When True Crime Becomes Your Actual Life
A Personal Essay on True Crime Coverage and Hope for a Better Way from the Lens of the Family Member of a Victim
By Kristina Byington
Before my cousin’s murder, I loved true crime.
I have been interested in the mysteries and stories of suspects and victims for as long as I can remember. I devoured book after book and often watched true crime stories on Dateline, 20/20 and 48 Hours. But true crime truly entered my life in 1991 when my cousin, Anita Byington, was beaten to death in Austin, Texas. True crime was no longer merely entertainment for me. It was real. It was horrendous. It was brutal.
I have written about Anita’s case and efforts to exonerate her convicted killer, Andre Causey. Still, as I have traveled on a journey representing Anita and our family, I have become increasingly concerned about media manipulation in the true crime space that seems designed to drive clicks, dollars and agendas and not truth. And I’ve noticed how it operates without compassion. Perhaps it took being a secondary victim to see this or the exoneration efforts that became public in 2022 in a world where media has drastically changed. Regardless of the reason, there is a stark problem creating unnecessary pain for the secondary victims of crime like my family.
From the 2004 case of Maura Murray, where her family was painted as villains, to the focus on Karen Read’s trial for the murder of John O’Keefe that puts the preparator at the center and accuses victim family members of being a part of the murder to the focus on Richard Allen instead of the teenage girls he was convicted of killing, something needs to change in the true crime community.
As it turns out, Murray’s family was vindicated last year when it was revealed that true crime creator LaDonna Humphrey appears to have made up emails designed to make them look bad. True crime podcasters and fans have debunked many of the claims against the O’Keefe family, but people continue with their accusations, even harassing family members and review-bombing the business of O’Keefe’s brother. Finally, after a gag order that only silenced law enforcement, prosecutors and the families of Abby Williams and Libby German, Allen’s victims, the families had a voice this year. But these things are of little consolation to those who suffered from false claims, rumors, victim-blaming, conspiracy theories and agenda-driven reporting.
We must find a better way.
Anita’s Murder
Anita Byington, my first cousin, whom I loved as a sister, was a 21-year-old college student when she was killed. Out of nowhere, her loved ones became part of a real-life Dateline episode. It was the nightmare that came true. The shock, horror and grief were beyond what I can explain with mere words.
Thankfully, for those of us who loved her, there was no Internet back then. We found a few headlines disturbing, but there were no irresponsible podcasts or Reddit threads to add to our misery. It was a big case throughout Texas, but beyond a national story or two, the stories about Anita’s case were limited to the immediate area and big cities nearby. Fascination with true crime still existed, but it was unlikely that you would come across some uniformed stranger’s comments about your dead loved one.
Going through a murder in your own family is a horror that I cannot fully explain. It is the worst nightmare you’ve ever had, multiplied by a million. Even today, 33 years later, I sometimes have to stop and ask myself, did that really happen to us? Your little cousin is no longer yours anymore — she is a headline, she’s a case, she’s become someone who isn’t real anymore, and her story is dissected everywhere by strangers who never met her. Blithe comments online by random people, trolls, agenda-driven news stories and podcasts, and flat-out lies presented as facts—aside from the actual murder, these are the issues that have caused me the most heartache, pain and trauma. But what can be done? How can the true crime community, while covering particular cases, minimize the pain for crime victims and their families?
Anita’s brutal death shattered my heart to pieces. To this day, there’s a big part of me filled with such sorrow, pain, and emptiness, even after 33 years, that it feels as acute as the day I first found out I had lost her. Just imagining the way she ran for her life, tried to fight, was beaten to death and left there like a slain animal still brings tears to my eyes. She was my best friend and my family, and she barely had a chance to live. As her older cousin, I looked out for her. The fact that she was alone in a strange place with nobody there to help her saddens me down to my core (more details about the murder and the case can be found here. The detailed confession of Causey, her convicted murderer, can be found here).
Anita’s Return to the Spotlight and Biased True Crime Media Coverage
Our world was rocked beyond belief by Anita’s murder, but we were wholly unprepared for what happened in 2022. That was when we learned that Causey sought exoneration with help from The Innocence Project of Texas and The Travis County District Attorney’s Office. We were not notified of the new investigation. Instead, we found out on social media. Our family tried to take the lead and find out exactly what was happening.
Anita’s closest remaining relatives — she had no siblings, and her parents have died — agreed that I would represent the family. It was a struggle to figure out what was going on. As disconcerting as that was, we had no clue of what was to come. The Travis County District Attorney was beyond unhelpful. Terry Keel, the original prosecutor in the case, offered to help us and represent the family.
With her convicted murderer pursuing exoneration, all of a sudden, her murder case became “news” again. By this time, everything had changed. Due to the speed of the Internet, the ability of so many to comment on her case and the demand for true crime entertainment, this was no longer just a local case.
We were open to the idea that Causey was innocent. Still, we learned that the case was being made through misinformation and omission. A detective on the case was indeed found to have coerced confessions, but the evidence showed other detectives took the lead on her case and the detective under suspension was never alone with Causey. In August, a judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support exoneration. Causey was paroled two years ago. His exoneration case is now headed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
My first experience with the media came in November 2023, during the first writ hearing in Causey’s bid for exoneration. Several local news media outlets were waiting for an on-camera interview with me by lunch. I felt nervous and scared, self-conscious and uncomfortable. I don’t even like being in photos, so this was terrifying. But I chose to do it because of the one-sided nature of the proceedings, where the facts of the case were being twisted, and any incriminating evidence against Causey was omitted. Unlike Maryland, where victims’ families are considered parties to exoneration cases, Texas has no legal protection, meaning when the prosecution supports it, there is no official legal advocate for the other position. And the truth was being railroaded, and nobody represented Anita or the original case. The resulting news reports, in my opinion, were fair to both sides. I felt uncomfortable with being on TV, but I tried to forget about it.
That experience of fairness with the media didn’t last very long.
Unbeknownst to me, Texas Monthly reporter Michael Hall was at the November hearing. When his article was published online, no one from our family was interviewed or notified of the article. My cousin was only mentioned in passing. Hall said that Causey’s confessions were given to the detective who later came under scrutiny for coercion, even though two other detectives listened to Causey describe his actions.
Hall said Causey had always maintained his innocence and said he had been threatened by the detective. In actuality, Causey did not allege he had been threatened until a detective supervisor, Sgt. Hector Polanco was disciplined after Austin Internal Affairs investigated him for coercing confessions. And, in fact, Causey testified under oath in a pretrial hearing that he had not been threatened.
The police said they believed Polanco coerced confessions in the high-profile Yogurt Shop murders and the murder of a police officer, but they did not cite his involvement in the Causey case, which was minimal. Hall wrote that Causey’s confession was signed “after a Polanco interrogation.” Four witnesses testified at trial that Polanco was not involved in his interrogation and was never alone with Causey.
In his story, Hall discussed each person who testified at the hearing, one by one, except for me. I felt Hall was wrong on the facts and omitted the bulk of the case against Causey. It felt like his story was twisted to his own agenda. It felt shocking and sickening.
I wrote Hall on X, the platform formerly called Twitter, to dispute his story’s falsehoods, and he admitted that I made some good points. But what he said next was shocking. He wrote, in part:
“I said all I needed to say in that story and I’ve moved on. I’m juggling three other stories right now and published another this morning. That’s what I do … There are plenty of people who might want to tell a good story, but like I said, I’m done with this one.”
“That’s what I do.” What he did was create a lot of heartache. What he would not do is correct the record. How nice that he’s able to move on. Sadly, victims’ family members can’t just move on. We loved them before you knew them and will love them long after you are gone.
Had Hall written a story favoring Causey’s innocence and included all the facts and evidence against him, I wouldn’t have had an issue. But that’s not what happened.
In January 2024, Serena Lin wrote an article in the Austin American Statesman. In our conversations, Lin assured me she aimed to cover the story fairly. From my perspective, that’s not what happened. Once again, all of the evidence which incriminates Causey was almost entirely omitted from the article. And, once again, having to see these stories lionizing a convicted murderer without getting into the actual facts of the case was another trauma on top of a long list of them.
Reporters like Lin and Hall may see themselves as objective and fair because they include a line or two nodding to the victim’s family.
But platitudes to victims are not enough.
Centering a piece on the angle that Causey was a victim of a wrongful conviction — without questioning that very premise at all — is fundamentally unfair. In my experience, these reporters who ought to have known better allowed themselves to be spoon-fed by one side.
In September 2024, the podcast Wrongful Conviction with Maggie Freleng released an episode with an interview with Causey. The show description did not even mention Anita’s name. She’s become just a side character in her own murder.
Freleng asserted that the only reason the police even looked at Causey was because he was merely passing by the crime scene. What the evidence says is that Causey was acting so suspiciously while passing by the crime scene that two separate individuals took down his license plate number and called the police. Among other things, he got out of his car and nervously blurted out to a couple of strangers that he didn’t “kill that girl” but that he had found her body and falsely that he had called the police.
When questioned about his whereabouts on the night of the murder, Causey changed his story eight or nine times. None of this was included in the fairy tale being presented. The judge ruling on his exoneration cited a laundry list of evidence against him, which can be found in this court ruling).
Freleng also lamented the fact that Causey was denied parole 16 times and how hard that must’ve been for him each time. What about her family? What do you think they went through all of those times? How do you think her parents felt each of those times?
Harlon’s Razor is a rule of thumb that says never to attribute to malice, which is adequately explained by incompetence. I can’t tell which one is happening here, but both are unacceptable.
Podcasts like Wrongful Conviction clearly have an agenda—based on the name alone in this example—but nothing about advocating precludes compassion or a phone call.
As if that was not enough, during the interview, Causey’s wife stated that the Byington family owed them an apology. I would love to ask Freleng and Causey what exactly we have to apologize for. We did not arrest Mr. Causey, we did not take his confession, and we did not convict him.
All this, and we did not even get a call.
To lose a loved one is like being stabbed and being mistreated by the media just twists the knife over and over again. Having the entire truth presented would not bring Anita back, but it would be a nice consolation prize.
A podcast about Causey by Nosey Nancies was so bad that they even got the convicted killer’s name wrong throughout the entire episode. With that as a starting point, you can only imagine. And one of their sources of information was none other than the Texas Monthly article, proving old adages about the amplifying effect of falsehoods.
Two members of Wrongful Conviction’s staff sent me messages about my concerns, attempting to explain to me the facts of the case of my cousin’s murder. It felt patronizing given how long I have lived with and breathed this case. It felt like up was down and down was up, like I was in some absurd version of Alice and Wonderland.
Every false lead, bad piece of reporting or spurious allegation can extend the suffering of victims’ families. It twists the knife that went into our hearts when our loved one died.
When I reached Freleng and Nosey Nancies to offer an alternative perspective, I was blocked. I cannot imagine The New York Times or NBC News not taking the call of a victims’ family member. I could never imagine them blocking one.
Somehow, I’ve become the bad person, the wrong one, all because I just want the entire truth to be presented.
The Bright Side and Some Potential Solutions
In the past year, I was interviewed by Audrey Conklin, a reporter for Fox Digital. Her story felt fair to me — she dissected the facts of the case and presented each side’s arguments. She showed the case for guilt. She showed the case for innocence. Conklin didn’t take a side but didn’t let anything slide either. The article was impartial, and that’s just about all one can ask for.
Thus far, I have been interviewed by two podcasts: The Murder Sheet, hosted by Kevin and Áine Greenlee, and The Silver Linings Handbook, hosted by Jayson Blair. 1 Both were great experiences. The hosts were fair and empathetic towards Anita, me, and her loved ones. Still, it was highly uncomfortable to be recorded talking about the worst thing I’ve ever experienced. Still, at least they were centered on compassion and truth (The next day, The Murder Sheet released an episode on the case where they interviewed Texas Innocence Project officials that also felt fair).
There are no easy solutions, but here are my suggestions.
Content creators should focus on getting their facts straight, learning everything they can about a case before speaking on it. Include evidence that doesn’t agree with your “stance” on the case, and don’t be afraid to correct your errors. Truth is justice for the victim.
With everything you say, keep the victim and their family in mind. Try to imagine that they will be hearing everything you present. In keeping with my previous suggestion, the victim’s family has lived with the case since the minute it happened. If you don’t present a factually based episode, the family will know it more than just about anyone. In fact, reaching out to the family in a non-invasive way would be something to try. Families are usually well-versed in their loved one’s case, so they could be a goldmine of information in a case you are covering. Journalists and content creators should informally monitor this problem internally. Ethical content creators should not hesitate to call out to their colleagues when they publish irresponsible, false, or harmful stories. When content creators are harmful to a victim’s family, the ethical creators have a duty, I believe, to call them out publicly and support the families who have already gone through the unimaginable.
In journalism, there is a phrase that asks, “Who watches the Watchers?” It is ultimately the public’s responsibility to hold journalists accountable for their reporting, and we—all true crime fans—are the “watchdog” to ensure accuracy and ethical conduct.
True crime is needed. It propels justice.
I believe in the many ethical true crime creators and some of the phenomenal true crime fans I have become friends in the last year. I believe in you. I believe you can make a difference.
Kristina Byington is the advocate for her cousin, Anita Byington, who was murdered in 1991 in Austin, Texas.
Jayson Blair is a founder of this publication and asked if I would write an essay about my experience as a victim’s family member. Jayson had nothing to do with the selection of the topic or my mentioning his interview with me.
I’m so sorry for your loss. My stepmom was murdered ten years ago. Her killer, her son, is already out on parole. It’s so heartbreaking and such a unique pain.
Thank you for this information. We absolutely need to see correction in the true crime space. Thank goodness for the legal process that will actually review all the facts in your cousin’s case and hopefully prevent the exoneration.