For Book: Legal Advice

[TromboneAl]

My next book will be a legal thriller. Yes, I will be out of my depth, but I'm hoping that I can get some help with legal issues.


First Question ...


A woman's husband falls, jumps, or is pushed, off a cliff. Others see it fall. The body is not recovered.


The wife is deaf. From security camera footage from before the death, the wife is seen having a sign-language conversation. In it, she discussed killing her husband.

A crabber reports seeing the body, with its distinctive tattoo, in the ocean, but it isn't recovered.

A credible motive is discovered. They also know she was in the area when he went over the cliff.

At that point might the police arrest and charge the wife, or would they need more evidence?

Thanks!

 

[VanWinkle]

Obviously the deaf wife and the crabber are having a thing!! Police need to put pressure on the crabber and get a confession that sign language can't deny...

VW

 

[Philliefan33]

The wife is likely suspect #1, if not the only suspect. She would for sure be questioned by the police. She could legally be charged. But she probably wouldn’t be charged yet. Once charged, the prosecutor has to start moving through the court process with the case. Murder cases are tough without the body or other physical evidence.

In your scenario the suspect had motive, she had opportunity. But unless the motive is real obvious and strong, or the wife is a terrible person that the jury will dislike, it’s going to be tough to win a conviction. I think most prosecutors would want to wait for more physical evidence before charging. There’s no statute of limitation for murder, so what’s the hurry?

I can see a nice twist in the case: who interpreted the security footage? From my minimal ASL learning, I know that facial expressions are important and not everyone uses the same sign for words/ideas. Maybe the interpretation was wrong? Or the interpreter is the murderer.

 

[Aerides]

Watch a few targeted law and orders. I don't think they arrest her yet:

Sign language isn't always exact, from what I understand, so that wouldn't be air-tight and would be barely a thing once the jury hears experts on it.

I think you're at the point in the story, where there is one of those DA/Cop conversations about wanting to charge her, but not being able to - "keep digging!" type things. Yes, they question her, yes they think she did it, but if she said "am I free to go?" they have to say yes.

 

[TromboneAl]

Good info, thanks. I will come up with some more evidence that points to her.

 

[travelover]

Good info, thanks. I will come up with some more evidence that points to her.

More motive would help, like a big insurance policy.

 

[frayne]

The husband had a severe and terminal case of the dreaded OMY syndrome and it was a mercy killing on her part. A jury of her like minded FIRE peers found her not guilty on the grounds of sanity.

 

[Silver]

The wife is having a sign language conversation with whom? They would be suspect as well.

 

[TromboneAl]

The wife is having a sign language conversation with whom? They would be suspect as well.

You're too smart.

 

[sengsational]

One word for you Al: SAROPS

Make it a hacker thriller where one of the players turns out to work at USCG and hacks the inputs so they search in the wrong places.

 

[SumDay]

The husband had a severe and terminal case of the dreaded OMY syndrome and it was a mercy killing on her part. A jury of her like minded FIRE peers found her not guilty on the grounds of sanity.

Bingo - that's it!!!!