10 Most Unrealistic True Crime Show Clichés | STARTER PACK

10 Most Unrealistic True Crime Show Clichés

Welcome to MsMojo, and today we’ll be opening an investigation into the most overused true crime TV tropes that deserve to be laid to rest.

A Small, Close-Knit Town Where Such Crimes Never Happen

In real life, crime happens everywhere, from big cities and quiet suburbs to small, rural towns. But going by true crime shows alone, you’d think violent crimes are exclusive to the big cities. That is because these shows almost always open with some longtime resident describing the community where the crime occurred as peaceful, tight-knit and the kind of place where people didn’t even lock their doors. Inevitably, the person would also add something along the lines of “We just couldn’t believe it. Crimes like that never happened here.” Except, judging by the sheer number of true crime shows set in these supposedly “small, quiet, close-knit” towns, it sure seems like it does happen there… a lot.

The Exaggerated Re-Enactments

We get it, accurately depicting a crime can be challenging, especially since most don’t happen in full view of a camera. That’s why many true crime shows rely on re-enactments. When done right, like in 2018’s “American Animals,” they can be pretty compelling. However, most true crime shows fall far below that standard. Ideally, these scenes should bring the story to life, but they frequently come off as cheesy or even unintentionally funny. The over-the-top performances, slow-motion sequences and ominous music can make serious cases feel like a low-budget, straight-to-DVD thriller. Worse, these dramatizations sometimes sensationalize events and fill in gaps with pure speculation. The result is a viewing experience that’s not only distracting, but frankly, feels disrespectful to the real victims and their families.

The Victim With a Smile That Could Light Up a Room

In the world of true crime shows, every victim was an angel on earth before their tragic end. They are always described as being exceptionally kind, universally beloved, and of course, having “a smile that could light up a room.” Now, we don’t intend to disrespect victims or their loved ones; it does make sense that they would remember them fondly. But the predictability of such descriptions has basically turned them into a cliché. Also, was there ever a victim who was just okay? Someone who sometimes forgot to text back, left dirty dishes in the sink and wasn’t adored by everyone. Or is a case only compelling if the victim was the type to “give you the shirt off their back”?

The Detective’s Most Disturbing Case

Yet another overused cliché in true crime shows is the dramatic moment when the detective claims that the case in question was “the most disturbing” one of their career. It doesn’t matter how many gruesome homicides or bizarre disappearances the detective has encountered, this one case that a film crew just so happened to interview them about, certainly was the absolute worst they’d ever seen. Of course, this comment helps to keep the audience invested, eager to see just how unsettling the case truly is. But given how often it comes up, you have to wonder, do these detectives actually rank their most disturbing cases? Is there a leaderboard somewhere? And do they update it every time a new documentary crew comes knocking?

Putting Survivors & Loved Ones in Melodramatic Situations

At their core, true crime TV shows are still TV shows. We’re not naive enough to think they wouldn’t throw in some overly produced visuals to heighten the emotional impact. But why drag the survivors and victims’ loved ones into it? These people have already endured enough. We don’t need to see them staring directly into the camera, unblinking, while the narrator delivers a gut-punching line. Or have them gazing over a lake while the soundtrack plays sorrowful music. We understand that these moments are meant to convey their loss, which is very important, but they often feel contrived. It’s as if the producers don’t trust the real story to be compelling enough, so they dress it up with unnecessary theatrics.

The Omnipotent Detective

We’ve seen it countless times: the detective recounts a case that had been unsolved for years, only for them to swoop in, uncover crucial evidence and bring long-awaited justice. While some detectives genuinely do remarkable work, solving cold cases isn’t nearly that easy. Many remain unsolved due to insufficient evidence or flaws in the original investigations. But like we said, true crime TV shows are still TV shows, and a detective who admits their failure in solving crimes doesn’t make for gripping television. These shows also exaggerate the detectives’ role, often downplaying the contributions of forensic scientists, or even sheer luck. In doing so, they create a near-mythical image of the detective: one who always cracks the case and single-handedly brings closure to grieving families.

The Ease of Forensic Pathology

There’s no denying that forensic science has been pivotal in cracking countless cases. But if you’ve ever binge-watched a true crime series, you might be convinced the process is a lot smoother and conclusive than it actually is. These shows make it seem like DNA analysis and fingerprint matching deliver results within minutes. In reality however, they can take anywhere from weeks to even years, especially if there’s a backlog. Additionally, they create the illusion that a single “smoking gun” forensic discovery is enough to solve a case, whereas such evidence is usually just one piece of a much larger puzzle. So yes, forensic science is vital, but unlike the on-screen depiction, it’s often a slow and painstaking process that doesn’t always guarantee justice.

The Discovery of the Victim’s Body

Before even starting a true crime show, you can almost always guess how the victim’s body was discovered. It usually goes something like this: the witness, often a jogger, hiker or someone just walking their dog, stumbles upon something unusual deep in the woods. At first, they think it’s a discarded mannequin, because of course, mannequins are littered everywhere in remote forests. But upon closer inspection, they realize it’s actually a body. This one is probably not as egregious, because the brain isn’t exactly expecting to see a dead body, so it latches onto a more mundane explanation. However, that doesn’t make the cliché any less amusing, and it appears so frequently in true crime shows that it almost feels scripted.

Typin’ & Drivin’

Investigating or reporting on crimes often involves traveling between locations, so naturally, detectives and journalists spend a lot of their time driving. However, in the world of true crime shows, simply driving isn’t enough. No, the subject must also be aggressively typing on a device, frantically sending messages or debating over a call. This trope is meant to convey the urgency of the case, but in reality, it feels performative, not to mention illegal in most places. Instead of making the subject seem competent and determined to crack the case, it just ends up making them look reckless. Do true crime producers realize that simply pulling over is still an option?

The Same Overexposed Photos & Generic B-Roll Footage

It wouldn’t be a true crime show without the same grainy photos of the victim or the suspect appearing over and over again. To keep things engaging, the pictures are slowly overexposed, desaturated or drowned in a heavy red tint. Bonus points if the image zooms menacingly into their face while the narrator says something like “But was there something darker lurking beneath the surface?” And because there’s never enough actual footage, these shows rely heavily on generic b-roll. The slow drone shot of the victim’s quiet hometown; police tape fluttering in the breeze; or jail cell doors slamming shut as the suspect is found guilty. Instead of recycling the same tired visuals, maybe try retooling these shows as podcasts. It worked for “Serial.”


Which of these true crime show clichés is your biggest pet peeve? Let us know in the comments below.