The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Okay thanks. Which episode of Breaking Bad was that? I will check it out.

 

One thing you might want to do, is attend a few court cases - I'm reasonably certain you will be able to, unless the case is being held in camera, or the US equivalent. In camera is the term courts use in Australia for 'nobody's allowed in except the court officials, and the current witness. If something like that does happen, you'll be told, I'm sure. (I'm assuming you're in the US, and therefore operating with an adversarial, rather than an inquisitorial system.) I'm unsure if tv shows area good research base.

One thing occurred to me, and as a suggestion, I offer the possibility that the case gets thrown out for some reason other than gathering inadmissible evidence. Like if the lawyer manages to trick a prosecution or other witness into saying something that gets the evidence thrown out. The US calls it chain of custody, and early in my (forensic science) career, I was at court and watched and listened as a lawyer spent around 45 minutes questioning a police detective. The questions in a roundabout way hinged on possession of a bag of money, and towards the end of the questions, the lawyer asked, "And the money was placed in the hallway?" The detective was answering "yes" to so many questions, he almost said "yes" to that one, which would have been an admission that COC (continuity in Oz-speak) was broken, because then anyone might have been able to tamper with the bag's contents, like adding a few bills with the accused's fingerprints on them. Whether this alone would have ended the prosecution case is moot, because the witness was able to recover, but it was this level of subtlety that the lawyer operating on.

We had a rash of mistrials because a lawyer asked the investigating detective "why did you interview my client?" Answer: "He was known to have been involved in such crimes." The lawyer then alleged that the jury was now tainted against his client and the judge agreed.

 

Okay thanks. In my script the cops also investigate the client because of his past so that works as well. As far as court cases go, it's a good idea. Thanks.

 

For a screenplay idea, I wanted write a murder where the police investigate it and conclude that the evidence was planted. Basically supposed killer suspect is framed, and the police catch on. Therefore since it's concluded that he was framed, no charges are laid against him.

However, I got some negative feedback from readers, and they said that they found it unconvincing that the police could tell it was a frame. Basically the framer got the suspect he wanted to frame, at gunpoint, to spit on the dead body, and bleed on it. Leave hair, things like that.

But the cops are able to tell by going over the crime scene, that the physical evidence was planted after, and possibly by someone forcing them to do it. Now I did not go into great detail on this in the forensic experts dialogue explanation of it. Perhaps that's the problem.

I am not sure how to go about this one though. I bought the book Forensics, for writers, by D.P. Lyle, but so far I don't think it's been the best help. It can you a lot of things, but not how to identify a frame particularly. Any ideas on how I could approach this one?

Thanks for the input .

 

Not sure how directly applicable this is, but:

In an episode of Silk, the defendant claims (self-defence) that the dead man was trying to kill him with a golf club.

The wife claims that she hasn't touched her husband's golf clubs since he was killed.

Her fingerprints are on the golf club. "Oh, I must have tidied them away sometime in the past."

Her husband's blood is on the club. "Oh, it must have splashed there when he was being killed."

Her fingerprints are on top of the blood.

Ergo, she must have touched the club since he was killed, when she was replacing it in the golf bag to refute the defendant's claim of self-defence.

It's the little things in forensics.

However, the problem I have with "the police could see it was a frame-up so won't prosecute" is: Why would they? Too often you hear the suggestion that the police are so eager to get a conviction that they fit up an "obvious" suspect. Why would they look hard enough at the evidence to reveal the frame? They'd take the obvious suspect with the obvious forensic evidence, get their conviction, and move on. Got to keep those crimes solved figures up!

 

I can't answer your question directly, but maybe I can help. May I recommend this book?
Forensics: The Anatomy of Crime
by Val McDermid

Val McDermid is a best-selling author of well-respected crime novels (and the author of Wire in the Blood, which spawned the TV series), and this is a non-fiction book she just produced. She was invited to write the book, which is a history of forensics that brings the science up to date. This is not a dry, dull book AT ALL, but produced by a crime writer FOR other people who also write crime books. It shows how forensics gets used to achieve convictions in criminal cases.

As you can expect, it looks like a fun read, with Val's sense of humour in abundance, and is intended to be readable as well as informative. I just saw her at the Ullapool Book Festival, and she discussed this book as well as her other fiction. I took a gander through it while I was there. I didn't buy it because my suitcase was already full, and also because I don't do crime writing. But all the same ...I think I will buy it next time I'm up there (next month.) It looks very worthwhile.

 

Okay thanks, I will check the book out! Well as far as wanting to get a conviction and move on, in my script the deceased is also a cop. So it makes me wonder, what I can do to make it so that the prosecutor will be convinced it's a frame and will not prosecute.

 

Yep I will have to work out the details like that. The thing is, is that I want the bystander to be the one to legally get in trouble. Basically when he goes to the police, I want the evidence to pursuade the police and the DA that he is making it up, and that he is guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter, based on the fact that the dead body is horrible maimed. Does this add up though? Would the villains leave a dead body behind? Or perhaps I could write it so they had to, and could not bring it with them. But do you think that him maiming the dead body would be enough for the cops to charge him? Or would the villains have to maim the body even more, post mortem to make the DA believe that more?

 

Depends on the details, but...I would think that DNA evidence would connect innocent bystander to horribly disfigured villain, so the cops would suspect him, and self-defence does look a bit thin, given the degree of p.m. disfigurement. I don't believe that the rest of the gang would hang around to recover the body -this ain't the marines, where nobody gets left behind, and this guy ain't getting no military honours at HIS funeral!
It's usually enough for manslaughter to connect killer and body. You'd need premeditation for murder, and it's going to be difficult for the cops to prove that, and they probably wouldn't try too hard given that the deceased is (probably) a known villain.

 

Basically in my plot the main character, who is a cop, wants to get revenge on the villains because they get away with killing two other cops, for other reasons in the story. However, I was told that this idea is not feasible. It makes no sense cause it's a paradox.

I asked a writing consultant, who I was considering hiring. He had a look at it, and made a good point. He said that it makes no sense to get revenge on cop killers, because the police take cop killing so seriously that they would be all over it. Even years after the case went cold. If I wrote it so that it skipped ahead in time, to the point where the protagonist was an old man, and the crooks had not been caught yet, then he could have a reason to get revenge before he died. But it's not believable that he would get it in a short time period.

Another thing he pointed out was, that because of all the modern technology, it's extremely difficult to get away with murder, if not impossible, when it's a cop, since the whole police department will be all over it for decades.

So murder will just not work for my premise, and it's a paradox. What do you think? Is my story re-writeable, or have I painted myself into a corner I cannot get out of. I can hire him to rewrite it but he says he doesn't believe he can, without changing the whole story, which in that case, I might as well write a different story.

What do you think?

I also came up with another idea. What if the cop's wife was raped or something like that? Then he would be avenging a rape which is not taken near a seriously by the police as murder in comparison. Would this work better? He says that will also be hard to swallow because people are much more forgiving when it comes to rape compared to avenging murder. Murder is just more believable when it comes to revenge. But that's the paradox. Murder is more avenge-able, but since it's almost impossible to get away with murder without being caught eventually, there is therefore no reason to get the revenge without waiting a few decades first logically.

What do you think? Is he right?

 

No, I don't think he's right.

First off, a large percentage of murders are never solved. Look it up.

Second, when I hear that perfected technology stuff I think someone has been watching/reading too much fiction.

Third, a good lawyer can get many guilty people off (for example OJ), and poor representation gets a lot of innocent people convicted. See what The Innocence Project has documented on that one. If the wrong person is convicted the cops may feel they got their man while the actual killer goes free.

My biggest question is why revenge instead of an eventual conviction?

 

A cop would avenge when the system lets him down. If the criminals are caught but get away with it anyway, then you have cause for revenge.

I understand the points the consultant made, but his advice is unwise. Sure, it would be harder to get away with killing a cop, but it's the conviction where you can let them get away with it. Plenty of ways to get around the very limited, very hard to access, and very low quality tech we have at large at the moment. Even security cameras in stores don't help identify robbery suspects most of the time. It just helps convict them.

 

Okay thanks. However, for my story to work, I do not want the villains to go to court over it. Because of some twists and turns, I need the killer to not be identified. Only later, do the vengeful cops find out through their own investigating. But it's still not enough proof to tie them to the murder physically. How can I make the reader believe that they actually got away with it, without going to court though? That is, is that there was no forensic evidence at the scene? How do I eliminate all forensic evidence? Basically I wrote it so that the cop dies in a shoot out. The killers did not have motive, it just happened, sort of thing, but they have time to cover it up per say.

 

Besides, if modern tech is a problem, set the murder in the 70s or 80s.

 

Well it's a very low budget screenplay which we are producing ourselves, so I set it in modern times to keep costs down. He says I should at least let the murder case go to trial first. However, earlier in the story the villain is prosecuted for kidnapping and rape. He gets off. This is what leads to other investigations that get the two cops killed.

But the thing is, is that if I have him go to court a second time, and get off again, it will come off as recycling the same scenario twice in one script, wouldn't it? I don't want it to be repetitive, which is why I wrote it so that the cops are not sure if it's the same man forensically, and cannot prove it.

 

Can the murderer be in the FBI witness protection program and untouchable that way? Seems like the FBI has protected more than a few murderers when they can get something else from the criminal.

 

That's the seed of a good idea. If the killers are police informants for an even bigger catch, they may get immunity despite being cop killers in order to convict a bigger fish. And that would REALLY rub a cop the wrong way.

 

Some of the details seem to be getting in the way of the solution. You may need to rework the script in order to eliminate the road blocks you're mentioning. You may have to change other elements of the story in order to fix this one.

 

Okay thanks. Any ideas what I need to change? I want the villains to remain mystery characters. Basically they kidnap a VIP hold some other VIPs for ransom and get away with the whole thing as part of their plan. So a large part of it the story, depends on them not being known, until the vengeful cop finds out later. Only after he finds out, he cannot really use the info, since he did not obtain it legally, and has to exact his own revenge plan, or feels he has to.

I feel that if I make the villain a protected informant, well... it's just he works with a group of villains to complete the scheme. Is it a coincidence that they would all be protected informants, cause I kind of need them to be all be untouchable, for them to get away with it.

It just feels like a plot convenience that comes out of left field that serves no purpose to the story, other than making them untouchable. I mean these guys are not the criminal types at first but only turn criminal when they commit this kidnapping. They have no reason to be informants previous to that. They are off the radar kidnappers, not known gangsters or anything like that. They have to be off the radar for the story to go in other directions. I could write it so that they become informants intentionally as part of their plan to get away with it, but I mean how do you apply for that position? Do you just call the FBI up and say you would like to be one, no questions as to why? And what do they have to offer them really?

 

This story is starting to sound way too complicated for a film script. What's the story? Is it the revenge? Or is it the kidnapping?

 

It's the revenge, the kidnapping is just what gets it all started

If the cops being killed does not work cause it presents other problems then how about this. Only one of the cops is killed early on, which they can get away with much easier. The protagonist wants revenge for this.

So he talks another cop, who has the same feelings as him, into faking his death. The reason why, is because it will give other cops motive for revenge against the gang, because the police department will not have enough evidence to prosecute since their is no body. They will be avenging a faked murder. The protagonist can say he saw his cop friend killed by the gang, don't know where they dragged the body off to. This can give the other cops a reason to be pissed off and give the protagonist assistance in revenge, because the department has no forensic evidence of a murder to investigate it as a cold case for the next decade if they wanted to. The plan is a bit obsurd, but if these two cops have descended into revenge enough to cook up a scheme like that, could the audience understand and relate to it?

 

Cool, so you know you can change the kidnapping if needed. Obviously I don't know the script well enough to suggest proper changes, but since the revenge is the most important part, are we following the hunt for the killer during the story, or sitting in on the kidnapping? This seemingly deviates from your question, but it's all linked. And that's the problem. Everything in your story is linked, so to fill the plot hole you need to pull the script apart and rebuild it so there's no hole. It's a painful process but the only sure way to eliminate a complex problem.

Scripts are my thing, btw, and I've done a bunch of editing and consulting so it's not new to me.

 

Okay thanks. Well the kidnapping itself has to be done a certain way, so certain repercussions come out of it. Basically the one cop has to be killed in order to set the main character on his course of revenge. The second cop does not have to be killed per say. He is part of the kidnapping but once the cop is killed and the kidnap victim put through a worse ordeal than she was meant to, he becomes morally conflicted and leaves the gang. He wants out, but now the gang see him as a threat. I wrote it so they kill him, but again maybe the protagonist as well as other cops would not want revenge because they would just wait years to see if they can find something that links to the kidnappers before going to kill someone.

Also, I could write it so that the morally conflicted cop, conspires a plan with the main cop to fake his death in order to protect himself from the gang, but it would also cause other cops to want revenge because they think he is dead, so they come after that gang. They cannot prosecute the gang, because since the death was faked, they don't have a body, but the two cops could rely on the other cops taking revenge.

Another idea, is to have the kidnap victim's rape, not only affect the crooked cop who is part of it, but also to affect the main cop as well, because he can relate cause of other character background reasons. This causes him to take it real personally as well as the other cop, since he is responsible and feels guilty it got out of hand. They get revenge on the gang, with rape being the motive for their revenge. However, is rape enough? Or does a cop have to be killed to actually push them that far?

These are all three ideas I have on how to end, it, and that's including the first one. Does this help?

 

So, in order to avoid the "Cops will be all over a cop-murder case" you're only going to have only ONE cop killed?
And then have a cop lie about seeing another cop killed in order to get the team to investigate the original cop-murder?

I prefer the witness-protection idea.

An episode of Silk had a similar scenario, where a woman is accused of murdering her brother and, ultimately, the case gets thrown out because the police were withholding evidence because the brother (and the other male members of the family) were under surveillance for drugs offences.

 

What if the cops thought they'd got and even convicted the cop killer, which means, case closed? Only your MC finds some discrepencies and starts digging. You'll have to engineer some reasons why that's discouraged - it might make the dept look bad cus it's been 3 years, closed cases cannot be reopened except for X circumstance which it doesn't meet, etc. This means the whole police dept wouldn't be looking anymore cus they've had their peace, but MC's still struggling with it and takes matters into his own hands.

Alternatively, perhaps the cop killer is a cop himself - a high ranking one who has the power and means to tinker with evidence and contacts higher up. He is well-respected and loved by many and have many successful cases under his belt. Heck, maybe he leads the investigation MC suspects him, but who would believe him? It's true the police dept is "all over the case" but they're being lead like blind sheep, so MC takes matters into his own hands.

The first scenario would be more standard crime fiction. The second scenario sounds like it's got a whole host of possibilities in my opinion! I wouldn't mind reading it at all actually.