HomeWritersLiterary AgentsEditorsPublishersResourcesDiscussion
Forum Login | Join the discussion
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    But there was no real kidnapping, correct? I mean, no one called 911 or filed a false statement, right?



  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Yes I understand that. No there was no 911 call or filed false statement. The main character cop stumbled upon it accidentally while on patrol from seeing the suspicious activity, I described before.

    But the cop who spotted it, says that there was a kidnapping so he makes the arrest and the police file charges based on what he said. The false victim does not talk at first, but remains silent. She is waiting for a call from her leader, on what lies to tell cause the leader has to find out what the police know about them at first. The police do not actually know anything, and a cop just randomly stumbled upon it while on patrol. But the fake victim does not realize this, and still remains silent till she hears back from her leader. And yes there is no filed false statement at this point, so the police still assumed she is a kidnap victim afraid of talking.

    But the suspect who is arrested remains silent, and the victim, even though she is saying it was fake, is not saying everything. I asked a real lawyer about this for research when writing the story. He said that in real life, the cops would believe, that the victim is just lying, and is scared, and that there was a kidnapping. He said that realistically, a prosecutor would not use her statement or call her as a witness, thinking she is too scared to admit to being kidnapped, and would just use the cop's testimony in what he saw, and bring charges to the defendant based on the cop's word alone, and just not use the victim. The prosecutor would be thinking "well this kidnap victim is too scared to tell the truth, and is just going to lie on the stand. So I better use the cops' testimony as to what he saw, and not call the victim to the stand".

    So I went with what I was told would happen, research wise. Also, even if for some reason the police do not charge the defendant with kidnapping, the defendant's associates still fled the scene, and destroyed one of the get away cars, before switching to another car. Couldn't they still nail the defendant on an accessory to those crimes, especially if he is not willing to give up their names?

    I was told that a real life prosecutor would not just let this go, and would continue to grill the witness for the names of the others who got away under suspicious circumstances.
    Last edited by ironpony; 09-11-2016 at 07:17 AM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Also, even if for some reason the police do not charge the defendant with kidnapping, the defendant's associates still fled the scene, and destroyed one of the get away cars, before switching to another car. Couldn't they still nail the defendant on an accessory to those crimes, especially if he is not willing to give up their names?
    That would seem to be the case, but I am not now nor have I ever been a lawyer.

    I'm still concerned with all the moving parts here, how you can bring it off dramatically and without a lot of talking heads (the way they wrap up TV crime shows). But, as they say, it's all in the execution. (no pun intended)

    Good luck with it.

  4. #24
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    The prosecutor would be thinking "well this kidnap victim is too scared to tell the truth, and is just going to lie on the stand. So I better use the cops' testimony as to what he saw, and not call the victim to the stand".

    Only a really dumb prosecutor would take such a weak case to trial. Hint: prosecutors like to win cases.

    Why would the "victim" keep silent when that only brings on so much heat? Hint: gangs don't like public scrutiny by the police.

    Your whole premise is so flawed and unbelievable.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Okay you say that the false victim should lie, and say that there was no real kidnapping. If she does this, the police are going to want to know who the other people were that were with her then. She does not want to tell them. So what is she going to say then? She has to do something, and does not want to tell the police who they are. So what is she going to say?

    Lying to the police means that your own words can be used against you, if they manage to find an inconsistency in the lies. Where as keeping quiet, means that no words can be used against you. But if lying is better, what would be her reason for not telling the police who the other members are?

    Plus even if the prosecutor would not have enough evidence of a kidnapping the suspects who escaped still resisted arrest, and committed other crimes in their escape, such as driving a getaway car and then destroying it along with the other evidence. So would the prosecutor still be interested in tying the defendant to those people?

    So when lawyers in real life tell me that a lot of cases are won based on cops' eyewitness testimony alone, is that not true then? You also say that the victim staying quiet would bring on so much heat. However, if the cop's word is not enough to win the case, then why does the victim have to talk at all? If the cop's word is not enough, then the victim just has to stay silent, and the prosecutor still wouldn't have enough to win the case, cause the cop's word alone is not enough you said, right? So if that's true, then why does she need to risk getting caught in lies, instead of staying silent, since the cops' word is enough evidence? Why does she have to worry about heat coming down on her, when her staying silent, means the case will be dismissed and therefore no heat left?
    Last edited by ironpony; 09-11-2016 at 08:20 AM.

  6. #26
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Okay you say that the false victim should lie, and say that there was no real kidnapping. If she does this, the police are going to want to know who the other people were that were with her then. She does not want to tell them. So what is she going to say then? She has to do something, and does not want to tell the police who they are. So what is she going to say?

    Lying to the police means that your own words can be used against you, if they manage to find an inconsistency in the lies. Where as keeping quiet, means that no words can be used against you. But if lying is better, what would be her reason for not telling the police who the other members are?

    Plus even if the prosecutor would not have enough evidence of a kidnapping the suspects who escaped still resisted arrest, and committed other crimes in their escape, such as driving a getaway car and then destroying it along with the other evidence. So would the prosecutor still be interested in tying the defendant to those people?

    So when lawyers in real life tell me that a lot of cases are won based on cops' eyewitness testimony alone, is that not true then? You also say that the victim staying quiet would bring on so much heat. However, if the cop's word is not enough to win the case, then why does the victim have to talk at all? If the cop's word is not enough, then the victim just has to stay silent, and the prosecutor still wouldn't have enough to win the case, cause the cop's word alone is not enough you said, right?
    There wasn't a real kidnapping, was there dum dum? The "victim" just has to say they were playing a game or role-playing or whatever. There's no benefit to the gang if the "victim" keeps quiet so if that person is part of the gang why would they keep quiet? I mean, come on, actually think this through.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    Okay thanks. I understand this. However, there if she says it was all roleplaying there is something I asked before, which was not answered. After she tells the police that no kidnapping happened, the police are then going to ask her something like this. "If it was just roleplaying between you and some friends, then why did your friends resist arrest and run away from the police, and destroy the evidence in a getaway car, erasing any trace back to them. What lie is she going to say, to cover her friends, so she doesn't have to tell who the other roleplayers are? This question has not be answered? Lets say she tells the police that it was just friends who were roll playing. The police are going to ask her 'who are your friends?' What's she suppose to say? "I don't know?"

    You say she should tell this lie, but you haven't explained how the lie will work, since she cannot reveal the others to the police. There seems to be a flaw in the lie, or at least that is what I am seeing.
    Last edited by ironpony; 09-11-2016 at 08:31 AM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    why did your friends ... destroy the evidence
    What evidence?… For some contrived reason, they were carrying out a fake kidnapping--WHICH THEY DID NOT REPORT TO THE POLICE.

    So, again, what "evidence" did they destroy?

  9. #29
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    You say she should tell this lie, but you haven't explained how the lie will work, since she cannot reveal the others to the police. There seems to be a flaw in the lie, or at least that is what I am seeing.
    Gee, maybe they were scared when a cop showed up? There's no reason a prosecutor would push this if the "victim" says they were just playing a game. The only reason anyone would take such a weak case to trial is if the "victim" or "perpetrators" are famous.

    You're really straining to try to make a mole hill into a mountain.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    91
    The cop who spots them sees that they are escaping. He radios for back up and tells the police that they are getting away in a car. The villains anticipate this so they destroy the getaway car, and switch to another car, in order to avoid police road blocks, which the police set up to help intercept the escaping car. If the police were to find this get away car, they might find DNA or prints in it, which could tie the villains to past crimes. So the villains do not want their dna or other physical evidence being found. So the destroy the car, possibly by burning it, or another way to get rid of physical evidence.

    So the gang does not want the police finding any physical evidence on them to link them to past crimes, prior to this blood in.

    The question is still be avoiding though, as to why she won't give up their names if they ran because they are scared. Why is this question being avoided?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts