The collected musings of Ryan Elder

What do you mean exactly? Like the villain is targeting the MC specifically?

 

I wouldn't say targeting, but he's communicating with the MC though crime scenes in a way that only the MC would understand. Doing this gives the MC extra motivation to complete the case even if he's not supposed to, the MC feels that they're the only one capable of solving the crime.

 

There are all kinds of reasons the MC might solve the crime.

Maybe he's a better investigator than the other cops.
Maybe he's smarter.
Maybe he has more time to devote, while the cops are spread thin with too many cases.
Maybe he lucks onto a crucial piece of information the police missed.

And so on.

It would probably be a good idea to read a fair amount in the genre. These kinds of cop books are common. It would probably also be helpful with respect to a lot of the other questions you're posing, since you're creating needless obstacles for yourself. If you're writing a thriller, you want it to be thrilling. That means it isn't always going to be 100% true to reality. If you wrote a play-by-play account of a typical police investigation, 99% of it would be boring as hell and would bore the socks off the reader. When you read thrillers, the authors set up circumstances to make them thrilling. Why does the cop go in alone instead of waiting for backup? It's more exciting, so the author contrives a reason where readers will suspend disbelief about him going in. Why doesn't the main villain get pulled over and caught in a routine traffic stop? Because that's probably going to be boring, so it doesn't happen. And so on. Take some dramatic license.

 

That's true. I passed the story onto some cops for some fact checking and they told me that the police would not do these things and they would do these other things in real life, they said.

However, my instincts told me the story was going to be boring as hell, if it went the way they suggest. I want it to be real, but too real if that makes sense.

Well in my story, the MC is raped by the villain, who is a serial rapist/killer type. But this poses a lot of problems for him to solve his crime, and for the evidence to be admissible in court, since he was the victim of the crime. The villain has victimized others in the past though. Perhaps the MC chooses not to report his own rape cause he knows that he does not have enough evidence, cause the villain got rid off too much of it, and he knows that if he reports it, it will be a conflict of interest for him to be on the case.

So maybe he chooses not to and decided to go after the villain for the other victims, and chooses to acquire evidence of those crimes instead. But again, what can he do that the cops that are actually on it cannot.

He could be a better investigator, but I feel like the steaks should be more, in this type of story, where he is the victim and all. What do you think?

 

I was doing a lot of research for writing my story, and about maybe an eighth of it, is a court case.

I was thinking of having the story take place in a preliminary hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial. However, because all the witnesses would have been interviewed in a deposition prior to the hearing, and all the evidence would have already been examined, there is no element of surprise therefore.

The prosecution cannot have any surprises for the defense, and vice versa, because they already know what everyone is going to say, and they already know what all the evidence exhibits are.

So because of this, I feel that there is no element of surprise, not for the characters, and therefore, not for the reader much either.

What do you think, or how should I approach this? Thanks for the advice and opinions. I really appreciate it.

 

Have someone lie?

 

Depos aside, witnesses do say surprising things at trial. There is even a rule of evidence that allows you to impeach them with their prior statements when they do.

 

Yep for sure. In this case though, the witnesses do not have any motives to change their statements though. I want the truth to be a surprise, if that's possible.

 

Well, the court case is the A-story, correct? Perhaps you let your B-story do the heavy lifting in this scene. A prelim hearing on its own could be sort of boring I suppose, but what is going on in the characters' lives outside the courtroom? But don't spell it all out for the audience. Remember: subtext is essential. Have you ever read Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants?" That is a short story consisting of one scene that takes place at a train station. Two un-named characters drink together while waiting for a train. That is it. On the surface. They never say it, but -- spoiler alert -- that story is really about deciding whether to have an abortion or not. The writing is strong and tight, and you can feel the tension between the characters but it is not prevelant in the room. So, in this case, the B-story is actually what we're presented with while the A-story is what's below the surface.... the pregnancy is what's important.

Now I'm not saying you have to use this model, but having more than one storyline (and it doesn't have to be huge) can be very beneficial. Show somebody really sweating it out during the depo because they're nervous or perhaps it's their first case or perhaps their marriage is falling apart because they work too much -- these are all things that are minor plot-wise, but major in terms of character development. Utilize these elements when trying to build tension and suspense during an otherwise potentially boring scene.

 

Okay thanks. Well I think the B story is good where it's at and I have more trouble with the A story more so. Perhaps I should change it from a preliminary hearing to a deposition, to allow for the lawyers to still be surprised by what witnesses say.

In a deposition both lawyers meet in a small office room and just bring in the witnesses, one at time, and ask them questions, instead of a courtroom.

However, I feel this would lack suspense. The defendant isn't even there to face his accusers. Even though his lawyer would logically do the talking, him not even being there I think would take away a lot of the intrigue of how the reader perceives the situation, if he is not there to emotionally react to it all, even if it's mostly internal.

There are also people in the back of the courtroom who have personal involvement in the case, such as loved ones, of the victims, who would have reactions while watching the case, who would also not be there in the room as all of this investigating and cross examining of the case goes on.

So I was wondering, is there any ways I can make the deposition equally suspenseful, even though the defendant and the victim's loved ones, will not be able to there to react to everything, realistically?

I also feel that not having a judge there to decide on what is relevant, admissible and fair, and what not, also can remove some of the intrigue.

The deposition allows for the prosecutor and defense attorney to be surprised and not know what witnesses will say, and not know what evidence will bring till they go over it. The surprises are more important for the story to go, where I want it go, but it would be nice to have all that little drama as well, if that's still possible.

I haven't read that Hemingway story. I think that the B story can still be good, but I cannot get all the key characters to face each other in the same room, since it's a deposition, and I feel that I need to somehow make it interesting, without them being the in same room. I mean having a lawyer relay the information to the defendant is just not near as exciting, as the defendant witnessing it all in front of his eyes, first hand.

I feel that if I rely on the B story to bring out all the drama, then the characters are forced to receive the drama from their enemies, second hand, and the story becomes longer with more scenes to do it as a result, if that can still work.

 

Well, this is maybe a stupid question but I don't have your story in front of me nor have I read it... do you need the deposition to be a scene? Can you leave it out completely or use a bit of exposition to tell us what happens? It almost sounds to me like the intrigue and surprise would come at the case so you don't want to ruin it with the deposition. I don't know much about how court cases work as you can tell. It is all really situational and I'd have to read the actual scene to get a good sense of what's going on. I completely get what you're saying though because the most popular writing advice (for good reason) is "show, don't tell" and it sounds like a deposition/prelim would be mostly telling, witnesses telling the lawyers - and in turn the readers - what they saw happen. So the problem becomes how do you show more, how do you add drama, and make it exciting. Well, the two things I could suggest are 1) consider whether you absolutely need the scene 2) make the writing interesting and compelling enough to carry the scene. Good writing can carry everything.

 

Well I have a plot hole. The surprise would come at the deposition and so it would therefore not be a surprise in the case. In fact, the case would not go to trial if the surprise would be revealed at the deposition, cause the surprise, ruins the case, and it is dismissed.

So there is no reason logically for the characters to hold the surprise for trial. So I would need the scene, cause if logic dictates that the surprise would be revealed at the deposition, then there would be no trial and the case would be ruined right there, in the deposition.

So it seems that it's not a plot hole, unless I go to trial, cause there is no reason for the lawyers not to know what the witnesses are going to say, and there is no motives for the witnesses to change their statements.

 

I was told by some readers that I have a plot hole in my story, in the sense that the criminal characters behave implausibly.

I was wondering why they do though, or I do not understand the plot hole, people have told me.

Basically the gang has recruited a new member, but they want to make him a full trusted member, cause the man has connections that the gang could use. He's a cop. A crooked cop, but a cop no less, so it's risky recruiting a cop, but advantageous cause he has connections in his job.

So the gang wants to give the new recruit a 'blood in', that is is that they want him to spill the blood of another person as a test to get in. It's a realistic technique that gangs use. However, since the new member is a cop, and could be undercover even, to aim to want to get evidence on the gang and bust them, the gang has to take precautions.

The gang does a fake blood in on him instead. They get one of their own members to pose as a potential victim, and the cop has to perform the blood in, with an unloaded prop gun, not knowing that it's staged, to see if he can do it.

It's kind of like how in some books and movies, a gang will give someone an empty gun, to see if he will shoot someone to see if he is not an undercover cop, but they do not want to give an undercover cop a loaded gun, even with one bullet in it.

But in this case, they figure they will use one of their own members. The reason is, is because if the cop pulls the trigger, and no bullet is fired, if it's a real victim the gang will still have to kill the person to keep them quiet. If the person is, killed and then a body later found, the undercover cop could be a witness to that killing.

So by having a fake blood in, with one of their own members, and just pretending to get rid of the hostage, after the blood in is completed, the new recruit will be fooled into thinking he passed a real blood in test, but the gang does not have to worry about killing a real person, and being caught for it later, if the cop is an undercover.

But I was told by readers that it does not make sense for a gang to use a fake hostage, and that the gang would use a real one, and frame the new recruit for murder if necessary. Do you think that's true though? I mean the cop knows who one of the gang members is personally, and if that cop would turn him in for murder of the victim, that would suck for him. Where as if no murder is committed, the cop does not have anything to turn him in for, should he choose not to do the blood in.

But I was told it does not make sense, and gangs commit real murders and do not realistically bother with fake staged ones. What do you think?

 

Is it possible? Yes.
Is it probable? I don't think so.
Most gangs are pretty cutthroat. In fact many will have new recruits kill a person completely at random. Using a fake victim would also cause the reader to take the gang less seriously.

 

Okay thanks. But killing a real person can be more risky, since it means the risk of being caught for murder. So wouldn't a fake murder be better cause it's less risky? That's what other people told me as well, that the gang is not plausible because of this. But I feel if a character is going to take a bigger risk than what is necessary to accomplish the goal, then I feel I need a good reason for it.

Is cutthroat alone, a smart enough reason, to take a bigger risk than what is necessary?

 

As I see it, it's unrealistic because they know he's a cop and that's where the risk lies, right in front of them. Do they have to be aware he's a cop? Because that is, at least in my view, why they wouldn't take the risk of using a random person, which would probably be the most realistic if you want them to come across as seriously bad people. Plus, why would he join if they're aware he's a cop? And why wouldn't he be aware of that, if he's a good cop? It's a catch-22 all over the place.

 

The best way to answer any behaviour question is to ask yourself: what would I do?

If you're being honest with yourself and do some real soul-searching, you'll always find better answers than if you simply label someone a criminal/cop/what-have-you and then try to figure it out based on TV shows you've watched.

Criminals don't think of themselves as criminals (although cops likely think of themselves as cops, but that's another story). They look at the world around them and, just like the rest of us, try to work out how they can get what they want in life. The answers they come up with are based on their circumstances, just like everyone else.

IDK, maybe it's harder to work these things out in today's world where we do face-to-face so seldom compared to years gone by.

 

He is not undercover at all. He happens to know one of the gang members. But he is a crooked cop, not an undercover. The gang wants to recruit him because they think that having a cop on their team is a good idea. He has police resources and he could serve as a mole.

And yes they are aware he's cop, which is why they want him for a mole. This is why they do not take the risk of using a random person. Because let's say they recruit a crooked cop into the gang and want him to to a test to prove himself. That crooked cop could be an undercover cop, and they wouldn't know. Even if he is not actually undercover, as he is not, they still cannot know that positively. Or even if he is not undercover and they ask him to join the gang, he could go to his superiors and say that a gang has wanted to recruit him and now they want him to do a blood in. He could say this, with the interest of busting the gang, with his superiors help.

Even though he is a crooked cop, it is still a possibly that he is not interested in joining the gang, and he could possible still want to make a bust to look good, crooked or not. It is still a possibility, so the gang wants to take the precaution of not using a random target, and using a target they know will be on their side, and create deniability if a bust should occur.

He's not really undercover, but he could be and they never know. Or he could just be a crooked cop, who still wants to make a bust and tell his superiors about him being recruited into a gang, and it's our chance to make a bust now. They want a mole, but they also want to take precautions in recruiting one, should something go down.

 

Every gang has their own set of rules and guidelines. I could not think of any "smart gangs" that would let a cop join, it just would not be too smart of a move. The cop is already in the biggest gang, so why take a chance that dangerous. There would be no need to be in two gangs, too dangerous. However, I know for a fact that there is a history with certain policeman that will work with gangs for financial gain. The Hells Angels would never associate with any type of cop, not would they entertain the option to let them join their club. There have been documented case with the Crips and Bloods working with the police, as well as letting them join their gang.

 

Okay thanks. However, the cop is not already part of another gang. He is crooked, but he is a lone crooked cop, and has no ties to anyone. So would they risk recruiting him then for a mole, if he has no ties to any other gangs?

 

Crooked or not, they are still a sort or gang, club, etc. I have many family members that are DEA , as well as policeman in San Francisco. My point is, they are a "gang" in their own way. They are the true blue, a gang of mostly good people, but it only takes a few to ruin it for the rest. Trust me when I tell you, there will never be a "one lone" cop. It will start at the top, then work it's way down to find new ways to make good cops bad, by the temptation of money. There is always the possibility for recruitment for those reasons.
I ran strip clubs for seventeen years in different cities, mainly San Francisco, where I worked closely with, less than reputable people, such as; Politicians, police, and judges. The ole mayor of San Francisco was at one time, Deja' vu's lawyer in the 80's. Deja vu was the company that a ran clubs for. One of the clubs I ran was frequented by, the Hells Angels. I got to know many of then in the Bay Area.
I have a cousin that works for the DEA, and I worked as a CI on certain jobs for money. I got to know the underbelly of San Francisco very well.
I am currently working on two books. The first will be called; "Beyond The Pole" and the other will be, "Rat". I did a seventeen year journal of my time running strip clubs, with a five year journal at the DEA as my time doing jobs with them, that became very dangerous. Sorry for the long reply, but I have a passion for talking about the criminal world. I have personally never been to jail, but because of my background in the strip club industry, plus with the DEA, I have a lot of experience in the field.

 

Okay thanks a lot for your input. Well let's say my gang wanted to recruit a cop to be a mole. What if this cop decided to tell his superiors that a gang approached him for recruitment and that this is their chance to bust them?

The superiors could turn it into a sting operation and be ready to catch the gang in the act of the blood in, should one happen. They could still monitor the situation. The gang knows this, so wouldn't the gang want to use a fake blood in target because of this? Say the blood in will be a secret sting operation from the cop's end of things.

What if they go to give the cop the blood in test, but other cops who are monitoring the situation, sworm in arrest them and save the blood in target from being harmed. They will want the blood in target to testify, to help bust the gang. But if the blood in target, is secretly one of the gang's own members, then the target will lie and make up a story to help get the gang off the charges, and without a victim of the potential crime, they do not have much of a crime to go on, since they do not have a victim.

This is the point of using a fake victim. If they use a real person and have a real dead body, then they are caught in the act of murder. Recruiting a cop into a gang with a blood in, is a risky move, cause the cop could bring police friends along for a sting. But if the gang does not actually murder anybody, then they will be caught for murder and it's less risky, then killing and being caught for it. If the cops want the blood in target to identify her attacker or assailant, she would say that it's not him, and that her attacker was someone else. The cops wouldn't have near as much evidence on them in comparison to a real dead body, or a real victim that survived the attack, that is willing to ID them.

Does that make sense?

 

I understand where you are going with it, but unfortunately, they never use fake people, nor do they do fake busts. It must be the real deal, that's why they use CI's. Usually, the police will contact the DEA for help on a case where they have to go undercover. The police are not trained to go undercover, the way DEA or ATF are. So, the police will hand the job off, because if they do decide to move forward and fail, they will be in a lot of trouble, not to mention, possibly getting the CI killed.
As far as the "blood in" and "blood out" code, every gang does have their set of rules. Say the Crips or Bloods, thy are all about the blood in, blood out code, but if you move from the street gangs to motorcycle clubs, the guys that are in the motorcycle gangs are able to have a life after the gang, but it depends on the reasons. When you move up from the motorcycle to the mafia, they have a total different code on the blood in/out. For instance, if you want out of the Yakuza, you must give then reasons, but then, if they approve you to move on, there must be a finger cut off a show of good faith to move on. After that, you may not ever contact anyone from the gang again.
There are so many different rules, so that's why you must specify the gang, club, mafia, etc. I think that it all matters, so I hope that this helps a little.

 

Okay thanks. What if there are no CI's though, what then?

Also, you say you understand why I am going with it. So it makes sense then, even though no gang does it?

I was told by others that the gang uses real blood in murder for new members, cause if the blood in commits a real murder, then they have insurance on them.

However, I do not understand how this concept would work in the gang's favor legally. So let's say they get the new recruit to kill someone. The gang would have to make sure their is enough evidence to tie the murder to that person, such as planting the new recruits blood, spit, hair, or other forms of DNA on the body. Finger prints cannot hurt either. Then what would they do bury the body, and tell the new member if he turns on them, that the body will be found?

Let's say they do it this way. If the new member turns on them in the future, would the gang tell the police that the traitor murdered someone before, and they know where the body is buried? If the gang tells the police this, then they have just confessed to being part of a past murder, and that will be added to their charges. So how does that help in the gang's favor? How do they discredit the person turning them in, without confessing to a murder?

Unless I got the concept of insurance wrong and it wouldn't happen like that? I just don't understand how the gang could have that insurance, to discredit someone, without incriminating themselves as accessories in the process. What do you think?

 

The police always have to have a CI. They always have to have one on their side, to tell them the inner workings of the gang. They have to have full names of the people that they are trying to bust. Going in blind is not an option, so having a person that can tell them about the gang is paramount. Also, not all gangs need to have the new recruit kill somebody. Most are invited into the gang, because they have something to offer the leader, so the gang can keep generating money. If the guy runs guns, deals drugs, or if he wants to be hired for the wet work. However, if you have a kid that is under eighteen, with no experience doing anything, he will have to earn his stripes by doing things that the leader wants, such as killing a random rival gang member.
This is why you must specify the gang, because certain rules will apply. If you have a cop that goes undercover, killing somebody is never an option, so they would just put an end to the operation.
As far as planting evidence to frame somebody, a street gang would never do something that requires that type of thinking, but if you go to the motorcycle clubs to the mafia, they will have a guy that will do that for them. If a street gang kills somebody, it will be by, walking up on that person or a drive-bye, so there would not be much evidence. You would never have to kill a person to join the Hells Angels, they take you through a year or more process of getting patched in.