Are their any criminal psychologists that specialize in this kind of scenario?

I would assume in this scenario that the police would have a task force set up. On that task force would probably be a profiler. But definitely coming up with a sting operation is a command function, and would be set up with some support from the profiler, but not much.

Quite honestly, if the police have two suspects, they're going to work the suspects. Who do they know, who do they come in contact with, who did they meet in prison. Reality of law enforcement is look at the evidence, develop the evidence, work the evidence, use the resources of the government to see what can be developed. Criminals are not born, but made, and the making of these criminals would provide lots of leads.

Jim Clark-Dawe

You have asked a lot of police/criminal/justice system questions in his forum in recent days, most of which have answers like "It depends." Methinks you need to dip into research further than simply asking questions in an on-line forum.

caw

You're skipping the major step for investigating a crime. They have dead bodies. The dead frequently scream out information. Not as dramatically as seen on TV, but there's a lot of information that the dead give the police. You have the scenes where the bodies are found. The fact that this isn't where they were murdered is significant.

Look at your serial killers like Ted Bundy or the Green River Killer. These cases are developed a fact at a time, and wait on the luck to fall to the police.

As near as I can understand, the police have developed this case enough to find suspects. They've managed to arrest two but don't have enough evidence to hold them. You've got lots of people who don't want to talk, which is a bit unusual, especially since probably one of the murders occurred in a capital murder state. The threat of a little jab by a needle can be frequently effective. But in this case, you work the suspects. Who do they know, who do they hang around with. You talk to your sources.

Police have patience. They want to solve this case, but they know it won't be solved until it is ready to. They might be drinking lots of Pepto, but you work the case, piece by piece, until it comes together. There's lots of books on finding serial killers and rapists. They'll tell you how and why the police did what they did to solve the cases.

Jim Clark-Dawe

Neither psychologists nor cops ever plan to flush people out so they can catch lots of unknown criminals *all at once*. This is a thing for you because you want this to be your grand ending but law enforcement does not work like that.

They want to catch a bunch of people, cops use evidence and work the case. No cop, in the history of cops, has ever gone to a psychologist and said, "I want to flush a whole bunch of people - I dunno how many or anything - all out so I can catch them all at once." Never happened. Never will happen, because it makes no sense.

Profiling can be as much an art as a skill/science. A profile is essentially an opinion, albeit an educated opinion based upon what evidence is available; but there is usually a strong subjective/speculative component. The best profiler I ever worked with was a forensic pathologist/medical examiner; he had a real knack for it. OTOH, I worked with others who were, unfortunately, more often mistaken than not.

A profiler can be helpful in the course of an investigation as his/her opinion may lead to subsequent identification of a perpetrator. Most folks misunderstand why comprehension of a subject's motivation is often important. It's not necessarily to grok how the subject feels and why he/she acts the way they do; it's to help investigators recognize the behavioral patterns manifested and anticipate (or hopefully predict) future actions that may facilitate the subject's capture.

As a writer, you can craft your tale any way you like. Your gang of miscreants (psychopaths, sociopaths, mentally challenged, deranged, etc.) may be a collection of classic case studies of deviant and illegal behavior, but whatever their respective motivations, they are harming people--the victims. That's what's going to be important to law enforcement. Remember, you have to catch them before you can cure them.

In what jurisdiction do you set your tale?

If the evidence on hand is insufficient to constitute probable cause as would be articulated in duly sworn affidavits for warrants (search, wire interception, arrests, etc.) there are no procedural options left (unless of course there is an ongoing grand jury to which potential witnesses may be subpoenaed to testify. However, should witnesses exercise their 5th Amendment rights, even that option may effectively be moot. You shouldn't play the grand jury card as a writer unless you really know what you're doing). Otherwise, the investigators must continue their work, trying to build a prosecutable case within the framework of applicable statutes, regulations, and current case law. There are no other options--not legal ones.

The cops have to play by the rules--after all, they're the good guys.

ironpony said:

I haven't decided what jurisdiction yet, but probably some large American city. And yes, I do want them caught all at once for my grand ending. If one is caught, then another, then another, the story becomes too long and can be a bit anticlimatic and underwhelming. But lots of other fictional stories go for the grand ending where the majority of a gang, is all caught at the same time.

But as far as procedure goes I asked a real cop about my case, and showed him the evidence the police have, and he said it would not be enough for the police to get warrants or wire tap orders. So if the police need to spy on suspects, but are not allowed to see or hear anything they do, behind closed doors, what is the next option for the police with that limitation, if that is the case?

Click to expand...

Police work.

May I suggest that you read the Complete Works of Ann Rule, then come back if you have further questions?

I feel lik I'm on a very unpleasant merry-go-round, so I've got to ask. Have you actually been listening to all the help people have given you on what is essentiall the same question, both here and in the Sandbox? I know that I stopped answering you because I don't want to continue to help someone not willing to take the advice they've been given. I work hard to research my story, basing them on my research instead of trying to force the research to line up with something impossible because I can't let go of the idea that the story has to go exactly as I planned. Outlines are not set in stone, they're malleable or they would be useless as a writing tool.

I don't want to derail the thread too much more, but ask me what the greatest fear for gay man was during the American Revolution? Or about naming conventions? How the colonists felt about various acts passed by parliment during this period and the lead up to the Revolution? I can gaurentee that I'd be able to tell you how it effect my characters and their lives, which would then effect the plot of my Rev War Vampire spy story.

ironpony said:

Well I have been told that a lot of my ideas would not work police procedure wise, so I wanted to ask experts some questions as to what would or would not fly. As far as trying to line it up with something impossible, what part of the story is impossible exactly, just so I know how it's impossible? Catching the villains in a sting operation is impossible, is that it?

Click to expand...

Questions are fine, but only if you plan to listen to people. So far, from what I can tell at least, you don't. Notice how you ignored the second half of my post, and never answered whether you were going to actually listen to people this time etc. That is not ok. People end up feeling like they're wasting their time helping someone who does that, especially if it is part of a pattern.

As for the sting: look to your research for that answer.

One thing that might help you is critiquing other people's work. That will assist you in spotting the flaws and inconsistencies in your own writing.

ironpony said:

Lillith1991, I didn't understand what you meant in the second half of the post, with the examples, of the American revolution, and naming conventions, and all those examples. What did you mean?

Click to expand...

It was more an example of how proper research effects the characters, which in turn effects the story itself than anything.

I have a gay loyalist lawyer in my story, and he's on of three POV characters but not the main one in the story I talked about in that post. I wanted him to be able to have a lover without being sentenced to hang, as was par for the course in sodomy cases during those days, while making it less likely he would be found out or betrayed. So what I did was have his lover be a redcoat who is being billeted in Samuel, the lawyers and his partiot spy sister, Elizabeth's home. Then I had to figure out reasons besides familial ties, which were strong at the time, that Elizabeth would not turn him in when she found out he was sleeping with said redcoat. This lead to me discovering that she herself is a lesbian in addition to being a vampire. Eliza loves her brother, she knows the danger they both face. That tension sets them at conflict with each other, a conflict only amplified by their patriot and loyalist leanings. I may not know what plot points will highlight this conflict, but an understanding of just this simple fact about their world spawned so much other stuff for me to use. Extremely viable stuff.

That is what makes a good story, the plot that comes out of treating our characters like people instead of chess pieces.

ironpony said:

One of the suspects had a lawyer, who defended him in court, but someone else payed for the lawyer, and not the suspect. Can the police get a warrant to find out who paid the lawyer, since whoever payed the lawyer is likely in collusion with the suspect? I have heard mixed opinion on this from a cop, but could they get a warrant to search a lawyer's bank record, to find out who a suspect is, that payed him to defend a client, even if the lawyer is not suspected of any crime himself?

Click to expand...

Short answer is NO.

Longer answer is maybe, but there are so many issues, including Constitutional concerns. I represented criminals. I'd be spending hours down in the law library looking this one up to figure out how to make it work.

A lot of the answers you're getting are maybes. Short answers would be no, but if you're smart enough, and know what you're talking about, you might make it work. That's why you're getting maybes. A lot of us could take your bones and make a story out of it that was credible, but it's because we know how to bend things to make them work. But it takes either experience or research. Solid research.

For a bad guy who got picked up through dumb luck, look at Ted Bundy. He got picked up on a stolen vehicle warrant. (Actually, Ted Bundy, although a lot of luck, was solid police work. When the time was right, they had the information that they needed to act.) Dennis Rader, on the other hand, got picked up through being told by police that computer disks were safe to send information to them on.

There's lots of information out there. For instance, I know that police wanting to know who lawyers got paid by has been litigated in several states. I know the result is a somewhat mixed bag, but I don't know why. Your friendly cop probably knows that much as well. Hence both of us saying "maybe."

Jim Clark-Dawe

If the existing "system" in this reality precludes your story from working the way you envision, you can always set your tale in an alternate or parallel universe wherein you can craft the rules as you see fit. There the only thing that will limit you is the breadth and depth of your imagination. Best of Luck!

ironpony said:

Okay thanks. I feel that the people are not the issue with the story though. I feel it's the legal system constantly getting in the way of telling the story well. It's the system that keeps turning the people into chess pieces, as I find I am constantly having to change the people just to fit the system. But if I were to take the system out of it and just concentrate on the characters, I know exactly how I want them to be developed, and where I want them to go in the story.

But the system is preventing it, and I feel I am constantly trying to change the characters to make it work within the system. But if the system is preventing the characters from being consistent well thought out characters who I know what they want, is their anything I should approach about it?

Click to expand...

You story is about the system. The characters are cops and criminals. If you remove 'the system' there's no story at all.

You want a mistake? How's this:

Your villain compulsively saves every receipt he ever got. He has boxes and boxes of cash register receipts.

Going through every one of them is a huge task. It takes the cops a while to get around to it, and they don't have a lot of hope, because who cares whether he likes Big Macs or Chicken Nuggets? But one of those receipts shows that he bought a Frappuccino at a Starbucks at a time and place that explodes his alibi. First will be cataloging everything. Then will be figuring out what it all means.

Meanwhile, how are you coming on reading Rule's books?

You personally will need to become an expert.

If you're suddenly, magically on Jeopardy! and the Final Jeopardy category is "Police Procedure," you have to be ready to write down "I bet everything" before the answer is revealed because you are just that confident.

There is no substitute for doing the research yourself. That means hitting the library, not hitting the Internet message boards.

Skimp on your research? Your readers will know!

If reality gets in the way your story, change your story.

Also: a couple of retired FBI profilers have written books. Find those books. Read them. Take notes.