# Is it true that bleach does not destroy DNA? (1 Viewer)



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2019)

I read that it did, so I wrote my story so that the villains use bleach to destroy their DNA from the crime scenes.  After a couple of more readers read it though, they said bleach does not actually destroy DNA, and that it's actually a myth though.  Is that true?  If so, is there any other thing you could wipe a crime scene down with to get rid of DNA, or no?


----------



## CyberWar (Jun 25, 2019)

It is true - bleaches aren't generally effective at destroying DNA evidence, because they just don't work that way. A bleaching agent usually works by oxidizing, or less often reducing, certain types of molecules it is meant to act against. Most common types of bleaches are based either on chlorine or oxygen (usually in peroxide form). Bleaching agents typically denature rather than dissolve proteins, making them ineffective at destroying substances like DNA (because if they were effective destroyers of organic matter, they wouldn't be much good as bleaches). What a would-be criminal needs is a powerful solvent rather than a bleaching agent.

With modern forensic technologies, it is literally possible to obtain identifiable DNA from the shit-stain left on a window pane by a fly that has fed on a missing person's corpse (yes, an actual murder case was solved this way). So it's not so much about the possibility of destroying DNA evidence with chemicals as the impossibility of destroying ALL of it. It would therefore be more practical for a criminal to leave as little DNA evidence that could be traced back to him as possible rather than go out of his way to expend large amounts of bleach trying (in vain) to whitewash the crime scene, the bleach itself being a possible evidence whose purchase could be traced to the offender.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 25, 2019)

Oh okay, thanks.  What would be a more effective way of destroying the DNA then, if any?


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 25, 2019)

A lot of OR-grade cleaners may. You'll have to do a search, but look for surgical cleaning agents. There's alcohol, of course. Quaternary compound, good ol' hydrogen peroxide for cleaning up puddles of blood... I don't know which, if any, actually destroy DNA, but I think this might bear exploring a little... There are liquid sterilization agents that are used for endoscopes and other rubber/delicate items that can't go into the steam autoclave. Good luck!


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 25, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> It is true - bleaches aren't generally effective at destroying DNA evidence, because they just don't work that way. A bleaching agent usually works by oxidizing, or less often reducing, certain types of molecules it is meant to act against. Most common types of bleaches are based either on chlorine or oxygen (usually in peroxide form). Bleaching agents typically denature rather than dissolve proteins, making them ineffective at destroying substances like DNA (because if they were effective destroyers of organic matter, they wouldn't be much good as bleaches). What a would-be criminal needs is a powerful solvent rather than a bleaching agent.
> 
> With modern forensic technologies, it is literally possible to obtain identifiable DNA from the shit-stain left on a window pane by a fly that has fed on a missing person's corpse (yes, an actual murder case was solved this way). So it's not so much about the possibility of destroying DNA evidence with chemicals as the impossibility of destroying ALL of it. It would therefore be more practical for a criminal to leave as little DNA evidence that could be traced back to him as possible rather than go out of his way to expend large amounts of bleach trying (in vain) to whitewash the crime scene, the bleach itself being a possible evidence whose purchase could be traced to the offender.



You've been watching too many episodes of CSI...


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 25, 2019)

Chlorine bleach is not terribly effective. However, you might look into oxygen bleach (a common product would be Oxyclean). While it doesn't always completely destroy dna, it does tend to break down hemoglobin and make forensic testing far more challenging.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217112516.htm


----------



## Terry D (Jun 27, 2019)

Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is what DNA processing labs recommend to prevent cross contamination. 

https://www.fsigeneticssup.com/article/S1875-1768(17)30269-X/pdf


----------



## ironpony (Jun 27, 2019)

Oh okay, but what does cross-contamination have to do with it?  So if a criminal dumps bleach on a crime scene, it won't get rid of their DNA, but make it impervious to cross-contamination?


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 27, 2019)

What labs are worried about is the DNA sample becoming cross contaminated (in other words, contaminated with another foreign substance). If that happens, the DNA evidence is declared unusable as evidence, which in a worst case scenario might let a killer walk free. So forensic labs are recommended to use chlorine bleach to clean lab surfaces to make sure nothing can contaminate the DNA sample. In such an example, the contamination area is very small so a solution of at least 10 percent chlorine bleach/90 percent water is strong enough to decontamminate the scene and destroy that tiny bit of possible foreign DNA. However, in most cases where there is a large amount of DNA present (such as the scene of a hatchet murder. Think of blood all over the place), chlorine bleach isn't going to be enough to get rid of that kind of evidence. Oxygen bleach is actually far better at breaking down blood and corrupting DNA, as demonstrated in one article I found: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/blog/eureka-lab/science-getting-away-murder


----------



## ironpony (Jun 27, 2019)

Oh okay.  Well for my story, as long as the crooks do not bleed on the scene, then they would just have to get rid of whatever DNA might be left of there's that is not blood, such as hair, maybe a drop of spit, etc?  Is that right?  So is that destroyable, DNA wise?


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 28, 2019)

Yes it's destroyable. But the problem your crooks would face would be that they would not know what all sources of DNA they left behind. If they miss destroying even one thing that crime scene techs manage to pull DNA off of, they're going to be behind bars. If I were a crook I'd be paranoid as hell and do everything I could think of to erase any evidence. I'd probably have one pump sprayer full of bleach and hose down the entire scene, then take another pump sprayer and go over everything again with hydrogen peroxide or rubbing alcohol before dumping gasoline everywhere and torching the place. At the very least, the more you corrupt whatever blood, hair, or other evidence is there, the harder you make it for the crime scene techs to do their job.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 29, 2019)

Okay thanks.  Well in my story the criminals are committing kidnapping and rapes and then setting the victims free.  They will wear masks and gloves of course and condoms, but is there anything they can to do to get rid of any additional DNA?

The main character later on, accidentally shoots another person to death, but wants to frame the villains for it, so he has to remove all of his DNA from the scene, in order to pin it on them.  But will he manage to get everything if it was a shootout, where the shooting was unplanned?

If the criminals leave DNA behind, I can write it so that none of the DNA is on file, till the near the end of the story, but of course they would still like to erase as much as possible logically.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 30, 2019)

They would need to shave off all their body hair to make sure not a single hair gets left behind, and scrub themselves with an exfoliating soap to get rid of any loose skin. Even that is not a guarantee but it does make it much less likely that some simple thing like a hair or flake of dead skin gets them caught. Setting the victims free is more likely to get them caught than anything else at that point.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 1, 2019)

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to. Maybe it's better to just sit on the couch--Netflix and chill...


----------



## ironpony (Jul 1, 2019)

J Anfinson said:


> They would need to shave off all their body hair to make sure not a single hair gets left behind, and scrub themselves with an exfoliating soap to get rid of any loose skin. Even that is not a guarantee but it does make it much less likely that some simple thing like a hair or flake of dead skin gets them caught. Setting the victims free is more likely to get them caught than anything else at that point.



Oh okay, thanks, but if they kill the victims, than make any mistakes, they could then be up for murder, which is an additional charge to their other crimes.  So killing the victims will only make things worse.  Even if they make the bodies disappear entirely, something could be found with evidence on it, couldn't it?

As oppose to letting the victims go, as long as the victims cannot ID any of them in masks and no physical evidence, is left on the victims?


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 3, 2019)

Even if victims cannot identify their attackers, they might still be able to provide police with information such as a description of where they were held, scars or tattoos, geographic details, vehicle information, etc. Any little detail might be enough for police to connect the dots. What I'm saying is, dead witnesses don't talk.

On the other hand, murder does tend to make a prison sentence longer. If your villains decide to kill the captives, they better do a good cleanup job. As they say round these parts, shoot, shovel, and shut up.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 4, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  Well in my story the criminals are committing kidnapping and rapes and then setting the victims free.  They will wear masks and gloves of course and condoms, but is there anything they can to do to get rid of any additional DNA?



Perhaps apart from wearing things that prevent them leaving their own DNA they should wear other people's clothes so that they leave behind misleading DNA. Any residual traces of their DNA would then just imply that they were maybe acquainted with or just encountered these framed perpetrators rather than actually involved in the crimes. 

Also, if DNA is so persistent then we must all be carrying around with us the DNA of many other people anyway. Now that it is possible to detect minute quantities the problem for investigators is surely more likely to be the discovery of DNA from very many individuals. Without corroborating evidence this would be an issue.

DNA can be regarded as packets of information much like those sent through the Internet, so my above thoughts originate from the cryptographic technique known as "chaffing and winnowing". The objective is not so much to hide anything but to establish plausible deniability concerning any conclusions that might be drawn from its existence. Plausible deniability then legally leads to reasonable doubt.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 4, 2019)

DNA isn't everything in an investigation like that. These guys seem to have a strict MO, and said person looking to pin something on them is going to have a difficult time of it because that shooting seems to have nothing in common with these serial rapes. He's going to have to worry more about ballistics and other criminal evidence (did someone see him or hear him? was the bullet left at the scene? who else has a motive?). The shooting sounds more like a crime of passion, and these serial rapists are entirely too careful and haven't shot anyone. I can see why someone would try to frame said criminals for yet another crime so as to avoid being caught, but these rapists might have an alibi (oddly enough, it could make for a really interesting story if the rape victim's testimony gets the rapists off on the murder charge because she's the alibi).  

People take serial rape seriously in a community--it's too flashy and noteworthy as a crime, it gets a lot of airtime, politicians and sheriffs are called about the incidents, the public demands justice, etc. By comparison, dead witnesses don't get interviewed, don't get airtime, don't get to tell everyone how they were abducted, how not to end up like them. Murders can be flashy or quiet. I suspect that the more grisly and terrible the ordeal was, the more likely the victim is to come forward. The easier it is to sweep under the rug (because she doesn't remember it as well, fewer details to recall, or in cases where greater shame and/or threat is associated with coming forward) the more likely it is to get swept under the rug. Violent kidnapping and gang rape isn't getting swept under the rug though. Somebody's going to notice, and people are going to be upset. Victims won't be as easy to kidnap, will be more likely to be packing pepper spray and firearms, more likely to be in groups, and will otherwise seek to not be easy targets. 

The shooter is less likely to leave DNA anyway unless there was a physical confrontation or sex preceding the shot. Rape is far more likely to leave a lot of DNA, but even more, it leaves confirmed witnesses to the act who are going to have a lot to say. Unless something has a god reason to be swabbed and tested, it isn't likely to be swabbed and tested. Any given area is chock full of DNA and potentially incriminating evidence--but most of the DNA is going to be from persons and creatures which inhabit the crime scene--dust mites, flies, fleas, pets, etc. People also share a lot of our DNA with each other and even other animals. A full strand of DNA might not be lifted, a partial one can be used but--because of how much is shared between organisms--might not be useful in the investigation no matter how much amplification it goes through in the lab. 

One thing you might research is also the amount of unsolved crimes in the locale you're writing. If they have a tremendous number or proportion of unsolved crime, it's a good bet that said investigators might not be as determined to solve crimes, might be too overworked/understaffed/ill-equipped/under-trained to be able to solve said crime.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 5, 2019)

J Anfinson said:


> Even if victims cannot identify their attackers, they might still be able to provide police with information such as a description of where they were held, scars or tattoos, geographic details, vehicle information, etc. Any little detail might be enough for police to connect the dots. What I'm saying is, dead witnesses don't talk.
> 
> On the other hand, murder does tend to make a prison sentence longer. If your villains decide to kill the captives, they better do a good cleanup job. As they say round these parts, shoot, shovel, and shut up.



I wrote it so that the rapists, blindfold their victims when kidnapping them and trying to keep them from hearing as much as they can, so that after the victims are released, they don't know where they were taken therefore.  Unless that is not enough?  It's that killing them would lead to a bunch of murder charges if they were caught, which is why it's more risky.  For example, when bank robbers rob banks, they rely on their masks and gloves to be enough.  They could kill everyone in the bank, but that would be such a death sentence risk for them, so I feel that these rapists would behave the same way, unless I am wrong.



seigfried007 said:


> DNA isn't everything in an investigation like that. These guys seem to have a strict MO, and said person looking to pin something on them is going to have a difficult time of it because that shooting seems to have nothing in common with these serial rapes. He's going to have to worry more about ballistics and other criminal evidence (did someone see him or hear him? was the bullet left at the scene? who else has a motive?). The shooting sounds more like a crime of passion, and these serial rapists are entirely too careful and haven't shot anyone. I can see why someone would try to frame said criminals for yet another crime so as to avoid being caught, but these rapists might have an alibi (oddly enough, it could make for a really interesting story if the rape victim's testimony gets the rapists off on the murder charge because she's the alibi).
> 
> People take serial rape seriously in a community--it's too flashy and noteworthy as a crime, it gets a lot of airtime, politicians and sheriffs are called about the incidents, the public demands justice, etc. By comparison, dead witnesses don't get interviewed, don't get airtime, don't get to tell everyone how they were abducted, how not to end up like them. Murders can be flashy or quiet. I suspect that the more grisly and terrible the ordeal was, the more likely the victim is to come forward. The easier it is to sweep under the rug (because she doesn't remember it as well, fewer details to recall, or in cases where greater shame and/or threat is associated with coming forward) the more likely it is to get swept under the rug. Violent kidnapping and gang rape isn't getting swept under the rug though. Somebody's going to notice, and people are going to be upset. Victims won't be as easy to kidnap, will be more likely to be packing pepper spray and firearms, more likely to be in groups, and will otherwise seek to not be easy targets.
> 
> ...



Oh well I wrote it so that the gang of rapists have been sending in anonymous videos and letters to the media about their crimes to strike fear into society.

So when the main character wants to pin the shooting on them he sends in a similar video, or letter, posing as the gang, taking credit for it.  I haven't decided if it's a video or letter yet.

Even though the M.O. is different, since the police received another confirmation of them taking credit for it, they assumed they did it therefore, and must have had a reason.  Unless that doesn't work maybe?  I could write it so that if the main character wants to make the cops believe it's the same perps, that the cop makes the murder look like rape as well, but that would be a pretty extreme thing for the main character to do to a dead body, and wonder if it's really necessary, compared to sending in another letter or video of the gang taking credit for it?

When the main character pins it on them, the gang does not have an alibi, cause they were in the same shootout that the cop was killed in, so they were there at the time, and cannot be accounted for in another place.  Unless I should write it differently?

As for the police being too pre-occupied to solve the crime, it's like you said, the crimes would get a lot of attention.  So I thin I will just have to write it so that the rapists, are THAT GOOD at getting rid of evidence, and making the victims not be able to see where they were held or see or hear who they were.

Is that work-able at all?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 6, 2019)

Dunno, seems like you're defusing conflict before it can get good. Key is adding more conflict and asking your reader think your protagonist actually might get caught.

I've heard that--especially in some districts--the majority of crimes aren't solved. It's pretty common. I've been the victim of lots of crimes now, and the perp was only "brought to justice" once (but there were witnesses, and it was long term abuse, so there wasn't any wiggle room). It makes a better, gnarlier, more engaging narrative if the men aren't so much immaculate at getting rid of DNA as the investigators are just aren't able to find evidence and piece everything together. If the division simply doesn't have the equipment, training or staff, evidence might not be treated appropriately or discovered at all, might get cross-contaminated and be unusable in court. There are a lot of ways to up the ante. Eventually, if it's bungled badly enough and the public is crying out enough, personnel are going to be brought in from elsewhere to make sure the job gets done (at least, as well as it can be). 

From what you've written here, it sounds like you're defusing everything by making sure your protag literally gets away with murder, and that's just terrible. Stop making things easy for the protag. Put the screws to him. At least make the reader think he's likely to get found out. Have your protag not know everything about the case, make him bungle. Raise the stakes. Make him squirm. 

Your perps sound stupid. Really work on their characters because criminal psychology is easy to get wrong, and I can't stand when people do it badly. I've actually never heard of serial rapists doing anything like what yours are doing. There are different kinds of rape and rapists, but foremost, it's about asserting dominance and having power over someone. Sometimes, there's premeditation, but quite often there isn't. It's often a crime of passion. Circumstance built up and the person has a break of some sort and gets violent. You're dealing with a planner (higher sentence already) which means it's not a crime of passion, and it's definitely a dominance thing ("Look what I can do to you, and there's nothing you can do about it."). The behavior sounds more similar to a late-stage serial killer than to a rapist. Serial rapists--if they're the type to taunt victims, which these ones seem like--tend to be more like Bill Cosby. They're high profile, dominant people who are protected by their position/popularity/perceived power to the point where they think they can get away with it (No one will believe you) but quite often, they aren't physically cruel (in the "beat her and maim her" kinda way--unless they're also serial killers). They don't wear masks because they're just that secure that they'll never be brought to justice. They also might not think of themselves as rapists. The mask wearing seems more like said rapist is of lower social stature but nevertheless needs to assert dominance over somebody--probably in a job and/or relationship he hates where he is stuck at a lower rank than he feels he deserves. It's not sex so much as power and respect that he's after.

The taunting of the police is usually a sign that the criminal actually wants to be caught on some level, so it just feels wrong in this case. I know, it's up some tension for them to send the video in, but... it feels wrong. They're hiding evidence because they don't want to get caught, but... they're also sabotaging themselves so badly. Not sure why they think DNA  is the only thing that's going to get them caught when they're literally sending in video evidence. Video is going to betray a lot more than they probably realize--stature, accent, voice, where the person is from, how big he is; possibly tattoos, skin tone, birth marks, injuries, scars, hair color/style, signs of self-mutilation; the setting he's in (make, model, year, state and color of vehicle), style/color/brand/size of clothing/shoes/jewelry/equipment. Experts are going to find something in that video--even if it's altered. DNA isn't some mystical lynch pin so much as one part of the whole body of evidence.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 6, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Dunno, seems like you're defusing conflict before it can get good. Key is adding more conflict and asking your reader think your protagonist actually might get caught.
> 
> I've heard that--especially in some districts--the majority of crimes aren't solved. It's pretty common. I've been the victim of lots of crimes now, and the perp was only "brought to justice" once (but there were witnesses, and it was long term abuse, so there wasn't any wiggle room). It makes a better, gnarlier, more engaging narrative if the men aren't so much immaculate at getting rid of DNA as the investigators are just aren't able to find evidence and piece everything together. If the division simply doesn't have the equipment, training or staff, evidence might not be treated appropriately or discovered at all, might get cross-contaminated and be unusable in court. There are a lot of ways to up the ante. Eventually, if it's bungled badly enough and the public is crying out enough, personnel are going to be brought in from elsewhere to make sure the job gets done (at least, as well as it can be).
> 
> ...



Oh okay thanks.  Well you say that the villains seems stupid, but if the villains are pre-planning the crimes and getting away with them, how does that make them stupid, if they keep managing to outsmart the police?

And I could have it so that the police are less resourceful and less capable, but I was told not to write it that way before because it makes the police look stupid, and I should write it so that they are smart, but the villains just happen to be smarter.  Or is this not the way to go, and I should make the police less capable?

As for the villains pre-meditating their crimes, as oppose to it being crimes of passion, I wanted to have a story where the villains are a mystery perp, who the main character does not know who they are, and has to figure out who the members of the group are, as he goes along.  I didn't want to have a villain that was a known celebrity in a position of power, cause it would be a very different story then, compared to what I had in mind, but are masked unknown rapists, who pre-meditate their crimes in order to get away with it, problematic though?

As for the videos, they send it, they are doing it to scare society, but they wear masks and all black in the videos and do not have identifying marks.  The person speaking in the video also has a scrambled voice to prevent identification.  But there have been movies before, where the serial killer will send in evidence that ultimately gets them caught though, wouldn't they?

In the movie 'M' (1931), the serial killer sent in letters to the media, bragging about his crimes, and it eventually leads back to him cause the police find something, so is it so bad to have villains that are braggers, wanting public attention, if it's been done before in fiction?

As for the hero, the reason why I want him to get away with the accidental murder, is because he uses the murder to come up with a plan to rope the villains into a trap to defeat them.  So in order for the villains to be brought to justice, the hero cannot get caught on the murder.  That is the moral dilemma the hero faces  is, is that in order for his plan to bring down the rapists, succeed, he has to have a murder on his hands and get away with it, so the plan can succeed.  But is that not a good dilemma for the hero though?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

If you don't want to get caught, leave no evidence. That means: no witnesses, no bodies, no video, no nothin'. If you have an underlying death wish and actually do on some level wish to be caught, you send in public taunts ala Jack the Ripper and other notable serial killers. They either want to be caught, or they don't. Taunting police in real life isn't something most criminals do because most don't have that death wish. The psychological need for power has already been granted by the victim of the rape and/or murder, so the criminal doesn't need to taunt to feel powerful or smart. Taunting police signals an underlying feeling of guilt and need to be punished (a death wish). It's not uncommon for serial killers to do this once they're at the point where they recognize that they need to be stopped but can't stop on their own (it's a very deep compulsion). Not all serial killers do this, just like not all of them recognize on their own that they need to be stopped. This is different from why mass shooters sometimes turn the gun on themselves. Suicide is complicated and can occur for many reasons, but the three big ones that spring to mind are 1) a need to escape punishment/shame/trials/consequences/emotional burdens, 2) the need to deny one's enemies the satisfaction of defeating oneself, and 3) the need to inflict punishment on oneself (guilt, a death wish). Nevertheless, suicide is basically what taunting the police is. Also, the drive for fame/respect/recognition/power can theoretically lead to such taunting--of the press--but this still ties in with the need to get caught because the person needs personal recognition, and the only way to really get that is to actually get caught and brought to justice (which, from a different perspective, is actually just a recounting of the great and terrible deeds of this person--and they even get to watch or cross-examine the victims! It's yet another way to stay relevant in pop culture and get their power fixes!). 



I'm not saying you need a celebrity or other person in power, just that there are different types of rapists and murderers (and criminals generally). It's difficult to get criminal psychology right, as opposed to the usual "try to write in a bad guy". Forcing a criminal character to fit a narrative results in an unbelievable criminal character (just like forcing any other character into a plot/narrative). That's not saying you can't do it--it's your story--but that I'm a character writer who's sick of conveniently "smart"/stupid villains and heroes in crime fiction. 

As a narrative, it largely depends on how you handle it. The most unbelievable premise can yield a compelling story in the right hands. A truly compelling story is going to have believable characters behaving believably, is going to bring some facet of human existence into sharp focus, and should cause us to think about the world a bit differently, perhaps. I think you're really going to have to play up his moral dilemma AND put the serious screws on him for this to work. If the nature of justice is a theme you're looking to explore, really cause the audience to wonder which situation is preferable/worse: serial rapes to continue, or a murder to get falsely pinned on innocent parties and a "hero" who bloody well gets away with murder. Is it more just for a hero to get away with a murder he did commit than have this murder somehow play into ending serial rapes? Which is worse, rape or murder? There's a lot to play with here, and if you really torment your protagonist, it could be an incredibly thought-provoking piece. It would be very easy to Mary Sue your protagonist though, and that's what I'm more worried about with this narrative. Is he actually concerned with justice at all, or is it just a power issue/personal vendetta for him? If he's actually concerned with justice being served, he'd admit after the apprehension of the criminals that he did in fact kill this other person, plant/destroy evidence, lie to police, abuse his powers within the force, etc. If he's concerned with justice, the fact that he killed someone and isn't paying the price for it will torment him to no end. If he's not concerned with justice, why is he investigating these crimes? Why is he the "hero"? Why is he so desperate to end these serial rapes (at the expense of killing someone and framing some innocent party for it)? 

I fail to see how 1) the murder has to be pinned on the rapists in order to bring them to justice, 2) why either cops or robbers must be infallibly smart/stupid since this is not a realistic scenario in the slightest, 3) why the criminal/hero psychology need not make sense, and 4) how it makes for a more compelling narrative. Thematically speaking, pick your pony early and really drive it home.  What do you want the reader to take from this? Whether you want to drive a theme home or even have one is kind of irrelevant because you can't screw with justice and not have a theme related to justice. And since the theme is going to be read into it (whether you want it there or not, whether you intended to have one or not), you should pick which messages you want to send in advance. You don't have to spell out a "moral of the story", but do try to be conscious of which messages you might be sending and which questions you're asking the audience to consider (these are different but related).  

From a purely narrative stance, a "riveting" story is going to put the screws to the characters and make the audience wonder if the hero's actually going to "win" this contest. The more conflict you insert, the higher the stakes, the higher the risks, the more severe the consequences, the more questions it asks, the more your audience is going to be engaged. What if the murder does get the criminals captured only for them to be exonerated of murder? What if the rape victims somehow exonerate the rapists of the murder charge? What if there are copycat crimes further complicating the investigation? What if some evidence is found only to be unusable? What if multiple people confess to the crimes (but aren't necessarily the criminals behind these particular crimes)? What if the crimes can't be prosecuted due to issues with evidence itself/how the evidence was obtained/poor evidence quality/chain of custody protocols/evidence tampering or contamination/witnesses disappearing, recanting or changing stories/ complications with upcoming elections and officials/the statute of limitations expiring? What if the rapists work in the same industry and also have access to evidence, crime scenes, labs and can plant evidence that your hero was involved in the rapes and/or manslaughter/murder? What if the hero has left evidence at the crime scene that may exonerate the rapists/lead to his own capture? Will he be so conflicted over his involvement in murder/manslaughter that he commits suicide or turns himself in? What does he stand to lose if he's caught? What if the rapists are so smart that they can actually solve the murder and/or even exonerate themselves of rape? Or, if they do serve time, are lying in wait for the protagonist in prison, gradually working to make his life there a living hell (if not murder him, but that would be too quick for these guys, from the sounds of it). The consequences of framing the rapists for murder should be severe--if he's found out, his involvement could even eclipse the crimes he was trying to prevent/solve. It would be a sensational story if a cop killed someone just to catch a rapist. That would be such a huge deal that it's quite likely to actually paint the rapists in a sympathetic light.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 7, 2019)

Oh okay, what about movies where the villain sends in messages to the media like 'M' (1931) or 'Untraceable (2008), where the villain was sending in letters in M, and videos in Untraceable, but they still did not want to get caught?

How does one write it like that, where they do that, but still have no desire to be caught?

As for the hero's plan to pin another murder on them, whether it's going to be successful or not, yes it is true that it would be exciting to see the plan fail.  However, for this story, I want the villains to go down, which means the hero's plan must be successful.  There comes a point where the story has to end, and the villains have to brought down if that's the ending I want.  So is it okay for the hero's plan to work, if the story needs to end?

I've had other people make similar suggestions, what if the hero's plan were to fail...  But the problem with that is, is that I want the villains to lose, so therefore, the plan has to work.  Is that not okay for the villains to lose?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

If you want the villains to fail, make their characters and circumstance such that they fail on their own (they trip up, their character flaws get in the way). There's nothing wrong with sending these villains to jail. Really. I'd love to see that. However, if you send them to prison... they'll just be waiting for your protagonist when he's later brought to justice. *wink*wink*. There's nothing saying you can't bring them all to justice! Nobody needs to get off scot free!


----------



## ironpony (Jul 7, 2019)

Oh okay well I thought that before, but the thing, is that if the protagonist is caught, then the evidence on the villains will be inadmissible, cause legally it will be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.  If the protagonist is caught, then the chain of custody of evidence, is tainted, and then the villains would walk.

So in order for the villains to go to jail, legally the protagonist cannot be caught though for the evidence to hold up, if that makes sense.  Otherewise I could have both as an option, it's just that the fruit of the poisonous tree laws, prevent that.

As for the villains making their own mistake, the main leader of the group has collateral evidence on all the members so none of them turn.  The protagonist finds out about this collateral that the leader has on all of them.  So he has to find way to lead the police to it.  That is what he uses the dead cop's body for, to create a trail of bread crumbs, to lead to the collateral.  So the villains semi-fail by their own doing by having the leader having the collateral, but the hero still needs to get his hands dirty to create a trail of bread crumbs to it, it seems.

The hero also doesn't know where the leader is keeping the collateral so he has to trick the leader into leading him to it.  He does this by using the dead body as part of a plan to manipulate the leader into leading him to the collateral.  So the dead body serves two purposes, to give the leader a reason to go to the where the collateral is, and lead the hero to it, but to also get the cops on the trail of bread crumbs to find the evidence as well.

As far as the hero almost being found out though, that he set the whole thing up and pinned a murder on the villains, the police captain character suspects that the hero killed the other cop and set the whole thing up, cause the villains tell him he did in the end.  The captain accuses the hero of this but the hero denies it saying and tells the captain that the villains are playing him for a fool and they are just trying to get out of being charged.

The captain doesn't have any real evidence on the hero that he killed the cop, so he can't do anything about it, and just accepts that the rapists should go to jail, rather than finding out that the case against them is manufactured by the hero, and then they walk free.  If that helps create more conflict at all?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 8, 2019)

Why does there need to be a criminal leader? Why does there need to be collateral? If the hero already knows whodunnit, why don't they just bust the bad guys for minor offenses for the excuse to get a search warrant? How the heck is this murder supposed to lead to a criminal organization when there's no evidence to plant (because the bad guys never left any)? If the trail of breadcrumbs exists, why not point it out to other cops? Generally, there are whole teams of people involved in gathering and analyzing evidence, so I wouldn't think this hero would've tainted all of it. Unless he has a serious motive for framing these criminals, I don't think many would believe he had anything to do with the crimes. Just don't have him be the sole person who could have failed with chain of custody for evidence. If he's that worried about the criminals being apprehended, he wouldn't have framed them for murder because of the risk of tainting that evidence. So, if the murder has to happen in the first place, he shouldn't lie about it. Killing a coworker should be an enormous emotional drain on this character, so that fact that you have him frame someone else for this crime takes a huge leap into the dark side for the guy (what kind of sicko even thinks like that?). 

The police will take a cop-killer more seriously (internal pressure, the threat is more real to them as individuals and as an organization), but violent kidnappings, rape and video of the crimes is going to be a bigger deal to the public, and this will lead to bigger political outcry and pressure on the cops from outside forces (external pressures, the public is more threatened by threats to their own safety). Cops do have the "blue line" mentality and generally stand by their own, but if one of their own killed one of their own... my goodness, that should totally ruin this hero forever on every level. Friends won't trust him--even if he gets away with the murder, there's always going to be that nagging suspicion, that rumor floating around, and sooner or later, that precinct is going to drop him (by layoff, transfer or murder). 

Confessions don't require evidence. Criminal organizations (especially small ones) are often brought down by separating the members and promising plea deals if they rat out other members. Confessions and witnesses are still where it's at, and aren't going to be the kind of evidence that can just be bleached out of existence. 

Also, no matter how a voice is scrambled, someone can undo it. There's experts all over that stuff. It might take awhile.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 8, 2019)

Oh the hero does point out the trail of bread crumbs to the other cops, but he has to create the trail first.  I wanted the leader to have collateral on the other members, cause I thought that it would make a good macguffin for the hero to go after.  Plus it allows the hero have something to bust all the members at the same time with for a climax.  Is there something better than a macguffin of collateral on all the members, that could serve the story better?

As for why their needs to be a leader, if one of the gang members has collateral on all the others, it would most likely be the leader wouldn't it?  So since the leader has that, it would be worth it to have a leader so the hero can manipulate him, cause the leader controls the rest of the gang.  So I thought that having a leader with that macguffin would make for a good plot device.  But even if hero controls the situation so the cops get a search a warrant, the cops need something to search for still.  Thus the macguffin of collateral, I thought would be good, unless I'm wrong?  Or what would they search for?

As for the hero killing the other cop, he does this accidentally during a shootout, so he then figures that he can use the body, to as part of a plan to find where the collateral evidence, is, and then create a trail of bread crumbs, so the place where it is, can be searched.

If the hero killing the cop by accident is just too much, I could write it so the cop dies differently, but how?  I mean the villains could kill him, and escape the scene, in which case the hero can use the dead body to come up with the same plan, but I thought it would be more interesting if the hero were to kill the cop by accident and use the dead body, rather than they do it.

Or I could have the cop accidentally trip and shoot himself to death or something, but that seems too convenient. Basically I have a plan to get to the ending I want, but that plan requires this subplot character to get killed. So he has to get killed somehow, and I figured the hero doing it by accident was the best way.

As for confessions, who is confessing?  I wrote it so that the collateral busts all the members, accept for the leader, so one of the members will have to confess on him for a deal, but did you have anyone else in mind, when you mentioned confessing?

When it comes to scrambled voices, being unscrambled, I have done audio editing for people before in my other job, and you cannot unscramble a voice.  One the recording is scrambled, it's forever scrambled forever.  I'm pretty sure on that and can ask some other audio engineers I know, but I've never heard of anyone changing a sound like that.  I can double to make absolutely sure though, but the physics of sounds just seems to make that impossible.

As for the other cops having suspicion that the hero may have committed the murder, I could write it so they don't suspect him at all, and they think the villains are just lying out of desperation, after they arrested, if that's better.  But you said before that them having suspicion and it being a close call for the hero, makes it more suspenseful, right?  Or I could write it so that they don't suspect him at all, if that's better.  Or I could write it so he doesn't accidentally kill the other cop at all if that's better, I just need that other cop to die, to get to the macguffin for the ending I want.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 29, 2019)

Well I bought the book Forensics by D.P. Lyle which is for writers on how to write about such things.  But the writer never discusses about how to destroy DNA throughout the entire book.  The book makes it infallible as if it can't be destroyed, but is there any way that will work for sure?


----------

