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.

Appearing in issue #44, November 3, 2014

Title:  Cold case

By Author:  Gary Delafield

 

Tag line:    Whoever committed the murder would be spending a long time on ice!

Police characters:   Sheriff Travis Brown

The gist:    Real estate agent Terri had been showing a couple a house that had some appliances included in the price.  A large freezer in the basement was one of them.   When they went to look at it the husband jokingly said, “I wonder if they left us any steaks?”  When he opened the chest freezer they found another real estate agent.  He had been clubbed and stuffed into the freezer.  He had been at the house the day before and crime scene estimated that his body had been in the freezer since yesterday.

The real estate manager said that the victim irritated a lot of people and that he had a nasty sense of humor.  She checked her log and found that three other agents had shown the house yesterday.  The victim was the listing agent, so he insisted on accompanying all of them for the showings.  The victim did not have a key to the property, only the showing agents had keys.

The first agent, Marion, was a petite woman in her 60s. She confirmed that the victim had been with her when she showed the house, but had been alive when she closed up and they all left.  She suggested the police talk to the skinny blonde who just joined the agency, saying that the victim liked to flirt with the new ones. 

The skinny blonde turned out to be Terri, the woman who had found the body.  She said she forgot to mention that she had been with the victim the day before.  The same buyers who looked at the house yesterday with her had asked for a second look today, and that’s how they found the body. She said she had left the victim a voice mail so he’d know the house was showing again today, but he never showed up.  She claimed that she and the victim were not romantically involved.

 The third agent who showed the house yesterday was a man name Mike, a retired contractor.  He claimed that when he showed the house the victim told him he had a meeting later.  Mike didn’t know what the meeting was about and assumed the victim was headed off to a bar.

The sheriff knew who did it.

Crime scene:    The basement of a house being shown for sale.

Clues:    Where the body was found.  The time of death.  The victim had a nasty sense of humor.

Suspects:  The three agents who showed the house on the day he died.  Marion, a petite older lady.  Terri, a skinny blonde woman.  Mike, a former contractor turned real estate agent.

Red herrings:    Terri lied about being with the victim on the day he died.  

Solution:  Mike did it.  He was the only one of the three that could drag and lift a dead body into the freezer. Mike had asked Terri out but she had declined.  The victim teased Mike relentlessly about it even saying that Terri had accepted a date with him.  In a fit of jealous anger Mike clubbed the victim then put him in the freezer.  He was hoping to dispose of the body the next day, but Terri showed the house before he could do that.

My two cents:    Okay, I’m ticked off.  At first I thought, “What a great story, I can’t find the clue.”  Only a man would be strong enough to lift the body into the freezer. But the story didn’t say the how old the male was or talk about his build.  He could have been 85 years old for all we know.  And what if the two women teamed up?  An older lady and a skinny blonde could do it if they worked together.  So the clue lies in the motive.  I went back and read the story again.  No motive.

 The victim was the listing agent, so whoever sold the house, they would both make money.  Nobody really liked him, but nobody hated him either.  The older lady commented that he liked the ladies and hit on the new agents.   Still no motive.  The agent, Terri, who found the body, omitted the fact that she had been with the victim the day he’d been killed.  So she lied.  That’s suspicious, but that’s not a motive.  It was, however, a good red herring.

I anxiously turned the magazine to read the solution.  Then I frowned.  The reason I couldn’t find the motive was because the author didn’t give us one.  The motive was in the solution.  It was a long and drawn out. It explained how the fact that the victim had a nasty sense of humor played into the motive.  Readers hate that they can’t figure it out from the story.  They feel cheated, and rightly so.

There are only seven reasons a person will kill (other than war, social violence, or serial killer/sociopath).  Jealousy is one of them, but you have to love someone to be jealous enough to take action.  You don’t kill every man who comes along and gets a date with a woman you just asked out and who said no.  The motive sucked.

Loved the title.  The tag line was clever.  There was a missing word and a bad comma in the second column. (Harrison Walsh, had been clubbed in the basement the washer, then his body stuffed in the freezer.)  I’m thinking it was a fast edit and it got missed in the chopping.   Even after three edits by the publisher, my book still has one typo.  Very annoying.  But it happens.

It was an interesting premise, the writing was crisp (although I’m not a fan of  She said with a sneer.  Too much telling vs showing) and the pacing was good.  Two stars for the above.  The unbelievable motive and missing details in the story eat up the last three stars.

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law

What makes a crime federal rather than state?

 

A federal crime is an offense that has been made illegal either by federal law or one that occurs on federal property. Mail fraud which crosses state lines or involves the United States Postal Service is a federal offense. Other federal crimes include aircraft hijacking, kidnapping, bank robbery, child pornography, tax evasion, counterfeiting, art theft from a museum, damaging or destroying public mailboxes,  immigration offenses, and since 1965, assassinating the President or Vice President, although these were not made federal crimes until after President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Prosecution guidelines are established by the United States Attorney in each federal judicial district and by laws that Congress has already established. So never place your characters in the wrong courthouse.  Federal crimes are prosecuted by United States Attorneys as opposed to State Attorneys and are handled in federal court.

Numerous federal agencies have been granted powers to investigate federal offenses.  Some examples would be the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service and the Secret Service.  The men and women who work for these agencies are agents; DEA agents or FBI agents for example.  They are not police officers.

 

If a crime is committed that includes breaking a federal law and a state law,

the federal law trumps and that is where the jurisdiction of the case will lie. Convicted offenders will serve time in a federal prison as opposed to a state facility.

Appearing in issue #42, October 20, 2014

Title:  A loan-ly murder

By Author:  John M. Floyd

Tag line:    Angela Potts, as usual, had cracked the case.  The sheriff just couldn’t figure out how she’d done it!

Police characters:   Sheriff Chunky Jones, amateur sleuth Angela Potts

The gist:    Angela is sitting outside the courthouse playing a game on her phone.  The sheriff asks her for a ride because his car won’t start and both his deputies are tied up elsewhere.  There’d been a murder, so Angela was delighted to help.  Angela asked if the sheriff was questioning a recent suicide, a man named Zack.  Sheriff Jones said no, that Zack’s daughter authenticated the suicide note.  He added that someone had shot the banker, Jerry Westbrook, in the chest.  The bullet wound was located right above the top button of his cardigan sweater.  When they got to the bank, the bank manager told them the coroner was on his way and pointed to a distraught woman, Katie, a new customer, who had found the body.  The sheriff nodded to Angela to indicate she should talk to Katie while he examined the body, which was located in the man’s office.  Jerry was slumped face down in his desk.

     Katie told Angela that she had come in for a loan and found the man dead. Angela asked her to describe the body.  She described Jerry Westbrook as bald on top, eyeglasses, cardigan sweater and a gold watch.  She said she heard footsteps running out back and feels she just missed whoever did it.  Mrs. Potts remembered that Katie was the daughter of Zack who had tried to take out a loan and was turned down. The same Zack who had killed himself.  Sheriff Jones told Katie he needed to search her purse.   When he did, he found an automatic pistol with a silencer. 

     When asked how Angela was so sure Katie was the killer, she remarked that if Katie had been innocent she couldn’t have seen what she saw.

Crime scene:    Bank office.

Clues:    What Katie saw.

Suspects:   Katie.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:  A cardigan sweater has buttons down the front.  Unless Katie had seen the victim sitting, before falling face down on his desk, she couldn’t have known it was a cardigan.

My two cents:    

His squad car won’t start?  I suppose that could happen. Even in a car that’s well maintained, mechanical things stop working.  But in that case he’d call one of his deputies to come get him.  Murder trumps most other calls.  He wouldn’t take an old lady to a murder scene. 

Dear Gawd, this is a homicide investigation and the sheriff has got a civilian questioning the main witness.

 When you can see the dead body just by looking in the office doorway, why would anybody, police or civilian, ask a witness to describe the body? They wouldn’t.  The author needed the shooter to say he was wearing a cardigan, so he threw that scene in there.

Where are the surveillance cameras?  All banks have inside surveillance. 

Bank managers don’t call the coroner.  They call 911.  The police arrive, they call in the detectives.  Those are the guys that call the coroner’s office.

By the way, just FYI, an automatic pistol ejects a spent cartridge.  I’m sure crime scene will match that casing up with her gun.

The police don’t get to search someone’s purse without permission.  Most times the police have the person sign a ‘permission to search’ form, a form that will hold up later in court.  Otherwise they need to obtain a search warrant. 

The title was good but the tag line was out of sync with the story.  He couldn’t have known how Angela knew, because he didn’t talk to the main witness and had no idea what was said. 

It wasn’t the best Angela Potts story.  It wasn’t the worst.  There’s always lots of little technical issues in these Potts stories.   Two stars for a decent clue (even though it was revealed in an odd manner) and good pacing.  

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law

 

Who decides what the charges are going to be?

 

    Can a police officer charge a person with a crime?  No.  The police arrest and investigate.  They may identify the crime they believe a person has committed, but that may not be the actual charge that is ultimately filed.  A prosecutor, sometimes known as a state attorney or district attorney, begins the process of bringing the charges against a person, and then either a judge or a jury will decide if said person is guilty or not. Notice I didn’t say guilty or innocent.  A person is always presumed to be innocent right up to the moment they are found guilty.   

     There is only one state attorney (or district attorney) in each county.  All other attorneys working under him or her are called assistant district attorneys or assistant state attorneys.  Each ADA or ASA can be responsible for up to 150 cases at any given time.  The big guy, the DA or SA, generally only handles high profile cases, and he or she assigns the cases to the ADAs or ASAs.  They tend to work in departments; homicide, sexual assault, etc.   In Fort Lauderdale there is even a Not Me department to handle cases where the accused is claiming the police arrested the wrong person, such as a younger brother vs the older brother.

     The charging document that the prosecutor produces is called an indictment.  Sometimes it’s called a Prosecutor’s Information.  That document is not proof that the subject committed the crime; it is only an allegation that will start the judicial process rolling.

     In most states the prosecutor’s office, or district attorney’s office, will make the decision on what charge or charges will be brought against the subject.   Some states have a grand jury that decides those issues. 

   Every crime must be codified, that is, be a written law.  Criminal statues, laws, are created by legislature, not by judges or prosecutors, and the elements the prosecutor must prove are clearly established and listed in each statute.  They state must prove each and every one of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt for the person to be found guilty.  If they can only prove two out of three elements … they lose the case.