When Justice Isn't Served

By Jaden Terrell

By now, unless you've been living on a deserted island with only a soccer ball for companionship, you probably know that Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" of killing her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. There was no forensic evidence on the body because there was no "body." By the time she was found, the little girl had been reduced to nothing but bones.

Casey says the little girl accidentally drowned. Then why the chloroform in the trunk? (Casey's mom says the stain was there when they bought the car, but the rate at which chloroform dissipates makes that impossible.) And what mother, after finding her toddler drowned not only fails to report the child's death, but covers her mouth and nose with duct tape, hides her body in the trunk, dumps it in the woods, and spends the next month partying with her friends and lying about the whereabouts of her child? If Casey Anthony is not a murderer (and I believe she is), I submit that she is without a doubt a poor excuse for a mother--and for a human being.

On my way to work this morning, two radio hosts were discussing the case when a woman named Nicole called in. The conversation, in part, went something like this:

Nicole: I know she wasn't guilty because she didn't look guilty.

Host: What does that mean, she didn't look guilty?

Nicole: I mean, she didn't look sad or anything. If she'd really killed her child, she would have looked sad. She would have to live with that. I mean, she would feel terrible, and she would have looked really sad.

Seriously? Doesn't the lack of affect makes it more likely that Ms. Anthony is guilty? Any normal person whose child had been killed would be--and look--sad. And if you were an innocent person on trial for that child's murder, how much more sad and frightened would you be? But Casey shed no tears for her daughter. The only tears she shed were for herself.

Here's a further sampling of the conversation:

Host: I still believe she's guilty.

Nicole: You can't say that.

Host: I can't say that?

Nicole: No, a jury of her peers proved her innocent. The law proved she's not guilty, so no, you can't say that.

Host: I can't say that, in my opinion, she did it?

Nicole: No, you can't. The law said she's innocent.

Host: But this is still a free country. I can say I have an opinion, and my opinion is, she's guilty.

Nicole: But that's not really an opinion, is it?

Host: Well, yes. That's exactly what it is.

Nicole: I disagree.

Host: You disagree that it's an opinion? And I can't say it?

Nicole: The law said she didn't do it, so no you can't.

Setting aside Nicole's ignorance of freedom of speech and what an opinion is, she missed something every good mystery reader or writer knows: the court does not determine innocence. The court determines that there is "reasonable" doubt of guilt. Shortly after the verdict, one juror revealed that she and her fellow jurors were "sick to our stomachs" about the verdict. "I did not say she was innocent. I just said there was not enough evidence."

A number of factors contributed to the verdict, including the lack of forensic evidence, the skeletonization of the body and the testimony of Casey's mother (during which she contradicted her previous testimony and almost certainly perjured herself by claiming to have been the one to Google "chloroform," even though she was at work at the time and could not have done so). The defense diverted attention from the child's death by focusing on Casey's claim that, as a child, she had been sexually abused by her father and brother. Why that should be a mitigating factor in the murder of one's child is a mystery to me, but there you go. Casey left the courtroom with a slap on the wrist for lying to police and will doubtless soon be weighing book and movie options worth millions. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see her on the talk show circuit or maybe on her own reality TV show.

Marcia Clark, the prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson case, offered a plausible reason for the jury's verdict. She says many juries confuse a reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt; every defense attorney will try to give the jury a reason to doubt, but that doesn't mean the level of doubt is reasonable. The point is, while a legal decision was reached, most people would agree that, in this case, little Caylee did not receive justice.

We can all think of cases in which we believe justice was not served. Among mine are 1) Mary Winkler, who shot her sleeping husband with a shotgun, took her daughters to the beach rather than reporting his death, and then got off the hook by claiming to be a battered wife, 2) O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted of murdering his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman and whose jurors all said they thought he did it but didn't think there was enough evidence, and 3) (even though he hasn't, at least as far as we know, killed an actual human being) Michael Vick.

I put him in this group because, by his own admission, he tortured and killed dogs for pleasure (no, not "just" fighting them, torturing them). He got off with less than two years in prison, not for torturing animals but for inter-state gambling. Vick gives speeches for the Humane Association, not because he's contrite--he isn't--but because it was a court-imposed condition for early release. When asked what he would like to change about his life, he said he would have spent less time in prison.

Really? I would have said, "I wouldn't have tortured those dogs."

I know what he did wasn't as bad as killing a child (though a friend from the TBI once told me, "A man who will do that to a dog would do it to a child"), but seriously? Sportsman of the Year? In all the NFL, we couldn't find anyone who better represents the quality of sportsmanship?

These are far from the only cases where, even though legal justice was served, moral justice was not. I'm sure you can name a few yourself. I still believe that, despite its flaws, our system of justice is the best in the world, but even the best system fails sometimes. Maybe that's one reason why I read and write mysteries. The victim always receives justice, and the hero, though it may be at great cost, always prevails.

Murderous Headlines

Six Dead in Office Shooting
Police: Ex-employee targeted woman at Albuquerque solar company

Joran Van Der Sloot KILLED Natalie Holloway Confession

The End of Innocence: Pageant Idol JonBenét Ramsey Murdered
By Mark W. Danielson

Sometimes it’s murder coming up with original plots. In most mysteries, someone gets bumped off in the first few pages, followed by chapters of sub-plots explaining why he/she/they were killed. The story usually concludes with the murderer(s) being caught or killed because that’s what publishers and readers like. Open-ended murders are generally frowned upon. So, if writers must stick to a formula to get published, how do we keep our stories fresh? Sometimes the headlines can provide inspiration.

You see, the daily news is packed with dastardly events, and we can gain something from each of them. You'll find odd celebrity stories such as those questioning foul play in Gary Coleman’s death, or angry stories about Dutchman/murder suspect Joran Van der Sloot slipping away from a FBI sting in Aruba over Natalie Holloway’s death only to end up killing Stephany Flores Ramirez in Lima, Peru. There is also news of the so-called Barefoot Bandit finally being captured in the Bahamas. And while most unresolved stories get placed on the back burner, those concerning JonBenet Ramsey or OJ Simpson always seem to resurface. But as intriguing as these high profile cases are, the lesser known ones can be equally fascinating because they represent the every day person gone bad, which is closer to our fictional characters.


Consider these recent headlines: Armed Man Holds 15-Month-Old Hostage in Sacramento, and Mom Suffocates Baby She Feared Was Autistic. I'm not sure what the armed man's excuse was other than being desperate, but the mom killed her baby because she felt her child's potential development issues could ruin her life. I doubt that either person gave much thought to their crimes before committing them, but they happened nonetheless. In real life, only the jury will hear their motives, but mystery writers have the ability to create empathy for them. If done properly, the reader may find it difficult deciding whether the criminals were pushed over the edge, or whether they were guilty at all. You can't get more interactive than that.

Now consider this headline: 12-Year-Old Boy Drowns At Pool Party In Centennial. On the surface it reads like a tragic accident, but learning that this boy was a competitive swimmer who was expected to make State times adds a daunting element. His death was ruled an accident, but police are still investigating. Now, let's turn this case into a fictional murder plot; a story about disturbed children with a grudge. For years, Aquaman has been ridiculing his peers and they got fed up. So one day, at a team party, they encircle him in the shallow end, smiling, splashing, and yelling, while two of them hold him under. Once the struggling stops, one of the gang drags Aquaman’s body out, screaming for help. Sound far-fetched? Hardly. How many times have we seen disgruntled and bullied students lash out, killing their peers in cold blood? To avoid giving fame to actual murderers, I'll redirect you to Lord of the Flies -- a story that reveals the ugly truth that children can be just as uncivilized as adults, and under certain circumstances, that anyone can kill. Whether this notion inspires or disturbs you, it is an undeniable truth, and people crave this kind of entertainment. The success of Stephen King's Carrie proves this.

Whether writing about hostage situations or murder-by-drowning, headlines provide endless possibilities for character development, sub-plots, emotional struggles, and cries for justice. In our stories, the killers who are certain the truth will be buried with their victim inevitably find the evidence points to them. And when someone in the know attempts to rat them out, then he or she is killed, too. But doesn't this tried and true formula make for a predictable story? Absolutely – which is why authors must create the kind of twists and surprises that we find in the news. Bear in mind that your murderous event isn’t nearly as important as how your mystery is solved.

I'm not advocating that you mimic any actual case, but tracking murder stories might provide ideas since the truth is often so far-fetched. Since court rooms are always open to visitors, you may want to sit in on a murder trial one day and apply your experiences to make your characters believable, and your story both plausible and entertaining.

Stranger Than Fiction

By Mark W. Danielson

The truth is stranger than fiction, so the saying goes. As a fiction writer, it’s sometimes difficult competing with the daily news. Fortunately, authors can benefit from these odd events for they stimulate our brains and sometimes spill into our manuscripts. Here are a few of my favorite true events from days gone by as well as some recent oddities.

I doubt that anyone will forget the Nicole Simpson, Ron Goldman murders that led to OJ’s slow-speed freeway chase. While OJ’s Bronco never made it to Mexico, it did prove that his SUV could reach freeway speed, even with money and guns on board. OJ’s trial held the media’s attention for months, and although his lawyers won the criminal suit, they lost the Brown’s civil suit. Now, you’d think that a person who has had such a brush with the law might be scared straight, but not OJ. Nope, he just can’t stay out of trouble and now he’s behind bars. No one made these things up, but if they had, no one would buy it.

Certainly Michael Jackson’s plight wins an honorable mention in the peculiar category, but don’t blame him. People love putting celebrities on pedestals just so they can knock ’em down. I never knew Michael personally, so my only comment on his Peter Pan lifestyle is he was probably doing everything possible to capture the childhood he never had. Unfortunately, his attempts at sharing that with others was often misunderstood and misjudged. Love him or leave him, Michael was an enormous musical influence, but if I were to create a fictional character like him, my readers would say I went too far.

Of course, everyone knows about these two celebrities, so how about some of my local quirks? The first one occurred on a recent trip to the coffee shop. We ordered two foo-foo drinks at the drive-through; one decaf sugar-free caramel macchiato and one white chocolate mocha. When we arrived at the window, the coffee chef asked if we wanted whipped cream. Assuming she meant for the white chocolate mocha, I replied yes. The lady then handed me a lid piled with whipped cream, and then handed us our coffees. Now, does this belong in a story or what? I think so.

For the next, hand it to the cities of Thornton and Westminster, Colorado, to create a traffic nightmare over the 128th Street Bridge they share that crosses over I-25. First, they shut the bridge down for six months for renovation, then six months later shut it down to replace it. When it opened a year later, the new bridge was four lanes wide, but only had one lane leading into it on either side. Now, with economic stimulus money, Thornton is widening their side to two lanes in each direction, yet the Westminster side remains unchanged. If this makes any sense to anyone, please explain it to me. Certainly, this is another ingredient for a future novel.

Last, but not least is personal license plates. Some are clever, some require interpretation, and others you just have to wonder about. We recently saw one that read, “MOM2TED”. Now, the question remains whether Ted is Mom’s son or whether Mom passes a lot of gas. Either way, this plate needs clarification. Too bad we didn’t meet at the traffic light – I would have asked her.

I’m sure everyone has a favorite story of their own, and I’d love to hear them. Some great ideas come from the news. All you have to do is evaluate the situation and build on it. So while the truth may be stranger than fiction, nothing says we can’t stretch it.