In working out the various intricacies of a detective fiction plot, I have a fairly decent idea of just how I want the case to unfold, which I will include below: Spoiler: Victim Profile Name: UNIDENTIFIED Alias: Whatsis Bio: The true identity of Whatsis has, as of the discovery of the body, eluded investigators: no relatives or friends have come forth to provide a name for the victim; no form of personal identification could be lifted from the body; there exists no record of the victim's fingerprints or other physical identification such as dental records or hospital visits. Notes on the Body: The victim was killed by means of asphyxiation, suggested to be strangulation by two distinctive hand marks left on either side of the victim’s throat. These strangulation bruises were distinctive in their size, as only one prospective suspect had hands that closely match the wounds left on the victim's throat. In addition to the strangulation bruises, there was present what appeared to be rope burns running across the front of the victim’s neck, suggesting both bare hands and a rope were used in murdering the victim. There were signs of subcutaneous bleeding stemming from the front of the victim’s neck, where the rope burns were, but not either side of the neck, where the hand marks were. The police assumed that, based on the wounds present on the body, the prime suspect first attempted to strangle the victim with a rope, not wanting to use his hands due to their incriminating size. However, evidence on the victim's body suggests that the victim got away from the suspect before they could be strangled by the rope: the fact that the subcutaneous bleeding didn't at all overlap with the strangulation bruises; that alone would suggest one of two things: 1: That the rope pulled taut around both the culprit's hands and the victim's neck at the same time 2: That the rope wounds weren't prominent on the side of the victim's neck. This would suggest that the culprit hadn't managed to get the rope totally around the victim's throat before they managed to pull away; which would explain why the rope wounds were only prominent on the front of the victim's throat: the victim caused the rope wounds on their own during their struggle to break free from their killer. As the second of the two options is more reasonable, investigators presumed that because the victim got away from the culprit, possibly stripping them of their weapon, the killer had no choice but to kill the victim with their own bare hands, despite their size being a distinctive sign of guilt left squarely on the victim's neck. Spoiler: Prime Suspect Profile Name: Maximilian Braddock Bio: Maximilian Braddock is a personal trainer and trained physician. Though he has absolutely no known history with the victim, he's been put under scrutiny because of recent allegations of the abuse and illegal distribution of steroids to his clients. Reason for suspicion: No alibi for the victim's presumed time of death, recent allegations of anabolic steroid abuse, the presence of his hand prints on the victim's throat. Spoiler: Other Character Profile 1 Name: Elilan Bellerose Bio: Elilan Bellerose is an up-and-coming icon in the world of fashion as both a male model and designer. Renowned for his gentle personality that almost conflicts with his powerful, masculine figure, Elilan Bellerose has become one of the female favorites of the industry. Notes: Is the culprit. Motive: An article written by the victim about the supposed soon-to-come downfall of his modeling career coupled with steroid-induced rage; conspiring with Maximillian Braddock to kill the victim for perpetuating the steroid abuse and distribution allegations in exchange for a discount on his services and goods. Means of Murdering the Victim: The bizarre nature of the victim's wounds can be attributed to the fact that a pair of hands were used to strangle the victim at the very same time a rope-like instrument was used to do just the same as it ran over the aforementioned hands. These "hands" weren't, in fact, human hands, but in actuality Maximilian Braddock's pair of work gloves filled entirely with wet sand. These gloves were sewn to a scarf; where the gloves were attached, the scarf was partially unraveled to supplement the scarf's breadth, allowing the scarf to push every one of the gloves' fingers into the victim's neck. However, because threads were collected in the same general area as the gloves, the rest of the scarf would bunch up very much like a rope. In wrapping the scarf, attached to a pair of gloves, around the victim's neck, the culprit created the wounds as we now know them. The culprit used another man's work gloves to carry out the crime, as he would knowingly put the owner into a situation in which he would be the prime suspect. As easy as it would've been to just use a scarf as there's nothing distinctive about the scarf that would point at the killer, effectively deflecting the attention at another person was a sure-fire away to get off scottfree. Spoiler: Other Character Profile 2 Name: Ray Corditt Bio: Ray Corditt is an investigative journalist renowned for his absolute anonymity and harsh criticisms of much beloved celebrities. How he maintains his anonymity is unknown to his audience. Notes: Is the true identity of the victim, Whatsis. One issue is that though there's contextual relations between the characters, initially there's a stark thematic contrast so I worry that introducing characters too different from the established premise of the murder may direct too much attention to/at them, especially if their introductions aren't handled with the necessary tact. Another issue I have is that every character I can think of is related to the murder, there's only one prospective suspect and I don't wish to randomly introduce any random other characters for the sake of just muddying the waters. How would I create new characters and give them contextual relevance?
I was wondering: Have you spoken to anyone who works crime investigations? Or maybe read some books about it. One thing that works for me is that when I'm stuck writing fiction, is to go back to reality. And what I'm getting at is that perhaps you should consider introducing these characters from a "detective's eye."
In the normal course of an investigation, police will look at anyone who had a connection to the victim who could have had a motive to kill him/her. It doesn't have to be (and almost never is) the same motive. While they could be all members of a given group (such as in Bruce Robert Coffin's Among the Shadows), they usually aren't. They are usually people who have had some connection with the victim, hence the differing motives. So, maybe it was the stripper who was mad the victim wouldn't leave his wife; or his wife, who was sleeping with the victim's partner; or the partner, who wanted the victim out of the way; or the guy the victim had words with in the bar the same night he was killed; and maybe it's someone we see but don't even think about because she doesn't appear to have any motive. The other thing to remember is that not all suspects are identified at the same time. Often, police focus early on one suspect, especially if the initial evidence strongly points that way, until they discover some fact - an ironclad alibi, perhaps, or some forensic discovery that points elsewhere - that forces them to look at someone else. This aspect of criminal investigation creates lots of opportunities for plot twists. The thing you have to present to the reader is the connection any suspect has with the victim, so that when the real killer is revealed, it is both unexpected and inevitable. Hope this helps.
I don't feel knowledgeable enough to help myself, but I've been trying to write mysteries and this book has been so useful. It talks a lot about how to plant clues and what the different kinds of clues are, and motives, which may help you with the introduction of more characters.
Incidentally, I haven't though I feel somewhat ashamed to have not done so. This seems like the first thing I should've done... Thank you for the idea! I believe the main issue is the anonymity of the victim. Would it not be somewhat hard to pinpoint relations for a man who is currently unknown?
Oh, this book does look particularly helpful! Thank you for showing it to me! Unfortunately, I don't currently have a dime to my name, but as soon as I'm able I will try to pick myself up a copy.
Sure would. Which is why police would make ascertaining who (s)he was the first order of business (after interviewing any witnesses of the crime itself). They'd also review any forensic evidence turned up by the crime scene folks and any video surveillance of the scene or the surrounding area.
Ah, actually I'm not sure why but your reply made me realize something: Another important part of establishing characters is setting and context, right? Not only does the location where the victim was killed/found allow for you to develop a cast of characters and suspects based on that location alone, but depending on the accessibility and nature of that location, coupled with the context surrounding the victim's death, figuring out how the place of death factors into the crime can help establish a more multifaceted mystery, yes?
Watch shows like The First 48, Joe Kenda Homicide Hunter, and Cops. Joe Kenda is a veteran detective who has solved more than a hundred murders in the state of Colorado. He's also my adoptive father if I can ever trick him into signing the papers.
