeah, but were they radicalized or were they always suicidal, always wanting attention? Maybe it isn't the political radicalization that's the problem here. Maybe it's the need for attention. Maybe it's the suicidality that's the problem more than the given religion or political association, because That wasn't that profound, that wasn't that sincere. Hence they were radicalized in a couple of months because that wasn't actually the driving force at all. Um, THAT was just part of getting the attention bit. Um, So yeah, they should be, and I don't know if we discussed that on that previous episode where we talked about mass shootings and political violence, but in France, where they, they have a little bit of Let's say experience with people attempting mass murder, whether for religious or political ideology or just being suicidal. They have a bit of experience with that in France, and they, there are numerous news agencies, not all of them. But there are numerous news agencies who have taken the research that you were referring to, the very real research with very real findings that you were referring to. And so they don't share the pictures of the offenders anymore. They don't share the names of the offenders anymore. Uh, THEY'VE stopped doing it because they they take the research and the advice given by researchers and scholars in the field of don't give attention to people who want attention and do so by the means of. Lethal violence, just don't do that. But there are so many news agencies all over the world, uh, including in Norway. Um, WE had a debate on this about a year ago, a very, a minor debate where I, I threw in my two pence there, uh, saying don't share the name, don't share the picture. Don't give them a name. They're doing this for name. Don't give them because there was a young man, he had just turned 18. Um, WHO committed a homicide at the, um, uh, he, he was, he was living in an institution, and he, it was a racially motivated homicide. It was first investigated for terrorism. Uh, THEN they later decided in their investigation that it was a racially motivated crime, but not terrorism after all, which actually In effect, stripped him from some of the attention that he claimed to be motivated by. He claimed to be motivated by wanting attention, wanting to do something spectacular and get attention, and he referred to other people who have done the same. As inspiring him, and yet Norwegian media was still doing exactly what he asked. He said, when I'm in court, I want you to take pictures of me and share those pictures, and Norwegian agencies did it. This should be a no brainer. Don't do that. But they, they did. And that's when I said, hey, let's look a little bit at France, who has more experience than we do in Norway. So maybe not do that. But like, If you talk about, uh, you know, the, uh, news coverage in the United States, the country with the most mass shootings compared to the population rates, I mean. You would have thought that they would have taken the the French route, but they haven't. And, uh, it's, it's beyond mere the gun ownership. I think it's because, you know, if the copycat effect, which is claimed to be found for mass shootings, um, if that really is a real thing, then America setting themselves up for failure by the the gun ownership, but also the media coverage. There are other, um, other crimes where one can wonder, is there a copycat effect, um, where there isn't. Um, AND then for instance, intimate partner homicide, um, Spain has some research on uh copycat effect there, and you don't have it, um. Because it's, it's all about what is actually motivating the person to do it. And people are generally Not motivated to commit intimate partner homicide for the attention you can get. That's generally not it. Either it is um. The most extreme end of a history of physical abuse, or it is in association with the perpetrators have a perpetrator having a psychotic episode or suicidal. So you won't have a copycat effect there. Um, SO you, you have to look at the, the motivation on whether or not. So because sensationalistic coverage that glamorizes. Then you can get that effect among those individuals in the population who are vulnerable to doing this. Like regardless

1:19:40 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah. So, uh, let's talk about one last topic. I would like to hear your thoughts on, uh, true crime shows. I mean, I, I have two different kinds of questions here. The first one is Why do you think that people are so interested and and fascinated by er true crime shows? I mean, what is it that people get from watching that kind of show?

1:20:11 Vibeke Ottesen: Personally, I'm just Personally, I, I've already said, I, I, I don't participate. I find them more about entertainment than anything else, but, uh, why other people then. Cause like Um, most of my, OK,

1:20:27 Ricardo Lopes: let, let, let me be perhaps more specific. Do you think that there's valuable information from an evolutionary perspective that people get from crime shows, even if it's misleading or exaggerated to a certain extent that make them interested in watching those shows?

1:20:54 Vibeke Ottesen: This should then be a discussion on whether it's an adaptation or if it's a byproduct, the interest in. Learning about risk factors. In your environment, that's surely an adaptation, right? Having an interest in, am I in a safe environment or unsafe environment. But then it becomes a byproduct to them that it manifests the adaptations of being interested in these things becomes then a byproduct of, uh. Um, Because it's absolutely outside the scope of what's in your local environment. If you're a Norwegian female living in Bergen and you're into like true crime where cases are from the southern parts of Texas. It's not long, no longer your, uh, your local environment. Um, SO then it becomes like a byproduct. But what I just find so disturbing is just the, um, The enthusiasm and glee and the entertainment value that people get from it, um, which I can't find to be a byproduct of an adaptation, even that is just, it just absolutely baffles me that there are so many people who are entertained, having a concern and interest, a curiosity about, um, Your environment and what makes it safe and what makes it dangerous. Yeah, but, but I have absolutely no explanation for the, the glee and enthusiasm that I can see as I was about to say when you, uh, specified your question was that most of my students are female. Um, AND The sparkle in their eyes when I tell them what I research. Um, I, I, I don't, I don't, I don't understand the entertainment value and the glee and that they, they all these female young female journalists. It's never the male journalists. I've never had a phone call from a male journalist who said it's so exciting with intimate partner homicide. Can I do an interview with you? No man has ever approached me to get an interview in that manner. But I have countless female young female journalists who get in touch and they will say, It's so exciting with intimate partner homicide. Can I do an interview? And then of course I will say no, because it isn't. Um, AND maybe ask one of your. Adult male colleagues to call me, making me sound like a misogynist, but it's just. I have no explanation. Uh, FOR the enthusiasm, glee, and entertainment value that this has for people. If people were approaching it with a concern about wanting to know what was happening in their environment, we could talk about adaptations and we can talk about byproducts adaptations. I'm repeating myself, but I'm just hammering home the point, the glee, enthusiasm, the entertainment that they get from it. Is, uh, I'm the wrong researcher to ask because it's completely lost on me. You have to ask someone else. I don't understand.

1:24:09 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah,

1:24:09 Vibeke Ottesen: I,

1:24:09 Ricardo Lopes: I mean the, the, this is pure speculation, but, and of course it wouldn't explain like, at the very least 95% of uh the audience, but. Uh, I mean, it would make sense for people who are, who are high on dark triad traits and particularly if they are interested in committing crimes to watch those kinds of shows, I think.

1:24:40 Vibeke Ottesen: I don't know about that. I, I don't, I, I don't know about that. I mean there are people out there who do, uh. Um, FIND excitement and even sexual excitement from watching other people suffer. That's the thing, and they will have dark traits. Yes, but they're not necessarily the audience of true crime shows. I think it is. I think the audience of true crime shows is very much aligned with my personal experience as a lecturer, and that there are a lot of uh a lot of young women who find entertainment in it. Um, AND it is, it is completely lost on me. I, um, I because again, any anyone that suggests that we read crime novels, we watch, um, you know, fictional crime shows, but one could also make the claim about true crime shows that one does it because it's It's an innate need. It's an adaptation in us to seek out information about what makes our environment dangerous or safe. Yeah. Um, BUT it doesn't explain that one can sit there eating popcorn. When listening to a podcast concerned with. Rape and homicide. Um,

1:26:05 Ricardo Lopes: AND, and also it probably wouldn't explain why, uh, apparently there's that sex difference, right, about, uh, uh, when it comes to if, if

1:26:17 Vibeke Ottesen: that's young,

1:26:19 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, if that is real, of course, if there's a sex difference, it wouldn't explain that either,

1:26:25 Vibeke Ottesen: right? You could say that women. Have a greater need to know about sexual predation.

1:26:36 Ricardo Lopes: OK, that kind of

1:26:38 Vibeke Ottesen: you can say women have a greater need, evolved need to have information about their environment with regards to sexual predation, wouldn't explain the entertainment value that they seem to be getting from it. Um, NOW maybe my, Maybe my judgment is clouding my scientific approach to this question that you're posing me. Um, BUT, but, but yeah, I, I just don't understand it. Um, AND men should absolutely be interested in, uh, in crime in in general, as and particular homicide, um, because they are victims of homicide way more often than women are. Um, BUT then of course you've got testosterone and, um, you know, maybe a sense of immortality is greater among men. You need to be able to take risks and to be out there in a way that women. You know, it can be very detrimental to women to do, and we haven't gained anything evolutionary from taking risks with our physical safety. But again, the end just just the sheer entertainment. And I have young male students who will be impressed and also have young female students who are impressed, like 2 to like master's degrees and a PhD and you used to be a prison research before a homicide research. I absolutely get like sober, like, wow, that's impressive. And that is interesting, not exciting, but interesting. But there is this, this excitement and entertainment value that, um, that I don't it's it's just absolutely lost on me. And, um, and, and I'm, I believe that the research aligns with that. The, the main audience for these true crime shows is young females. And maybe that's also a clue to answering this question is that it's young females. Um, WOMEN in the 50s, I can't, I don't have any clear memory of women in the 50s, 60s coming up to me and saying that this is exciting. They're more, they're more likely to say that this is so dark and awful. And how can you work with this? Which I find are much more. Healthy and understandable, and, and I absolutely agree with them. It is puzzling how I can work with this topic. It is, it is puzzling.

1:29:03 Ricardo Lopes: So, uh, uh, and my, my second question is, I mean, is there any Educational or scientific value at all. In true crime shows, I mean, do they represent anything that is close to reality in terms of how uh the police works in terms of how investigations work, in terms of how the criminal justice system works, or even in terms of portray or giving an accurate portrayal of uh rates of violence.

1:29:45 Vibeke Ottesen: What, I'm sure that the most popular true crime shows will do the same as news coverage. I mean, news coverage of crime in Norway, like every single homicide case in Norway is covered by the news because we have a max 30 cases a year, so they can be covered. The sheer amount of homicides that you have in the UK or in the states, um, surpasses what the news media, uh, can be. Interested in and give attention to. So news coverage of homicide cases in countries like the states or the UK will pick out certain cases, and we know then that they'll pick out cases where there's a female victim. She is young, preferably she's beautiful. Um, BUT there are also, you know, ugly old men. Subjected to homicide out there, but you won't get to see them much in the news coverage in these countries. You will in Norway, of course, uh, but not in in news coverage in, uh, in the states and in UK and a true crime show about an old man who lived by himself and wasn't much liked and wasn't photogenic. That's, that's not gonna be a true crime show that

1:31:08 Ricardo Lopes: um maybe that's also not a true victim.

1:31:13 Vibeke Ottesen: A worthy victim. Well, yeah, that's the thing, isn't it? So if you have this beautiful young woman, then, uh, then suddenly you have pictures and you've suddenly got a coverage and attention. So true crime shows will have special cases that will grab your attention. And they then are not know when you ask me, are they representative? No. Um, AND then I think these true crime shows will vary. A lot depending on the qualifications of the person making it and their motivation for making it on how they are representing. Any aspect. Um, SO Norway has had um Documentaries, programs that are teetering on the verge of being true crime, one can have a discussion, is it a true crime show or is it not, that have actually been. SOBER and useful with regards to informing the public. On where police investigations went wrong, etc. Um, YOU have a podcast on, for instance, this, uh, uh, this homicide and rape of these two little precious girls. 25 years ago or whatever it was, where it's only a couple of years ago that we finally got a verdict saying that the main Uh, the one who was convicted as a main perpetrator back in the day was actually innocent. Um, THERE were podcasts. Uh, THERE was a podcast that was very useful with regards to get public opinion. A shift in public opinion to understand that, oh, hang on, this guy might actually, you know, the most hated person in Norway might actually be innocent. Um, AND another Um, that was a documentary on TV again, teetering on the verge. Is it a true crime? Is it not? But also showing what went wrong in the investigation where a little girl, what, how old was she? 5678 years old, and they thought they believed, uh, due to very, very, very faulty. Um, SHAMEFUL police investigation. They just decided it was a group of three little boys aged, I think they were like 5678 as well. And just recently, um, and also very much helped by this documentary exonerated for they were never convicted, of course, because they were minors at the time, but they were publicly exonerated thanks to, I think true crime at its best can do exactly what the mandate of media is. And that is to make sure that the police do their job, to make sure that the courts do their job, and to expose it when it, when they haven't. Um, BUT I'm worried about true crime shows where they think that they can come in like 1015, 20 years later and do, do better than the professionals at the time. Um, THEY can in the same way as maybe the police and even the courts identified the wrong person and created a narrative around the wrong person for being the perpetrator. It's the same flaw can be made by true crime shows which have a greater reach, of course.

1:34:34 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, OK, so, uh, let's send on that note, perhaps we've already done an hour and a half. Um, AND, uh, would you like to just to let people know again where they can find you and your work on the internet?

1:34:53 Vibeke Ottesen: Oh, you always ask that, and I always say that I, I, I hide. Do you know what? I'm, I still have a Twitter account. It's not super active. And of course it's, it's an absolute cesspool in there, um. I'm also on Facebook, which, you know, tells a lot about my age.

1:35:14 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, I, I'm, I'm also there, so, and I'm about to turn 36, so I

1:35:18 Vibeke Ottesen: mean. Um, YOU'RE merely a spring chicken on Facebook. Um, BUT yeah, no, I guess that's where I have considered more and more seriously, uh, blue sky, but also sub stack. I'm very opinionated, as you may have noticed, and I have wondered seriously if I should start a sub stack, um. What do you think? Should I do it?

1:35:49 Ricardo Lopes: Well, well, I mean, if you, if you do it, there will be more material for our interviews. I, I, I don't oppose it. Let's don't oppose

1:36:01 Vibeke Ottesen: it and I'll get a call back. I'll be back for a 7th time. No 6th. It will be a 6th time that if we haven't lost count already. Um, YEAH, but I'm, I'm not easily, I'm not easily found, but maybe that maybe maybe Twitter if your audience still is there. Um, AND, and there is Facebook as well. But uh I'm, I'm thinking I should do. I'm, I'm considering sub stack and then writing in English, of course, uh, for an international audience. Yeah.

1:36:36 Ricardo Lopes: Well, you can write in Norwegian. I mean, I, I can just translate it.

1:36:42 Vibeke Ottesen: Oh, yeah, things might be lost in translation. We'll see. But thank you so much for having me back. Such a pleasant conversation as always. Um, I hope my monologues weren't too long. Um, AND to any young females in your audience, I apologize. Obviously young females are wonderful, but then Don't do not take glee in other people's. Tragedy

1:37:14 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah. Well, thank you so much again. It's been a pleasure as always. Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at enlights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Muller, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seyaz Olaf, Alex, Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingbird, Arnaud Wolff, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forrest Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andrea, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoo, and Hal Herzognon, Michel Jonathan Labrarith, John Yardston, and Samuel Curric Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloan Wilson, Yasilla Dezaraujo Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Punteran Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis Nicole Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Alekbaka, Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltontin, John Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolotti, Gabriel Pan Scortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffy, Sony Smith, and Wisman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophanous, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Di Acosta, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Junior. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Gelbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Ebert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Jannes Hetner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin, and Jos Necht. A special thanks to my producers Iar Webb, Jim Frank, Lucas Stink, Tom Vanneden, Bernardine Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlo Montenegro, Al Nick Cortiz, and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.