to not understand the "entertainment value" of true crime

[Nimbostratus100]

I understand the enjoyment of murder mysteries, excitement, interesting characters, mystery aspect etc.

I dont understand the "enjoyment" of "true crime" where real people have suffered and died and been bereaved. The thread about Jonbenet for example, why are people enjoying "documentaries" and feeling they can speak authoritvly about the death a poor little girl, thousands of miles away about which they in reality know nothing, but feel like they can slag of members of her family anyway?

Ive just gone onto itv player to find something to while away a few hours, and find myself being offer a whole plethera of "true crime" stuff. No thanks, what on earth is fun or relaxing being a spectator to other people's grief, pain and misery?

I just dont understand what sort of person enjoys that. I hope you will enjoy it just as much if you are ever the subject of one of these dramas.

Me too. The radio is also useful for this, there are a surprising number of just as good in audio programmes on You Tube.

I love 'murder-mystery' books as they are works of fiction & I'm always intrigued with how the authors (mostly female!) come up with the plots.

As for real life on tv - it's seeing how the crime is solved that really interests me & ideas as to why they were committed in the first place.
I watched the series about the Yorkshire Ripper on Netflix & it was appalling to see how police misogyny ruled the investigation leading to further deaths.

Yes, in reality you don't stand much of a chance against a man.
However one of the studies found that more women were interested in true crime that mentioned survival of a victim.

I had a schizophrenic and alcoholic mother who threw me down the stairs aged 4 and who was in and out of psychiatric hospitals my whole life, leaving me in the care of my Dad who was quite frankly useless. I am not out and about shooting and murdering people. I guess that’s what interests me- why do some people with backgrounds similar to my own do these things and often cite it as some sort of reason? Many people with abusive and difficult childhoods do not go on to do these things. It’s all very odd. And yet we know that it’s very important in terms of relationships and emotional empathy for children to have a stable upbringing.

I find these sorts of stories particularly interesting. Ted Bundy had a few survivors of his attacks. There’s quite a few interviews with some of them on you tube, and of course lots about his long term girlfriend who he lived
with on and off (and her daughter who was effectively his step child). Fascinating. I’ve just finished reading her book.

The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy, Updated and Expanded Edition https://amzn.eu/d/8c5BJ8H

I'm fascinated by the hunt, less so by the gory details. The clues the perpetrator left and the amount of effort that goes into finding them. The forensics. The psychology and social factors that lead to someone killing.

For example, the Yorkshire Ripper case was pre-computer and generated so much paperwork they had to reinforce the floor underneath the incident room. The details of Peter Sutcliffe were hidden within this.

Richard Ramierez was eventually caught by an angry mob after being spotted on a greyhound bus and had to be rescused by the police.

How did Harold Shipman get away with it for so long? Why had no one picked it up sooner.

All interesting to me.

I hate it. It's intrusive and hurts those related to the victims and the perpetrators.

Why people get pleasure from reading about torture and murder is beyond me. I think it's sick.

There was a notorious disappearance near here which keeps being dragged up again and again causing immense pain to the woman's child and grandmother. They are frequently contacted by journalists and beg them to leave them alone and not write any more about it until there is actually new evidence.

I really don't understand why people view it as entertainment.

I find it very ‘off’ and avoid anyone that’s into that as some sort of hobby.

It’s the sort of people that post on the Nicola Bulley type threads. Ghouls. Treating someone’s tragedy as a way to pass time and entertain themselves, it’s really sick.

I do listen to a US podcast about unsolved murders and disappearances. But it’s not about the gory details for me, it’s about how many there seem to be and how crap the local police seem to be in many cases.

I can't speculate too much OP and don't feel it necessary to put forward my personal opinions on true crime to make the point I'm about to, but basically I believe there is something deeply ingrained in humans and human behaviour to have a morbid curiosity. Not all humans, but certainly a large proportion.

All throughout history, as far back as records go, there are examples of humans having an interest in things that are morbid, frightening, depressing etc. They are drawn to things that are unusual, different from "everyday life" whether that be attending freak shows in the last few centuries, the fascination and parading of "oddities" whether that be other humans or animals, the fact that cars on the southbound motorway will slow down and cause queues because lots of people want to gawp at the crash which has happened on the northbound and, as you've stated, the fascination with true crime which has existed as long as true crime has been reported.

True crime, in my opinion, interests people for different reasons but there must be a reason that it does. It must be part of human nature and behaviour for a lot of people to want to see things which shock and disturb them. Why this is the case? I don't know.

Some people like to hear about things which pop their bubble of a "safe world" perception, it shows them a different side of what humans can be capable of and they try to study or understand how someone could be capable of something so evil. People seem to be interested in those who live a life most differently from ourselves and as regular, normal, law abiding citizens, no one is less like us than someone who is capable of committing awful acts. The media's attention on murderers and serial killers adds to this I believe, they are examined in detail, have their face plastered on papers and websites, the massive media attention around the crimes of a serial killer captures the consumers of that media source - there is money to be made in morbid curiosity so people are conditioned to be interested with media cliffhangers and "exposes".

And I was also really gripped by the Pam Hupp case. But I’m not generally interested in reading about Charles Manson, Ted Bunty et Al.

On youtube there are lots of real police footage videos of the first interview after arrest of killers.

There is a voice over telling you a brief outline of what they've done, sometimes some bodycam footage of the actual arrest, sometimes a recording of a 911 call, and occasional photos of the crime scenes but nothing acted or overblown.

For me the fascinating bit is how they explain the very careful technique of the interrogators with their questioning, what their goal is with each question and see when they get it wrong or very right. Watching the body language of the criminal, see the interrogators let their feelings get the better of them sometimes and fuck up the procedure a bit.

To see the arrested sit there and either blatantly lie for a long as poss or simply spill the beans and tell all, perhaps to finally ease their conscious is fascinating.

The interest for me is not in the awful deaths but the investigations, forensic evidence and court proceedings that lead to conviction or aquital.

I enjoy fictions like Vera, but the real life documentaries are far more interesting and revealing of hunan nature.

I’ve been thinking about the Dahmer dramatisation and why I think that’s unethical compared to, say, the ITV real life crime dramatisations eg- Des, Appropriate Adult, Code of a Killer, Manhunt, The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies, A Confession, White House Farm, etc.

Basically, Dahmer is from the perpetrator’s POV, the creators fabricating and offering up suggestions, such as actions his parents took, which sent him down this road to doing unthinkably awful things. Many of the camera shots are sort of voyeuristic and glamourised, to try to ‘help’ the viewer understand his motivations- which in effect, makes him a sympathetic character. They seem too focussed on making it a good horror for entertainment purposes, including gore.

That’s what crosses the line.

Dramatisations which focus on the victims point of view or the police investigations are completely different. They can inform you about what dangers are out there, give you the satisfaction of seeing a puzzle being solved or justice being done and also you can find out about amazing acts of resilience and survival.

I don’t enjoy it but that’s because my job has always been in the criminal justice area, so not really appealing!

I personally find it fascinating that you think Dahmer shouldn’t be seen as a person. He was a person. I think one of the most dangerous things we can do is to shove killers like him in a box marked ‘monster’ and pretend that they aren’t human.

I often wonder if the desire for people to do the above is from their own inability to understand their own shadow. And if one can’t understand and accept that part of themselves, they can’t necessarily control it.

The ‘othering’ of killers doesn’t do anyone any favours. I sort of think people who do consider themselves on the side of the victim think those who understand that killers have likes, dislikes, histories and loves means you have less empathy for the victims. But that’s simply not true.

We can’t figure out the ‘why’ unless we are willing to see them as human. I’m always minded to think of things like World War II. It didn’t happen because of a minority few SS Officers. It happened because many, many normal people buried their heads in the sand and refused to understand the nuances and complexities behind what was going on, making themselves complicit.

I thought the Dahmer series was fantastic. It was deeply uncomfortable because it gave nuance to a killer. It IS uncomfortable to think someone who can do such horrific things has something in common with you.

@Laiste is it the channel Explore with us? We watch those too

I'm hooked on 'True Crime' and, like you, have spent a fair bit of time trying to understand why and what do I like about it.

I think I was ruined by my first 'true crime' experiences when the podcaster very thoughtfully centered the families of victims in cold cases. I was totally drawn in and wishing they could resolve the cases and got a far better understanding of how these crimes totally affect and re-shape the lives of the living. (One cold case was resolved ... absolutely bawled at the trial point).

Not all true crime stuff is handled as sensitively, but I'm also now sucked into trying to understand the killers/rapists.

From a policing perspective, some of the ones that have affected me the most have been where the women were victims in the 70s. Oh my word, women were treated badly by the police. I wish everyone knew how badly. And I can't help - with the recent met police report - wondering if anything ever really changed or maybe there was just a superficial change masking misogyny that never went away.

And then yes, there's the 'entertainment' aspect. I remember one moment, listening to something, headphones on, knitting in lap, cat nearby, when a murder scene was forensically described and I immediately made a connection to another case I'd also listened too. Two episodes later it was all about comparing those two cases and trying to draw conclusions. I was "oh thank god they spotted it too", as if I, knitter and cat stroker extraordinaire, have allll the insights and answers 🤣 from my couch.

It works the other way too. For example, there's a case from about 20years ago here in the UK where a teenage boy was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. He was 14 at the time and there's a campaign from many who believe he's innocent. One of the evidence bits against him was that he was a Marilyn Manson fan, and Manson was fascinated by the Black Dahlia murder, and people think there were similarities between the murder of his girlfriend and the Black Dahlia. I can't see any similarities at all having listened to in-depth podcasts interviewing police about the Dahlia murder etc. Which makes me a bit 🤔 and 🙄 about the thought process behind all that and obviously makes me wonder if other aspects of the investigation were equally fanciful. And concerned an innocent boy might have been locked up ...

I do instantly switch off the podcasts others have mentioned here. The ones that are 'it could be', or 'maybe' based on absolutely nothing. I get very very irritated if evidence isn't used and very thoughtfully considered.

Completely agree, and this is the aspect of it all that fascinates me.

Ted Bundy worked on a suicide hotline. 😳 Christopher Halliwell was so well liked amongst his peers and customers as a taxi driver women used to actually ring up and request him as they felt safe getting home with him as their taxi driver. 😳 Dennis Nilsen worked in the job centre advising vulnerable people how to get their rightful benefits and help. I find little bits like that absolutely fascinating. These aren’t “monsters” in the sense of them being some sort of supernatural, non human being, these are people with self awareness and the ability to empathise with others - even if deep down they don’t. Or the ability to compartmentalise to the point they have several different layers to their own being. Who knows.

Yes, I completely agree. I like watching detective/murder fiction (though maybe I'd feel differently if I knew someone who'd been murdered, I don't know). But I won't generally watch true crime. Occasionally I watch crime documentaries though, including one on how forensic analysis helped to catch Peter Tobin - fascinating and heartbreaking. For me it really depends on how the subject is treated, there needs to be respect and a sense of gravity for what happened. I hate the, "Ooh, look, we had a real-life serial killer in our community, how exciting," type shows.

And I'll throw in the seemingly-popular Jack the Ripper walking tours. Why on earth do people want to go on those?

To me it's interesting because it's true, I am interested in human behaviour and what makes people act in unexpected ways.

I'm not so interested in fictional stories which is somebody's made up idea of what people would do in a situation. I want to know what real people do in real situations where something extreme happens. I do try to steer clear of anything too vouyeristic and stick to respectful representations, or where people are able to tell their own story.

I don't understand the entertainment value of sports, reality shows where they put people into artificial ridiculous situations, celebrity gossip, or pranks. We're all different I suppose?

@MisanthropistToTheCore

I personally find it fascinating that you think Dahmer shouldn’t be seen as a person. He was a person. I think one of the most dangerous things we can do is to shove killers like him in a box marked ‘monster’ and pretend that they aren’t human.

Totally. I was struck by this wrt Ed Kemper who was utterly barbaric and horrific. But the people who meet him describe him as personable and putting them at ease, intelligent, interesting etc. I can't help wondering if he'd decided to become a president of a dodgy country instead of being a serial killer, if he'd have done very well.

Oh yes, and the procedural stuff I find absolutely fascinating.

There is a series on BBC called The Crash Detectives, where they followed forensic crash investigators. They look at the scene of a fatal car crash (which is, obviously, a horrific thing) and it's amazing to see the process of them piecing together what must have happened, what they are sure about, what they are unsure about and how they narrow down the possibilities. There are things like the scratch marks on the road and paint that is transferred from one vehicle to another or to crash barriers and they can work out what happened in what order. They look at the injuries of the people to work out what happened when the car crashed. They even look at things like whether the filament in the brake light bulb is distorted (if it is, it's because it was hot at the point of impact, which means that the driver was conscious and braking. If it's not, then they probably weren't trying to prevent the crash, which usually means that they were asleep or unconscious.)

It's brilliant even though it's sad to hear what happened to the people. It's nice to see people brought to justice on the basis of this evidence as well.

I think you don’t really understand what I mean.

Des was able to humanise Dennis Neilson brilliantly, I ended up with a much better understanding of his crimes, what motivated them, which I think weren’t too dissimilar to Dahmer’s - wanting the company of someone beautiful, but resenting their free will, not wanting them to be able to say no or leave. He was dehumanised less than Dahmer imo.

I think the gratuitous gory voyeurism from Dahmer’s perspective was perverse on the part of the makers. I don’t feel any better off having the graphic detail on him getting off on his crimes as though I am enjoying them with him. I don’t enjoy watching gory movies or violent ones. The makers obviously do enjoy violence and gore and assumes others are the same.

I did think the first episode was well done, but the back story was in poor taste. I listened to some of the taped interviews on a different programme and I think there was a bit of fabrication going on to try to make his behaviour make sense in the dramatisation. The makers seem to believe in ‘100% nurture’ rather than ‘nature’, which is understandable when confronted with something so bizarre, you want something to explain or justify it, but that doesn’t mean that thing exists and you end up unfairly blaming the parents.

Ted Bundy was able to do that - he told loads of lies about his mum that everyone lapped up, to justify his actions, because people would rather think that a boy abused by his mother would go on to kill women as a man, than someone, with nothing out of the ordinary in his childhood, would go out and murder women entirely of his own volition. We can’t stand the lack of explanation. I think film-makers do us a disservice when they make stuff up to satisfy our preference for a made up convincing narrative over the truth which doesn’t make sense.

I personally love a bit of true crime. I’ll consume books, tv shows and YouTube stuff.

The only issue I have with the more modern stuff is that it sensationalises and makes “sexy” the serial killers (especially in the case of Buddy and Dahmer) and I know you’ve always gotten that to an extent it seems to be a little overboard at the moment.

I watch and read because I want to understand why people do the things they do. I don’t consume it to get a blow by blow account of the injuries they inflicted on their victims and how good looking the perpetrators are.

Simon Whistler has a YouTube crime series called The Casual Criminalist (he also has a show called Into The Shadows which is about the darker side of life) which is really good for giving details but not graphically so. He also likes to highlight the victims and call out these killers for their disgusting behaviour.