User Reviews

After seeing season 2 and 3, I wrote this: This show has some chilling cases that really get under your skin, but they do a great job of being respectful to the victims and their families. They also include survivor stories, which adds a dimension that you just don't get when it's a 'all-murder' show. Then I saw the first 2 episodes of season 4 and they really hit me hard. Too hard. Spoiler - both are about the violent rapes and murders of teenage girls. It felt like they were showing more violence. I sometimes draw while I watch so maybe I missed it before, but it was MESSED UP. Suddenly I'm second guessing whether I like True Crime at all anymore.

I don't know what it is about the ID shows, but they always seem to pick and choose what parts of a story they want to tell. They don't seem to realize how easy it is to Google information about these cases. The information left out seems inversely proportional to how long the show runs. Seasons one and two have moments of "Huh, I wonder why they didn't mention this part?" But the longer it goes on the more ridiculous the oversights are. It really starts to carry a stink of "But only the people we are interviewing matter." Sometimes it seems like the equivalent of interviewing a Dahmer survivor and failing to mention that he killed fifteen other people.

For example: There was one case that they made a huge fuss over how religious the family was and how it must of been God that protected and saved them. The mother and daughter were kidnapped and held hostage by a former student of hers. But the show completely fails to mention that while kidnapping the two of them, he also kidnapped and murdered a young boy for witnessing what was happening. It just reeked of sillyness. "God was with us." Well, he didn't seem to be with that little boy who only died for seeing what was happening!

In another case a woman's ex-boyfriend goes on a killing spree. He winds up killing the family that was sheltering her and then kidnapping her. The re-enactment then becomes very generous with its timeline. According to the show's version they went to a hotel and almost immediately he wigs out and wants to leave and she spots a cop and heroically runs for help. What they fail to mention was that they most certainly weren't there for mere minutes. In real life there were a lot of questions about her involvement and how much was happening against her will. According to the hotel manager she was away from the guy on multiple occasions to buy snacks and drinks. To him, she seemed "Chipper and happy" and at no time did she seem tortured or under any duress, nor did she relate that she was being held against her will, which she could have done at any time. The show also fails to mention that after she escaped he killed another person in a carjacking. Then, when they relate the part about him kidnapping the woman's mother, they completely leave out two other human beings! "OH NO! He has my mother!" What they fail to mention is that mom's boyfriend and a twelve year old boy were in the house and held hostage as well. Why? Why fail to mention this? Did you overlook two people? Or is it just more heroic if only female victims are involved? The show also fails to mention that our heroine and her mother both heroically sued the police department and lost. Their claim was that the cops failed to adequately protect them, only problem was, the cops had offered both of them protection on numerous occasions, including having an officer in their homes.

It just seems like the entire show is conveniently one-sided. Every victim's story starts with: "They were sweet, innocent, well-liked, beloved, had many friends, and in their spare time they fed the starving leper orphans of Calcutta." Whether the producers are poorly researching these stories or just ignoring the inconvenient stuff....the decision is questionable at the least. We want to hear the whole story, not just some "version" of it.

My favorite show during the daytime. I pause it go run my errands and come back so I can fast forward the commercials. Great programming and the majority of actors are good.

I do really enjoy this show, but it makes me kind of angry when there are even minute errors, because you're trying to relay a story of tragedy that affected the lives of many, and the least you can do is have all your facts straight.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies throughout the episodes. One episode had a guy who raped 4 women, but only murdered two, and that was stated quite a bit, however when wrapping up the end, one interviewed detective(?) stated firstly that he was tried in court for 3 attempted murders and three murders (prior to knowing about the 4th raped & murdered victim), but it was already revealed to us that he only murdered one woman that they knew of at the time (the second wouldn't be found out until about a decade later), and made no mention of sexual assault charges. I think he may have misspoke at that moment, but that's where you stop and do another take.

Another episode, upon introduction, stated the last name of a woman as Starbuck, but less than a minute later, when she came on screen for her recounting of events, her last name was Starks.

I feel like even if this stuff isn't caught by the producers, it should at least be noted by the editor(s) who undoubtedly must see these contradictions.

It also feels like they take liberties with the way certain characters behave and how the story goes, as well as flat out omitting victims and events.

Not perfect, but an entertaining watch nonetheless.

"True crime" yet every story is completely made up. A psycho just raped you and you have him take you back to his house where you try to seduce him? Instead of going to the hospital? Yeah, no. Please don't insult our intelligence.