The collected musings of Ryan Elder

I guess what I have a problem with is that nobody knows anything about who these people are. They're masked, disguising their voices, trying to hide their identity. So anybody could pretend to be them. You mentioned having the MC name three of them in his video, but if the cops have names, and that many names, why do they need to bother with the masks and all?

When you say “turn against him” do you mean full out chasing him like a fugitive? You could go a little less extreme and have him simply not have the support of the police in tracking down the villains. Maybe the evidence he has isn’t quite enough to make them able to pursue it or something, but they can’t help him and don’t want him to go off on his own with it. Then you wouldn’t have to have him kill a cop at all.

Or, you could go with something like this idea, where the MC doesn’t know the cop is a traitor. Only, when he eventually finds out that he was, then he can use that to his advantage when they try to charge him with something. Pretend it was all a set up to prove the dead cop’s guilt and it went wrong and he had to kill him to save his own life or something.

What if you got the MC to somehow convince the villains to blow up the evidence? Just an idea

 

I think the bigger question your edging at concerns the morality of the MC. I haven't read your work, so ultimately I couldn't give you a genuine suggestion regarding what the 'right' situation for him to be dropped in is, nor his reactions. You know your MC the best, he/she is your creation. What do you want to happen to them? A moral dilema? A physical crisis? How do you want them to grow, or change? These are all points you know yourself, and need to explore as well, as the answer has to come from you, otherwise it may not fit with the rest of your work. I am in no way suggesting you not ask for help, not at all, but consider your options within your story. I beleive we all channel parts of ourselves in our characters, so it's not a far stretch to simulate the character yourself, put yourself in their position, what would make them the most distraught, the most afraid, something that pushes them over the edge.

 

They still wear masks, because the cops just have three suspects, and they are uncomfirmed for being part of it. Eventually the police had to drop them after following them around and surveying two of them but they did not know the third. Only the MC knows the third, but he did not have any admissible evidence to make it official for an investigation, so he didn't bring the third up until now in the video.

But after the police had to back up after a while, the gang goes back to committing crimes, with masks on, in order to create deniability, since the police cannot prove that their two suspects are part of the gang.

What happens, is that other officers on the force, form a vengeful mob to go after the villains and kill them cause they believe that the MC was framed by them. So they want to avenge the dead cop. But if the MC tells the others that the dead cop was part of the gang, the officers who formed a vengeful mob, will dissolve, cause they will not care to avenge the dead cop if he was one of them, and a traitor. So the MC wants to keep the dead cop's guilt a secret, in order for the venegful mob to want to avenge him, and go kill the gang, which the MC thinks is a good idea.

But since the evidence points the the MC and not the villains, and an arrest warrant is out for the MC, cause of it, would the villains want to blow it up? If they do, then the police will not go after the MC for them, and get the MC off their backs.

I wanted to insert the quotes in between but how did you break up the quotes into different ones. When I hit quote, I can only quote the entire post. How did you break it up, if I may ask?

 

How many people are involved in this gang? Do they always have just one person shown in their videos?

How have you planned on this ending for the MC? Is he going to get away with killing the officer, are the officer's true motives going to be brought to light eventually? And who do you want to eventually bring the villains down? The MC, or the cops? It would change how you want to go about having him plan his capture of them.

If you have vengeful cops going after the villains, then the MC has allies in his quest, so it makes sense for him to seek them out for help, and he wouldn't be working alone anymore. Are they going to believe he was framed because of the video the MC posted?

Well, the idea about the villains blowing it up would be something the MC could trick them into doing, maybe like at the end when he really needs them to stop coming after him and get them going after the villains instead.

When you quote a post, there are Quote tags that are at the beginning and end of the text. Anything inside those tags will be quoted, so if you only wanted to show a single line from a post, you delete everything inside the quote tags instead of that line. Then you can go beneath and type your response. To add another quote from the same post, you can quote the post again and do the same thing, or you can just copy and paste the tags and the text you want and make sure the text is in between the tags again.

So, if I wanted to show the first paragraph of the your previous post, it would look like this: (minus the dots, they just keep it from actually quoting you)

[QUOTE="Ryan Elder, post: 1411676, member: 70023".....]They still wear masks, because the cops just have three suspects, and they are uncomfirmed for being part of it. Eventually the police had to drop them after following them around and surveying two of them but they did not know the third. Only the MC knows the third, but he did not have any admissible evidence to make it official for an investigation, so he didn't bring the third up until now in the video. [/QUOTE....]

If I wanted to quote you again, I just need to start a new paragraph and put the parts that are in brackets in front of and behind the text I want to quote.

 

There is at least four in the gang for the story to work. There can be more but I haven't fully decided yet. As for the one person, the MC, posing as that person in a mask, explains that he feels guilty and wants to tell everyone who the other gang members are since things have gone too far, and that's his reason for only having one in the video. The MC could also ask his friends to pose as the others, if that's better.

I want the MC to get away with killing the officer somehow, since I wanted to be open to a possible sequel, and would like him to be free for that, if possible. I want the MC to bring the villains down himself, but he manipulates the other cops into doing so, starting by not telling them that the friend they are wanting justice for, was one of them. But I think he should manipulate the others, and play one against the other.

The allies only come in at the climax, though, he is still working alone in the sense that he has to manipulate them. Or he can have allies maybe. I was thinking they would believe the posted video that the MC was framed, and the MC would make sure that the video could not be traced back to him.

How could the MC trick the villains into blowing up a lab though, when the villains know it's the MC who the one is being charged cause they have evidence on him at the lab, and not of the villains. Unless you are saying the villains are not aware of this in your idea? Would the MC then wait till the blow up the lab, and then he would capture them and charge them with blowing up a police crime lab?

Thanks for telling me how to use the quote tag .

 

I think the idea of pretending to be a gang member who's had enough works better. If the MC has friends collaborating with him enough to help him make the video, then he's got allies right at the start, so if you don't want him to have any help until later, you'd want to leave them out.

So these other cops are trying to clear the MC's name because they believe he was framed, but they don't know anything about the dead cops treason, right? Does the MC have a reason for the villains to want to try to frame him? Even if they have a video to look at, the other thing he needs is a motive. It makes it more believable. On that same line, why is the MC so adamant about catching them? Is this a personal thing between him and these villains?

In the idea, no, the villains wouldn't know the evidence was there. Maybe he could make them believe that evidence against them is in there. I think, though, he would need some help from his allies in order to make it happen. This would clear the MC, but I don't think that's where he should catch the villains. Maybe he should catch them in the act of their next crime, and then have the choice of either letting them kill the person, or letting them get away with an attempted murder charge.

No problem about the quoting, I hope it made sense

 

In my story, it's a thriller and in one part, the villain gets away with his crimes in court, because a witness takes the stand and exonerates him, by becoming unreliable. The witness is actually working with the defendant and it was a plan.

However, I was told this was a plot hole, because it comes as a surprise to all the characters who are prosecuting the villain, where as in reality, the police and a prosecutor are trained, to treat all witnesses as in possible collusion with the defendant, so they would have seen this coming a mile away and would have been prepared for it.

But I am wondering is that true, that the police and prosecutor would be trained to think as protocol, and therefore would be prepared for it?

 

Before being called as a witness, you'd have to sign a statement as to the evidence you would give in court. So, for a witness to take the stand and then, effectively, change his testimony he'd probably be charged with either perjury or wasting police time.

To take the stand and then "become unreliable" wouldn't subject the witness to the same risk, but would run the risk of not working. Unless the police are so desperate for the prosecution, they'd look for corroboration of any evidence, so that the case didn't just rely on one witness - who might break down/be destroyed in court.

On the other hand, if defence counsel manages to "prove" that the witness is unreliable (he's got a string of convictions, his eyesight isn't as good as it should be, he's mentally unstable and was off his meds at the time, etc.) then the prosecution wouldn't necessarily be looking that deeply into their star witness.

Summary, a witness who just goes rogue in court is rather incredible. One who colludes with the defence by giving them (and only them) evidence of his unreliability would be more convincing. You just need to work a little bit harder to create the evidence of unreliability.

 

Well this witness is subpoenaed the day before the next court date, and it sort of found more spur the moment. I saw it in the movie Jagged Edge, where they think they got their case, straight, and then all of a sudden a new spur the moment witness is called, and the judge allows for it. Would I be able to write it like that so the witness is discovered and subpoenaed the day before, and therefore, they wouldn't have had time to have a prior statement or much preparation?

 

What reason would the prosecution have to believe the witness would be able to give testimony that would support the case? Because, unless they had such a reason, why sub-poena him?

Just because they know he COULD give damning evidence doesn't make him a valuable witness.

And why would prosecution even take the case to court (i.e. charge the suspect) if they're relying on finding a key witness at some point before it reaches trial? They'd want all those ducks in a row long before that. In the UK, the DPP wouldn't even proceed with the prosecution if the case was so weak (i.e., relying on key evidence just turning up sometime soon) that it would just be a waste of public money.

 

That's true. But you see this all the time in fiction, like in the movie Jagged Edge. Why take it to trial, when it's easy to go wrong? Yet it's common in fiction, isn't it, where one person comes to screw things up?

I could set it before the trial then during the deposition, or a hearing then, instead of a trial, if that's better?

 

OK, I'm going from what I see of UK procedure, so US may be different. I'm guessing that Hollywood has even looser standards!

I'd suggest something from the UK series Silk (watch it if you can!) where the police frame a gang leader (because they can't catch him any other way) only to have what they perceive as cast-iron "evidence" (they plant a DNA-linked cigarette stub at the crime scene - which they obtained from him during an interview in the police station) disproved by the defence.

So, set up a cast-iron case, and then destroy it through some breach of the rules for obtaining evidence - such as the "fruit of the poisoned tree" that you've mentioned before.

If you have it screwed up at deposition stage, you won't get the suspect into court and acquitted, and the police will still have an unsolved case on their books.

 

Okay thanks. If the suspect is acquitted at the deposition is that bad though, compared to court?

 

Only after a case has been tried in court can the accused be acquitted. I'm not quite sure how deposition works (US thing) but I think it's the same as taking of statements in the UK, which would be part of the gathering of evidence phase of the investigation.

So, you can't be acquitted at deposition, thus you can't gain immunity from prosecution under the double jeopardy laws; you've got to be taken to trial.

 

Oh okay. Acquitted was the wrong word. What I meant was the witness gets the case the dropped. So not really an acquittal I guess, but the defendant goes free, and there is no case, nonetheless.

 

How would a witness get a case dropped merely because he was unreliable?

I'm a cop, I suspect Joe Dough because CCTV places him in the area, he's a known scum-bag and the victim was a shopkeeper who probably wasn't paying his protection money. But Fred the Head (a known associate of Joe's) admitted he'd seen Joe over the body with a knife in his hand and blood dripping. I salivate, and think I'm home free and Joe's going down. And then it turns out that Fred was high on meth at the time, so he's no use as a witness. This isn't going to STOP me trying to get the cuffs on Joe, it's only going to make it harder for me.

Joe needs me to take him to trial, and only then for Fred's testimony to be ripped to shreds by the defence, so that he can be acquitted, and I can never have him tried again for this crime.

 

So you are saying that the prosecutor would take it to trial anyway, even though the witness was unreliable?

There have been cases where a witness has screwed up the case before, and it never went anywhere after.

 

Absolutely not.

It's just that the criminal is at risk of prosecution until he's been acquitted. If the cops turn up evidence later (no statute of limitations for murder - except where a judge rules that it infringes the defendant's right to a speedy trial) they can still go after him.

So the prosecutor WON'T take it to trial with dodgy evidence - unreliable witness, dodgy forensics, anything - as it's A/ a waste of money, and B/ will ensure that the criminal can NEVER face that charge again.

And if the prosecutor turns down the case because of how weak the evidence is, it gives the cop a motive to seek private vengeance against the criminal; I know that this scenario is one you've been pursuing.

 

Oh yeah, he can still be prosecuted should they get more evidence on him later for sure. I was told by a couple of readers that they do not buy the cop seeking private vengeance though, after the evidence fails. They said that they think he should be acquitted, cause otherwise revenge is an overreaction, when he can just be re-charged again, and the cop would just wait for more evidence to turn up.

What do you think? You said that the cop would go after him himself for private vengeance if evidence is thrown out. You are saying that I should go for him not being acquitted and just having the charges dropped before trial, right?

 

Either way will work just fine. It's just a matter of making it work in the writing. If you want to have the cop seek revenge because the evidence fails and the charges are dropped, then you have to make me believe the cop's motivation. If your readers aren't believing it, it's not the concept but the execution that is the most likely culprit.

 

Oh okay, cause I asked the one of the reader's and he said it was the concept itself, and no execution can help such a concept . But I can see what I can do about the execution.

Well I think I will have to write it so that the witness is subpoenaed to the day before she is required to appear, so they do not know what she will say, since she will not give a statement to police. She is being uncooperative, but the prosecutor still needs her to fill a piece of the puzzle in the case.

Then when they find out what she has to say, it ends up getting the defendant off.

 

Yeah...I think you have to be careful to put too much stock in beta reader opinions. If it's just one person, I'd certainly be careful. It if comes up over and over again, I'd give it a closer look.

I read a lot of thrillers and detective-type novels, and, on a concept level, I think the authors that I like in the field could sell the idea and make me go with it. Your cop is a person, an individual. You just have to make me believe that he would do it, not that it is necessarily the most rational thing to do or what most people would do. People don't always behave in the most rational and commonplace manner.

 

Yeah my MC is actually suppose to be foolish and make mistakes, or at least that's how I intended him. So far it's two readers who have said it was the concept.

 

You can change it if you like, but I don't think you have to. If they're not being sold on the concept, I still think it is more likely that it's the execution. That's what it usually ends up being when I can't sell the reader on something. If you read thriller/detective/spy novels and the like, you can see concepts that are way more unlikely and bizarre than what you're talking about, and they work because the authors makes them work.

 

For my story, they I wrote it so far is that the main character, is a cop obsessed with finding out who the villains are behind a master scheme and finding out the truth.

One of members of the gang of villains went to court for his crimes, but got off for insufficient evidence. The MC, trying to find out who the leader of the gang is, figures that the leader could have likely paid for the defendant's attorney, since the defendant does not have a lot of money to afford such a high prices attorney.

Now legally the police cannot get a warrant to find out who paid the lawyer. They would have to look at the lawyer's bank records, and legally the police cannot do that to any person, unless that person is suspected of crime. Of course, in this case, the lawyer is not since all he did was accept a paid service of defense.

So the main character blackmails a computer hacker criminal, into hacking to the lawyer's records and email to find out who paid him. The MC finds out who did, and figures that this person could be the leader of the gang.

So the MC tails that person around for days, and finally witnesses him kill another character in the story, clean up the crime scene and get away.

The MC cannot stop him or arrest him for it though. Since the MC discovered the leader's identity by committing a felony, any testimony of his would be considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree', and not be admissible in court.

So the MC, has to keep quiet, cause if he tells his superiors who the murderer was, and how he discovered that person's identity, he will forever be a tainted witness, and would not be of any good in his quest to bring the villains down.

So he can't tell the police and has to think of something else. As the villain leaves the crime scene, I wrote it so far, that the MC perhaps cuts off the dead victim's head, and takes off with it.

He will then have to wait for an opportunity to plant the head at the villain's property. Or he will have to create the opportunity himself, and then arrange for it to be found by other police. Because then the head is found on the villain's property through legal, legitimate discovery and thus, there is a piece of evidence, to link the villain to that homicide.

But I was told it was implausible, cause the head would not have any of the villain's DNA or prints on, since he was careful enough to not leave any DNA or prints at the murder scene before.

Therefore the villain could argue in court that the MC planted the head, and arranged for it to be found and framed him... and that would be enough to raise reasonable doubt and the villain would go free, unless the MC finds a way to get DNA and prints on the head.

What do you think? Do you think that framing someone this way, will not work?

The MC is kind of limited because he has to find a way to pin the murder on the villain, after all the evidence has been collected, so he has to take something from the scene before it is collected and plant it later, or he has to do something else entirely.

What do you think?