How important is forensic detail in crime thriller writing? (examples, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm writing a thriller screenplay, and I was wondering how important the forensic investigation details are to the reader, or to the audience?
For example, in my story, the main character, a cop, accidentally kills another cop, in a shootout, and he wants to cover it up, cause if he admits to it, it will create all sorts of problems, in the investigation, but also his career, etc.
So after he shoots him, he is devastated, and panics, and thinks. It then cuts to the next scene, and it's days later in a briefing room in the police station, where the lieutenant is giving a briefing to everyone about the gunned down cop, and he says he says something along the lines, of "the shooter cleaned up all traces of any evidence, and knew what he was doing".
Then after he says that, the story just moves on to the more important things to come, but is that enough for the reader, or do I really have to go into more detail of how the main character concealed the crime? Plus leaving out things like that can make for a cheaper budget, cause if the protagonist has to torch the crime scene, we then don't have to show it, and the lieutenant, can just explain it.
One movie I can think of that did that was L.A. Confidential, where one character gets away with murder, and write after he kills the guy, it cuts to the police Captain giving a briefing, and they skip over any explanation of how the killer got rid of all the evidence, etc.
But what do you think? Is that enough detail, and it's okay to just move on for that example?
It's weak, but possible if the dude is a professional. LA Confidential also took place in the past, pre surveillance and DNA evidence. What's the important part of your story? If it's a way to just off a character that's no longer useful, then go for it. If it's the central theme as to how your anti-hero comes undone....it's pretty dang important. More interesting is to have a Plan A that has to go to a Plan B.
Okay thanks. Well the more important part of the story, is what the hero uses the dead body for. He uses it to frame the villains, making it seem like they did it. So he has to erase any evidence that he killed the cop, but I thought I would just move onto the more important part and cut to the next scene, where the police think the villains did it, after being framed by the MC.
Honestly I don't believe that people would buy that police officers would just hand-wave away the murder of a fellow officer. We know that police would go above and beyond to find justice for their colleague.
Oh okay, but they are not handwaiving it away, their just wasn't evidence to go on. So they want to do something of course, but their is no evidence that leads back to the main character, cause he got rid of it all. So when you say go above and beyond, what else could they do then? I mean sure they could dig into the cop's past and try to find something to go on, but they are not going to find anything, so if they are not going to find anything, how much time should I spend on them looking, if it's all a dead end, and other parts of the story are more important to move onto?
Oh okay, but they are not handwaiving it away, their just wasn't evidence to go on. So they want to do something of course, but their is no evidence that leads back to the main character, cause he got rid of it all. So when you say go above and beyond, what else could they do then? I mean sure they could dig into the cop's past and try to find something to go on, but they are not going to find anything, so if they are not going to find anything, how much time should I spend on them looking, if it's all a dead end, and other parts of the story are more important to move onto?
I admit I'm not a writer, but what about the cops body cameras, and all the other cameras that are all over everywhere now? Also surely the cops know the both of them were at a scene together, what did he say happened to the other cops? How did he account for his missing bullet? Especially when the forensic evidence would point to the exact same kind of gun and bullet the cop had? Frankly I don't actually see a cop going to all these lengths to cover up an accident.
As a reader and movie watcher, I would be bugged with lack of accuracy, I'd be watching it going "That would never happen like that because...." You can't do it half-a**ed, the details have to be 100%.
Well the thing is, is that the main character was investigating this on his own cause it's personal to him and wants to prove the case by himself, since he wants to prove that he is right, and that the department is wrong sort of thing. Of course he doesn't want to go too far and bring in an admissible case of course.
The other cop is a crooked cop who is actually working with the villains, so no one knows that he was at the scene. The main character was being chased and shot at by the crooks, while following them on his own, so he shoots back and hits the corrupt cop, in the process, not knowing who he hit, until he goes in for a closer look.
He then wants to cover it up, cause if he says he shot that cop, when he was following the crooks on his own, it will create all sorts of problems in his case and it will all be ruined. So he covers it up, and makes the police think that the villains were the ones who did it.
The main character also used a gun he bought himself while off duty, compared to his police issue gun. So he would have to get rid of his personal gun therefore. But no body cams were worn in this scenario.
That's another thing though. In order for this corrupt cop to go around doing what he was doing, he would have to not ware a body cam while on duty. Do enough cops still not wear body cams, cause they do not have one for everyone, and he therefore, can get away with certain crimes while on duty, and that is believable perhaps, cause the department does not have a body cam for everyone?
I'm writing a thriller screenplay, and I was wondering how important the forensic investigation details are to the reader, or to the audience?
Important. Read some Michael Connelly for examples (Harry Bosch novels, specifically).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
