Article written and interview conducted by McKenzie Fry
On Sunday, April 27th, Forensic Psychologist Dr. Rachel Toles will be discussing “The Psychology of a Murder” at Liberty Hall. She will be talking about the various factors as well as what leads someone to kill while also discussing different true crime cases. I have always found true crime interesting and being able to interview a Forensic Psychologist who knows so much about the topic was an amazing experience. Even if you are slightly curious about the topic, I think it’s a great opportunity to find out more!
When I interviewed Dr. Rachel Toles, I broke the interview into three parts: 1) questions about the tour, 2) questions about true crime, and 3) questions about her!
THE TOUR
Q: What inspired “The Psychology of a Murderer” tour?
A: After traveling across the U.S., Canada, and soon, Australia, with The Psychology of Serial Killers show, I began to notice a hunger in audiences for a deeper, broader conversation—one that moved beyond the extremes of pathology and into the more relatable, and perhaps unsettling, question: What actually pushes any one of us to kill?
I wanted to create a show that peeled back the layers of human behavior in a way that’s not just about “the other”—the serial killer out there—but about us. This tour was born from the realization that murder doesn’t always arise from psychopathy or monstrous intent. Sometimes, it’s the result of internal pressure cookers: grief, rage, shame, fear—combined with environmental accelerants like trauma, isolation, or abuse.
In The Psychology of a Murderer, I explore those tipping points. I draw from infamous cases, psychological theory, and clinical experience to examine how ordinary people can cross extraordinary lines. It’s not about excusing—it’s about understanding. And that understanding, I believe, is key to prevention and more empathy all around. The world could use it!
Q: Can you give us a glimpse into the live show—what can audiences expect when they attend?
A: When you walk into The Psychology of a Murderer, you’re not stepping into a traditional lecture or true crime reenactment. This is something different—it’s immersive, it’s psychological, it’s deeply human. I take the audience on a journey through the mind of a person on the brink: someone who doesn’t necessarily fit the mold of a so-called “monster,” but who, under the right (or wrong) set of circumstances, ends up committing the unthinkable.
We explore real-life cases, but the focus is on the why more than the what. The cause, not just the effect. I break down cognitive distortions like black-and-white thinking, emotional dysregulation, and the role of trauma—how these factors can build and build until a person snaps. It’s part forensic psychology, part emotional exploration. You’ll laugh, you might tear up, and I guarantee you’ll leave seeing human behavior in a new light.
Q: What makes this show a must-see for both enthusiasts or casual theatre goers?
A: Great question. For true crime enthusiasts, the draw is obvious—you’re getting a behind-the-scenes look at the psychological patterns that drive real crimes, straight from a clinical perspective. But what surprises people is how relatable and accessible the show is, even if you’re not someone who binge-watches crime documentaries.
This show is about us—our flaws, our impulses, our capacity for darkness, yes, but also for change. I’ve had audience members tell me they came for the intrigue, but stayed for the insight. There’s something universally human in recognizing that we all wrestle with the same emotional struggles—it’s just a matter of degree and direction. It’s a show that doesn’t just educate—it connects.
Q: The show features a live Q&A—have there been any particularly thought-provoking or unexpected questions from audience members?
A: Absolutely—some of the most moving moments have come from the Q&A. I’ve had people ask deeply personal questions, like “How do I know I won’t end up like my abusive parent?” or “Can trauma actually make someone violent, even if they seem okay on the outside?”—questions that reflect real fear and self-reflection.
One audience member once asked, “Is empathy enough to stop a murderer?” That sparked an incredibly rich discussion about prevention, early intervention, and what it really means to see someone before they reach a breaking point.
I never know what’s coming during the Q&A, and that’s the beauty of it—it keeps the conversation raw, real, and incredibly alive.
TRUE CRIME
Q: Do you have any theories as to why true crime is so big these days?
A: As humans, we’ve always been drawn to true crime stories — from even well before the obsession with Jack the Ripper. The difference nowadays is that we have access to SO much content due to the internet being at our fingertips. Because of this, I think we have become addicted to consuming content in general. And while men have porn addictions, women — believe it or not— have true crime addictions. True crime for women is the equivalent to pornography for men.
Q: Why do you think the fan base for true crime is heavily female — why are so many women interested in this topic?
A: This is a fascinating and important question—and one I get asked often. There are many layers to it. At its core, I think many women are drawn to true crime not because of morbid fascination, but because of a deep desire for understanding and safety. I’ve often referred to true crime as the DIY Survival Guide for women. Women have historically been more vulnerable to certain types of violence—particularly intimate partner violence—so there’s an unconscious, and sometimes very conscious, pull toward learning the patterns, the warning signs, the psychology behind these acts.
In a way, consuming true crime content can feel like a form of self-protection. If I understand how this happens, I can prevent it. I can spot it. I can survive it.
And yes—there’s also an addictive quality to the content itself. It engages our curiosity, our empathy, our sense of justice—and when that’s paired with easily accessible content and endless scrolling, it becomes very easy to binge. I often say: true crime is a window into fear, but for many women, it’s also a mirror.
Q: You’ll be covering notorious cases like Chris Watts, Aaron Hernandez, and the Menendez Brothers—how do you select which cases to focus on?
A: When I select cases, I’m not just looking for shock value—I’m looking for psychological complexity. Each of those cases you mentioned holds a unique lens into human behavior.
Chris Watts, for instance, exemplifies how internalized pressure and pathological compartmentalization can lead to a catastrophic break from reality. Aaron Hernandez’s case gives us insight into how early trauma, brain injury, toxic masculinity, and identity suppression can all intersect. And the Menendez Brothers? That case is a masterclass in intergenerational trauma, the blurred lines between victim and perpetrator, and the limits of empathy in the justice system.
I choose cases that ask difficult questions—ones that invite the audience to reflect on how easily the “unthinkable” can take root in environments where emotions are suppressed, ignored, or twisted.
Q: Are you aware of any serial killers that were “local” to Kansas or even Lawrence?
A: Kansas has a chilling history when it comes to serial killers. Probably the most infamous is Dennis Rader, also known as BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill). He operated out of Wichita, Kansas, just a couple of hours from Lawrence. What made his case especially disturbing was the double life he led—church leader, father, Boy Scout volunteer—while secretly committing horrific murders over three decades.
Q: What are some of the biggest myths or misconceptions about why people commit murder?
A: One of the biggest myths is that people kill because they “snap” out of nowhere. In reality, murder is rarely spontaneous. There’s usually a long lead-up—emotional repression, unresolved trauma, black-and-white thinking, sometimes untreated mental illness or overwhelming external stressors.
Another huge misconception is that only “evil” or mentally ill people kill. That binary—good versus evil—is comforting, but it’s overly simplistic. The truth is, murder often stems from pain, not pathology. The more we understand that, the better equipped we are to prevent it—not just through policing, but through earlier psychological intervention.
Q: You mention a proprietary formula for understanding why people kill—can you share a bit about that?
A: Absolutely. Over the years, I’ve developed what I call a “murder equation”—a psychological model that looks at three core components: internal pressure, external accelerants, and cognitive distortions.
- Internal pressure includes things like unresolved trauma, identity crises, or chronic emotional repression.
- External accelerants are situational—loss of a job, a breakup, financial stress, substance abuse—anything that magnifies internal turmoil.
- And then there are the cognitive distortions—the black-and-white thinking, paranoia, or magical thinking that warps a person’s perception of reality and justifies violence in their mind.
When these three elements converge, the risk of violence dramatically increases. My work—and this show—is about helping people see the signs, not just in others, but sometimes in themselves.
THE SPEAKER
Q: What got you interested in true crime?
I have been fascinated about death and murder as far back as I can remember. I witnessed a young girl getting pushed in front of a car and killed when I was 5 years old. Needless to say, it left a big imprint.
Q: What kind of hobbies do you have?
A: I love meditation, cooking, walks in nature, baking shows. I’m a pretty simple gal at heart.
Q: What is a cool fact that most people don’t know about you?
A: People are often surprised to learn that I originally considered becoming a fiction writer before I pursued forensic psychology. I’ve always been fascinated by human motivation, character arcs, and the hidden layers of personality—and storytelling was my first love. In many ways, I see my work now as a blend of both worlds. Each case is its own narrative, with context, emotion, and complexity. Understanding the why behind someone’s actions feels a lot like untangling the plot of a really dark and twisted real-life novel.
Q: If you could sit down and interview any infamous murderer, past or present, who would it be and why?
A: Not an original answer, by any means, but if I had the opportunity to sit down with any infamous murderer, it would be Jeffrey Dahmer. Not because of the nature of his crimes—but because of the profound psychological contradictions he embodies. Dahmer was both disturbingly calculated and deeply conflicted. He expressed guilt, loneliness, was completely transparent about his murders after he was caught and even had a clear desire for connection—which was the driving force behind all of it, believe it or not. His biggest question was WHY DID I DO THIS? I would want to help him answer it. No one was able to before he was murdered in prison.
Q: How has your interest and research in true crime helped further our understanding for “the psychology of a murder”?
A: True crime is often treated like entertainment, but it can be an incredibly rich source of psychological data—if we look closely and approach it with an open mind. Rather than simly labeling somone as evil or a “monster,” we can actually identify patterns: emotional triggers, decision-making processes, trauma responses, and the subtle shift from thought to action.
My research has helped highlight that murder is rarely just a “snap”—it’s usually the endpoint of a long and often invisible psychological journey. When we study these stories through a clinical lens—not just sensational headlines—we start to understand how people get to that breaking point, which is crucial if we want to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Q: What is the take away that you want people to get from your show?
A: More than anything, I want people to leave the show with a deeper curiosity about themselves and the people in this world that they don’t understand, and also a compassionate awareness. Not sympathy for murderers—but a deeper understanding of the complexity of human behavior. I want people to challenge their assumptions about what a “killer” looks like, and to see how societal pressures, emotional repression, and untreated trauma can lead someone down a very dark path.
If someone walks out of the theater thinking, “Wow, that could have been anyone—under the right (or wrong) circumstances,” then I’ve done my job. My goal is to shift the conversation from fear to insight. Because when we understand the mind, we start to reclaim power over the things we don’t understand and therefore fear the most.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
If this topic sounds interesting to you, I highly recommend that you go and check it out. And if this article sparked any questions about the topic, she will have a live Q&A at the end of her presentation. Keep it locked!