I dunno, I get very uncomfortable with the assumption that a woman is always victim to a man if she does vile things, that it's because she is under his control.
Maybe Mrs Philpott is as calculating, as nasty and as thoroughly repulsive an individual as her husband allegedly is? Why is that not a possibility? Why must women be excused and patronised by always assuming she is weak and controlled and vulnerable? Why can't she simply be a piece of evil shit like he is?
Oh I would not discount that at all AuntMaud, a woman can do bad thibgs no matter what the circumstances. ....just consider Rose West. Lots of information out there which alleges SHE was the abusive one in the marriage altnough they both did horrendous things.
Evidence does suggest though that for people who have grown up in abusive backgrounds the risks of following suit are higher than in those who have a "normal" background. Loads of information now lookibg at brain development in children and later outcomes.
I think in this case he sounds an abusive and controlling man but that doesn't mean his wife can just say "he abused me" if she knew and willingly took part in this.
Of course women can be bad of their own accord. But the girlfriend who escaped with her kids testifies that Philpott was abusive and the prosecution case is he set the fire to beat her in a custody battle, which is certainly the action of a bullying, controlling, angry man.
I think if you look at the stats, it's far more common for a woman to act under the control of an abusive man that for a woman who is in a relationship with a man to be the prime mover. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's not the most frequent situation.