[QUOTE=mnemosyne]
I see I made a few typos in my first post which meant I didn’t even ask what I wanted to ask! So, here we go again…
Girl is found brutally (or at least bloodily) murdered. Not obviously a suicide (so slit wrists are out, gun isn’t in/next to/near her hand, no needles, no bottle of pills (or tox evidence of them) etc). So it looks, even to professionals, that the girl was beaten to death i.e. killed by someone else. Right?
So you need evidence planted in such a way that it was clearly there BEFORE the girls death, that would point to your detective as being the killer. Semen on the bedsheets or something. Which means a) he knew her before and had been there or b)somehow the girl stole a used condom or something and spread the contents around, deliberately framing him. So she needs to have noticed him, even if he didn’t know her. OR you actually have a killer, a third person, who does all that, to frame your cop deliberately.
I think you need either one of two things: 1) girl stalked HIM, and set him up or 2)Unidentified stranger has a beef against him, and set him up.
And your narration will have to leave the room, or come from someone other than your detective (dead girl talking?) in order to highlight the reasoning the other cops would have for arresting him at the end… unless your last scene has the detective sitting in her room, staring at something, and everything comes into focus and he realises he’s been set up… but that isn’t really ambiguous, is it? I doubt he’ll ever be thinking “maybe I did do it?”
A hanging might do it, though, if you don’t want to go the poison route. I’m not sure how you could have her hang herself and make it look like it was done to her, but maybe someone smarter than me can come up with something (the melting block of ice, perhaps?!?!) and have the rope lead back to something your detective has on his farm (matching frayed edges or something). But again, you need a third party narrator and you need to leave the room for that exposition.
[/QUOTE]
You got the summary correct.
There will be enough details that you can read into a backstory. My favorite written works are those that are very short, but very high on style. I want to write something like that. I don’t want to use five chapters going through procedures and details if it adds nothing to the overall meaning of the story. There are ways to inject the backstory into the “now”. That’s what I’m aiming to for. I’m really trying to condense this thing.
And as for the usage of cliches assuming if the detective did do it: Ick. I enjoy using cliches or familiar styles/genres if I think I’ve found an interesting way of twisting it around, or if I think it compliments a stories theme or meaning nicely, but not just outright. And even if I did do it outright, I’d either be ironic or think long and hard about how to make it enjoyable for the reader in spite of my cheapness.
And balancing the possibility that he did do it with her possesing something of his in a timepod of sorts…tricky. I think we’re looking at these possibilities:
She doneit
[ul]
[li]Jane Doe used the assitance of an aquintance of which there exists no papertrail or evidence of to kill her. [/li][li]Jane Doe killed herself by using the sorry state of her surroundings to her advantage. She doesn’t use an aquaintance, but rather opens the flood gates to danger and as a result gets herself killed.[/li][li]Jane doe kills herself through means that make the case look like murder.[/li][/ul]
Option one sounds easy but cheap, and not very rewarding for either the reader or myself. Option two has potential, but then there’s the question as to why nothing was stolen. A person might have a reason to kill a girl and not take anything. I think your average killer killing a rich girl who keeps to herself is probably in it for free shit. There is the possibility she did something to attract a particular murderer. I’m not sure if that would be stretching things a bit…but she does have a laptop…she could do research or even contact on such a person. I don’t like item three either. I want a death with some trauma behind it.
He doneit [ul]
[li]He properly disposed of his murder weapon, but incidentally she was obsessed with him and planned a frame without his knowing. [/li][li]He activates a lethal booby trap that would kill any detetive who looks too hard.[/li][/ul]
Item one has an obvious problem: How in the hell do you steal something that belongs to someone who’s obsessing with you? Well…I reckon a guy has to go to work sometime. News would keep her up to date on recent cases within her neck of the woods. Item two would be easier and more plausible, but I would prefer not to end the story with the detectives death for reasons I’ll go into in a bit.
One possibility is for her to hide something of his inside one of the walls behind the Post It Notes. Say she’s been writing down her state of mind for years, then the layers of the notes would determine how long the item behind the wall had been there. Sure, it’s flimsy, and off the top of my head, but it’s a possibility worth playing around with.
Right now the story is written with the narrator in his own private jail cell for bookends. He describes himself going over the details of the case over and over again like a dog chasing it’s own tail. Hopefully he’ll get tired and just lay down. I think the story would be tighter if it didn’t include the jail bits, but at the same time I like to think Jane Do meant for him to be there as him spending years to himself in complete solitude would better allow him to relate to her before he got the chair. I’ve played with the idea of giving her an alias, and then for there to be a plaque in his cell that mentions that his wing of the jail was built using a generous donation from her.
But then that’s getting really out there, isn’t it?
But in any case, having a narrator sitting in a cell does give him an opportunity to delve into what they nabbed him on and the responses made by the police. If the detective just dies at the end all of this is taken away.
As for his being the narrator and the murderer, I was going to go with the idea that in his mind, he’s recreating her in a sense by murdering her. Like I said, as I said before, one of her attractions that he has to her is that there isn’t a whole lot about her that makes sense. Perhaps he thinks not only would she be more intriguing as a murder victim, but that her being one would finally allow the two of them to meet (since she’s now “fulfilled her potential”). I’d think with this reasoning a person would walk into said murder case with a fresh approach. Somewhere between stark denial and him splitting up the victim as she was alive and as she is dead into two seperate people, he doesn’t think about himself as the killer. I’ve definitely seen people act outrageously out of denial, but the hard part wouldn’t be believing in that mindest myself so much as it would be convincing the audience.
[QUOTE=jamus_se]
Let me back up a second and rethink this, then. So the premise is:
The girl and the detective had zero contact before the girl’s death. Girl dies by some means, cops are called to investigate, then the detective is called, as he is examining the room for evidence he becomes intrigued by the person in question, and by paying more attention than your average joe schmoes cop he discovers something that, planted by the girl before her death, frames the detective for her death?
It is possible to write in something that works if this is solely what is needed; I’m not sure if anything would work if you want this and a possibility that the detective had really done it. If it is written in the first person, the detective had no reason to hide his thoughts of remorse/satisfaction/some feeling for his own murder. It just doesn’t make sense.
According to you, we have to rule out outright stupidity and moment of passion. I guess the only thing left that works is that curiosity got the best of him. Is it possible to set up the room in such a way so that it is also one big piece of puzzle, full of coded messages that only the most devote can solve? Then the average cop, who is probably not in the mood for riddles or cleverly hidden clues, would look the other way. The clues would eventually lead to a Pandora’s box of sorts that opens a whole can of worms for the detective…
well, I should probably stop here so you can check and see if this is going the right way… it feels a little “da Vinci Code” to me and I’m not sure if this is the kind of mood you’re going for. Setting up the scene of murder as one big logical puzzle seems a bit… far fetched, even if I’m the one who came up with the idea.
[/QUOTE]
The detective and the girl had no contact outside of this murder case, but one may have been obsessed with the other, or possibly they both may have been into each other without knowing it.
I would imagine her motive would be obsession as well. Perhaps she believed, as he does, that the only way they would have met and clicked was at a murder scene. Her murder scene. Nothing hateful here, she loved him and wanted him for her own, dead or alive. If dead was the only way she believed in, so be it.
Curiosity is indeed what killed this cat. I’m not really fond of the puzzle idea either, it sorta goes against the groove of the story. Plus I’ve never really been fond of stories where one post mortem character (or bad guy) creates clues for another character. In the case of my story, I think I’d wonder why she had to go through all that just for the end result. There’s always a quicker way.
Unless her thing was to create puzzles which unveiled naked pictures of herself when solved.
Hmm…I’m really beggining to wonder if it wouldn’t be best just to have her kill him at the end.