Humans are wired for stories. We love a good hero, sure, but there is something fundamentally different about the pull of a villain. Not just a movie villain with a cape, but the real ones. The kind who sit across from a camera and explain, in chillingly calm tones, exactly why they did the unthinkable. Whenever a new interview with a killer drops on Netflix or YouTube, the internet basically stops. We click. We watch. We wonder if we could ever see it coming if we met someone like that at a grocery store.
It's uncomfortable. It's weirdly addictive. Why do we do this to ourselves?
Maybe it’s because we want to believe there’s a "why." If we can find the logic, however twisted, we feel safer. But as anyone who has spent hours watching these depositions knows, the "why" is often just a void. You’re looking for a monster and you find a person who looks like your neighbor. That is the part that actually keeps you up at night.
The psychology of the sit-down
Why do investigators and journalists even do this? It isn’t just for the views, though let's be honest, the views are massive. For a detective, an interview with a killer is a chess match. You aren't just looking for a confession; you are looking for the "how." Criminal psychologists like Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis have spent decades trying to figure out if killers are born or made. When she interviewed Ted Bundy, she wasn't just looking for his list of crimes—she was looking for the glitches in his brain.
Bundy is the blueprint here. He was charming. He was articulate. He used the interview as a stage. This is the danger of the medium. When you give a microphone to a predator, you risk turning a tragedy into a performance.
Most people think these interviews are about getting the truth. Honestly? They are often about the lie. Watching how a person lies—the micro-expressions, the sweating, the way they redirect the question—is often more telling than the words they actually say. If you watch the famous interrogations of Stephen McDaniel, it’s not what he says that’s scary. It’s the way he sits perfectly still for hours. He’s like a statue. That stillness tells you more than a ten-page transcript ever could.
When the camera becomes a weapon
There is a fine line between journalism and exploitation. We see this a lot in modern true crime documentaries. Shows like I Am a Killer or the various Piers Morgan specials rely on the shock value of the face-to-face.
Sometimes, the killer uses the interview to hurt the victims' families one last time. They might withhold the location of a body or change their story just to feel a sense of power. In the world of an interview with a killer, power is the only currency left. They have lost their freedom, but they still own the narrative. If they can make you believe they are misunderstood, or even just make you feel sorry for them for a split second, they’ve won that round.
Take the case of Ed Kemper. He is famously "polite." In his interviews, he sounds like a professor explaining a complex mathematical theory. He’s incredibly self-aware. He talks about his "work" with a level of detachment that is honestly nauseating. But he’s also manipulative. He knows that by being the "articulate giant," he creates a persona that people want to study. He becomes a subject rather than just a prisoner.
🔗 Read more: The Godfather Family: A Look Inside the Corleones and Why We Can't Stop Watching
The different types of interviewees
Not every sit-down is the same. You basically have three main vibes:
- The Remorseless Ego: These guys love the attention. They want to be the smartest person in the room. They brag. Think Richard Ramirez or any killer who identifies as a "night stalker" or a "son of Sam."
- The "I’m the Victim" Crowd: They spend the whole time blaming their parents, the system, or the victim themselves. It’s never their fault. The lack of accountability is staggering.
- The Empty Ones: These are the most terrifying. No emotion. No ego. Just a flat delivery of facts. They describe a murder the same way you’d describe making a sandwich.
What we get wrong about these conversations
People often think that a killer will eventually "break." They wait for the cinematic moment where the person bursts into tears and begs for forgiveness.
That almost never happens.
Real life doesn't have a third-act climax. Most of the time, an interview with a killer ends with more questions than answers. You realize that you can’t "solve" a human being. We expect logic, but evil—or whatever word you want to use for it—is rarely logical. It’s impulsive, or it’s fueled by a cocktail of bad brain chemistry and horrific upbringing.
There’s also this weird misconception that these people are all "geniuses." Pop culture gave us Hannibal Lecter, so we expect killers to be sophisticated. In reality? Most are average or below average. Their "success" in evading the law usually comes down to luck or police incompetence, not some master plan. When you see them in an unedited interview, the "genius" facade usually falls apart pretty fast. They sound petty. They sound small.
The ethics of the audience
We have to talk about us. The viewers.
Are we being "educated" or are we just rubbernecking at a digital car crash? True crime is one of the most popular genres in the world, and interview with a killer content is the peak of that pyramid. There is a real risk of "fame by proxy." When we spend hours analyzing a killer's childhood, we are giving them a level of attention that their victims never received.
Experts like Dr. Park Dietz, who has consulted on cases like Jeffrey Dahmer and the Unabomber, warn that sensationalizing these interviews can lead to copycats. If a lonely, angry person sees a killer getting a three-part docuseries, they might see a path to being "remembered." That’s a heavy thought.
But on the flip side, these interviews serve a forensic purpose. They are used to train new detectives. They help psychologists identify red flags in other potential offenders. If we don’t look at the darkness, we can’t learn how to spot it before it strikes.
How to watch with a critical eye
If you’re going to engage with this kind of content, don’t just take it at face value. Look for the gaps.
- Watch the body language: Does their physical reaction match the emotion they are trying to project?
- Question the interviewer: Is the person asking the questions challenging the claims, or are they just nodding along to keep the "talent" talking?
- Remember the victims: It sounds cliché, but it’s easy to forget that behind every "fascinating" interview is a trail of real people whose lives were destroyed.
The best true crime content focuses on the impact of the crime rather than just the "coolness" of the criminal. If the interview feels like it's glorifying the act, it probably is.
Actionable steps for the true crime enthusiast
If you find yourself deep in the world of criminal psychology and interrogation analysis, here is how to handle the information responsibly.
Verify the source materials. Don't just watch a "Top 10 Scariest Killer Interviews" video on YouTube. Those are usually edited for maximum drama. If you’re truly interested in the psychology, look for unedited police interrogations on channels like JCS - Criminal Psychology or Explore With Us. These provide the full context of the behavior without the cinematic music.
Read the peer-reviewed studies. If a specific interview piques your interest in how the brain works, look up the actual studies on antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. Names like Robert Hare (the creator of the PCL-R psychopathy checklist) offer actual scientific grounding that a TV documentary won't give you.
📖 Related: John Lennon \#9 Dream: Why It’s Still The Weirdest (And Best) Song He Ever Wrote
Support advocacy groups. Balance your consumption of "killer" content by supporting organizations that help victims of violent crimes. Groups like the National Center for Victims of Crime or local cold case initiatives help shift the focus back to where it belongs: justice and healing.
Analyze the interrogation techniques. Learn about the Reid Technique vs. the PEACE model. When you understand how the police are trained to talk to suspects, you’ll see the interview with a killer in a whole new light. You’ll start to see the triggers and the psychological "traps" being set in real-time. It turns a passive viewing experience into an exercise in critical thinking.
Stop looking for the monster. Start looking for the patterns. That's where the real insight lives.