# I have a forensics crime question for my story.



## ironpony (Apr 14, 2017)

I'm writing a screenplay, and trying to keep the budget as low as possible.  Basically the main character ( a cop), kills another cop by accident in a shootout, and wants to frame the villain for it.  But in order to do that, he has to erase all of the evidence that would lead to him being the shooter at the crime scene.  So he would have to get rid of his bullets from the shootout somehow, or use a different gun that is not registered to him.  But there is still the matter of his DNA and possible prints being there.

So a lot of times in fiction, whenever a crook, or corrupt cop, wants to destroy evidence, they poor gasoline all over the crime scene and burn it.  However, since I am writing with the lowest budget possible, is it possible for him to use another method other than fire to destroy all the forensic evidence that would lead back to him?


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 14, 2017)

ironpony said:


> I'm writing a screenplay, and trying to keep the budget as low as possible.  Basically the main character ( a cop), kills another cop by accident in a shootout, and wants to frame the villain for it.  But in order to do that, he has to erase all of the evidence that would lead to him being the shooter at the crime scene.  So he would have to get rid of his bullets from the shootout somehow, or use a different gun that is not registered to him.  But there is still the matter of his DNA and possible prints being there.
> 
> So a lot of times in fiction, whenever a crook, or corrupt cop, wants to destroy evidence, they poor gasoline all over the crime scene and burn it.  However, since I am writing with the lowest budget possible, is it possible for him to use another method other than fire to destroy all the forensic evidence that would lead back to him?



Unless the idiot leaves the gun at the scene there should be no problems about fingerprints. Hell if they found his fingerprints on the body it would indicate that he tried to help his fellow officer. Besides, what would fingerprints do anyway? If they are two patrolmen who bust into an apartment and get into a shootout and the cop kills the other cop, the only way to trace it back to him would be the bullet type, shot angle, and impact. 

See this is the only problem you have. You haven't given us the right information. Fingerprints are useless. We need to know what type of gun and most importantly the angle of which the bullet entered the body, and where exactly the fellow cop was hit. Without that information I am left with nothing to go on in regards of how to frame the villain.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 14, 2017)

Well basically the villains are gone at this point and the main character would not know where to find them, since they are in hiding, but he wants to increase the manhunt on them and get more officers involved, since he has a personal vendetta with the the villain.

I thought maybe in order for him to pin it on the villains, he could take the body from the shootout, load it in his trunk, and then clean up the crime scene and drive away.  Later he would cut the limbs off the body, and then male them to difference police stations in the city, with a message from the gang of villains, saying that they are taking credit it for it, and that it's a warning to police not interfere with their business.

The message is not really from the gang though, but from the MC, trying to make the gang appear guilty for killing the cop, who's limbs they anonymously mailed to the police.

So this gets other cops very interested in the case, and gets them all going after the same gang, thinking that it's them who killed the fellow officer.  That was my idea of framing them so far, but I could make it different if that is better.

Mainly though, the MC does not want to leave any evidence of him being at the crime though, such as his prints or DNA.  He doesn't want to say he tried to help the follow officer either, and that he was there.  Earlier in the story the MC hacks into the villains' computer to find out who the members of the gang are, and what they are up to, in order to find out more about them.

But since he hacked into their computer, him being there is 'fruit of the poisonous tree', and he will be taken off the case, and his testimony will be useless, even if he lies on the stand to frame them.  Cause the villains know that he hacked into their computer, and could very well be able to prove it.  So the MC doesn't want to admit to being there or admit to knowing the villains at all, cause if he makes any statements that lead to the villains' arrest, the villains will just prove that he hacked them, if they had to.

So the MC has to stay out of it, and act like he wasn't there, to avoid fruit of the poisonous tree.  I asked a lawyer in my research before and he said that the MC cannot testify to being there since he discovered the villains identities as a result of the federal offense (the computer hacking), and so because of this the MC would have lie about how he found out there identities.  But his lies will not hold up since the villains know that he hacked them, and he knows that they discovered that.

So you are saying that the police will not think to trace the bullet to the MC, unless the MC leaves his gun there right?  But later on in the story, when the cops to go arrest the villain, and the villains say that they did not kill the dead cop, and that the MC did with his gun, will this give the police incentive to check the MC's gun, to see if the villains are telling the truth though?


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 14, 2017)

ironpony said:


> Well basically the villains are gone at this point and the main character would not know where to find them, since they are in hiding, but he wants to increase the manhunt on them and get more officers involved, since he has a personal vendetta with the the villain.
> 
> I thought maybe in order for him to pin it on the villains, he could take the body from the shootout, load it in his trunk, and then clean up the crime scene and drive away.  Later he would cut the limbs off the body, and then male them to difference police stations in the city, with a message from the gang of villains, saying that they are taking credit it for it, and that it's a warning to police not interfere with their business.
> 
> ...



That is so far and beyond for what is necessary. If anything, he is making it more likely that he will get caught by doing what you describe, along with making him almost as hedonistic as the villains. How am I supposed to sympathize and relate with a character who is supposed to do that with a guy who cuts a fellow officers arms off and sends them off for "personal vendetta". I'll akin it to Dexter, people like Dexter because he did for good reasons. He killed murders and other criminals who were developed as characters who were miles ahead of Dexter in the "evil" department and this allowed us to rationalize the horrific things he did in the show. 

This however, has nothing of that. I don't get why he can't just radio in that his partner got shot by the criminals. Why does it matter that he can't be there because he "hacked" the criminals computer. He can just lie and tell the fellow officers who arrive that he received an anonymous tip. Also, a "hacking offense" that results in a D felony or higher is labeled as damages that exceed $1,000 or more. Hacking a criminals computer and getting names would hardly cause over one grand in damages for it to be federal. The actual reason why he can't testify is because he has no proof or evidence of how he got the identities, his word is superfluous unless he retrieved the computer and showed the documents labeling the criminals. So I don't know why the lawyer gave you that run around. It's not really a federal offense.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 14, 2017)

Okay thanks.  You say he should just radio in that he got an anonymous tip, and them him and other cop went there, and that the cop was killed in the shootout by the gang, is that right?  But then you say that the real reason he cannot testify is because he has no proof or evidence as to how he got the identities, and that his word is superfluous.

So doesn't that kind of answer your own question then, if that is the reason he cannot testify?  Why do you say he should still then, if he cannot because of that?

You say that the actual reason why he can't testify is because he has no proof or evidence as to how he got the identities. But isn't that a good enough reason to make it look like he wasn't at the scene at all? Also if the MC radios in and lies and says he received 'an anonymous tip', wouldn't the other cops think this is hugely suspicious, that the MC chose not to tell anyone? I mean the police have been after these guys for months, trying to build a case, and an anonymous tip comes in to follow this guy who may be a member of the gang, and he chooses not to tell any other cops and does it by himself? It just wreaks of suspicion to me, compared to acting like he wasn't there at all, and covering it up, to avoid having to tell lies that wreak of suspicion, and I don't think the testimony would hold up because of that.

Plus, why would he get an anonymous tip of all people?  The department has more than one investigator on this gang of villains, and instead of the department getting an anonymous tip, he gets one specifically?  The whole thing is just so shady, the testimony would not hold up I don't think.


----------



## CanadaJay (Apr 14, 2017)

Just a note on this:



> Cause the villains know that he hacked into their computer, and could very well be able to prove it.




If we're talking about _court_, yeah, it's possible the bad guys could prove the cop hacked them - but it'd be really hard to do so without airing all their dirty, gangstery laundry with evidentiary discovery, cross-examination and everything else. It's your story so - of course - the plot is up to you but _I'd_ go with something like... the bad cop was off-duty at the time and didn't expect the soon-to-be-dead cop to be there on official business. That could make for some interesting dialogue between them. And the gun problem could be solved by the bad cop using one of the gangsters' guns at the hideout or wherever - wearing gloves - leaving no prints or explained pretty easily (to other cops) as collecting the gun for evidence.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 15, 2017)

Okay thanks.  But the villains would not have to air their dirty laundry to prove they were hacked.  The villains would just have to prove the hacking specifically without having to show any dirty laundry in the process, wouldn't they?

Also, even if the main character cop does call it in, the fact that he was stalking unofficial suspects, based on an anonymous tip, that was given to HIM, without telling anyone, just wreaks of too much suspicion.  Wouldn't it be better to just pin the killing on the gang, and say that he wasn't there, rather than telling such a flimsy story that would wreak of suspicion?

The MC's story is so suspicious, that it wouldn't even go to court, so the villains wouldn't even have to put on the stand to prove their case.  Their lawyer could prove it for them, and they wouldn't have to take the stand for cross examination or anything on their dirty laundry, would they?

If the MC is going to lie and say that he found out about the unofficial suspects another way, he has to come up with a better lie than an anonymous tip which he chose not to share with anyone, doesn't he?  Wouldn't it just be easier to pin the crime on the villains, without having to lie so much about why he was there, and risk the lies being too suspicious and not holding up?  Why not just not report it, to save the trouble?


----------



## CanadaJay (Apr 15, 2017)

Yeah, the villains would have to prove - or be able to prove - they were hacked by an authority without calling _any_ witnesses (who would be open to cross-examination) and _only _referencing information intercepted by the hack - anything else could be admissible. It's not impossible but legally speaking, it'd be tricky. There's also a good number of cases "corrected" on appeal where, for example, the trial judge might (incorrectly) allow tainted evidence but an appeals court later overturns it. I don't personally know enough about the technicalities of hacking to say for sure. Plot-wise, yeah. You'll know what'll work with your story better than me!


----------



## ironpony (Apr 15, 2017)

Okay thanks.  For my story though, would the case even go to court or trial though?  I mean let's say that the MC does lie and say that he was there for a completely different reason other than hacking them and he points he finger and says that "those were the guys that shot the dead cop".

The MC only knows the one villain out of the group, which is the one he hacked and found the identity of.  He will not be able to name the other members who were there, even though he wants to bring the whole gang down, and not just one.

So if the MC points the finger at him, will that be enough to go to trial?  One witness, who's story sounds questionable, since he is stalking an unofficial suspect on his own time without reporting it?

It seems to me that it wouldn't even make it to the stand in the first place, if the MC chooses to point the finger at him and relies solely on that as the only evidence, unless I am wrong?  But let's say the MC does think that him making a statement against the main villain is enough.  He knows that the villain can prove he was hacked since that is why the villain came after the MC.  So since the MC knows the villain can likely prove it, why would the MC put himself in that position to say he was there, only to be proved to a hacker, and discredited later?  Wouldn't it make more sense for the MC to never call it in, and say he was there at all, and come up with another plan, that doesn't involve his word being discredited, such as mailing in the limbs, and making it look like they did it, or something like that?

Why tell a lie, when you know you could likely be proven wrong the crook you are accusing, and know you can be very well be caught in the lie and discredited?


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Apr 15, 2017)

If he kills the other cop by accident he would need to be using his police issued weapon, otherwise he planned the killing. After the shooting there will be questions regarding when he returned fire, which will need to be verified by the bullet casing and bullet hole placements. There will be gun shot residue on each person and the ground, indicating the position of the person and how often they fired. The bullet in the dead cop will be matched to the cop who killed him, since the officer will have to provide his weapon for inspection after the shootout. The criminals need to be using police issued guns and bullets to have a chance to frame them for the death of the other cop.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 15, 2017)

Okay thanks.  But the cop has to frame the villains for the killing of the other cop, since that's his goal.  So in order to do that, he would have to remove the bullets from the dead cop, before calling it in wouldn't he?


----------



## ironpony (Apr 15, 2017)

It seems to me that this is why he wouldn't call it in.  He calls it in, he is forced to give up his gun for expection, so the police will know which bullets are his in the shootout.  He doesn't call it in and pretends he wasn't there at all, the police will not think to ask him.

So isn't it better that he doesn't call it in?  So far I am only told the cons if he calls it in, and not the pros, so I am not sure why the character should call it in therefore.


----------

