help me to cover up a murder!

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
312
Location
England
A fictional murder, obviously. Or, well...I won't tell if you don't :evil

The basic premise: a body has been buried for around 30 years on a smallish, gentrified island. Ideally, I don't want to be too specific about location or time period, but let's say it is loosely present day. The body gets dug up due to some building work on the site. But essentially I need the inhabitants to figure out the murder isn't worth investigating, ideally after running DNA profiling and figuring out who the killer is. But...I don't know how to make this even semi plausible. Does the introduction of testing make it immediately unfeasible? Does this mean it would require too many links in the chain? I'm being very light on details intentionally because I'd love to be schooled on a way this might actually work, because I'm very open to changing whatever. Essentially I need to find a way to somehow balance procedural mystery and keeping it in the island.
 

CWatts

down the rabbit hole of research...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
1,756
Reaction score
1,235
Location
Virginia, USA
Since it's been 30 years, could there be DNA pointing to a killer who has since died? You can't prosecute a corpse. Obviously your real killer is still alive but maybe an accomplice isn't?
 

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
4,524
Reaction score
6,203
Location
The Rottenest City on the Pacific Coast
Website
www.chasej.xyz
Depending on the local politics, the identity of the victim would make people not give a hoot and bother investigating. A small child will be investigated to the fullest extent possible. But a drug-addicted prostitute? Eh, who cares! A lot of serial killers got away for as long as they did because they were "only" killing people cops didn't care about (your prostitute girlfriend is missing? Well maybe she ran off, how would you know! Don't waste our time). Depending on the setting/time you can pick various minorities/"lower classes" of people for cops to not care about.

30 years is a really long time; if the killer has seemed to have stopped or moved on a long time ago, then there is probably no local leads. If there was some sensational serial killer in your sleepy island town decades ago but nothing like that has happened since, whatever leads existed have probably gone cold. So if they're able to determine that this newest vic was probably taken out by The Sandy Beach Strangler or whatever and there's no clues on the body, then that's just another dead end. Of course, one of your characters might have a relationship with this person and knows something that could make the case feasible again...
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
But essentially I need the inhabitants to figure out the murder isn't worth investigating, ideally after running DNA profiling and figuring out who the killer is.

Not sure what you're intending here, because running a DNA profile (fancy equipment required) and figuring out who's the killer is investigating.

Is it that after they figure out who the killer is, they shrug and go home? I hope they at least give their new toy a decent funeral.
Even if the killer is dead, or the killer is someone they like, or the killer is one of them, they have to figure out what to do with that information that can't be un-known.

And, how big an island is it? Does it have a police force? Are cops sent from the mainland? Is this one of those Christie stories when the small group has to figure it out before the outside world intrudes?
In any case, I'm betting that getting DNA from a body that's been buried for 30 years is going to need experts and equipment.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,617
Reaction score
7,298
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Although the victim's DNA would be preserved in the teeth, or other bone tissues, I would have a very hard time believing the killer's DNA survived 30 years being buried.

To me, it would need to be something about the victim that made the authorities conclude there didn't need to be an investigation. If the victim was determined to be a vagrant who went missing back then, and the conditions of the burial made it look like he wasn't buried but died out in the woods, that I would believe.

Is it possible your real killer can somehow fake the DNA test? Like, have inside access to the police department, look in the newspaper archives for someone in a nearby town who went missing around that time and just make up the result? "Yeah, turns out it was old man Jones. Now we know what happened to him, poor guy."
 

talktidy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
896
Reaction score
86
Location
Fabulous Sweyn's Eye
Perhaps the killer had a signature MO and the body is perceived to be another one of his unfortunate victims -- perhaps it was always suspected the murderer had more kills to his name than he ever owned up to.
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
9,339
Location
Dorset, UK
I don't think the discovery of human remains would ever be considered not worth investigating. If the body's recent, it's likely a crime has taken place, probably a murder - but even if it's an accidental or natural death, failing to report it to the authorities and disposing of the body would be a crime. If not a crime then it'll be a missing person who suffered some deadly accident and was never found - their relatives would want to know. If the body's not recent then there will be an archaeological interest, e.g. bog bodies or similarly preserved ancient human remains. Even if the body's only around 100 years old there will still be archaeological interest.

You would have to investigate to find out how long the body's been buried as it won't be obvious. Dating such remains often requires forensics, e.g. carbon dating. You can't really begin to identify who the victim was if you don't know how long the skeleton's been there. There is a lot of variation in how bodies decay, because it depends on the conditions. Some soil types will decompose the entire body including the skeleton in a few years. Others will preserve remains for thousands of years and fossilisation (which only occurs in certain conditions) can preserve remains for millions of years.

While I take ChaseXYZ's point that the police fail to investigate murders if they don't care enough about the victim, after 30 years there won't be enough there to recognise the victim, e.g. their ethnicity (say if the society is very racist and they don't care about some ethnic groups being murdered), or if they were a prostitute or not. Depending on the conditions in the soil, it's likely there's not much left besides a skeleton. There may be other tissue that's not decomposed yet (again depending on the soil conditions) but even if something is left of the face it'd be distorted, discoloured and decomposed beyond recognition. Figuring out things like age, gender, ethnicity etc would require analysis and won't be obvious.

DNA alone will only identify the victim if the forensic team have a sample of the victim's DNA to compare it to. For example on missing persons records if the missing person's DNA was on file before they went missing - but there won't be just one missing person so it would take a lot of investigation, even if you have a good range of possible dates for when the body was buried. If it's not a huge community so there aren't a huge number of missing persons, you can compare the DNA to their relatives and find out that way (e.g. there'd be a 50% match to a biological parent or full sibling). If they can't find possible relatives or DNA samples of possible missing persons, then DNA won't tell you who it is. A forensic reconstruction of the face from the skull would give you a face to see if anyone recognises the person as their missing friend/relative.

Figuring who this person is won't be straight forward. Figuring out how they died after 30 years also would require forensic investigations. Proving that they were murdered can be even more tricky. A lot of evidence of possible causes of death will have rotted away.

Even if there is someone else's DNA present (which is possible - I don't know how likely it would be though) how would they know that DNA came from the killer? Lets say you had strong evidence that they were murdered - e.g. the body had a knife jammed between their ribs - and there was someone else's DNA on the handle - that's not proof it was a murder. It could've been a suicide or a freak accident. It's less likely, but they are possibilities that have to be investigated and excluded if there's going to be a murder trial. There are ways to get this evidence but it requires detailed investigation.

This is a problem with the scenario as described in the OP - the people figured out who the murderer was after running some DNA samples... that's not how it happens. It's possible that an in-depth forensic study, along with accurate dating of the body and investigating other sources (e.g. missing persons records, investigating the life of the victim if you manage to identify him or her) that you can find enough evidence to prove they were murdered and who did it, same as a murder investigation if the person was murdered recently (but the age of the body would make some types of investigation a lot more tricky and it's likely a lot of types of evidence would be completely lost).

If you want the people of the community to not go after the killer - if the killer's already dead or has been in jail for other murders then they might decide not to go after them (but see my point below re the victim's family). It's more likely that even after thorough forensic investigation then don't have enough conclusive evidence to go after anyone - or prove that the person was murdered in the first place (it's plausible either way, so you can make it that they could find out who did it if that suits the plot better) - so that's why they never go after the murderer. However this sort of thing does happen in real life, as does convictions for murder decades after the event when the body was found at the time of the murder (reopened cold cases, etc). The families of the victims need the closure after years of their loved one being a missing person and not knowing what happened to them. I would find it hard to believe that no-one would want justice for the murder victim (if it was proven to be a murder and they knew who did it). Even if the victim has no family there are kind-hearted people who would feel sorry for them and want them to have justice. And a decent burial after the investigation, etc. But a thorough investigation with an inconclusive outcome - maybe people can have suspicions but there's nothing that would stand up in court - would be plausible.
 

ironmikezero

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
426
Location
Haunted Louisiana
In any jurisdiction the discovery of an unidentified body will always merit an investigation to determine the identity of the deceased and the cause of death. If subsequently deemed a homicide, irrespective of the likely date of death, a criminal investigation will ensue. Neandermagnon gave a very good analysis of the possible scenarios.

In most jurisdictions there is no statute of limitation(s) on murder; it remains an open case--even if all viable leads have been exhausted. Cold case squads specialize in these types of investigations, often achieving unexpected results as new evidence arises or technological advances enhance investigative tools.

No law enforcement agency would forgo such an investigation and run the risk of violating statutory requirements, or be scrutinized in the media and accused of a scandalous "cover-up".

Your premise would most definitely generate media interest, and lots of speculation. Good luck keeping it all on the island . . .
 

ULTRAGOTHA

Merovingian Superhero
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
313
If the murderer left a distinctive thing behind, say the knife that killed the victim, but the person who found the knife didn't want anyone to know, they could hide and dispose of it. Then THAT person would know even if no one else did.

But I can't see a whole investigative team working on the mystery, figuring out who the murderer is, then just dropping it unless the murderer was dead or unable to assist in their defense (dementia, coma, etc.).
 

mrsmig

Write. Write. Writey Write Write.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
9,884
Reaction score
7,174
Location
Virginia
So you're saying the inhabitants of the island discover a body and:

(1) have the skills to determine that the dead person was a victim of murder; and

(2) have the skills to determine how long ago the murder took place; and

(3) have the skills to extract viable DNA from the corpse to test; and

(4) have access to potential suspects from whom they're able to collect equally viable DNA samples for comparison (because foreign DNA on a corpse ain't worth a damn unless you've got DNA samples from suspects to compare it against); and

(5) are able to run those DNA tests and comparisons to determine the killer; and then

(6) just shrug the whole thing off? And they do all this without involving the local police?

Sorry - if I read that, the book would go sailing across the room and into the nearest wall.

The business about DNA testing in particular feels like hand-waving. Testing DNA from a crime scene isn't like on those daytime talk shows where they're trying to determine who's the baby daddy. It's extremely involved and isn't something that can be done by your local pharmacist/chemist.

You might find this website helpful: A Simplified Guide to DNA Evidence.
 

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
Are you trying to write it from the perspective that the cover-up is the end of the story? Or are you trying to write it from the perspective that the cover-up is yet another complication that the MC has to overcome?

I'm hearing "I need the inhabitants to figure out the murder isn't worth investigating, ideally after running DNA profiling and figuring out who the killer is."

And I agree-- that's a bit of an oxymoron. Even ignoring the DNA profiling thing, going through the trouble to find out who the killer is = investigating, even if they end up not wanting to bring them to justice because they think so-and-so needed killin'.

I'm more Golden Age than Modern Police Procedural, but it would be easier to get away with treating things casually if you skew things to the past, when information moved more slowly, and there was less external oversight over remote/isolated locations. If the people who are investigating are satisfied that it was a warped form of justice-- the victim's own wrongdoings catching up to him in a fatal kind of way-- and if they don't have any professional obligations to act on the information they uncover/pass it on to the authorities, you could probably get away with it.

But with a closed community, everyone is going to be in everybody's business, so your cover-uppers will have to be confident that the entire island will unite in the cover-up, or else they'll be vulnerable (to job loss) (to political loss) (to social stigma) (to prosecution) (to whatever).
 

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
312
Location
England
Okay, whoo, thank you so much guys!!! Can't believe it bypassed me that...investigating a crime is not abandoning it, haha. I'm thinking the best thing is some compromise - a rudimentary instigation points towards and implicates a particular person - not the actual killer but someone who has reason to be suspected - who is dead at this point. So a bit different, but creating a similar scenario in a hopefully more plausible way.
 

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,655
Reaction score
913
Location
Seashore
Something I'm confused by - if they figure out who the killer is, by definition, they've *already* investigated.

"the murder isn't worth investigating, ideally after running DNA profiling and figuring out who the killer is."
 

Gatteau

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
417
Reaction score
672
Location
Lake Tahoe
The way I could see this working is if the found body is immediately recognized as a particular missing person known to the inhabitants of the island, identified by something like distinctively broken teeth ("I cracked that tooth punching him out at the pub after he checked out my woman!" testifies Ol' Toothless Joe...), or a piece of jewelry very important and unique to said missing person, i.e. necklace, bracelet, ring, anklet, toe ring, belly button ring... AND the manner of death is obviously the mark of a previously caught serial killer, making any investigation appear moot within the community. So if they can reasonably conclude that this victim was poor Rachel McGee who went missing 30 years ago, and that the pattern pressed along her neck matches Goopy Guthrie's homemade ropes, which they already prosecuted him for strangling three others girls with and he's been locked up/executed -- then this community might shake their heads, say how sad, and move on with their lives. Which could leave your real killer free to roam and chuckle evilly, considering his next crime.

Doing anything with DNA I think complicates everything and would add unnecessary details difficult for you to deal with in writing your story, let alone making your characters figure out what to do with any DNA workings, especially if their small island doesn't have such capabilities on their own and they'd have to go to outside labs or authorities.

I do personally like the small community, everybody-knows-everybody, sort of crime, because that tends to make everyone a suspect in at least some small way. It creates really useful conflict!
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
9,339
Location
Dorset, UK
Okay, whoo, thank you so much guys!!! Can't believe it bypassed me that...investigating a crime is not abandoning it, haha. I'm thinking the best thing is some compromise - a rudimentary instigation points towards and implicates a particular person - not the actual killer but someone who has reason to be suspected - who is dead at this point. So a bit different, but creating a similar scenario in a hopefully more plausible way.

I still don't find that plausible.

Sometimes it's better to start with what you want to happen plot wise, and then get someone with a background in forensics to advise you of the details that would fit your plot.

So, from your reply, it seems that you want to have the wrong person accused of the crime while the real murderer gets away with it, but as the wrong person is dead, no-one goes to court over it.

IMO a plausible way to achieve this would be that they dig up the body, but as it's been in the ground for 30 years, there's only skeletal remains left. The police do a proper, thorough, forensic investigation, and manage to identify who the victim is but not how they died. They strongly suspect foul play but not enough evidence has survived to be able to confirm even that they were murdered, never mind who killed them. It remains a cold case and they run out of avenues for further investigation.

Meanwhile, as it's a small island and everyone knows everyone else, there's lots of rumours flying around. Lots of people remember when the victim went missing and any relevant circumstances (e.g. who they were hanging around with, etc). The rumour mill concludes that the dead person must've done it and the police don't pay attention to the rumours - they've already done all the investigating they can and know they can't prove it, plus this person's dead.

A body being in the ground for 30 years will result of a lot of evidence being lost. An inconclusive investigation done properly is a lot more plausible than the police not bothering to investigate fully (that's what I'd understand by a "rudimentary investigation") when it's probably a murder.

The police botching the forensics could be plausible, if this fits with how the police are in your setting. This would increase the likelihood that the investigation would prove inconclusive. If the body's been dug up while building works are going on, there could be damage to the remains. There's no reason to suspect that there would be human remains there, so there wouldn't be archaeologists around to advise how to prevent damage. (Though AFAIK in the Republic of Ireland they do have archaeologists on standby when doing any kind of excavation work for building - you'd probably want to check stuff like that for your setting). Damage to remains, moving the body (which the police might do if not properly trained in forensics, say if a low ranking officer is the first on the scene and doesn't know better*) could contaminate the evidence and some evidence will come from how the body is located, so that also would be lost. This happened to Otzi the ice man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi because lots of people were able to access where he was emerging from the ice before archaeologists were on the scene. This resulted in a loss of potential evidence.

*this is very shabby police work - officers being that badly trained would have to fit with the way the police force is run in your setting.

Anyway, it's very plausible that even a thorough forensic investigation of a body that's been buried for 30 years won't provide conclusive evidence. It's even plausible that they could fail to identify the victim at all if they weren't resident on the island or known to anyone there.
 
Last edited:

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
9,339
Location
Dorset, UK
and that the pattern pressed along her neck matches Goopy Guthrie's homemade ropes, which they already prosecuted him for strangling three others girls with and he's been locked up/executed --

I'm not sure evidence like this would survive 30 years of decomposing in the ground. Even if some of the skin and flesh has survived, it'd be all decomposed and distorted. Some bog bodies the skin survives because the chemicals in the bog basically tan the skin (like how you make leather) but you'd need very specific soil types (like peat bogs) for that to happen. I'm not sure even in bog bodies that there wouldn't be significant distortion of the skin, so you wouldn't be able to identify what kind of rope they got strangled with.

There could be a suspicion of death by strangulation if the hyoid bone is broken. That's not the only way a hyoid bone can be broken, but it may be the case that someone who's an expert in forensics could tell from the nature of the fracture if it's likely to have come from strangulation (compared to, say, a heavy blow to the throat). It's possible to tell whether fractures occurred before or after death. However if someone died from a cause that didn't involve broken bones or other injury to bones (e.g. a stab wound where the knife impacted with bone and left a mark) then it's going to be a hell of a lot more difficult to figure out how they died if all you've got is a skeleton.

In any case, for what the OP wants to achieve with the plot, IMO a thorough, properly done but ultimately inconclusive forensic investigation seems the most plausible.
 
Last edited:

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
The investigators find some clue as to the victim's identity - like a piece of jewelry - but that person happens to be some shady character (ex: loan shark) who disappeared during a not-so-great period of that village's history. As a result, nobody is really inclined to give information about the victim, nor hint about their personal relationship with him.

In other words, everybody knows who the guy is, but nobody wants to be part of the investigation because - surprise - each and every one of them have a some sort of secret. That's tension from beginning to end.

Bonus points if the MC is the murderer.

Extra points if the murder was done to protect someone else.

-cb
 
Last edited:

jclarkdawe

Feeling lucky, Query?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,297
Reaction score
3,859
Location
New Hampshire
So let's go back to the beginning. Thirty years ago someone disappeared. If that person was an island resident, then an investigation would have been known by most of the island residents. If that person was not an island resident, then an investigation would have been made where the person lived. In either case, if fowl play was suspected, it would have been a major investigation and although it might have been unsolved, there's a good possibility the police had some serious thoughts as to who might have done it.

In any case, all missing person cases have some investigation.

Now let's discuss the body. Most likely it would be bones and maybe a bit more. Depending upon what happened, there may be signs. Blunt force trauma will show up on bones, for example. In addition, we have the grave. How deep was the body buried? Realize how difficult it can be to dig a deep grave. But who owned the land on which this grave was dug. How was this grave dug without anyone noticing? All sorts of questions that everybody on the island would be asking.

Nearly every civilized society requires that bodies be investigated. Sometimes that investigation is brief, but once the person is identified as a missing person (remember that report from 30 years ago), you're now into a major investigation and cold case specialists will be called in.

If this is a simple coverup, don't get into all this complicating crap. You're going to end up getting lost with a book only suitable for throwing across the room. Once you know what the plot requires, add only enough details to sell it.

Jim Clark-Dawe
 

WeaselFire

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
429
Location
Floral City, FL
Investigators look at all human or suspected human remains. Once it's determined that the remains are both human and a good idea as to the possible identity of the remains, there will be an investigation. The evidence, or lack thereof, could result in it becoming a cold case but, if any evidence links to any known person, you aren't going to stop the investigation. But there can always be red herrings.

Guy is killed by a knife to the heart delivered with an upward thrust by a blade similar to a common knife of war. Known serial killer who operated in the area at about the time of the death is suspected on more kills than they are convicted of, but they have been executed for the murders a decade earlier. Without additional forensics pointing away from that serial killer, the victim may and up assigned as a previously unknown victim, even though the death was a copycat killing.

Or, they figure out the killer, who is currently 87 years old with full dementia and terminal pancreatic cancer. The case is solved but the prosecutor declines to file since the murderer won't live to see a trial he can't legally participate in. The heirs to the victim get to sue the killer's estate.

Lots of ways to deal with this, write what will fit the
story as you need it.

Jeff