It's already started - the gender inequity in coverage. Just last week during the appeal filed on behalf of Andrea Yates, there was a highly sympathetic recount of her crime (the drowning of her young sons) and how emotionally disturbed she had to be, and how she would suffer the rest of her life for her crime. They had violins playing in the background. Oh, yeah, her husband. Bummer for him too.
Just today, I saw some coverage of this latest example of psychotic female violence, and the female commentator was saying something like, "I know this crime seems unimaginable to us, but we have to understand that to Montgomery (the killer) this was a solution to a problem. She must have been very desperate." So, why do we have to understand if we already understand? It's quite simple. She's a fucking psycho. Just because she's female doesn't make her a benign psycho killer.
It's also unimaginable to me that we are supposed to summon up any sympathy for this Montgomery. It would be like saying, "We really have to understand how desperate Scott Peterson really was. He was trapped in a situation where he saw no other way out." Oh, and Mr. Stinnett? Why waste any sympathy on a man? They have no feelings to understand.