INTERVIEW DIALOGUE AND A COZY MISSING PERSON TURNED MURDER MYSTERY - 082

Right-click and select "Save As" to download this podcast episode to your device.

TRANSCRIPT:

his week on the Writer's Detective Bureau. Interview dialogue, and a cozy missing person turned murder mystery. I'm Adam Richardson and this is the Writer's Detective Bureau.

Welcome to episode 82 of the Writer's Detective Bureau, the podcast dedicated to helping authors and screenwriters write professional quality crime-related fiction. And this week I'm answering your questions about how to make the dialogue in your interview scenes more believable, and how best to tackle a missing person turned murder case as a cozy. But first, I need to thank my Gold Shield patrons, Debra Dunbar, from debradunbar.com, C.C. Jameson, from ccjameson.com, Larry Keeton, Vicki Tharp, at vickitharp.com, Chrysann, Larry Darter, Natalie Barelli of nataliebarelli.com, and Craig Kingsman of craigkingsman.com for their support. I also want to send a huge thank you to my Silver Cuff-link and Coffee Club patrons as well. You can find links to all of the writers supporting this episode in the show notes at writersdetective.com/82. And to learn about setting up your own Patreon account for your author business, or to support the show for as little as $2 per month, visit writersdetective.com/Patreon. P-A-T-R-E-O-N.

And before I get to this week's questions, I want to wish Joan Raymond of joanraymondwritinganddesign.com a very happy birthday. Joan was my very first patron on Patreon, and she was kind enough to invite me to speak at the Writers of Kern Annual Conference later this month. Hopefully the coronavirus doesn't hamper the conference plans, because I've already booked my hotel room and I'm looking forward to the drive up to finally meet Joan in person, on the streets of Bakersfield. Wait, that didn't come out right. So my talk for the conference is titled, Interviewing like a Detective, which, as luck would have it, dovetails nicely into this week's first question.

Craig Kingsman, of craigkingsman.com, who happens to be one of my Gold Shield patrons, asked this in the Facebook group. Craig wrote, "Police interviews are a weak point in my writing. Can anyone recommend any resources to help me learn how to get this right?" Craig, you are not alone. It is a daunting task to try to boil down what is, for us, the detectives, a several-hour round of verbal chess and to do that into just few pages, while also keeping it captivating and believable, that's a very tall order.

But before I go into answering your question, I want to share what Harry Harris, a member of our Facebook group, and also a recently-retired detective from London, England wrote. Harry writes, "Detectives in the UK use a particular model that I will explain. It may help. This model is effective for catching out inconsistencies in a suspect's story.

First phase is where you allow a full recall of events. No questions, unless to clarify something said. Second phase is where you will take their account and split it into subjects to probe, i.e., "You said you were in the Dog and Duck pub. Tell me, who else was in? Who was behind the bar? Who can confirm you were there?" Etc. We're now really committing them to their story. This phase can be lengthy. The final phase is a challenge phase. Now is the time to shoot their story out of the water by putting the evidence to them. "An eye witness puts you at the crime scene." "Your fingerprint was found on the knife." "You are on CCTV." If a suspect has been talking, they will now most likely be going, "no comment". In reality, most suspects maintain no comment throughout, so you would quickly go through the model and get to the challenge quickly. In UK law, we can hold an inference of guilt on a suspect who fails to account for evidence against them. This ultimately is a tool for the jury to help them deliberate. Hope this is of some help."

Well, Harry is spot on with his suggestions, but here in the US, we don't have the inference of guilt thing, probably because of the UK's laws, actually, but we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and we have our 5th Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. But other than that, I can only add a few little things to what Harry had to say. First, for Craig, to answer your resource recommendations request, check out the Reid, R-E-I-D, technique on YouTube. There are a ton of videos that go over the technique, the Reid technique, and there're also going to be a ton of opinions on the effectiveness and the reliability of the Reid technique.

So I'm not necessarily advocating for or against its use, but the important thing that the Reid technique teaches, and just like Harry said, is that the detective is going into the interview room with a very specific game plan. This isn't a casual conversation, where you're just going in to see where it leads, and then confront your suspect as soon as you think you've spotted a lie. You have a process that includes getting the story from your suspect, and then getting them to commit to the story, and then locking them into that story and that timeline.

And just as Harry described in the first phase, of getting a full recall of events, that is where your suspect is going to be doing most of the talking, compared to the detective. The detective, or at least a good one, is going to shut up for the most part. The bad guy's going to tell his story, and he's going to lie, and that's fine. They just need to keep talking and committing to a story.

The second phase that Harry mentioned, of taking account and splitting it into subjects to probe, as Harry put it, is going to have the detective directing a lot more of the conversation than in that first phase, asking specific questions about the suspect's story. Again, this point isn't the confronting the suspect on lies, but it's getting solid answers to specific questions about this guy's version of events. And the way we work cases is all about plotting facts on a timeline. If it's a murder, that timeline starts from the first officer arriving on scene, and then working backward to the commission of the murder, and then even further backward to account for whatever created the motive. So I hope that makes sense.

So with that in mind, our questions are going to be focused on nailing down whatever the suspect says happened, to our timeline of events. For example, "When was the last time you saw the dead guy?" Answer? "Tuesday night." "What time on Tuesday night?" "I don't know. Late." "Well, where were you?" "I was at Joe's Bar." "About what time did you see him in Joe's bar? Was it almost closing time, or before that?" "It was before that." "Okay, so not that late then. Do you remember any games on TV that might help narrow down what time it was, or which bartender was on duty?" "Actually, yeah, the Yankee game was on and Cole just came off the mound. That was when I saw the dude at the bar, but he split before I got a chance to talk to him."

Okay. That is not captivating dialogue, especially with my acting, but it's how we chip away at a story and nail it down to specific dates and times, and as we are plotting these little bits and pieces to our timeline, especially as we're hearing a story from a suspect, we're listening to where there's a gap in the details.

If this guy's going to tell me about every inning of the ballgame, and everything he ate, and every person he saw at the bar, and a ton more details, but then he glosses over the three-hour window of where he was and what he was doing that coincides with our murder, only then to pick up the heavy details again after that, that's going to be a clue, and that's one of the things we're looking for. And that's where we're going to focus our attention when we get to that final stage, which is the interrogation. But before that, one common technique to check the truthfulness of a story, is to ask the suspect to tell it to me again, but in reverse chronological order, and this would happen in that second phase that Harry was talking about.

"All right. I want you to run me through this again, but I want you to do it backwards. Start with when you woke up this morning. What time was that?" "Nine? I slept in, I guess." "What time did you go to bed?" "I don't know. Three, I think. I'm not sure." "Where did you sleep?" "At my place." "Who are you with?" "I was alone." "Okay. What were you doing before you got home that night?" Now the reason we do this, is because it's tougher to properly recall where the lies went in the story when you're doing it in reverse. Now is it possible to lie, when you're telling your story backwards? Of course it is, but trying to remember the lies you told, and in what order, can be very tricky when you're trying to remember it in reverse, and under pressure, and trying to figure it out, working through that mental mess is going to be a little more obvious to the detective than if all you were doing was backtracking your way through the previous night in your memory, because you have nothing to hide.

The other thing we do, and it's definitely a learned technique, is to avoid "yes/no" questions. None of the questions I just asked were "yes/no". I didn't ask, "Were you alone?" I asked, "Who were you with?" It may sound like I made an assumption on my part, but really it prompts a more descriptive and affirmative answer, which is key to creating a pattern of having your suspect actually talk to you and answer questions rather than just say, "yes" or "no", like you're talking to a teenager. In fact, if you have teenagers, practice this. Practice asking questions that force a real response, and learn to avoid the "yes/no" questions. It's good interview practice for you, and it will annoy the hell out of them, which I think is a win-win.

As we get to the interrogation, switching away from the less confrontational interview portion of our little talk, the tone in the room is going to shift. Now the trope, of course, is getting loud and angry, but that's rarely effective, and it's going to cause your suspect to shut up, usually. So what should be happening at this point is, the detective is now calling out the little lies and trying to get the suspect to own up to the lie and tell the truth, either that, or double down on the lie, which is something that we, as detectives, will then go about proving is a lie, and making sure we present evidence of the lie to the jury. And we just go down the line, lie by lie, and confront him on it. And as they start adding up, the suspect usually starts to realize that he's boxed in, and that we're calling him out on an overwhelming number of lies.

And this is often the moment where one of three things happens. Number one, he shuts up completely. Number two, he becomes argumentative and tries to dominate the conversation by getting louder, to which I commonly remind him, "Being loud doesn't make you right. You're still lying to me." Or three, I love this one. He starts to cry. When a grown man cries in an interview room, it means I am really close to a confession. This is when the conversation switches from, "You lied about this and you lied about that," to knowing that right now he wants to unburden, but he's afraid. He's in his own head right now, regretting actions, fearing the repercussions, and wishing he was anywhere but right here in an interview room, facing a police detective that knows he's a liar. He doesn't want to look at me. His head is down on the table, or he's sitting in the chair but bent forward at the waist, eyes straight down at the carpet, and this is where I move closer.

I pat his knee, or his shoulder, partly reassuring, but also reminding him, none of this is going away. And I'd tell him this, "None of this is going away. It's time to tell the truth. It's time to own your mistakes. Let me ask you this. If you were the judge on this case, and the guy that did it, came before you and said, "Your honor, I made a mistake and I regret it deeply. I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions." How would you, as the judge, think of that man compared to the guy that comes into the court and disrespects the judge and the family of the victim, by throwing down lies and wasting everyone's time? Who would you rather have in your courtroom? Who are you going to be? The way to be that man, that takes responsibility for his actions, is to start by telling the truth right now."

Did you catch that final lesson? Whomever speaks first loses. We have a tendency to want to fill in those uncomfortable gaps in conversation, those long silences, but when you drop a bomb like that, when you have put all of that psychological pressure on your suspect to answer up, anything you say after that is going to diffuse that and let your suspect off the hook. But how you take that hours long, mind-numbing chess game and turn it into snappy dialogue that furthers your story and keeps a reader captivated? That's why you're the fiction author, my friend, and I'm just a podcast host. I hope this helps. Again, check out the Reid technique, R-E-I-D on YouTube and check out Craig's work at craigkingsman.com.

My latest coffee club patron, Leo Bancroft, writes, "I've recently discovered your podcast and I'm finding it interesting and helpful. Thank you." Well, thank you, Leo. "I'm working on a cozy mystery in which an amateur sleuth investigates a missing person who turns up dead. The medical examiner rules it accidental, but the sleuth wants to get to the bottom of this. I'd like the sleuth to be able to investigate this and provide evidence of murder, and murderer, to the police. I want to portray the police fairly accurately, and not as idiots or obnoxious obstacles. I'd like to show them as professionals who happen to get this one wrong, so I have a few questions, if I may, and I hope it's not too many.

Number one, after the victim is reported to the Missing Persons Unit, is a detective assigned right away? Number two, what sort of interactions do the friends of the victim and the missing person detective have? Number three, once the victim's body is found, what is the interaction between the missing person detective, the medical examiner, and the homicide unit, especially if ruled accidental death? Number four, if the medical examiner rules it an accidental death, does that close the matter until more evidence shows up to the contrary? Number five, are there any feasibility holes in my concept that you'd be willing to point out? Thanks in advance."

For starters, Leo, thank you for becoming a patron, but more importantly I have a resource I think you will really find useful, and I will include it in the show notes, but it's California's missing persons investigations guideline and curriculum. It's essentially our state's manual on how to conduct missing person investigations, and you can find a link to it in the show notes at writersdetective.com/82, so I think that will answer a lot of your procedural questions as to the missing persons aspect of things.

But to answer your first question, yes, a detective will be assigned to the missing persons case once the report makes it to the Detective Bureau. Depending on the size of the police agency, they may not have a specific Missing Persons Unit. So you might do a little research into a specific agency that you think is similar to the one you're writing about. Once that detective is assigned, the detective will reach out to whomever reported the person missing at the time the detective receives the case, mainly to touch base and ask any follow-up questions. You'd be surprised how many missing persons pop back up, but no-one ever calls the police to tell them the missing person returned. So contacting the RP, the reporting party, will be the detectives first order of business, and then the circumstances of the case, and probably whatever the RP has to say, will likely guide what the detective does next, as far as who else might be contacted.

If the missing person is an adult with no signs of foul play, no indications of being at risk, or suicidal, or whatever, then there's only so much a detective can do, other than put out a bulletin or a broadcast to the surrounding police agencies, with a picture of the missing person. And other than that, it really just is a matter of waiting and seeing what happens. And I know that seems weird, but we don't have any evidence of a crime yet, and there are a decent number of people that just decide to leave without telling anyone. It's not how I would do things, but hey, if I had a substance abuse problem, or I had people in my life I didn't want knowing where I was heading, I can understand why people do this. And when this seems to be the case, we consider them to be a voluntary missing person.

If the person hasn't turned up in 30 days, then the detective will start doing some more deep kinds of follow-up for the long-term investigation, like trying to get DNA samples or dental records. The vast majority of missing persons cases do not stay open 30 days, so this is a pretty reasonable amount of time to wait before seeking these kinds of records as a matter of protocol.

Now, of course, this timeline would be stepped up completely if there was any reason to believe this was anything but a voluntary missing case. So your number three question was, once the victim's body is found, what's the interaction between the missing person detective, the medical examiner and the homicide unit? Well, most agencies do not have a dedicated Missing Persons Unit, which we've talked about just a minute ago. So it is quite common to assign missing persons cases to the same detectives that work homicides. That was certainly the case when I worked major crimes, where I handled missing persons cases, sexual assault cases, robberies and homicides, presumably because one might end up leading into another.

So there's a very good chance that your original detective will be the detective handling the case all the way through. The detective's job is to figure out what happened, and who committed the murder, and the medical examiner's job, or the coroner, depending on the jurisdiction. But the ME's job is to figure out cause and manner of death. So the ME does the investigation on the body, and the detective pieces together all of the rest of the story. So if the detective's findings jive with the medical examiner's findings, of it being nothing more than an accident, then yeah, the case would most likely be closed. But just because the ME rules the death accidental, it may or may not close the case.

That really is up to the detective, and honestly it's going to be up to you, as the author of the story. Was the victim killed as a result of an accident that occurred during the commission of a felony, where she was either a suspect, or a witness, or a victim? That can certainly change things. And that could be the kind of thing that your amateur sleuth discovers, that the detective never uncovered. Where the context of the quote unquote accident is what makes this a murder. And lastly, I don't see any glaring feasibility holes. Since you're writing a cozy mystery, Leo, you have much more latitude compared to someone writing a police procedural type story.

The key thing is to respect the cozy mystery genre. And by that, I mean the gory details of the murder need to remain offstage. The reader gets all the clues to solve the puzzle, and the victim is often someone that may have had it coming. There are obviously more rules to the cozy genre than that, like keeping it G-rated and the punny titles, and some sort of theme to the series, that kind of stuff. But to keep your readers happy, I'd put more emphasis on keeping it a cozy, than in plugging any tiny plot holes or worrying about technicalities. Have fun with the story. Throw in a few laughs, and make sure the red herrings throw most readers off the scent of the true villain. I hope this helps, Leo, and thanks again for supporting the show.

Thank you so much for listening this week. This show is powered by your questions. Send them to me by going to writersdetective.com/podcast and don't forget to work on growing your mailing list. It's the single most important thing you can do to build the moneymaking side of your author business. The only tool I use is ConvertKit, and you can now use my affiliate link to get a free ConvertKit account that includes landing pages and unlimited emails to your first 100 subscribers. All you need to do is go to writersdetectivebureau.com/ckfree to sign up right now. Thanks again for listening. Have a great week, and write well.

Claim your free ConvertKit mailing list service account right now. It even comes with free landing pages, so you don't even need a website to get started building your mailing list. This is an affiliate link...which means that if you ever upgrade from the free plan to a paid one, I may make a commission...but that will be at no additional cost to you. In the meantime, the ConvertKit free plan really is completely free until you grow your list beyond your first one hundred subscribers. Get started right now!