Appearing in issue #47, November 24, 2014

Title:  Death takes a tumble

By Author:  Aimee Deschaine

  

Tag line:     One thing was certain, Della’s descent had not happened by accident!

Police characters:   Officer John Francisco and newspaper reporter, Cora.

The gist:    Ms. Della Reed, the town’s wealthiest woman, had been found dead in her home by two of her school chums who had come back to town for a class reunion.  Cora, a newspaper reporter, showed up at the home when she heard the news.  When Officer Francisco, who was speaking to the two chums, saw Cora Reporter arrive, he walked over to her to fill her in.

Della had not shown up for the reunion event, and the next day her two chums came to the house, saw her through a glass door lying at the bottom on the staircase, and called the police.  Officer Francisco at first thought the death was an accidental fall down the stairs, but became suspicious when he saw a large lump on the back of her head.  

The three women had met for lunch the day before the reunion.  Della’s brother, Carl, who also lived in the house, had been there during the lunch.  Della liked to take Polaroid photos and Cora Reporter found three photos sitting beside the plate of cookies Della had planned to take to the reunion. Cora Reporter picked them up and examined them. The first photo showed the two chums standing in front of a coat rack that held umbrellas, hats, a couple of rain slickers and a man’s raincoat.  Photo number two, taken by Carl, showed the three women on the couch drinking tea.  The last photo showed the two chums leaning on a Mercedes in the driveway, while Carl in a plaid jacket and holding a briefcase waved from the driver’s side door.  Carl was leaving for a business trip.

One of the chums said that a contractor’s truck showed up as they were leaving and that Della did not seem pleased to see it.   Della and her brother had been warding off developers who wanted their property to turn it into a high-priced condo community.

Cora Reporter had heard that Della and one of the chums had been rivals all through school and wondered if that had played a part in Della’s death.

Carl, having been called when his sister had been found, came rushing in, dropped his raincoat and briefcase, and broke down when he saw his sister’s body.

Cora Reporter told the officer she knew who the killer was.

Crime scene:    Rich woman’s home.

Clues:    The photographs.

Suspects:  Two female friends, her brother, a strange contractor.   

Red herrings:    The high school rival.  And then Just a lot of stupidity to throw you off.

Solution:   The brother, Carl, killed his sister after an argument over selling the house.  The first photograph showed a raincoat hanging on the rack.  Carl was not wearing a raincoat in the second photo where he was in the car leaving, but Cora Reporter saw him throw one down  when he rushed in today.  He must have come back, argued with his sister, killed her, and grabbed his coat on the way out.

My two cents:    Okay, let’s start with the police.  Officer Francisco is suspicious of a lump on the back of a woman’s head, a woman who fell down a flight of stairs?  Really?  Did he think she would fall to her death and not get a mark on her somewhere?  Did you ever see the scene in Death Becomes Her where Meryl Streep falls down the stairs?  It’s pretty horrific. She’s all twisted up and broken when it’s over.  There’s even a bone sticking out of her neck.  Anyway, my point is that a lump on her head is not suspicious in this circumstance.

Next, let’s talk about the photographs.  So there’s a raincoat on the rack in one, and Carl is not wearing a raincoat while pictured seated in the driver’s seat.  Um – maybe it’s in the back seat?  Maybe after the photo was taken, Carl said, oops, I forgot my raincoat and he went back in and got it.  This was a terrible and unbelievable clue.

 “When Officer Francisco, who was speaking to the two chums, saw Cora Reporter, he walked over to her to fill her in.”  And then he turned in his badge before the department had a chance to fire his butt. Any police officer that gives info to the press will be on desk duty for months, and it’s going to be really uncomfortable for him to sit at a desk with most of his ass chewed off.    And a newspaper reporter is not going to be allowed to walk around the crime scene and talk to the witnesses for Pete’s sake. The detective bureau and crime scene haven’t even been there yet.  She handled the photographs!  She touched evidence!  She’s dropping DNA and leaving prints all over the crime scene!   Now look at that.  This author made me use exclamation points.  I must be really perturbed.

There was motive, barely.  The pacing was okay.  The writing was okay.  The characters were unbelievable and the clue that was used could easily be explained, so really it was a non-clue.

Two stars.  Reluctantly. Exclamation point.

Get out your pencils. You should ace these....

                 POP QUIZ!

1)  Where does the term Miranda come from?

   a) It’s Spanish for ‘no question’. 

   b) It was a defendant’s name.

   c) It’s a combination of letters from a procedure in the police    training manual.

2)  You just robbed a store at gunpoint.  Did you …

   a)  commit a robbery?

   b)  commit a burglary?

   c)  commit a hate crime?

3)  Your brother was sentenced to 3 years in state prison.  Was his crime a …

   a)  Misdemeanor

   b)  Felony

4)  Your friend walked up to and hit another guy in a bar for no apparent reason.  He was arrested for…

   a)  Battery

   b)  Assault

5)  In order to be an accessory after the fact a person:

   a)  assisted or gave aid knowingly in a crime

   b)  knew the other person was committing a crime

   c)   split the proceeds of the crime

   d)   did all of the above

6)  Criminal mischief means?

   a)  pranking someone

   b)  causing damage to someone’s property

   c)   acting willfully and maliciously

   d)  A and B

   e)  B and C

7)  To be convicted of a DUI (driving under the influence) in most US states your blood alcohol level must be over…

   a)  .15

   b)  .08

   c)  1.0

8)  The cops said you were fleeing.  You were:

   a)  failing to stop when the police said to

   b)  making false statements to the police

   c)  driving an unregistered vehicle

9)   An element of a home invasion charge would include:

   a)  entering someone’s home uninvited

   b)  making yourself a sandwich while you’re in there

   c)  leaving threatening notes

10)  If you are convicted of a felony, what rights could you lose?

   a)  the right to have an attorney

   b)  the right to vote

   c)  the right to apply for a driver license

11)  You hit a parked car and took off without leaving a note.  You are guilty of:

   a)  aiding and abetting

   b)  car jacking

   c)  leaving the scene of an accident

12)  She says you kidnapped her.  What did you do?

   a)  You wouldn’t let her leave the house when she wanted to

   b)  You took money from her purse

   c)  You locked her out of the house

13)  You were accused of being lewd.  What did you do?

   a)  You burped in public

   b)  You acted in an unchaste manner

   c)  You gawked at a woman/man on the street

14)  To loiter is to linger or dawdle or remain or move about without a lawful purpose.

   a)  True

   b)  False

15) A car is speeding, hits a person crossing the street, and kills that person.  What is the charge?

   a) murder

   b) manslaughter

16)  You lied on the witness stand in court during a legal proceeding.  What crime did you commit?

   a)  uttering a false statement

   b) perjury

   c)  withholding evidence

17)  When is a borrowed car a stolen car?

   a)  after 7 days

   b)  overnight

   c)  when the owner says so

18)  Can you get a DUI on a boat?

   A) yes

   b) no

19)  Is it against the law to share prescription medication?

   a) no, when the other person says it’s okay

   b) yes, unless that person is over 18 years of age

   c) Yes, period.

20)  Is a rent-a-cop a real cop?

   a) yes

   b) no

Answers:

1)b 2)a 3)b 4)a 5)d 6)e 7)b 8)a 9)a 10)b 11)c 12)a 13)b 14)a 15)b 16)b 17c 18)a 19)c 20)b

17 or more correct - you've been paying attention. Excellent.
13-16 correct - You better go back and review some old posts.  Good.
9-12 correct - You're just guessing, right?  Poor
Under 9?  Law is not your thing.  Maybe you'd do better to write romantic comedies.

Appearing in issue #46, November 17, 2014

Title:  Lights out!

By Author:  Tracy Green

Tag line:     Everyone was in the dark about who had robbed the jewelry store!

Police characters:   Detective Angela Chu

The gist:    In the middle of a city-wide power outage the city’s most famous jewelry store had been robbed. Police speculated that only a skilled thief could have pulled off that stunt, someone who familiarized himself with the work habits of the partners, became familiar with the building layout, and understood the state-of-the-art security system.  At the time of the blackout and the theft, the night before, there were only two people in the building; one of three partners (Kirk) and a trusted security guard.  Kirk claimed he had been working late to get the books in order for the accountant who was coming the next day.  As he was preparing to leave the building, the lights went out. He said he called for the security man but he wasn’t at his station in the lobby.  He said he was concerned for the guard, as he was a bit elderly and went to look for him.  He took the elevator to the parking basement and found him in his car passed out drunk.  He said he was agitated and just left the man in the car, and he went home.  

Partner #2 (Lincoln), who was not present when the theft occurred, said he and the partner #3 (Paul) had attended the gem and mineral show at the convention and had been there the entire day.  He said he went home after the show and assumed Paul did, too.  Lincoln told Det. Chu that Kirk has a large art collection and had recently been scrambling to gather money to purchase a painting he desperate wanted.  Det. Chu thought perhaps Lincoln was telling her this to divert suspicion from himself.  Chu also learned that partner Paul had hefty alimony payments.

When Det. Chu interviewed partner Paul he told her that partner Lincoln had a gambling problem and that the jewelry store was insured to the max.

Det. Chu spoke to the security guard who admitted he had been drinking and even left the premises for awhile to meet his friends in a bar.  He said he had had too much to drink and decided to sleep it off in the car, never thinking he’d be found.  He told Chu that Paul had overseen the installation of the new security system and had bothered the technicians with endless questions. 

Det. Chu knew who her man was.

Crime scene:   jewelry store.  

Clues:    the power outage.

Suspects:  the three partners, or the security guard.

Red herrings:    Paul’s detailed knowledge of the security system.  The fact that the accountant was coming in the next day to look at the books.  Det. Chu’s thoughts on Lincoln trying to throw her off the track.

Solution:  Kirk is the thief.  He said he took the elevator to go check on the security guard, but the power was out, so how could he?  He took advantage of the outage, and when it came back on he found the guard, so he used him to lie about how the events unfolded.

My two cents:    I guess no one has ever heard of backup generators.  This is a high-buck jewelry store in a multi-level building that has an elevator and a lobby, with a state-of-the-art security system -- that goes down and leaves them vulnerable when the power goes out.  Backup generators keep the security system operational, the emergency lights on, and the elevators running and are part of every “state-of-the-art” system.  This is where the author made his/her biggest mistake.  He/she should have kept it a bit low key in the security department.

The tag line was cute but the title was ho-hum.  I know these are not the author’s doing.

Sometimes we have no red herrings; here we have three good ones.

Well, every-single-body had a motive here.  I sure can’t squawk about ‘no motive’.  Gambling problems, pesky alimony payments, art lust.   Everybody pointing fingers at everybody else. And to top it off they have a drunk for a security guard.

 I have to give this story 3 stars.  The pacing was good, no problems with the writing, and it had motive out the kazoo, but the clue was not believable and the characters were all sharks and drunks.  A bit over the top.  Sort of a 180 from last week’s story that had blah characters and no motive.

101 Things

                    An Author Needs to Know
                 About the Police and the Law


                        What is hearsay?


Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the person speaking while testifying at trial or a hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is sometimes a difficult principle to follow.
Let me give you an example.  Martha Rogers is testifying about a fight she and Jane got into. It might go like this:


Q:  Tell us, Ms. Rogers, how did the fight start?
A:  Well, Jane came over to my house and told me that Jim saw my husband out with another woman.     
     DEFENSE:  Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.


This is really double hearsay.  Martha is testifying what Jim said to Jane. Martha Rogers can’t testify about what someone else said or heard or saw.  She can only testify about things she herself said, heard, or saw.  Yes, it is true that she heard Jane say it, but to get Jane’s statements into evidence, the state must call Jane as a witness and ask her about what she said. The attorney for the state has to try to elicit what happened without getting into third party statements.  Not an easy task. Attorneys have meetings with witnesses before they get on the stand to let them know what can be said and what not to say.


More likely it would go like this:
Q:  Tell us, Mr. Rogers, how did the fight start?
A:  Well, Jane came over to my house and started making comments about my husband.
Q:  And did that make you angry?
A:  Yes.  Very.
Q:   So what did you do when you became angry with Jane?
A:  I told her to get out of my house.  She was standing in my doorway, so I pushed her out the door.
Q:  And what happened next?: 
A:  She slapped me.  That’s when I lost it and went after her.


There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about hearsay.  People commonly believe that you cannot be convicted based on hearsay. That's not true. Hearsay evidence is often excluded, but if it meets an exception, of which many exist, it may be admissible and used to convict you.People also believe that hearsay only applies to what other people say. In fact, hearsay applies to everyone, as long as they are not under oath.

  Just for fun...

In 2011 a man named Trevor Jones decided to rob a house in Atlanta. Let us make a list of the things he did wrong:

He parked his car in the driveway.

He left the front door wide open.

He left his keys and wallet in his car.

So when the homeowner returned and saw all that, she took the wallet and keys and called the cops. But Trevor Jones continued to do stupid stuff. When he realized that his keys and wallet were gone, he went running into a nearby pond. (No, I have no idea why.) On the other side of the pond, he broke into another house where he used their computer (bad password, I'm assuming) to log into Facebook and post various stuff. He also left behind puddles wherever he went and when he left that house, he forgot to log out of Facebook.

Appearing in issue #45, November 10, 2014

Title:  An unwelcome guest

By Author:  Tracie Rae Griffith

 

Tag line:     An open window and a missing watch told Ella Edwards there was trouble afoot!

Police characters:   None.

The gist:    Great Aunt Theresa invited her nephew and niece over for tea and to meet her friend Ella. The niece left the table at one point to fetch more tea in the kitchen.  The nephew left the table to retrieve a rare book from the living room that Aunt wanted to show Ella. While the two were gone, Aunt told Ella that she had decided to leave all her worldly goods to her niece and nephew, including her money, some jewelry and her grandfather’s antique gold watch which was quite valuable.  She hadn’t told them about their inheritance yet.

Suddenly a hoarse shout echoed through the house followed by a loud thump. The sounds appeared to be coming from the living room and the two ladies ran in that direction. They found the nephew sprawled face-up on the floor, his eyes shut and his arms thrown wide. A few feet away on the floor lay a large leather- bound book. He sat up and rubbed his head.  At this time the niece appeared in the doorway with a pot of tea asking what happened. 

The nephew said he was standing in front of the bookcase looking for the rare book when he heard a noise.  He claims he saw a dark figure behind him reflected in the mirror and he pointed to an ornate mirror on the wall.  Although he didn’t get a good look, he thought it was a man. This man hit him on the head and shoved him to the floor.  When the aunt looked around she realized her precious gold watch was missing from its display case.  The nephew pointed to an open window and claimed the man must have escaped through it.

Ella pointed at the nephew and demanded to know where he had hidden the watch.  How did she know?

Crime scene:    Aunt Theresa’s home.

Clues:    The way the nephew fell to the floor.

Suspects:   The nephew.   Or some unknown burglar.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:   If the nephew had indeed been hit in the back of the head, he would have fallen forward, not backward.  The watch was found hidden behind some books.

My two cents:    Here we have a mystery with no police involvement and basically only one real suspect.  It’s a little unusual for WW.  There were no red herrings.  At first I pictured him browsing through a large bookcase and thought the man in the mirror story was his downfall because how could he see into a mirror that was behind him? I guess it must have been a smaller bookcase with the mirror on the wall next to it because the mirror wasn’t a clue at all.  Kudos to the author for the misdirection if that was intentional.  I've said it before...WW just LOVES little old ladies.

The motive was missing.  Why would this man steal from his aunt? 

It would have made a more interesting story if the niece was included as a suspect as well.  When the older ladies ran into the living room, the niece could have been in there already throwing a little doubt her way.  You could even have the friend, Ella, leave to use the restroom, throwing her into the mix.

 The rest of the details needed for this crime were there:  the opportunity and the timing.  Otherwise you either believe the nephew’s story or you don’t. 

This was a simple story but basically it worked.  The pacing was good.  What would make it Five Star?  Better character development, more misdirection or red herrings, and a believable motive.

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law

                       What is self defense?

 

It is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. 


This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.  For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself?  What goes beyond that level?  What if the intended victim provoked the attack?  Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible?  What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist?  What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?As you can see, self-defense is more complicated than it first appears.  Laws between states vary, but the considerations are largely the same.

Is the Threat Imminent?  As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat.  The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm.  Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended.  For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended.  Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?  Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm.  What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable man” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.  The concept of the “reasonable man” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. 

Picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park.  Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head.  The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away.  The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away.  While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense.  All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help.  Perhaps there should be a mind-your-own-business law.

Imperfect Self-defense. Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable.  If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.”  Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved.  Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however. 

For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop.  When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake.  The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable.  In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face.  While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

Proportional Response. The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question.  In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat.  If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.  If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail. 

Duty to Retreat. The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force.  This is also known as a “duty to retreat.”  While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.

Stand Your Ground. In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws.  These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence.  As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force.  States are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.

Thank you to  findlaw.com.  Visit their website for lots of legal info.  

Always consult a lawyer if you find yourself in legal difficulties.