Is there any books on writing about police forensic technology?

[harmonica44]

I am reading the Howdunnit book Forensics, by D.P. Lyle. However, the book only talks about how the police catch criminals. It doesn't really give a lot of information on how criminals can actually beat the technology. Are there any books that talk more specifically about that, or anything I can use to get ideas?

Thanks for any input. I really appreciate it.

 

[harmonica44]

there are going to ask him more questions that that. they are going to ask why was he there originally for one thing, in which case he would have to make up lies. If the police find out that he hacked into the villain's personal information, they could subpeona him to appear before a grand jury, where the prosecutor can ask him any question he wants. If the cop takes the fifth or lies, and then gets caught in the lie, the whole case will become tainted.

The cop figures it's best to not let the police know he was there, and just frame the villains for the killing instead.

If the cop says he was there cause he was going for a stroll, or something and saw suspicious behavior, and then shot the wrong person by accident, he still doesn't want to get fired, or get into trouble for shooting the wrong person. So he still has to get rid of all that evidence that leads to him shooting the wrong person first. By the time it takes for him to do that, they are going to wonder what took him so long after the gunshots happened, before he called it in. If he says he was there, they might ask him why after the shootout, he allowed the mystery killers to cover up all the evidence after. Maybe he could say he was scared from the gunfire and ran away.

But then why did it take him so long to call it in after, since he was really cleaning up his own killing. There are just too many holes the prosecutor and police are going to pick at, if he says he was there, but blamed the killing on the other villains. Where as if he doesn't call it in at all, and takes away all the evidence of him being there, he doesn't have to tell lie after lie, after lie, and be caught in a lie possibly later, with all the questions they could ask him that wouldn't add up in answers.

He can't just say:

"I saw suspicisious behaviour, but wasn't sure. Before I knew it I was in a shoot out."

Police and prosecutors ask a lot more questions than just that one, and it's not that simple.

 

[mlesemann]

This entire scenario that you're describing is a lie.
So why would he do that, but not simply lie to the police and/or grand jury?

 

[harmonica44]

lying to the grand jury means having to get on a witness stand, go on the record, and the prosecutor can ask any questions he wants. which means being caught in a lie possibly.

so the cop figures it's just better and less risky, if he makes it look like he wasn't at the scene at all, so he doesn't have to fill out a report and answer investigators questions and be caught in a lie, or be caught in a lie on the record, at a grand jury. basically actually reporting it and then having to testify later, means telling more lies, and therefore, more chances of being caught in lie, as oppose to wiping out all the physical evidence originally. that lie, if done right, will not have to lead to so many more lies later, and complicating things further.

Plus the MC doesn't want to be blamed for shooting the innocent person. This means that he would have to remove the bullets from the dead person's body and clean up his shell casings, along with the other shots he fired.

If he says he was going for a stroll, minding his own business, and then say a shoot out happened, they are going to ask him how did the person who got shot, happen to have the bullets disappear from his body? If he was there and saw the shoot out, they are going to ask him how the bullets disappeared from the body.

He could say "The shooters, must havea dug the bullets out of the body while I was in a shootout with them" But this means he would have seen it. It could lead to being caught in a lie. Plus if he gets any of his own DNA or his prints on the dead body, while digging the bullets out, he still has to get rid of that evidence from the dead body, to show he didn't lean over it to dig the bullets out.

So it's going to look fishy that during the shootout, the other villains had time to dig the bullets out and wipe out other physical evidence, but at the same time, were in a shootout with the MC. It just leaves too many variables for him to tell in his story, that would overcomplicate things for him, rather than wipe out that he was ever there originally. Unless of course the MC can get rid of his bullets from the body, and wipe out any evidence that suggests he messed around with the dead body, and then call it in and say he was there, and say that it was the shooters who dug the bullets out?

Isn't it just simpler and less complicated of a lie for the MC to disappear all the evidence that links him being there originally, so he won't have to answer to so much later, if he reports it?

 

[WalterB]

...........
Police and prosecutors ask a lot more questions than just that one, and it's not that simple.

And if all their interrogations were a succes every police movie or episode of a police series would end right after the first interview.

Yes, I know they will ask more than 1 question. I just summarized it for you.
I'm sure they won't ask: "Did you blackmail someone to hack a lawyer's computer to find out where you can find the suspect?"

Mara is right: everything is already a lie.
Did you ever watch The Shield?
Vic Mackey was the embodiment of a walking lie.
Dexter is another example of someone trying to get out of his own mess with lies and deception.
Ever watched Luther? He crossed the line many times to solve the case or save his ass.

The bigger question is: why was he shot at? <- THIS is what the debriefing will be about.
And how did he end up killing the wrong person? That is the real problem he has at the moment. Not the hack.

He could aways lie that he got a tip from the dead person

You try to paint your character in a corner, but you are only painting yourself in a corner of unbelievably construed and illogical constructions.
Again you are thinking there is only one solution for the problem you created AND that you already have found the solution, eventhough it doesn't really work yet.
Dead horse management.

 

[maz]

Okay thanks.

What if I wrote it so that the villains who he was following at the time, happened to have cans of gasoline in their cars. Earlier in the story, the villains used and spread gasoline all over everything to cover up their crime. So perhaps the main character can think of before, when the villains had gasoline, then run over to one of their cars that they left behind to see if the brought gas cans this time. And it turns out they have them. The MC get the gas out, pours it all over the crime scene and burn it. So all of the MC's prints and DNA are burned in the crime scene.

Then he can get rid of his shoes later, and never wear them again so his shoe prints will not be traced back to him. Is that better?

If he can conceivably gain access to the villain's car at some point, could he not retrieve another firearm from said car? As surely he'd be a complete idiot to carry his police-issue firearm during legally-questionable activities?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I can have him admit that he killed the wrong person, but the character still wants to stay on the case, and finish it. He also wants to frame the villains for the wrong person being killed. He figures that since he is unable to nab the villains on past crimes, he can frame them for the current homicide, and hope they get caught that way.

If he confesses to killing the wrong guy by accident, he will be fired, or at least suspended for a long time, and cannot act as a cop anymore, which he doesn't want, when it comes to wanting to bring down the villains.

I could have him bring another fire arm, if that helps. However, it was pointed out before, that the cop would not think to bring his own gloves ahead of time, just in case he painted himself into a corner and needed them. So would he think this far ahead, and think that he might need to bring an untraceable gun, just in case, crap hit the fan this much?

Also, if he had his police issue firearm on him, what he could do is be ready to shoot, whoever comes around the corner that is hunting him, the wrong person comes around the corner, and he shoots the wrong person. He then checks to see, and sees that he killed the wrong person. He hears the real villains coming, and then decides to take the gun from the wrong person (since the wrong person is also a cop who is also tailing the villain's he has a pistol), and uses that person's gun to shoot back against the villains, and defend himself.

So therefore, the dead cop's bullets are shot around the crime scene, and he gets the villains to run away, and escape the gunfire. He then digs his own bullets out of the dead cop, gets rid of his prints, his two shell casings and DNA and runs away. Is that better, since no more of his bullets are around the scene?

He could aways lie that he got a tip from the dead person

He could say this, but then he would have to say he was at the scene, and will need a story as to why during the shootout, the villains were able to dig their bullets out of the dead body, before or after the dead person gave the MC the tip. If the MC says he was there, and then later it comes out that he blackmailed a hacker, then MC's testimony will be considered fruit of the poisonous tree though, since he discovered the villains identity, through hacking, and therefore, the testimony to his ID is inadmissible.

Putting myself in the MC's shoes, I think it would be better to not say I was there at all, so no fruit of the poisonous tree can hurt the case after. That is just what I would do in the MC's shoes. So shouldn't I apply my own logic somewhat to the character?'

And I haven't seen Dexter, or Luther but I saw some of the first season of The Shield. I think that Vic Mackey would prefer to wipe out any evidence of him being there at all, rather than admitting to it and coming up with an alternate story when he can just wipe away prints, DNA and casings to begin with. But that's just what I think.

[QUOTEThe bigger question is: why was he shot at? <- THIS is what the debriefing will be about.
And how did he end up killing the wrong person? That is the real problem he has at the moment. Not the hack.][/QUOTE]

The reason why he was shot at is cause the villain found out that someone has been hacking into his computer to get information. So the villain decided to go to a secluded area, since he figured the MC might be surveying him. He gets the MC all alone, so he can shoot him and kill him, since the MC is poking his nose too much.

The MC ended up killing the wrong person cause the wrong person who showed up, was another cop was surveying the villain. But the other cop was not on an official assignment. Like the MC, the other cop was also doing it on his own time, and didn't tell anyone. But the MC doesn't know why the other cop was there. He also cannot tell the police that the reason why he was being shot at by the villain, was because he hacked into the villains computer. Otherwise he is admitting to the hacking and will get kicked off the case, and have no control at that point, and get kicked off the force. His goal is to bring the villain's down, so he cannot tell the truth about the reason he is shot at is cause the villain discovered that his computer was hacked. He could say he was following the villain, but then he would have to make up another reason as to why he was, other than the hacking.

What if I wrote it so that during the chase, when the villain is going after the MC, to silence him, the MC is about to shoot the villains, when they come around the corner, but shoots the other cop instead by accident, then takes the cop's gun and uses that cops gun to shoot at the villains, and make the villains go away. He then removes his two bullets from the dead cop, so no one knows it was him who shot the dead cop. He gets rid of his shell casings as well.

At this point, he can get rid of his prints or DNA, and never say he was part of that shootout, or he can say he was but make up a story as to how, during the shootout, the villains managed to remove the two bullets from the dead cop.

Which lie is better?

 

[alex ma whitmer]

So shouldn't I apply my own logic somewhat to the character?'

That's probably a bad idea.



a

 

[maz]

I could have him bring another fire arm, if that helps. However, it was pointed out before, that the cop would not think to bring his own gloves ahead of time, just in case he painted himself into a corner and needed them. So would he think this far ahead, and think that he might need to bring an untraceable gun, just in case, crap hit the fan this much?

Because if he finds himself carrying out an off-book operation that could get him in trouble if identified, and also potentially needs a weapon to carry out that operation, then if he's got any sense whatsoever, he would carry an untraceable firearm on that operation, not the one that leads straight back to him in the event that something goes wrong. It may be a bit of a leap, but it's a lot more plausible than someone cleaning up a crime scene out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[WalterB]

Because if he finds himself carrying out an off-book operation that could get him in trouble if identified, and also potentially needs a weapon to carry out that operation, then if he's got any sense whatsoever, he would carry an untraceable firearm on that operation, not the one that leads straight back to him in the event that something goes wrong. It may be a bit of a leap, but it's a lot more plausible than someone cleaning up a crime scene out in the middle of nowhere.

This!
Far more logical than your own logic.

That's probably a bad idea.

a

Sad but true.
Spending weeks on trying to clean up a crime scene, while preventing it actually makes more sense.
Just like wearing gloves during an illegal action is not weird either.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. So let's say he brings an untraceable gun instead. If he were to report the shootout after it happened, then his superiors are going to ask him why didn't he take action with his own gun. He could just say he didn't bring his gun.

However, he probably still wouldn't want to report it in case the hacking came out. Cause if he calls it in and the villain is arrested, he would have to get rid of that illegal gun be brought then, right? Or made it look like it was one of the villain's who got away. But his DNA could still be on it, if he doesn't find a way to get rid of it, right?

Also, he calls the police and ID's the villain, what if the villain, knowing that his computer has been hacked, which is what lead to the shootout, report that his computer was hacked... and an investigation of the hacking leads back to the MC?

Then the MC is guilty of hacking and his testimony in identifying the villains, is inadmissible legally. So wouldn't the MC not call it in and report it all, so no hacking can be lead back to him as a result of being there?

Basically the reason why I had trouble believing the MC would bring his own gun and gloves, is cause all he did was hack into someone's information and decided to tail that person to see if they were involved in the case that he wants to crack. He was not expecting any shootouts to happen, and was not expecting to get anyone killed. So it seems like a reach that he would plan to bring an illegal gun and gloves, ahead of time, since all he was planning on doing is tail someone on his own time basically. I mean if a cop decides to tail a suspect on his own time, does he actually think "I better bring an untraceable gun and gloves, just in case"?


If he reports it, he needs a reason for being there other than the hacking. He could say that he was working with the other cop who was shot to death. However, let's say his superiors ask him at what time and place did the other cop meet up to talk about the case and decide to go off on their own. If the MC tells lies that turn out that the other cop has alibis on, then the MC will be caught in those lies. So wouldn't it be better to not report it, and take off, not leaving any evidence, since he brought his gun, and then therefore, not get caught in any lies later?

Also even if he brings his own gun that is untraceable, and gloves, what about his DNA? How is he going to get rid of that at the scene?

 

[Maxsdad]

Harmonica, first off, physical evidence is sketchy at best in a criminal investigation. It assists in determining the ORDER of a crime, but rarely the person responsible. Eye witness testimony is the worst, 2 people can't even agree on the color of the vehicle that ran over their friend in the middle of the day. But more people are convicted of circumstantial evidence that all other types of evidence combined. And (without getting into politics) if ALL the evidence points to a single person (like Russian hacking of emails), then you can bet with 100% certainty, that SOMEONE ELSE is responsible. And gloves are a personal choice, they're mostly worn in colder climates. But every peace officer must be able to draw and fire his weapon WHILE WEARING GLOVES. You never have time to remove them. And a fired weapon is impounded IMMEDIATELY after an officer involved shooting, you're not going to have ANY opportunity to swap one with a backup piece. Not to mentioned that when ballistics are compared to all recovered weapons, they're going to wonder why none of the recovered rounds recovered match Officer Bill's weapon, and the number of ejected shell casings BETTER match the number of missing rounds from the clip(s). And short of cremation (1400 degrees for 2-3 hours), there is no way to eliminate all DNA from a body. In both the military and law enforcement, we wear heavy shoes or boots JUST SO there will be usable remains to recover toe prints or DNA. Criminal investigation isn't a modern, magical science, it's nothing more than days and weeks and months of hard work and unending patience. Keep your story simple and you'll have fewer holes. But you can always check with your local community college and ask instructors in forensic pathology, criminal investigation, or basic administration of justice to review your antagonist's alibi. EVERY cop thinks he's Joseph Wambaugh.

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks. So let's say he brings an untraceable gun instead. If he were to report the shootout after it happened, then his superiors are going to ask him why didn't he take action with his own gun. He could just say he didn't bring his gun.

................

OMG!

Bringing the untraceable gun was part of the plan to hide his presence at the scene, right?
So, why on earth would he then report the shootout?
He 'wasn't there', remember?

And this is why your characters can't use your logic :-p

 

[harmonica44]

I'm just asking, cause first I am told he should report it and go along with lying, but then I am told he should bring an untraceable gun, so I am trying to get the idea straight.

I actually thought of the untraceable gun before, but I didn't think the character would do it, cause he doesn't anticipate a shootout happening, when all he is doing is tailing someone, to see what they are up to. But there is still a matter of his DNA being left at the scene. How is he going to get rid of that?

 

[maz]

I'm just asking, cause first I am told he should report it and go along with lying, but then I am told he should bring an untraceable gun, so I am trying to get the idea straight.

I actually thought of the untraceable gun before, but I didn't think the character would do it, cause he doesn't anticipate a shootout happening, when all he is doing is tailing someone, to see what they are up to. But there is still a matter of his DNA being left at the scene. How is he going to get rid of that?

He's conducting a 'black op' tailing potential people of interest - it is actually far more plausible for him to go fully incognito (gloves, disguise, unregistered gun etc) in that context than for him to get involved in an impromptu shootout and then clean the scene scientifically. He's a cop so knows what people are capable of, so even if not anticipating a shootout he should be prepared to take part in one without destroying his career.

Alternatively, the character could be an idiot. They're increasingly common in movies these days

 

[WalterB]

I'm just asking, cause first I am told he should report it and go along with lying, but then I am told he should bring an untraceable gun, so I am trying to get the idea straight.

And where is the advice to shut down your brain?
You are not even trying to get the idea straight: you just pick up a square and try to squeeze it in a round hole that is too small.
If you would think it through, you would have figured it out.
If you get a suggestion, you should be able to figure out possible consequences. If you just pick the suggestions and put them in the script without making it fit, it is no wonder your script doesn't work. By now it must be an impossible body of patches if you didn't make sense of everything.

I actually thought of the untraceable gun before, but I didn't think the character would do it, cause he doesn't anticipate a shootout happening, when all he is doing is tailing someone, to see what they are up to. But there is still a matter of his DNA being left at the scene. How is he going to get rid of that?

What DNA on the scene?
Did he get shot?
Did he spit?
Did he pee his pants?
Did he leave items behind?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I thought maybe a hair would fall out and be left at the scene or something, since in so many homicide scenes, lots of simple DNA like that is found.

If he uses an untraceable gun, do you think that he should still tell his superiors that he saw the shooter, and blame the villain for shooting the dead cop, in order to place blame the villain?

Or is it just smarter to not say anything at all, since he could be caught in a lie, when they do all the investigating and follow ups, since he is guilty of illegally hacking the villains information earlier?

 

[WalterB]

You are concerned that if he reports the shooting he will be caught in a lie so he'd beter pretend not to be there, right?

But is your story: you can write whatever you want.

It is on the streets, right?
Hairs lying on the street are a long shot. It is hard to tell how they get there. Make it a bit windy and the hair is gone. Or you want the hair to be found.

 

[harmonica44]

Well the way I want the story to go, for the MC to never be caught in the dead cop's murder. I want the MC to frame the villains for it. But not sure if he should just say that he saw the shooter, or if he should live to fight another day and not say he was there at all, and catch the villains another way.

 

[WalterB]

Well, explore those 2 options. Both have different consequences and only you can explore them.

 

[maz]

If he has access to anything owned/used by the people he wants to frame then perhaps he can taint the untraceable gun with their DNA, and then dump the weapon somewhere logical (like a dumpster) where it might be found by CSIs (this is all Dexter stuff again ) That way there is nothing directly linking him to the murder (as shouting "I just happened to be passing and saw them do it" is guaranteed to do).

Your motives are unclear though - do you want him to frame them so that they are arrested, or just so that he himself is not? If it's just so he is not then being careful can perhaps avoid the need for also implicating them at this point.