Weighing the Evidence
Our Scoring System
Not all true crime docs are created equal. Some are airtight cases, others should’ve never made it past the pitch meeting. Here's how I separate the compelling from the cringe:
Top Tier
5/5 - Exceptional. Flawless storytelling, emotional weight, strong direction, & top notch production. These are rare and revered, the gold standard of the genre.
4/5- Highly recommended. Minor flaws, but still a gripping and well-executed watch. Worth your time and maybe a second viewing.
Mid Tier
3/5 – Serviceable. Might appeal if the case interests you, but not a standout. May suffer from pacing issues, stylistic problems, or lack of depth.
Low Tier
2/5 – Looked promising, turned out misleading or pointless. Messy, rushed, or sloppily produced. The story deserved better, and so did you.
1/5 – Negligent, sensationalized, or outright offensive. Should’ve been left on the editing room floor or never greenlit at all.
Final Verdict
Each review is rated using this scale, measuring not only entertainment value but also production quality, the documentary’s treatment of the case, the victims, the audience, and the facts.
Saturation Score
Some crimes are barely mentioned outside a local newspaper. Others are covered so often that it feels like every channel, podcast, and streaming platform has taken a turn. The Saturation Score is a way to rate how much media attention a case has received, whether it’s almost unknown, moderately covered, or completely overexposed.
Scale / Criteria
-
Unknown – Little to no coverage.
-
Obscure – A handful of mentions or local coverage, not much national traction.
-
Recognized – Familiar within true crime spaces, but not household names.
-
Well-Documented – Multiple documentaries, books, steady national attention.
-
Over-Saturated – Everywhere. Dozens of retellings across Dateline, 20/20, Netflix, podcasts, books, etc.
This is a true crime blog. That means we deal with violence, death, abuse, mental illness, and the darker corners of human behavior; regularly and without euphemism. If reading about blood, assault, or cruelty in various forms is a deal-breaker, this may not be the right corner of the internet for you, and that’s okay.
That said, I will do my best to provide content warnings when particularly graphic, disturbing, or unexpected material is present. But I won’t, and can’t, warn for everything. I’m not responsible for managing the individual triggers of every reader. You know your limits better than I ever could, and I trust you to take care of yourself accordingly.
This blog values clarity over comfort. I won’t sensationalize the content, but I won’t sugar-coat it either. You’ll get honesty, context, and critique; not shock value, and not censorship.
Spoilers:
Most cases I cover are solved, so naturally, some spoilers are unavoidable. Verdicts, timelines, and outcomes will be discussed plainly unless otherwise noted. When covering twist-heavy docs, I may include spoiler alerts, but consider this fair warning: if you’re here, you’re in the courtroom with me, not watching from the gallery.