The collected musings of Ryan Elder

You can always write that the villain who thought he was oh so careful, left some sort of evidence that led to him. A stray hair, maybe? Some sort of something that is so small the villain would't think of it.

 

1/ How can a cop witnessing a murder be "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Just because he was following this guy because of tainted evidence is irrelevant. He could be following him just because he was a known criminal (OK, no evidence, so if he'd been spotted, the crook could have cried "harassment") but police follow suspects all the time. They don't need to show due cause if what they're doing is in a public place. What's to say he wasn't just passing? Or going to visit the harbourmaster? Or going to the pub on the corner? Or, or...

"Your honour, I saw, with my own two eyes, Joe Slimebag kill this guy. And, if you don't believe me, here's this photo I took of him on my cellphone. That's when I slapped the cuffs on him, at the crimescene, before he could clean off all the forensic evidence."

2/ Cutting off the victim's head to plant at the criminal's place? Using what? The chainsaw he had tucked into his bat-belt? To sever a head you have to cut clean through the spinal column; you won't do that with a standard bowie knife! Plus, while you're doing it, there will be plenty of blood and stuff flying around; you'll be the one covered in DNA evidence, not the real killer.

 

Well when researching it and going over the plot with a lawyer, he said it would be fruit of the poisonous tree, because the cop discovered who the villain was by committing a crime.

If the cop was on the stand, he would tell what he saw. The defendant's lawyer would say "How did you become aware of who my client is, when you were following him at the time".

The cop would then say "That he discovered who the client was by hacking into the bank records of the lawyer who was hired to defend a previous suspect".

Right there, the cop's testimony would not be admissible, because he committed a computer hacking felony in order to find out the identity of the gang leader.

Now the cop could lie on the stand, but he does not want to swear on the bible and do that, and make things worse. He figures it's best to live to fight another day, and find another way to get the killer, since his testimony would be inadmissible, since he committed a crime to figure out the identity of who he was following around on his own time.

And yes the police can get away with following someone around on their own time, but they have to know the identity of the villain by legal legitimate means, and not by committing hacking, which will cause the evidence to become tainted.

 

The cop doesn't want to swear on a Bible and lie on the stand, but he is willing to pay someone to hack a lawyer's financial records, watch a murder take place and not intercede, chop the head off of a corpse and use it to frame the guy for the murder he DID commit but could never be proven he committed.

Bruh.

This is the third thread you are trying to do some serious mental gymnastics with your cop MC. Why are you picking and choosing which laws he is willing to break? Pick a route and write it.

 

So, a photo of the murderer standing over the body with the knife in his hand, and covered in (forensically verifiable) blood and an eyewitness testimony that he did it goes out of the window because defence asks why the cop is following the murderer? "Because I thought he looked like a murderer, your honour, and look, he is". And who's going to tell the defence that an illegal act was the reason why Slimebag is being tailed? He's a crook. He knows it, and his lawyer will too. So, being tailed is par for the course.

Even if the cop's evidence was inadmissible because of this poisonous fruit, the photo and forensics weren't obtained illegally. Unless you're saying that a cop witnessing a crime in progress and doing something about it is illegal. And in that case, once you've brought suspicion upon yourself through this poisonous tree, you can do anything you like and the police can't touch you.

Incidentally, you say the cop won't lie on the stand. But, what happens when he frames Slimebag and his police comrades pick him up? Slimebag's defence calls cop to the stand, and ask him the same question. Straight away, he's either got to lie, or give them the poisonous tree.

 

Okay thanks. Well I want to write it so that the cop cannot be an admissible witness himself because of what he did. Perhaps the blackmailed hacker could call the police and say he was blackmailed into finding out the killer's identity, in which case it will not help the cop to lie, cause the blackmail victim reported him?

And as far as other evidence collected from the scene, the villain doesn't leave any other evidence at the scene, so nothing else is collected. What I could do maybe is write it so that the villain left some DNA at the scene, but it's not on file.

The police cannot get a warrant to go after the suspect the MC saw, cause the MC discovered his ID through, blackmail and hacking, so they cannot get a warrant to go after the suspect based on that. So the MC has to think of another way to go after him and arrest him legally. Once he has done that, they get his DNA and match it up with the DNA that is already found. Does that work better?

When you say that the the crook knows he is a crook and that the lawyer knows it, no one else knows it so wouldn't the reason for tailing a person who is never suspected of a crime before come off as needing an explanation?

If not then I can just write it so that the hacker calls in to report that a cop blackmailed him into hacking the computer of the lawyer, the villain hired before, and then the police will know the villain's ID was discovered through hacking, and he was being followed, with the only reason being, that he was discovered through illegal hacking.

 

Hold up. It's not fruit of the poisonous tree for the cop to stop/arrest a guy about to murder someone. That's the most implausible part -- that he would witness a murder, have the opportunity to stop it, and fail to do so.

How is the owner of the head killed by the villain? Knowing that might be helpful in coming up with ways the villain could slip up. If he shot him, for example, you're right -- he'd likely leave no DNA on the head. But if he stabbed him, maybe he gets cut and leaves blood? Maybe DNA of the villain under the fingernails of the victim? Maybe facial recognition from a surveillance camera?

 

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense, and is such bad policy that it is hard to imagine a court ever looking at things in that manner. I agree with you.

 

Yes the victim dies of gunshots. The villain would have already taken care of surveillance cameras, or would not commit a murder if the were active ones around.

Yes the cop can stop him, that's perfectly legal, it's just the cop fails to do so. He doesn't see the murder coming. I mean if the cop is surveying him miles away, with some binoculars for example, the person being watched could easily pull out a gun and shoot someone, and the person watching from far away would not have time to stop it.

Of course the cop can arrest him to stop him, he just fails to do so, and the villain gets away. I am not saying that it's fruit of the poisonous tree to stop him. It's just if the MC fails to stop him in time, and he gets away in this case, it's fruit of the poisonous tree for the MC to admit that he knows who did it, since he knows who, from committing a felony, and the testimony would become inadmissible and unreliable therefore.

As for the bad policy, that's what the lawyers I asked told me in my research. They said that a person's identity cannot be used as evidence by the police, if the identity was discovered through the commission of a felony. So in this case, the cop cannot testify as to how he knows who the villain's identity is, because of that.

If the cop knew the identity if the person he was stalking on his own time, through legal means, then it can hold up. But since the identity of the person being stalked was discovered through a felony, it's inadmissible. I mean the point of doing the research, is that the lawyers know more than I do, and in this case the real law works for the story, since I want the MC to not see who committed the murder, but not be able to legally do anything about it.

But when you say that you don't think that the court would act in that manner, are you saying that they would ignore the letter of the law to prosecute? I mean a judge could do that, but what if I just wrote it, so that this judge is the type to follow the law right down to the details?

 

Okay thanks. After thinking about it though, I don't think the MC could trick the villains into blowing up a lab. Since all the evidence of the murder points to the MC, what motive do the villains have to blow it up?

 

1/ If that's what a lawyer told you is the law, I imagine that holds up.

But the point is, it only makes it inadmissible to use that knowledge for the offence that he was investigating at the time.

For the witnessed murder, the cop doesn't need an excuse to be there. The fact that the murder was committed overrides any "reason" why the cop was there. Following a suspect - no matter how his identity was discovered - is part of policing. Any evidence so discovered is valid.

2/ And the idea that the computer hacker would contact the police to say he was blackmailed is nonsense. If he'd do that, he'd tell the cop to publish and be damned rather than submit to the original blackmail.

 

Okay thanks. But I was told for number #1 that the cop's eyewitness testimony could not be used. Only other evidence gathered at the scene would be, but the cop's testimony would have to be excluded.

But I wanted to write it so the police do not find enough physical evidence at the scene, especially since the killer's DNA is not on file. If the cop said that he saw this person do it, and he knows the person's ID through hacking into someone else's bank records, then the ID cannot be used to start an investigation. So the police would not be able to use that as a reason to go obtain that person's DNA to match.

But I was told by the lawyer, that it's not following the suspect that is the legal problem in this scenario. It's the fact that he found out who the suspect was by hacking into someone else's records, is the problem. If the cop knew who the suspect was before, through legal means, then he can follow him and get away with it.

But since he found out who he was through the crime of hacking, it is therefore excluded, the lawyer said, because the police have to know who the suspects are, without committing felonies in order to to find out. You cannot use someone's identity in a crime, if the only way of obtaining it, was through the commission of a felony.

 

You're operating under the assumption the prosecution and/or defense will know or will find out how your MC found your suspect, how he was present to witness the murder.

Why?

 

Well I wanted the MC not to tell them, cause he knows that he will be fired and the killer will go free, since he committed felonies, such as hacking and blackmail in order to get there. So does that work, if the MC does not tell, but then perhaps then the police finds out he was there, because his DNA was there or something, and they know he is being untruthful since he never said he was there?

I guess it feels anticlimatic to me, cause the battle was settled but not the war, if that makes sense.

 

If you don't think it will work out, you don't have to force it in. It was just an idea I thought you could toss around to see if you liked. If you wanted a reason for them to blow it up, it doesn't have to have anything to do with the MC. It could be a completely different problem they want to solve by destroying evidence, or maybe even killing someone who worked there, making it look like an accident, etc.

 

I was told by some readers that they do not understand the character behavior in this section of my story, and think it's a plot hole.

Basically what happens is, is that a cop is assigned to survey a woman's house, because they believe that she is likely the target of a serial killer type character, who is after her. This is plot hole #1 as I was told that they would assign two cops, but for the story I want, I think one works better, and you read why in a bit.

The police cannot get her protection away at a safe house or anything just yet, so the cops are assigned to watch her house, one officer per shift.

So the cop is watching the house at night, and he notices that all the power to the house goes off at the same time.

He goes to have a closer look and notices that someone with a flashlight is looking throughout the house for her. He knows she is home cause he saw her go in earlier in the story.

He calls for back up and then goes to the door. Seeing that the figure with the flashlight may be advancing his way looking for in the window, he kicks in the door, and looks around to save her. Or if kicking in the door is bad, he can try to get in another way? He announces that he is the police and comes in.

This is plot hole #2 I was told, as no cop would attempt to save someone this way, without waiting for back up to arrive I was told. It's just too dangerous. But I thought he would be compelled to try to save her cause the danger may be immediate?

Then when he looks around the house with his own flashlight, the woman then knocks him out with something, and takes his gun. He says he is a cop. The woman said she heard him announce before but thought it was the killer who broke in, since the power was cut and the door broken into after. She didn't know he was a cop, and thought that him announcing it, could be a lie that the killer was saying. It was actually her who had the flashlight while looking around, since her power was cut, but he thought it may have been the killer perhaps.

Once another cop arrives to explain things, the two cops decide not to arrest her for hitting the officer. They figure it was a misunderstanding and she thought the cop very well could have been the killer breaking in, so what's the point of arresting her, when it will just come out as a misunderstanding anyway.

This is plot hole #3 I was told as no cop would NOT arrest someone for hitting them in the head, even if in a situation where the cop was simply mistaken for an intruder.

The second cop who also responds as back up, is off duty at the time, and he only answers because he was nearby in the area. I wanted him to be off duty for the plot to go in directions later that requires him to be, but I was told that this is plot hole #4 and he would leave it someone else.

What do you think? Do you these count as plot holes, like the readers interpret them as and do I need to rewrite a lot of the story? Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it.

 

Well, you could do the research and go with police protocol and try and make your story work in that way. Just some thoughts for if you wanted to keep this idea though.
One, maybe the police are considering having the lady watched but haven't done it yet. Enter your character...he is on his way home after his shift but can't get the thought of her being in danger...doesn't have anythibg better to do with his night so he figures he could just swing by and check on her. Thus giving you just your character without backup. He goes over to the house and while he is looking over the place he sees something in the bushes. Just a brief glimpse but it looked like something...he sees the lights on upstairs but not downstairs so he sneaks over to check and make sure it's all okay. (Your character would have to be a little bit of a reckless hothead for this to be in character...or really worried about the girl)
He sees the lights go out and then the flashlight. He is off duty so he doesn't have his radio, and he is already out of his car...he could text his budy who lives in the area and who is a cop for some "unofficial" back up. As he is off the clock and technically trespassing. At this point you would have to write it so he thinks he has no choose but to go in, as he has no backup he tries the door first to see if it is unlocked and sneaks in to get a jump on the bad guy, as he has no backup and doesnt know if the intruder is armed. For this to work you need to really do your homework by calling a real police officer and asking him for the flaws in your plan. That way you can tell the story as it fits for your plot but let your character know what he should do and choose not to. Police officers are still humans and make irrational mistakes just as often as everyone else.

 

With the second one, police aren't obligated to protect you specifically, barring some exceptions covered here:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Now this doesn't mean the officer in question won't intervene. Standing by might contradict his personal character.

 

@Ryan Elder don't take this the wrong way, because it is meant to be helpful, but between your beta readers and posting so many aspects of your plot &c. here in the forums, it seems like you're writing this book by committee. At some point you've got to follow your vision of the book and trust in what you want it to be, not second guess your every move or try to modify every piece that anyone objects to. Down that path lies madness and, in my view, a lesser end product.

 

My suggestion in tackling anything that's based on procedure:
Do a little more research and run the characters through procedure. There is room and flexibility for personalities to breach procedure based on situation. When guns are drawn and someone is going to die, breaching procedure might be the right thing to do but that is all based on the moment, the specific situation. What you have described would get every one of the officers a visit by their superiors and the Mayor wondering why they have a book to follow in the first place.

So if you want your action piece the way it is, you can have both pieces of cake to eat here. Just create variation in the personalities of the officers that follow procedure, or are allowable variances to the procedure. If someone was in danger and he had to kick in the door to save her, give that officer a little more to go on to make that decision to throw himself into the situation something he must do, but before he does, he has got to call for backup as something is in progress.

The other officer "swinging by to check on her" while off duty? Well, I wouldn't say off duty guys should stop, go up and knock on the door or anything but I would say driving by out of curiosity is the closest thing, and that officer would know that a car is stationed outside watching already, so as he drove by he would notice anythign out of the ordinary and if something was wrong, I think an off duty guy would call in first before doing anything at all.

Just my thoughts about it.

 

Oh okay. Well the second officer coming by, is involved in the case, but he thinks that it's suspicious that the officer watching her, has left his car, if that makes sense.

And yes the cop does call in first before going in, I didn't mean to imply he didn't call.

What is it that would get the officers a visit from the superiors exactly? Is it kicking in the door, even if you believe that someone is in danger, which is why that witness was being watched in the first place?

I asked a real cop and he agreed with the readers' assessment.

 

Well I kind of see what the other reader's are saying. What if I just wrote it so that the main cop is the one watching her, while on duty instead of off? I was told by readers before that this would not happen. Earlier in the story, the same cop saved, the woman in the house from being kidnapped. But I was told that it's too much of a contrived coincidence that the same cop who saved her, would be assigned to protect her weeks later, and the police would realistically get someone else to do it. But I feel that the MC should be in this part of the story.

So either I do it when he is off duty, or I have him assigned to watch her, even if contrived. What do you think?

 

You would have to have your MC watch her on his own. But even that does not play out right. There would definitely be two other officers watching her. It's procedure. How would it pan out that he saves her while the others looked on?
Also, catching a serial killer is almost impossible. It would probably be the first time in history they could pin down who the killer was going after. Police can break down possible victims, but the list would be hundreds, if not thousands. How could they watch them all. So the bad guy would not be a serial killer. If she escaped an attack from this killer, there is no way he would still go after her.
Another thing is an off duty cop does not go around carrying a radio. They carry their gun, but it not realistic that they would also have a radio. So you can't have an off duty be second to the scene.

 

In my story, a woman is testifying as a witness in a kidnapping case. I did some real police research and I found out that in real life the police do not have the resources to protect witnesses like they do in fiction. Which is what I want for my story. I want my character to be alone having to thwart off danger, by herself.

So in the story her house is attempted to be broken into, and vandalized on the outside, such as cutting the phone line and possibly the power. Things like that.

The police come to the scene when she calls. However, it wasn't really the kidnappers who are coming after. She staged the phone line being cut, and the attempted break in herself, in an attempt to get police protection.

Now when doing research I was told that a lot of times, the police would just tell her to go stay at a family member's or friend's house, after they were done looking around and checking out the scene.

However, what if the power were cut as well, and she had no power? Would the police still tell her that, or would they take her to the station for the night protection?

I want her to still be left on her own, accept for one cop who takes sympathy on her and protects her for the rest of the night, even though he is not suppose to. Or I can write it so that he can as part of his job, but I don't want him to have any help.

I want the story to go so that it's just him and her for the rest of the night. So what's the best way for making this premise work?

In order to compel the one cop, and one cop only to watch her for the rest of the night, should she stage a break in one the door and cut the phone line? Or should she cut the power as well, in order to compel the cop to protect her, cause he feels that if she has no place to go, he will have to take her some place and protect her, which is what she wants. Protection from a cop, rather than going to a friend's place.

So in order to get protection from just one cop, should she cut the power to, so he will feel compelled to take her somewhere else to watch her? Or will this cause him to take her to the police station?

What is the best way to make the premise work, so it's just him and her, with no other police for the rest of the night, if this is possible? Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it.

 

It is rather easy for police to figure out faking an incident, which in itself is a crime.

A way I could see it working is if it were set in a small, rural town. There is no police department in most tiny towns in the USA, it's ran by the sheriff's department, who is in charge of the whole county too.

My grandmother lives in a very rural area, and since she is a 93 year old lady by herself, she has a home security system and the sheriff's personal cell on speed dial. One time when there was an intruder on the property that tried to pry open a window to break in, just the sheriff showed up, checked around the property, then drove her to her niece's place about 20 mins away.

One way I would see this premise working is the rural situation I mentioned above, including making it to where she has no family or friends living close by.