In March 2022, Kim Devins received a Facebook message from a British producer named Rory Barker from Plum Pictures, asking if she wanted to take part in a documentary about her daughter, Bianca.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Devins has received a lot of messages like this over the years. Since the brutal murder of her then-17-year-old daughter in July 2019<\/a>, images of which went viral on Discord and Instagram, she has spoken to a handful of documentarians and media outlets (including this one) about Bianca and her efforts to prevent social media platforms from profiting off gruesome images of her death. Barker\u2019s description of the project seemed fairly innocuous, with him telling Devins that the film would be \u201cfocusing on social media and the violence that has come from this world,\u201d and that it aimed to \u201chold social media companies to account\u201d for hosting violent content, according to messages reviewed by Rolling Stone<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But because Devins had signed an exclusive contract with another production company, she declined to participate in Barker\u2019s project. \u201cI get a lot of these messages,\u201d she tells Rolling Stone<\/em>. \u201cUsually, once my family won\u2019t participate, they just kind of let it go, and that\u2019s what I assumed happened here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She was surprised when, last week, she received a follow-up message from Barker saying that the film had <\/em>been made, and was set to air on the U.K.\u2019s Channel 4 \u2014 only it was nothing like what he had described in his March 2022 pitch to her. Instead, it was called Interview With a Killer, <\/em>and it would feature a lengthy interview with the man who had killed Bianca, Brandon Clark, who is currently serving 25 years to life in prison for her murder. What\u2019s more, it would be airing on Nov. 6, just a week and a half after Devins received Barker\u2019s message informing her of the new angle for the project. (Note: Rolling Stone <\/em>has not yet seen the project.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Devins was staggered. It wasn\u2019t just that the documentary was so different from how it had initially been described to her \u2014 it was also that it featured an interview with Clark. One of her stipulations in working with other production teams had been that those projects would mention Clark as little as possible, out of her desire for the media to \u201cfocus on the victims, not the perpetrators,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though reaching out for comment to an accused criminal is a standard part of the reporting process, it is largely up to the discretion of individual journalists as to how much of their perspective they want to represent. And it was especially important to Devins that Clark\u2019s voice not be highlighted in any coverage of her daughter\u2019s murder, considering the highly public and dramatic nature of his crime. Immediately after Clark had killed Bianca, he posted a photo of her body on Discord with the caption, \u201csorry fuckers, you\u2019re going to have to find somebody else to orbit.\u201d According to police, shortly after he was arrested, he began inquiring about how many media outlets had covered the murder. To a large extent, it worked: The photo of Bianca\u2019s body went massively viral, and to this day Devins receives harassing messages and threats from trolls taunting her with the photo, telling her that her daughter deserved it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFrom the beginning, this was all set up for attention,\u201d says Devins. \u201cOur family doesn\u2019t want to give him the attention that he wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to Barker\u2019s message, Devins sent a letter to Channel 4 and Plum Productions, urging them not to air the documentary. \u201cIt is my belief that by airing an interview with Brandon Clark, your lack of duty of care during production will put women in danger,\u201d she wrote in the letter, noting that the production would cause \u201cimmense emotional distress\u201d to Bianca\u2019s family members and friends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A representative for Plum Pictures responded to Devins\u2019 letter in an email provided to Rolling Stone,<\/em> saying that while the company was \u201ctruly sympathetic to the unspeakable horror you have endured,\u201d Interview With a Killer<\/em> was not intended \u201cto give Brandon Clark a platform\u2026. quite the contrary, we hope that the documentary will offer education and insight into the dangers of incel culture and the rise of violence towards women.\u201d (Much early coverage of the crime portrayed Clark as an \u201cincel,\u201d a term used to describe \u201cinvoluntarily celibate\u201d men who harbor a great deal of irrational hatred toward women, though Clark did not appear to identify<\/a> as such.) The email concluded that the program would be airing on Channel 4 as planned, as it had \u201can important educational message and addresses issues of significant public interest,\u201d noting there were no current plans for the film to air in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Devins was disappointed by the response \u2014 and even more so when she saw Interview With a Killer <\/em>promoted on Channel 4\u2019s website, which features a thumbnail of Clark in prison garb, staring directly at the camera. \u201cThe name and advertising looks like all the focus is on him,\u201d she says. \u201c[That\u2019s] very different from the way [Channel 4] portrayed it in the email.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n When reached for comment, a representative for Channel 4 provided the following statement: \u201cWe appreciate this is very difficult subject matter. This case has been widely reported and the topic is extremely important and relevant as it discusses personal safety for young people who engage on social media.\u201d The spokesperson added that Kim Devins had been contacted to participate and had declined on the basis of her exclusive contract with another production company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kim Devins\u2019 dispute with the makers of Interview With a Killer <\/em>echoes a larger cultural discussion about true-crime coverage \u2014 both whether it is appropriate to highlight the stories of perpetrators rather than victims, and whether it is appropriate to cover crimes without family members\u2019 participation or consent. This discussion has less to do with the legality of doing so \u2014 certainly, journalists and filmmakers have the right to cover whatever subjects they wish \u2014 and more to do with the potential ethical issues raised by such coverage, as critics increasingly raise questions about whether the genre at large skews educational or exploitative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Devins is not the only family member of a crime victim to speak out about this topic. In 2021, Jordan Preston, the sister of Brooke Preston, who was murdered by her roommate in 2017, went viral on TikTok after launching a petition speaking out against Dead Asleep<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>a Hulu documentary about her murder. Like Devins, Jordan and her family declined to participate in the project when they learned it would prominently feature interviews with Randy Herman Jr., Brooke\u2019s killer, who alleged he had been sleepwalking while committing the murder, but was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey said it was something like, they were gonna be digging into the sleepwalking defense,\u201d Jordan Preston said in 2021 of the producers of Dead Asleep<\/em>. \u201cThey pretty much made it clear it was gonna be about him and not her. Why would we want to support anything about him? He took her from us. Why does he get to speak to the world and she doesn\u2019t?\u201d(Skye Borgman, the director of the film, did not respond to requests for comment from Rolling Stone <\/em>at the time.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like Kim Devins, Preston acknowledged that the producers of Dead Asleep <\/em>had not breached any legal issues, but she felt strongly that the film, and other documentaries about true crime<\/a>, should not have been made without the family\u2019s consent. \u201cIt\u2019s wrong. We\u2019re a grieving family,\u201d she said. \u201cWhy do they want to exploit us? They\u2019re putting our pain up on the screen. What they\u2019re doing is hurting our family.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though the true-crime genre has exploded in recent years, following the success of podcasts like Serial <\/em>and series like Making a Murderer<\/em>, critics have raised questions about the purpose such content serves for audiences and victims\u2019 family members alike. Defenders have argued that the genre can promote advocacy for victims or perform a public service in educating vulnerable populations about safety and crime prevention. Yet many critics have countered that interest in true crime has gotten out of control, pointing to the popularity<\/a> of armchair sleuths on platforms like Reddit and TikTok, where creators regularly report breathless conspiracy theories about real-life victims<\/a>, as an example.<\/p>\n\n\n\nEditor\u2019s picks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Related<\/h2>\n\n\n\n