Novelist on trial for murder described in his book

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tracy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
348
Reaction score
107
Location
Ireland
Wow - check this out: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/novelist-on-trial-for-murder-described-in-his-book-1054268.html

Novelist on trial for murder described in his book

By Roger Boyes
Thursday August 09 2007
AN author leafing through a newspaper comes across tantalising details of a murder so grisly he becomes obsessed, and imagines the events into a novel.
Or a murderer, so self-satisfied with the brilliance of his 'perfect crime', pens an account to pass off as fiction.
Where reality ends and fiction begins in the stomach-turning novel 'Amok' is the central task before the jury in Poland's trial of the decade. Four years after he published his bloody bestseller, Krystian Bala has found himself on trial for the same torture and murder he detailed in his novel.
'Amok', Bala claims, was inspired by news reports of the murder of a Polish businessman, Dariusz J, whose tortured and mutilated body was fished out of the Oder river in the town of Wroclaw in December 2000. His death had been grim.
Motive
With no motive or suspect, the police were stumped. The case was broadcast on Poland's version of the television programme 'Crimewatch' but it produced no leads - only some strange e-mails sent from internet cafes in Indonesia and South Korea, describing the murder as "the perfect crime".
Five years later, police received an anonymous call. They were told to look at the book 'Amok', published in 2003, three years after the killing. The book contained intimate details of the murder that could be known only to police - or the killer. Further investigations revealed the victim was an acquaintance of Bala's estranged wife.
Bala was arrested and, according to him, beaten and insulted during a day of interrogation. After three days, Bala was released when police, who denied ill-treating the writer, conceded evidence was slim.
But the first break for the police came when they discovered Bala was on a trip to South Korea and Indonesia at the time the e-mails were sent. Then they discovered he had sold a mobile phone like the victim's four days after the body of Dariusz J was discovered.
During the trial, which has now been adjourned, Bala has managed to answer almost every nugget of evidence against him. The case, his lawyer says, is largely circumstantial - "like the plot of a novel". (© The Times, London)
- Roger Boyes
 

Tracy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
348
Reaction score
107
Location
Ireland
Doing research is, of course, to be applauded, but ....
 

CoriSCapnSkip

New kid, be gentle!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
78
Like the BTK killer, give him enough rope, he'll bind himself.
 

Will Lavender

Everything is what it seems.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
355
Location
Louisville, KY
Like the BTK killer, give him enough rope, he'll bind himself.

The strange thing about BTK is that he sort of produced his own rope.

That man tried for years to get caught, thirty to be exact, and it was only because he alerted police to his whereabouts (at least it seems that way when you read about the case) that they caught him.

It's easy to sit back and judge the Omaha police force from a distance of 30 years, but...he should've been caught earlier.
 
Last edited:

Momento Mori

Tired and Disillusioned
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
825
Location
Here and there
Erm ... hate to be a killjoy [/poor taste joke] but the trial's still ongoing and there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

It's a fascinating case though - could easily be a novel in its own right.

MM
 

ATP

What happened to my LIFE?!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
1,733
Reaction score
52
Does the article state the sales of the book pre-trial? during the trial? If there's enough ink and interest generated in the US or UK, no matter whether the author is put away or walks, someone in Hollywood is now watching closely, considering film rights. This author could end with a tidy, tidy sum.
 

Willowmound

Lightly salted
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
247
Location
Afloat
Erm ... hate to be a killjoy [/poor taste joke] but the trial's still ongoing and there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.


I think you're confusing the courtroom with a forum in which people chat idly.
 

Momento Mori

Tired and Disillusioned
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
825
Location
Here and there
Wait, there's a difference between a courtroom and an on-line forum? Is this a new thing, because I am always the last person to know about these things. Dammnit. ;)

I'm not saying that the guy's got the best defence in the world but it's one thing to engage in idle speculation as to whether or not he did it and another thing to say he did it. I mean, look at OJ - most famous not guilty man in America and no one says that he did ... Okay, bad example. Erm ... Michael Jackson ... No. Hmm. Anyone able to help me out here because I'm sure there's a point in there that I'm trying to make.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,321
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Erm ... hate to be a killjoy [/poor taste joke] but the trial's still ongoing and there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
That presumption is for The Government, which could put him in prison and throw away the key, or even EXECUTE him, all with the (mostly) approval of Society. "The Court of Public Opinion" can declare anyone guilty of any crime at any time, and all one might lose are a few big-bucks advertising contracts (Vick lost Nike, Reebok, others, and before the water-bottle incident at the airport a year ago, Airtran), and maybe be asked to stay off the playing field until the trial is over. Neither "The Court of Public Opinion" nor The Court of Ben Bradley puts anyone in prison. I can say Michael Vick is guilty of dogfighting and inhumane treatment of dogs, and and I can say both OJ and Senator Kennedy are killers, and it's well within my free speech rights to do so, but I don't have the legal power to "put them away."

It's The Government (embodied in police, judges, jurers [working on behalf of the Justice system], prison guards) that has the power to actually DO something when it says someone is guilty of a crime, and this is why that "presumption of innocence" is so important in criminal cases.
 

Momento Mori

Tired and Disillusioned
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
825
Location
Here and there
Maestro - thanks, I'd totally forgotten Robert Blake. And he probably prefers it that way! (Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress).

Just when you'd thought it was safe to move on, someone brings up freedom of speech ... :) I don't really want to get into a huge to-do over this because it always gets heated and who wants that on a Friday when the sun is shining in London and birds are coughing merrily in the polluted air? :)

The reason I made my comment was because I was concerned whether to some extent it could be deemed libellous to make a statement saying that somone committed a crime if the trial is on-going and he's later found to be not guilty by a jury. My second post was trying to be a little more tongue in cheek in conceding that my first post sounded pompous, even though that wasn't my intention. I apologise to anyone who thought my comments were an attempt to prevent any discussion about Bala's guilt/innocence - I was purely concerned about the phrasing of the discussion and not the actual discussion itself.

Okay so getting back to the alleged murdering SOB in question, the report quoted in Tracy's post mentions that Bala had managed to answer "almost every nugget of evidence against him". Anyone got a link to a story that says which pieces of evidence he couldn't answer (just for my general interest).

MM
 
Last edited:

The Grift

Tom Swiftly's Favorite Adverb
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
388
Reaction score
123
Location
NJ
...I can say Michael Vick is guilty of dogfighting and inhumane treatment of dogs, and and I can say both OJ and Senator Kennedy are killers, and it's well within my free speech rights to do so...

It may be within your 1st Amendment rights, but you can still be slapped with a valid slander lawsuit. However, for public figures or matters of public concern the standard is higher, so you'd be fine in those cases. But it's dangerous to assume that the 1st Amendment means that anyone can say anything they want at anytime just because its their opinion.

For instance, if someone on this forum were to start saying that some no-name unpublished author on here was a thief and a murderer, that person would have a valid slander lawsuit and could recover damages if they could be proven. The 1st Amendment is not a free pass.
 

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
First, the novelist in question is not a citizen of the US and the case is not being tried by US law. Thus, allusions to the United State's First Amendment and the United State's "innocent until proven guilty" are irrelevant. What matters is Polish law and Polish standard of conduct.

Second, I think it is important for any US writer to have a clear understanding of what the First Amendment does and does not allow. It is not a protection that allows anything, anywhere. It does not, for example, require an owner of a press to publish anything submitted to it. At AW, the owner -- MacAllister Stone -- or the owner's designated representatives -- the mods -- can choose what is and is not acceptable for publication/posting. It also does not allow any individual or publication to say or print anything they want without regard to other standards or laws.

No level of government may pass laws that would result in "thought control" of the population. The government may not tell individuals what is or is not acceptable to think or believe. However, publications and individuals are also not permitted to say things meant to cause deliberate harm, intentional emotional distress, or traditional limitations. If, for example, you were to walk up to the biggest guy in the bar and tell him that he was a "fucking pansy," the First Amendment would not protect you from getting pummeled because your first words to him would have constituted "fighting words," intended to invoke that response.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
Thanks, Lori. It seems that people sometimes forget that the First Amendment does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want without consequence.

As for this case, it will be interesting in seeing how this effects the media's and the public's perception of fiction writers.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,960
Location
In chaos
Another similar case, which I think is even meatier.

A man publishes an article in which he describes a meeting with another writer, which reads to me as if he was stalking the other writer. Hmmm. Not sure I'd have offered something like that for publication. Years later he's imprisoned for plotting to murder his late mother's lover; Police use his own journals as evidence against him.

Read a little about it here. It's the first piece in the Diary, regarding Charles Hills:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,2143627,00.html
 
Last edited:

wayndom

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
775
Reaction score
130
Location
San Francisco
Robert Blake... oh wait. Give me a minute.

Hey, let's not forget the classics. LIZZIE BORDEN, acquitted of the murders of her parents, but universally considered guilty.

And probably was, too. Just another example of the inevitability of guilty people (occasionally) going free because the state couldn't prove guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt...
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
The old "he knew details known only to police and the killer".

The problem is that over a few years, police talk to confidants, rumours spread ... and someone who makes a point of following the case (to the extent of buddying up to 'people in the know') can acquire all sort of information that isn't officially public.

Remember when John Mark Karr was arrested for the murder of JonBenet? He knew details that allegedly 'only the killer would know'.

Yeah, right.

Mac
(PS: There has been a movie with this plot already. To complicate things, the writer had actually stolen the manuscript from a mad vagrant ... so it was possible that the *REAL* writer was the murderer.)
 
Last edited:

talkwrite

Passion in full bloom
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
194
Location
Behind the windmills of your mind
Website
www.linguisticworld.com
Does the article state the sales of the book pre-trial? during the trial? If there's enough ink and interest generated in the US or UK, no matter whether the author is put away or walks, someone in Hollywood is now watching closely, considering film rights. This author could end with a tidy, tidy sum.

If he lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.