The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Battlestar Galactica: "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

Guys, he has asked his various questions before, on endless endless threads, and he never ever allows the problems to be solved.

 

Well I could possibly write it so that the villains are let go by law enforcement much sooner in the story, long before it goes to work. However, it is a high profile media case, and I wanted the theme and the tone to reflect that. I wanted to have a lot of media, people, and protesters present outside of the courthouse, as the case went on for a day's worth of time, before the villains got off, with protesters and people ready to scream at them, as they leave.

However, could I have this same high profile media atmosphere outside of the police station, when the police are just interviewing suspects instead? Would the press and protesters show up outside of the police station, to broadcast the results of a police interview when it's finished, and question the people of interest coming out and freed, if the case was big enough?

 

If the police role is just to move the plot along, they don't need to be introduced in the same detail as your key characters.

You could name drop or refer to them to introduce them gracefully or given them unique characteristics (Google character quirks)

 

There's literally no limits as to how the villain could delay matters so you may need a twist. Throw in an ancient legal clause, an important document which is rushed to the court with minutes to spare and the judge in their discretion has to consider it or what if the villain is a master of hot-air talk, like a skilled politician (look at Marc Anthony's speech which turns the whole of Rome against Caesars conspirators)

 

Print out copies and ask a writers group what they expect or want the beginning to be

Maybe interview your characters?

Read the beginning of a novel similar to yours and do something like that.

 

It wouldn't be long but there are other ways for him to be unable to intervene/monitor the house, apart from him being kidnapped though I can't think of any examples

 

Well after doing some more research, it turns out that the macguffin would not be privileged if it were in posession of the lawyer. However, would a lawyer be willing to perform that service though, since it kind of goes outside their job description?

 

Well after doing some more research, it turns out that the macguffin would not be privileged if it were in posession of the lawyer. However, would a lawyer be willing to perform that service though, since it kind of goes outside their job description?

 

I do not think an ethical lawyer would, but are ethics an obstacle?
And attorneys are just as likely to be criminals as anyone else, maybe more so.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. No client-attorney relationship is created by this message.
Yes, I am an attorney. But I do not practice criminal law.

 

Yeah but the lawyer is a very minor character, and I really didn't develop how far he would go professionally. Ethics aren't an obstacle per say, but the lawyer needs a reason to break the law. There is nothing in it for him to risk performing this potentially criminal service, is there?

Actually I do not want the reader to know that it's the lawyer per say. The story is told from the MC's point of view, when he tries to find out where the macguffin is. He has a specific way of finding it, but if he knows that the lawyer knows where it is, then the MC can just force the lawyer to take him to it.

So I feel that makes the hunt a little too easy for the MC. Perhaps the MC can just guess that maybe the lawyer is the one who knows where it is, but doesn't chance forcing him to take him there, because he doesn't want to be wrong, and it turns out the lawyer doesn't know anything. So I don't want the MC to know it's the lawyer who knows, if it is the lawyer.

 

I answered your question. Your "yeah but" response indicates that doing so was a waste of my time.
So no more.

 

There are several apps, Securesafe is one, that can be used to store passwords and documents ( like your will). In the event of you not accessing the app online for a preset period it will fire off an email, or emails, granting access to anyone you specify.

 

Okay thanks. Well the way I thought I should write the story is that the villain keeps all the collateral in a bag, which is buried in the ground, in a secluded place. Because if the villain keeps the collateral in cyberspace, the police wouldn't be able to find it. They wouldn't be able to get search warrants to look for something like that in this type of scenario. By having it buried in the ground, outdoors, the police would legally be able to dig it up and use it without a warrant.

So is a bad idea of the villain not have it in cyberspace, programmed to fire off? Cause if he does it that way, the police wouldn't be able to legally obtain it.

 

And if he buries it and dies, it's frikkin' useless. The whole point of blackmail material as a safeguard is that it has to have a way to get sent off if something happens to you.

 

Nah, MacGuffin is fine, but a treasure trove of blackmail isn't a MacGuffin. The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is, we never know what's in it, simply that it's valuable...somehow. This is about as much of a MacGuffin as a stack of hundred dollar bills wrapped up in an 18k gold Rolex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

 

Depends on its function in the story - if the "treasure trove of blackmail" is something that drives the plot, in that it's the tracking down of its location that is the main aim and conflicts of the protagonists and antagonists, then yes, it's a macguffin.

If it's something that is kept somewhere as a threat which forms part of the conflict, but not part of the goal or aim of the protagonists, then it's not.

A stack of hundred dollar bills wrapped in a Rolex could also function as a macguffin, if it's what the protags and antags are fighting over.

 

Okay thanks. Well I want the treasure trove of blackmail evidence, to get everyone arrested. I didn't say that it incriminated the leader of the gang, did I? It doesn't incriminate the leader of the gang, but it will incriminate the others, and the others can just cut a deal then and turn him in, as well, for less jail time.

However, the reason why I wanted him to bury it in the ground, is so the MC can use it legally as evidence. If the MC hacks into his computer to get it, it violates the villain's fourth amendment rights, and it will then not be useful as evidence. So by the villain burying it in the ground, with GPS coordinates for his lawyer to have, if anything should happen, then it sidesteps the fourth amendment issue. You say that the villain should store it in cyberspace. But is there a way the MC can get it, and not violate the villain's fourth amendment rights, so the evidence would be admissible?

Every one of these methods if obtaining the evidence, from cyberspace would not be admissible in court. The police cannot hack into other people's computers, and they are not allowed to torture it out of them.

So if the villain is to keep all this blackmail evidence on the computer, how could the MC, possibly legally get it?

Plus earlier in the story the villain's computer was hacked before, by the MC. The MC did not find the treasure trove of blackmail earlier, cause he didn't know it existed at that time. But the villain knows he was hacked earlier in the story. So since the villain knows someone hacked his computer, would he still keep the treasure trove in cyberspace?

What if I wrote it like it like this. The villain gets a new computer, new IP address, new email, etc. after being hacked the first time, earlier.

The MC later on finds out about a the treasure trove of blackmail, by illegally listening in on the villains conversations with another gang member. So the MC breaks into the villain's house, and hacks into his new computer. He then finds out how to send all the blackmail evidence on every gang member, to the police, all that the same time.

Can the police now use this evidence, or could the villain argue to the prosecutor that someone broke into his computer and emailed all the evidence, and it was most likely the MC cop, who holds a huge grudge against him?

Would that get the evidence thrown out, on suspicion of fruit of the poisonous tree being present? Or would the MC triggering the evidence on all the members to be emailed to the police, work?

Plus all this computer hacking knowledge, as well as fourth amendment complications are really complicating the plot a lot. I was told before on here that I need to make things less complicated and keep things simple. The evidence buried in the ground simplifies it by a lot cause I don't have to deal with complicated computer hacking plot problems, as well as the fourth amendment getting in the way.

 

Small suggestion. Depending on where you live in the world, the police has different authirizations what they can and cannot do. What would be funny is that the villain gets ransomware on his trove, deployed through a click bait / mallware encryption type of thingy and has to call in an expert / or pay the blackmailers to get his stuff back. Blackmailers could get a sneak peek of his data when decrypting, stealing even more in the process and dispersing that to the public.

As for burrying evidence, I think I recollect that from an episode in breaking bad where they do the same. Many similarities there. Perhaps you can figure something more original like a waterproof container, tied to a cinderblock sent to the bottom somewhere off the coast.

Your suggestion of breaking and entry + sending the information out there is violating the copyright owner of the information, but its out there and with depending if the judge deems the information obtained and used without any evidence to suspect the criminal himself didnt leak the information, it's most likely to hold up in court. The prosecutor will try to get the evidence nullified but its a good cliffhanger.

 

Okay thanks. I did research by asking cops where I live, and the police cannot search a computer and violate all his privacy rights, for this reason. Which is why I came up with finding it buried in the ground, to avoid it. Yes Breaking Bad did some the same thing. Walter White took all his money out of the self storage facility, and buried it in the ground. However, Walter White is smart, and he still buried it in the ground, so no one would know where to find it. Walter White had a plan in which he gave up his fourth amendment rights on the evidence being obtained, so why can't my villain make the same mistake?

Plus the way the MC tricks the villain into going to where he buried the evidence, is that he tricks him by giving him a reason to send in the collateral on one of the gang members, to the police. So he goes to get the collateral, from the burial spot. The MC is following him with a tracking device.
After the villain digs it up, takes the blackmail evidence, on the one member, he then reburies the rest of the trove, and leaves it there. After he leaves, the MC then calls for backs up, shows them the freshly buried spot, and the police dig it up, and find the trove of evidence, on all the other members.

Now let's say I switch it to cyberspace. If the MC gives the villain a reason to send in evidence on one of his members to the police, the MC will not be able to track where in cyberspace the trove is, cause the villain will be able to send it to the police so fast, that it doesn't give the MC enough time, before the villain will close out of it.

Does the villain have to be keep his trove on the computer? Why can't he do it an old fashion way? Was there a way to arrange for blackmail evidence to go to the police, before the age, when everyone had computers?

As for dropping a cynderblock into the ocean, wouldn't someone possibly find it, if they decide to go scuba diving, or go underwater for any reason? The chances of that being found are higher than burying it, in the middle of nowhere on land, isn't it?