We've all read enough crime and mystery stories to be familiar with the stock characters, the motives, the plot twists and the clues when we see them. We are all also used to a mystery or crime novel making sense. The whole point is that by the end of the book all is explained, you know what happened, who did what, and why. In the parlance of the mystery world, the story has to be 'fair' - it has to make sense, it has to be understandable once you know the solution, if you haven't figured it out by yourself. If it doesn't make sense, if it isn't logical and believable...
Here, then, are some simple but major problems with a famous murder's narrative and why the standard solution to crime is full of plot holes and internal contradictions:
[The story is that the victim was riding in an open car and he and another occupant were shot by one rifeman from behind and above. The "authors" referenced below are the ones writing our story.]
- According to the first medical personnel who saw the victim, one man was shot in the front of the throat and it was an entrance wound. The accused assassin was behind and above the vehicle. The authors insist this was actually an exit wound.
- According to medical personnel, the victim was also shot in the back and this wound was so shallow that one doctor was able to feel the end of the bullet track with his little finger. This wound, according to the authors, was caused by a bullet that went on to emerge from the victim's throat and go on to cause grievous wounds in the second victim.
- According to the authors, a single bullet caused seven wounds in two adult men, traveling through muscle and bone, and was found virtually intact. However, metal fragments removed from the second victim (and not all of the fragments were removed) added up to more metal than was missing from the nearly-pristine bullet.
- The shooter was said to have fired three shots, two of which hit the victims. No other marksman, civilian or military, was able to match what the authors said the rifleman did.
- The authors say the shooter fired from one window, ran to the opposite corner of the building to hide the rifle and then ran down 5 flights of stairs (the elevator was not working) and into the lunch room where he was confronted by a policeman just moments after the shooting. The alledged assassin was described as 'normal', not out of breath or sweating. Other employees walking down the same stairs did not see the alledged gunman.
- A motorcycle policeman, riding escort behind and to the left of the limo at the time of the 3rd shot, was hit with so much material from the vicitm, and at great force, that he at first thought he himself had been shot. Again, the victim was in front of the policeman and to his right while the authors write that the rifleman was behind them both and over their right shoulders.
- Many of the witnesses described the car in which the victims were riding as having slowed dramatically during the shooting, if not stopping altogether, but the amateur film of the crime - taken as gospel and used for measurments and timing for the crime - does not show the vehicle slowing or stopping. The authors do not explain it.
- A city policeman raced to the area where he believed shots had originated and was stopped by a man who showed him identification from a government agency. This man told the city cop that there was nothing going on is this area. According to this government agency, none of their agents were stationed in this area. The authors do not explain this.
- There was a second murder after the sniper shot at the car. A few miles away, a patrolman was shot by a suspect said to be the same rifleman. At that crime scene, as is standard procedure, a detective marked the shell casings from the handgun used in this crime. The shell casings in custody do not show those markings. The authors of the story do not explain this.
If you were reading a novel that had these many oddities that were unexplained (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), what would you think of it? Would you even finish it? If you did, would you think the author knew what they were doing or were playing fair? As a mystery or crime story, would you think it was very good?
We know we wouldn't be able to sell it!
Comments