# Are there any real life criminal cases where this happened, for my story?



## ironpony

In my story, a gang of criminals are doing a blood in.  A blood is a term for when a gang is recruiting someone new, and the new recruit has to spill the blood of another person, in order to prove himself.  It's also used to weed out potential undercover cops.

In my story, the gang goes to meet the new recruit at a secluded meeting place, where generally no one is around.  However, a cop happens to be on patrol in an unmarked car far away, and gets a glimpse of two of the gang members, patting down the new recruit, searching for a wire a weapons, or so it looks like it could be to the cop.  The cop decides to watch them and discretely follow them, as the gang takes the new recruit for where his blood in, is suppose to take place.

They take the new recruit to a place, where a woman hostage is tied up in a chair with a hood over her heard, and gagged.  The new recruit has to shoot her, but the gun is loaded with a dummy round (a round that looks real, but will not fire), in order to make him think the gun is loaded and ready.  The woman hostage is actually one of the gang members, posing as a hostage for the new recruit.  This is in case the new recruit is an undercover cop, or cannot be trusted, the woman hostage will not be on his side, should he try to do something to save her, or should something go wrong, like they are being surveyed or something like that.  The new recruit is not an undercover cop though, and they are not being surveyed.

But the cop on patrol happens to spot the blood in attempt, calls for back up, and saves the woman before she can be shot, or so the cop thinks she might be.  The cop while saving the woman, manages to arrest one of the gang members.  The others get away with the gun, while the cop keeps the woman safe.

Now the police have one of them in custody, but the woman being on their side, does not testify or give any statements to the police.  Basically she assumes that the new recruit may have been an undercover cop, even though he wasn't.  She assumes this because another cop happened to show up to stop the blood in.  So she doesn't know how much the cops know.  She also doesn't know which of the other gang members was arrested, since it happened in another area, of the chaos, out of her sight.

So she doesn't say anything to the police till she knows all the facts, about which one was arrested, and what the police know.  This way, she can either not say anything at all, and hope they drop the case, since they do not have a cooperating victim, or if they do go ahead with charges, she will then have to lie, to get the defendant off, and make herself look innocent in the eyes of the law, as well.

Now I originally wrote the story, so that without her giving any statements to the police or talking at all, that the police drop the case, since they do not have a victim, and the prosecution therefore, cannot prove to the court that any victim of a blood in or kidnapping exists, because no victim gave any statements prior.

However, I was told by readers that it would not play out this way and they did not believe it.  They said that the prosecutor would still go ahead with the case, without the victim's testimony.  I could write it like that maybe, once I get some ideas, on how it would play out.  But how does a prosecutor go forward with enough evidence for a case, if there is no victim.  I tried doing research but I could not find any cases, where the prosecution won a case, where a kidnap victim, or a victim of violence, did not give any statements.  There is always a statement in every case I researched.  But I was told by people, including a lawyer, that prosecutors have won cases, without statements from the victim, several times in real life. 

But how would they do that?  I mean if they collect the victim's DNA from the scene for example, the defense can argue that the victim could have been doing something else at the scene, other than being the victim of a crime.  So I do not understand how a prosecutor could proceed without one, nor can I find any cases similar enough to mine, at least where no statements by the victims are given, and they still won.  Does anyone know any cases, or know how this would work legally, such as in my case?

Thanks for any input.  I really appreciate it.


----------



## Ptolemy

Well the prosecution has a witness though, the patrol cops. They can testify that they were doing a gang initiation even without a victim testimony, there was clearly evidence of a "kidnapping" and intent to murder (even if they never intended to kill her. Also why can't they charge the arrested gang member for other crimes? Gangs regularly do armed robberies, murders, kidnappings etc. if I'm correct they could charge him for formerly committed crimes.


----------



## Sleepwriter

If she tells the cops they were just playing out a weird sexual fantasy of hers, and the newbie gang member collaborates the story then there is no crime.


----------



## ironpony

Well the police do not have any proof to link the one arrested member to past crimes though.



Sleepwriter said:


> If she tells the cops they were just playing out a weird sexual fantasy of hers, and the newbie gang member collaborates the story then there is no crime.



This is what I thought too, but I was told by a lawyer that no prosecutor would believe this story, since she tells it days later, once she gets all the facts in, instead of telling it right away.  Also, the defendant is not talking and remaining silent, so I was told by a lawyer that a prosecutor would not believe his innocence, if he does not have the same story as her to tell... and thus, he would go forth with charges anyway, assuming that she is a victim who is lying to get out of it, as a lot of victims do, and he would not use her as a witness.

This is what I was told.  But because of this, I do not know how to proceed.  I can write it so that the prosecutor goes forth anyway, like a lawyer told me, but I just don't know how he would, given that she is saying there is no crime.  Even if he doesn't use her, the defense could still get wind of it.  So how would he proceed then exactly?  He still has the testimony of the arriving officers, but is that enough, even if she stays quiet at first, and then once shes gets all the facts in, decides to tell the prosecutor that no crime happened, which she could also tell the defense as well?

If this is the case, and the defendant does not talk, cause his lawyer would advise him not to, and therefore he doesn't collaborate the story and doesn't say anything, what then?


----------



## Ptolemy

ironpony said:


> Well the police do not have any proof to link the one arrested member to past crimes though.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I thought too, but I was told by a lawyer that no prosecutor would believe this story, since she tells it days later, once she gets all the facts in, instead of telling it right away.  Also, the defendant is not talking and remaining silent, so I was told by a lawyer that a prosecutor would not believe his innocence, if he does not have the same story as her to tell... and thus, he would go forth with charges anyway, assuming that she is a victim who is lying to get out of it, as a lot of victims do, and he would not use her as a witness.
> 
> This is what I was told.  But because of this, I do not know how to proceed.  I can write it so that the prosecutor goes forth anyway, like a lawyer told me, but I just don't know how he would, given that she is saying there is no crime.  Even if he doesn't use her, the defense could still get wind of it.  So how would he proceed then exactly?  He still has the testimony of the arriving officers, but is that enough, even if she stays quiet at first, and then once shes gets all the facts in, decides to tell the prosecutor that no crime happened, which she could also tell the defense as well?
> 
> If this is the case, and the defendant does not talk, cause his lawyer would advise him not to, and therefore he doesn't collaborate the story and doesn't say anything, what then?



Ok I talked to a buddy about this, the answer is sometimes, depends on evidence, the judge, the circumstances, the witnesses etc. But in your case the victims testimony need not apply, because as I said before you have a whole squad of police that took the gang guy in for doing a blood in. They are independent witnesses to the crime. The cops should know that it looks like your standard blood in, no mistaking that so the prosecution would not throw out the case since they have witnessed (mainly the guy who followed them) 

See I don't know if you want it to get thrown out because technically you could have this case go either way, thrown out or not. The prosecution has witnesses, so they don't need the victims testimony of the cop testifies what he saw, but the judge could also do some reason let them go under the lack of evidence, inconsistency etc. 

If you want to look up some of the court prceedings on domestic abuse (where commonly the victim won't testify against their spouse) you just need to avoid a clause that allows lspouse amnesty" or something best of luck


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  Well once the woman realizes that the case will not be dropped she will have to tell the police that there was no kidnapping, and it was all roleplaying and all a misunderstanding.  However, what will the prosecution do then?  Will they just think she is a kidnap victim trying to get the case dropped cause maybe the gang is threatening her or something like that, and will therefore continue with the cops' testimony?  Or will the prosecutor drop it the case altogether and give up if she says the cops' are mistaken?


----------



## Sleepwriter

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  Well once the woman realizes that the case will not be dropped she will have to tell the police that there was no kidnapping, and it was all roleplaying and all a misunderstanding.  However, what will the prosecution do then?  Will they just think she is a kidnap victim trying to get the case dropped cause maybe the gang is threatening her or something like that, and will therefore continue with the cops' testimony?  Or will the prosecutor drop it the case altogether and give up if she says the cops' are mistaken?




This is where you decide what happens.   Everyone will have opinions on what happens next, but in all seriousness, you need to make this decision.


----------



## Ptolemy

Sleepwriter said:


> This is where you decide what happens.   Everyone will have opinions on what happens next, but in all seriousness, you need to make this decision.



Exactly, I'm not trying to rip on you but you need to do what you think would happen. It may not be right but who cares? The only readers who would know how this situation would play out is an actual judge or a legit lawyer, just decide if he gets off or goes to the slammer


----------



## ironpony

Yeah, you're right.  I think I will write it so that the prosecutor goes along with it anyway, cause he is under pressure from some people and the public to win, since it's become a more famous kidnapping case, and he think's the victim is likely lying to not want to get involved and safeguard herself.

Where as the judge will see it as there being not enough evidence with her bringing in some past facts about how it was all a roleplaying game, and the judge dismisses it... I just don't want it to be dismissed right away, so some other things can happen in the plot while the defendant is in custody... if that's believable enough that the charges would stick for a couple of weeks at least.


----------



## ironpony

Well I have been rethinking the scenario over and over, for writing it for a new draft. However, I have asked people's opinions and everyone is divided on it.  In a real case, what would a prosecutor do?  Would the testimony of the officers be enough?  Some say it would be and other's say that the victim's testimony is needed.  So I am not sure what is what.  I can make up my mind about what the characters would do, but I feel like I need to know the legalities of how it would play out in real life, so I can then properly make up something for fiction.  I guess I do not know if the victim is needed or not, and no one I asked seems to agree.


----------



## Ptolemy

ironpony said:


> Well I have been rethinking the scenario over and over, for writing it for a new draft. However, I have asked people's opinions and everyone is divided on it.  In a real case, what would a prosecutor do?  Would the testimony of the officers be enough?  Some say it would be and other's say that the victim's testimony is needed.  So I am not sure what is what.  I can make up my mind about what the characters would do, but I feel like I need to know the legalities of how it would play out in real life, so I can then properly make up something for fiction.  I guess I do not know if the victim is needed or not, and no one I asked seems to agree.



Oh boy, yes the officers testimony would be enough to prosecute. Even if the victim doesn't talk there was a squad of police at the scene of an attempted gang initiation, which is illegal because it's attempted murder, which is a crime. There would be enough proof to put him in jail even if the witness does not testify. (They took evidence at the scene right? Right?)

Also as a reader, do you really think I will look up "What would happen if the victim doesn't testify in a court case but they have police testimonies and the police took a bunch of evidence at the scene? Will the gang member go to jail????" Unless you are writing a historical novel that needs to be spot on in EVERYTHING then you can flub up the court process a bit, I wouldn't care!  I'm here for a killer, tense trial not the logistics of evidence, testimonies and the victim's willingness to tell. I want action unless I'm a nit picky jerk I'm not going to take time out of my day to look up the accuracy of the court case.

Just do it how you think it is right to do it. Do what you think readers will enjoy.

At this point, I'm expecting an excerpt of your book man.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I just feel I need to finish the first half first.  I have the second half pretty down pat, but the court case stuff in the first half is pretty messy still I find.  I was told by some readers that they felt without the victim, the police cannot prove their was a victim and this case wouldn't get anywhere near court.

As for the officers, only one officer was there to spot the blood gang iniation.  He rescued the woman himself and cuffed the one gang member suspect and the rest got away.  The other officers arrived after, and the victim, not wanting to say anything, till she gets more facts in about what is going on and what the police know on the gang, decides to stay silent and take off, saying she doesn't want to get involved.  So if it's just one cop who actually did the rescue and the other cops have to take the one cop's word for it, arriving afterwards, is that why some readers think that the police cannot prove there was a victim?

Basically I want the case to go to court, such a preliminary hearing at least.  The reason why I would like to happen is because it creates drama, by having all the key characters in one room, for all the drama to unfold... the courtroom.  However, readers tell me this case wouldn't make it to court, and I should have it all unfold in a police interview room with the victim and witnesses.   But if I write that way, not all the characters will be there at the same time.  The accused cannot face his accusers the same way, and since it's not open to the public like a preliminary hearing, there are other characters who will not be there to hear certain details of the case, that I would like them too.

I am trying to find some way of getting the case in the courtroom but cannot.  Even if the prosecution goes to a preliminary hearing without the victim, cause they have enough, the victim will then not be in the courtroom, and I want her to be to, for the plot to go in the direction I want.  So I am having trouble getting the story to work with how the law works, cause the law says that not everyone can end up in such a room all at the same time.


----------



## Ptolemy

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I just feel I need to finish the first half first.  I have the second half pretty down pat, but the court case stuff in the first half is pretty messy still I find.  I was told by some readers that they felt without the victim, the police cannot prove their was a victim and this case wouldn't get anywhere near court.
> 
> As for the officers, only one officer was there to spot the blood gang iniation.  He rescued the woman himself and cuffed the one gang member suspect and the rest got away.  The other officers arrived after, and the victim, not wanting to say anything, till she gets more facts in about what is going on and what the police know on the gang, decides to stay silent and take off, saying she doesn't want to get involved.  So if it's just one cop who actually did the rescue and the other cops have to take the one cop's word for it, arriving afterwards, is that why some readers think that the police cannot prove there was a victim?
> 
> Basically I want the case to go to court, such a preliminary hearing at least.  The reason why I would like to happen is because it creates drama, by having all the key characters in one room, for all the drama to unfold... the courtroom.  However, readers tell me this case wouldn't make it to court, and I should have it all unfold in a police interview room with the victim and witnesses.   But if I write that way, not all the characters will be there at the same time.  The accused cannot face his accusers the same way, and since it's not open to the public like a preliminary hearing, there are other characters who will not be there to hear certain details of the case, that I would like them too.
> 
> I am trying to find some way of getting the case in the courtroom but cannot.  Even if the prosecution goes to a preliminary hearing without the victim, cause they have enough, the victim will then not be in the courtroom, and I want her to be to, for the plot to go in the direction I want.  So I am having trouble getting the story to work with how the law works, cause the law says that not everyone can end up in such a room all at the same time.



Jesus Christ, it was obvious that she was at the scene, with a bag over her head and the police officer caught them in the act. it is attempted murder the way you described it, even if they didn't mean it seriously, on the outside it looks like attempted murder and he would get convicted with the police testimony even if the woman doesn't comply. 

Also be flexible with the law, who cares? Nit pickers. And they suck


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I thought that for an attempted murder prosecution they would need more than just one cop's word of what he saw.

But I would like the woman to go into court and say she wasn't a victim and that the cop was mistaken.  If a prosecutor is not going to subpoena her to testify, than how will she allowed to take the stand and say that there was no crime, if she is not subpoenaed?  The defense does not want to subpoena her either in case she says something to incriminate the defendant, since her and the defendant know each other from past crimes.   So it's too risky for the defense to put her on the stand, and the prosecutor doesn't need her cause he already has witnesses.

I can't figure out how she going to legally get into court and say there was no crime, when neither side wants, or needs her.  I know I should write my own story myself, and I am not asking others to write it for me.  I don't mean to.  I was just asking if anyone knew what the legal rules are to get these characters from point A to point B.


----------



## Sleepwriter

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I thought that for an attempted murder prosecution they would need more than just one cop's word of what he saw.
> 
> But I would like the woman to go into court and say she wasn't a victim and that the cop was mistaken.  If a prosecutor is not going to subpoena her to testify, than how will she allowed to take the stand and say that there was no crime, if she is not subpoenaed?  The defense does not want to subpoena her either in case she says something to incriminate the defendant, since her and the defendant know each other from past crimes.   So it's too risky for the defense to put her on the stand, and the prosecutor doesn't need her cause he already has witnesses.
> 
> I can't figure out how she going to legally get into court and say there was no crime, when neither side wants, or needs her.  I know I should write my own story myself, and I am not asking others to write it for me.  I don't mean to.  I was just asking if anyone knew what the legal rules are to get these characters from point A to point B.




Give the cop a bodycam and then he has video proof she was there


----------



## ironpony

But I don't want there to be proof, without her though.  I want the case to fail without her.  But that's the problem.  I was told by others, that the police's word will be enough, and that it WON'T fail.


----------



## Ptolemy

ironpony said:


> But I don't want there to be proof, without her though.  I want the case to fail without her.  But that's the problem.  I was told by others, that the police's word will be enough, and that it WON'T fail.



Then make the evidence not enough! BEND THE LAW!


----------



## TheWonderingNovice

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I just feel I need to finish the first half first.  I have the second half pretty down pat, but the court case stuff in the first half is pretty messy still I find.  I was told by some readers that they felt without the victim, the police cannot prove their was a victim and this case wouldn't get anywhere near court.
> 
> As for the officers, only one officer was there to spot the blood gang iniation.  He rescued the woman himself and cuffed the one gang member suspect and the rest got away.  The other officers arrived after, and the victim, not wanting to say anything, till she gets more facts in about what is going on and what the police know on the gang, decides to stay silent and take off, saying she doesn't want to get involved.  So if it's just one cop who actually did the rescue and the other cops have to take the one cop's word for it, arriving afterwards, is that why some readers think that the police cannot prove there was a victim?
> 
> Basically I want the case to go to court, such a preliminary hearing at least.  The reason why I would like to happen is because it creates drama, by having all the key characters in one room, for all the drama to unfold... the courtroom.  However, readers tell me this case wouldn't make it to court, and I should have it all unfold in a police interview room with the victim and witnesses.   But if I write that way, not all the characters will be there at the same time.  The accused cannot face his accusers the same way, and since it's not open to the public like a preliminary hearing, there are other characters who will not be there to hear certain details of the case, that I would like them too.
> 
> I am trying to find some way of getting the case in the courtroom but cannot.  Even if the prosecution goes to a preliminary hearing without the victim, cause they have enough, the victim will then not be in the courtroom, and I want her to be to, for the plot to go in the direction I want.  So I am having trouble getting the story to work with how the law works, cause the law says that not everyone can end up in such a room all at the same time.



Before the trial goes public and a jury is chosen, the prosecutor must make a case to the grand jury on why the case should go to trial or not. It is done in secret. The Grand Jury does not decide guilt, but whether a csse goes to trial or not. If the prosecutor can not make a convincing case then it all fails. Do some research about it.


----------



## ironpony

Yeah I understand that.  I wanted the case to go to a preliminary hearing instead, because then since a PH is public, I have an excuse for all the key characters to be in the same room to create more drama and conflict.  If I make it a grand jury hearing, the defendant isn't there to face his accusers, the police investigators are not there to observe their own case, and the key characters from the public are not there to find out certain things I want them too as well, if the case becomes public.

So I want to create a setting where I can get all these characters in the same room for the drama to unfold, but the because of the way the legal system works, there is no logical way to get them all in the same room.

It's kind of a paradox cause I want to create a courtroom drama, but at the same time, the U.S. legal system doesn't allow for such drama, the way it is set up.

Plus I am not sure how I can make it so that the cop finding her is not enough.  A kidnap victim has to be rescued, otherwise no one will know this situation ever happened.  So the rescuer, is going to be a witness and call the cops logically, who will also be witnesses.


----------



## Sleepwriter

If I remember right, you are writing this for a TV show.  TV shows have to have drama or lots of action to keep the viewers coming back, so write it how you want it.


----------



## ironpony

Yeah I am writing for a movie screenplay.  I want to write it so that it's a preliminary hearing cause that means more drama, but how can I write it so that a prosecutor skips over a grand jury hearing, and puts the witness on the stand to ruin the preliminary hearing as a result, and not look implausibly stupid to the audience in the process?


----------



## Sleepwriter

You don't have to show every little detail.  It's fiction, as long as you have some action and some good drama, you should be fine.

Get it completed or a good part and give it to some folks to beta read.

You keep saying people don't believe this or that scene, but maybe once they read it as a WHOLE it makes sense.  

So chop-chop, get to writing


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I want to write it right, but people said that not showing the detail was the problem, cause by skipping over a grand jury hearing, it creates a plot hole.  So I am just wondering what to do different in the writing, but it's the fact that the detail is skipped over, that creates the plot hole, or so I was told.  It's just giving me writer's block cause I am not sure how to avoid it, within the way the legal system works.


----------



## Sleepwriter

You do watch movies? They dont show everything or else they would be days or weeks long. If not longer.


----------



## ironpony

Yep I know what you mean.  The problem I have in my story is that the prosecutor puts a witness on the stand, not knowing what the witness is going to say.  The witness then says things which causes the case to get damaged and thrown out.  The plot hole I have is, why did the prosecutor put a witness on the stand, not knowing what she was going to say?  Why not get her to testify at a grand jury first to find out, before damaging the case?  I want her to damage the case though for my story.  So this is the plot hole I can't seem to fill.  It's not that I don't know a grand jury hearing, it's that the prosecutor doesn't know what she was going to say, as a result of not having one.


----------



## Sleepwriter

No one ever knows what anyone is going to say.  The prosecutor may have gone over their testimony, but they can always decide to go off the rails.  Your prosecutor just needs to be smart enough to still keep the case moving forward even with the attempted derailment.  Otherwise you get the gavel and story is done.

Dont ask how do you do that.  He's your prosecutor, you have to figure it out.  Get in his head and ask him the questions.


----------



## ironpony

Well I was told that only a stupid prosecutor is going to put a witness on the stand, when the witness has never given a statement before, and is being hostile and uncooperative.  She is only testifying cause she has been subpoenaed too.  But I was told that no prosecutor is going to subpoena a witness, who has not answered any questions, prior.


----------



## Sleepwriter

it's okay to have a hostile witness as long as they answer the questions truthfully.  But that is the question, will they.


----------



## ironpony

Well the readers say that it makes no sense for a prosecutor to not do a test run with a hostile witness in a grand jury hearing, to see if the witness will damage the case first, before putting the witness on the stand in a public hearing where she could actually damage it.  So if the reader doesn't buy that the prosecutor has no reason to skip a grand jury test run with the witness, is there any way I can write it so that legally, he has to skip the GJ?


----------



## Sleepwriter

ironpony said:


> Well the readers say that it makes no sense for a prosecutor to not do a test run with a hostile witness in a grand jury hearing, to see if the witness will damage the case first, before putting the witness on the stand in a public hearing where she could actually damage it.  So if the reader doesn't buy that the prosecutor has no reason to skip a grand jury test run with the witness, is there any way I can write it so that legally, he has to skip the GJ?




I may be confused or you maybe, but I thought the Grand Jury was the trial. Also read up on dealing with hostile witnesses.  Also, I believe witnesses have to be declared and how they are relevant to the case, so both sides can prepare for the testimony. Might want to read up on witness testimony as well.


----------



## patskywriter

I get the sense that you write a few pages and then turn them over to people for their approval. Then you come here to ask how to deal with the issues brought up by these nondescript, unpaid, but somehow Very important beta readers. 1) If you're not a strong writer, your book might turn out to be a mess, and 2) This seems like such a waste of time. You could have been done a long time ago. 

If this is your first, or one of your first, books, you shouldn't expect it to be a masterpiece anyway. When I first started making videos and posting them on YouTube, I knew they were my best work—for then. I knew they weren't Hollywood-level, but I was happy with them, knowing that I would improve with practice. I made mistakes that I became aware of months later (because I'm studying film and documentary making on my own). If I waited to achieve a certain level of expertise, or if I had people look over my footage every few frames while editing, I'd probably never finish anything. 

It didn't take long, but because I love what I'm doing, am always studying, and have a knack for it, I'm making fairly good videos now. (And I recently made my first freelance video.) I highly suggest that you just get this book over with. Consider it an exercise in learning and start thinking about your next book. If my guess is right, your uncertainty could possibly show in your writing because of your constant back-and-forth, start-and-stop ways (plus your self-doubt). But that's okay. Finish the book, and next time, write about something that's not so over your head. I hope you don't take this as an insult; I certainly don't mean it that way. Let's just say that when I first started out, I didn't tackle a story with a scope comparable to Star Wars. Rather, one of my earliest videos was me dealing with a childhood fear and touching a tarantula. Even with that relatively simple theme, I can look at it today and point out my errors. Start small and grow from there.


----------



## Sleepwriter

he's not writing a book, its a screen play


----------



## Ptolemy

Sleepwriter said:


> he's not writing a book, its a screen play


Exactly, which makes it harder I guess because people could see the imperfections but in all honesty it shouldn't matter that much.


----------



## patskywriter

Sleepwriter said:


> he's not writing a book, its a screen play



That has no effect on what I said. I stand by every word.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I want to finish it, but it's just the plot holes, I am having trouble with, and it's causing me to not know how to finish it as a result.


----------



## Sleepwriter

Maybe go watch some perry mason episodes. He might can inspire you with how to fill those holes.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I want to finish it, but it's just the plot holes, I am having trouble with, and it's causing me to not know how to finish it as a result.


Forget plot holes. Post a few pages. Only that way can you find if the _writing_ is doing its job. If you can't make the reader turn to page two because the writing makes them want to, you're wasting the time you spend typing prose that doesn't work. So your first task is to write for the medium in a professional manner, using writing, not reading skills. As the great Sol Stein observed, “Readers don’t notice point-of-view errors. They simply sense that the writing is bad.”

It may be that your writing skills are perfect. But you can't know that till you release your words to someone who doesn't know you well enough to "hear your voice speaking the words." Your reader knows nothing about your intent. They know nothing about the plot. They only know what the words on that first page suggest, based on _their_ background. If you can make that work you can make the story work. If every page makes the reader _want_ to go on, you have them till "the end." But till you set your words free you'll never know if you're doing that.


----------

