20 Convicted Murderers Who Still Deny Their Crimes

20 Convicted Murderers Who Refuse To Admit What They Did

Welcome to WatchMojo, and today we’re looking at high-profile convictions where the guilty individual continued to claim their innocence, sometimes for decades, and even until their final day.

Dr. Thomas Neill Cream

The Victorian-era poisoner known as the “Lambeth Poisoner” became infamous for his connection with a series of deaths tied to strychnine and suspicious medical treatments. Dr. Thomas Neill Cream built nearly his entire public persona on denying responsibility for the deaths that happened under his so-called medical expertise. This denial continued in his trial. Even as investigators uncovered a pattern of poisonings and suspicious prescriptions, Cream maintained a stoic attitude and maintained his portrayal as an innocent man. Sentenced to execution by hanging, witnesses reported Cream shouting, “I am Jack,” just prior to the trapdoor being released. Whether deliberate misdirection in admitting he was Jack the Ripper, a claim unfounded on factual evidence, Cream was one criminal who refused responsibility till the end.

Harold Shipman

Another infamous personality among convicted killers in the medical field, Harold Shipman, aka “Dr. Death,” never admitted to harming any of his patients. Despite all the evidence against him, Shipman was adamant about his innocence. But the thread of crime was clear. From forged documents, unusual drug patterns, and a clear statistical link between his visits and unexpected death. Shipman offered no explanation and certainly no admission. Presenting himself as a caring doctor who was being unfairly accused, Shipman continued denying wrongdoing until his death in prison. Shipman’s absolute refusal to confess or provide closure made his case deeply unsettling, leaving investigators convinced that the true victim count will never be definitively known.

Rose West

One half of Britain’s most infamous criminal partnership, Rose West was convicted alongside her husband, Fred West, for a series of horrific killings. But, unlike Fred, Rose never accepted responsibility and involvement in the murders she was convicted of committing. Throughout her trial, Rose distanced herself from her husband. Characterizing herself as being unfairly implicated by circumstance and unreliable witnesses, she was persistent in her complete refusal of her guilt. Even after decades in prison, she continues to deny guilt, insisting that Fred was solely responsible and that she was misjudged by both the public and the legal system. Her unwavering refusal to confess adds a chilling layer to an already disturbing case.

Colin Pitchfork

Colin Pitchfork was not the first convict to deny the allegations against him, but he was also the first person convicted using DNA profiling after the murders of two schoolgirls. Before the DNA breakthrough cornered him, Pitchfork spent years repeatedly insisting his innocence. After the murders of two teenage girls, Pitchfork maintained that investigators were targeting the wrong person. He even went so far as to persuade a coworker to take a DNA test for him, reinforcing his supposed innocence. When DNA evidence finally and undeniably tied him to the crimes, he confessed, but only after all avenues of denial were exhausted. Nonetheless, Pitchfork’s prolonged refusal to admit guilt, even in the face of mounting evidence, made his eventual exposure a landmark in criminal justice.

H. H. Holmes

Regarded as one of America’s earliest serial offenders, H. H. Holmes became notorious for his labyrinthine “Murder Castle.” A master of contradiction, Holmes confessed to more than two dozen murders but also later recanted nearly all of them. Claiming innocence and that he had fabricated many of the stories behind the murders, Holmes denied any wrongdoing. The constant shifting of his stories made it impossible for investigators to know which details were true. Admitting guilt one moment and denying it the next, Holmes manifested a cloud of uncertainty around himself. Even near his execution, he changed his narrative again. His refusal to clearly accept responsibility ensured that the full truth behind his crimes remains uncertain, adding an eerie mystique to his legacy.

Jeffrey MacDonald

A former Green Beret doctor, Jeffrey MacDonald, was convicted of the killings of his wife and two daughters, but he steadfastly denied this reality. From the start, he claimed intruders broke into his home, attacking him and murdering his family. In the extensive investigations and multiple trials, contradictory evidence was discovered. But MacDonald did not change his stance. Continuing to maintain that his account is accurate, he has appealed repeatedly, giving interviews asserting his innocence and criticizing investigators for ignoring key details. His refusal to accept the court’s findings has kept the case alive for decades, turning it into one of America’s most debated legal sagas and ensuring MacDonald remains a symbol of enduring denial.

Pamela Smart

Convicted of orchestrating her husband’s murder through a teenage accomplice, Pamela Smart has always denied she ever planned such a crime. Even decades later, Smart continues to deny orchestrating anything, claiming she was manipulated and unfairly portrayed by witnesses seeking reduced sentences. Even with testimony, recordings, and media scrutiny, Smart claimed she was framed and that the full story never came out. In interviews and appeals, she maintained that prosecutors ignored evidence that could have cleared her. Firmly refusing to admit guilt, though she did take some responsibility in a 2024 video statement, Smart’s ongoing declarations of innocence continue to fuel public interest in a case that sensationalized early 1990s crime coverage.

Susan Smith

She initially told her children were kidnapped during a carjacking. She would proceed to defend said story tearfully in public. But as the investigations began, Susan Smith’s story began to reveal cracks. When investigators uncovered contradictions, she ultimately confessed to driving her car into a lake with her sons inside. However, in later statements, Smith attempted to distance herself from responsibility, suggesting it was an impulsive act rather than intentional harm. Despite her earlier fabricated kidnapping story, Smith continues to insist she never meant to kill her children. Alternating between remorse and claiming full responsibility, Smith’s shifting accounts have made her case one marked by denial, emotional manipulation, and lingering public unease.

Phil Spector

Phil Spector, legendary music producer, maintained throughout his trial and imprisonment that the death of actress Lana Clarkson was accidental. Despite evidence presented at two trials and a conviction for second-degree murder, Spector insisted that Clarkson’s fatal injury occurred due to her own actions and that he had nothing to do with it. He would maintain this facade even when witnesses described patterns of threatening behavior. Arguing that accounts against him were exaggerated or fabricated, Spector would find himself imprisoned for life. There he would remain until his passing, maintaining his innocence in interviews and through his legal team. His refusal to accept the court’s findings remains part of his complicated legacy.

Michael Peterson

The subject of the documentary series “The Staircase,” Michael Peterson was convicted of killing his wife, Kathleen, though he has always insisted she died from a fall. Years of appeals, legal twists, and an eventual Alford plea allowed him to maintain his claim of innocence legally while accepting sentencing outcomes. Even when convicted, Peterson continued asserting that investigators overlooked alternative explanations, including a theory involving an owl attack. He would continue to argue along those lines, repeatedly stating that the prosecution misinterpreted injuries and relied on faulty assumptions. His persistent refusal to admit guilt, even while accepting legal consequences, makes his case one of the most debated examples of long-standing personal insistence on innocence.

Drew Peterson

A police sergeant turned criminal, Drew Peterson was convicted of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Despite this, he has consistently argued that her death was accidental. Throughout investigations, he dismissed suspicions as misunderstandings or personal vendettas. The numbers just didn’t add up, and suspicions heightened when prosecutors linked him to the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. Through it all, Peterson remained firm. The courts were wrong, and he was innocent. This unwavering denial, despite the extensive circumstantial evidence, kept his case in the spotlight and positioned him as one of the most steadfastly defiant convicted figures of the 21st century.

Scott Peterson

Rounding up the third Peterson in our list, in a case that dominated social media, Scott Peterson was convicted of the deaths of his wife Laci and their unborn child. Throughout the trial, he claimed he had no involvement and that investigators overlooked other possibilities. Despite a conviction supported by strong circumstantial evidence, Peterson continues to appeal, arguing that media coverage influenced the verdict. His supporters cite circumstantial elements, while detractors point to trial evidence, but Peterson himself has never wavered. Even after more than two decades, Peterson’s refusal to admit guilt fuels public debate and media coverage. The persistence with which he denies the conviction is a major reason the case remains so widely debated to this day.

Charles Ng

One half of the terrifying Leonard Lake-Charles Ng murder duo, Ng has long insisted that he was unfairly blamed for crimes he claims Lake orchestrated alone. It did not matter to Ng that investigators uncovered a bunker full of videotapes, journals, weapons, and victims’ belongings. It did not matter that this evidence showed Ng participating in the horrific crimes. Still, he continued to deny direct responsibility. Throughout his extradition battle, trial, and years on death row, Ng has maintained that he was merely a bystander swept up in Lake’s violence. His denial feels especially unsettling because the evidence paints a far darker picture, leaving many to believe he refuses to admit the full scope of his actions.

Robert Durst

Like something out of a real TV show, this killer went to the grave without uttering a confession. At least, not a formal one. Decades after being connected to several mysterious murders, Robert Durst agreed to participate in a documentary series about the cases. While mic’d up, Durst went to the restroom and muttered an admission of guilt decades in the making. His legal defense tried to throw it out, claiming it was the innocent ramblings of a weary, old man. But the jury didn’t buy it. Durst passed away in 2022 after serving a year of his life sentence, having never officially admitted to any wrongdoing.

Darlie Routier

Convicted of murdering her young son Damon, who suspiciously met the same fate as his brother Devon, Darlie Routier has spent decades insisting an intruder broke in and attacked her family. It didn’t take long before investigators discovered inconsistencies in her story. Blood-splatter evidence contradicted her initial claim, and later, a televised video of her behaving oddly at her son’s grave thoroughly swayed public perception. Despite all of this, Routier continues to argue she was wrongly accused. Stating that she has no memory of harming her children and the real killer is still out on the loose, Routier’s unwavering denial has fueled ongoing debate in what is an emotionally charged case of a mother who lost her way.

Rodney Alcala

The “Dating Game Killer” presented one of the most unsettling cases in criminal history. Although he eventually entered a guilty plea to two murders, Rodney Alcala reportedly denied every allegation set against him. Representing himself in court, Alcala maintained he was wrongly accused and misunderstood. His resolve towards a claim of innocence did not stop the photographs, forensic evidence, and multiple witness accounts that stacked up against him. This only reinforced Alcala’s stance. At one stage, he even went to the extent of suggesting a different suspect. Alcala’s refusal to confess to any crime, paired with the extensive evidence, made his trial one of the most disturbing displays of sustained denial in modern criminal history.

Richard Ramirez

Targeting his victim after nightfall, the “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez was convicted of a series of attacks and murders across California. But the criminal in the spotlight denied any involvement in his crimes. Claiming that evidence linking him to numerous attacks was fabricated or misinterpreted. Ramirez repeatedly insisted he was being framed by the justice system, and maintained this stance even after being convicted of multiple charges. Throughout courtroom proceedings, he displayed little interest in addressing the allegations, instead asserting his innocence and criticizing investigators. At one point, Ramirez shouted out “Hail Satan” as he was led from the courtroom while pleading innocence to the murders he was convicted for.

David Berkowitz

The man known as the “Son of Sam” terrorized New York City in the 1970s. David Berkowitz is an American serial killer who committed multiple shootings and a stabbing between 1975 and 1977. Playing complicated games of guilt and denial, Berkowitz recanted key details of the crimes he had committed. Claiming he didn’t act alone or wasn’t responsible for every attack, Berkowitz insisted that he obeyed the orders of a demon manifested in the form of a black dog named “Sam” that belonged to his neighbor. On other occasions, Berkowitz suggested a cult committed the murders, and he only participated partially. Even with an eventual guilty plea, his shifting stories and tendency to minimize his own involvement have kept doubts, mysteries, and chilling speculation alive.

Dennis Rader

Before ultimately confessing, Dennis Rader, or the notorious BTK killer, initially denied all involvement in the killings linked to his cryptic letters. Living a double life for decades, Rader alienated himself from public speculation on his involvement in the crimes attributed to the mysterious figure “BTK.” Even after resuming communication with authorities in the early 2000s, he initially presented himself as merely an observer of the case. After years of denial and misleading statements, Rader eventually gave a full confession. Nevertheless, his early denials became part of what made the BTK case so chilling. Rader’s longstanding refusal to admit guilt, until digital evidence cornered him, was a major factor in the case’s enduring notoriety.

Ivan Milat

Australia’s most infamous backpacker murderer maintained his innocence from conviction until his passing. Despite physical evidence, witness testimony, and extensive investigations linking him to the killings, Ivan Milat insisted he was wrongly accused. Refusing every opportunity to confess, Milat denied closure to victims’ families. Throughout appeals, interviews, and correspondence, Milat repeatedly claimed the justice system targeted him unfairly. In a resolve for denial that lasted decades, Milat’s case was an unwavering rejection of responsibility rarely seen in such high-profile cases. So much so, that upon his deathbed, Milat wrote a declaration of innocence, taking his secrets to the grave.

“Backpacker murderer Ivan Milat dead at 74 | ABC News” (2019)

Ivan Milat declaration of innocence at deathbed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCL207unffs

“Ivan Milat: Politician Claims There Were “Hundreds” More Victims | 10 News+” (2025)

Milat’s past and rise

https://youtu.be/EJztG-c2ZEg?si=bEtKGK51Sw0wzDlo&t=134

Which of these cases do you think are remembered differently by the criminal’s maintenance of innocence? Let us know in the comments.