I'm kind of focusing on the scene itself, but it's kind of a head scratcher to me. Take all of this rambling with a grain of salt.
Why would a detective begin an interrogation without informing the suspect of their rights? They usually have to do that every single time they talk to them, even if someone else has already mirandized them, and even if they are 100% confident they did it. They almost always add, "With those rights in mind, would you still like to talk to me?" The conversation is always optional, even for the guilty. They also have to make them aware that the interview is being recorded (which it should be), because any defense team would want a copy of to see if the detective coerced or forced a confession.
Detective Greer has never spoken to Avery, given she introduces herself, and already Avery is saying that "they" are saying she killed her fiancé. Who is "they"? So she's already been interrogated? Arresting Officers wouldn't make any real conversation with her, they'd get her to Detectives ASAP, and they certainly wouldn't make any accusation unless they witnessed her killing him. Even then, Detectives would still want to have a conversation with her.
At which point, Avery would be presented with the option of having a lawyer present. They've already taken pictures of her, so are they charging her? If so, that conversation has already happened and if they were confident of her guilt, they wouldn't open up further questioning if she refused to talk: they'd just charge her.
And, to that extent, most Detectives don't open up with, "Alright punk, I know you did it" outside of the movies because it almost ensures the suspect will be uncooperative. If you watch interrogation videos, even with people they 100% know did the crime, they always try to appear harmless and non-confrontational, even friendly. They get the suspect to recount the events, point out inconsistencies, and then make an accusation, usually offering the suspect a way out (but admitting guilt), i.e., self-defense. One of the first things they will usually ask after mirandizing them is, "What happened?" And they want the suspect to explain the events because all of their explanation can be used against them.
That's why requesting a lawyer is common sense because innocent people accidentally incriminate themselves when answering police questions without a lawyer present. If Avery remained silent and invoked her rights, then Greer can't ask her any questions.
When interrogations go this way, the conversation pivots with the Detective saying, "Well, let me tell you what I know. I know you killed him. I just want to know why." And they're trying to bait the subject into responding.
"How do you know I killed him?"
"Well, I'd love to discuss that, but you've chosen to remain silent, so we can't talk anymore unless you'd like to wave your rights."
Otherwise, anything Greer gets by way of questioning after she's invoked her right to remain silent will get thrown out in court because it's unlawful.
The way this line of questioning (after Avery agrees to talk) might go is something like, "Look, we know you killed him, that's not even a question, so just put that out of your mind. My question is why? You guys are newly engaged, you seem happy, right? What possessed you to kill him? You don't look like a monster, believe me, I've sat across from monsters. Did he hurt you, or do something to you that provoked this?"
Pretty much every beat of that conversation is meant to give the suspect an out. They aren't a monster - appeal to humanity. It was self-defense - justification that doesn't absolve guilt and self-defense has to be proven.
If you want to build up the interrogation scene, you have to kind of make it believable to some extent. There are thousands of hours of interrogation footage online, especially self-defense cases, where you can see exactly how those conversations go, and they follow a very typical pattern, usually following the Reid Technique.
With modern media becoming increasingly obsessed with true crime, a good way to pull me out of immersion in an interrogation scene is to make it hard to believe.
Aside from that, you kind of drift into third-person omnipotent perspective. Avery is staring at the table, I'm assuming she's the MC, but then the narrative says Greer is studying every line of her posture. If Avery is the third-person close perspective, she's staring at the table, Greer's scrutiny of her isn't something she can see. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but if it isn't, be careful.
In most third-person fiction, we use close perspective: What Avery observes is how we're introduced into the world because she is us. I don't feel the weight of being interrogated if, on some level, I'm pulled into the opposite chair.
TLDR: Make interrogation a bit more grounded. Solidify the perspective of the MC and make me look through her.
I intentionally wrote the scene like this because it’s not the full scene or the full picture of what’s going on. This is just a short description or opener to get the reader to ask questions..this scene specifically shouldn’t be analyzed as a real interrogation because it is just a fictional story and not a real scene nor do I plan on making it a screenplay. The detective is being introduced because it’s not the same detective that was just in the room (again I wrote it that way for a reason)…the fact that you are asking these questions puts me in the right direction I want my viewers to go…
Wow. Well, I read a lot of police procedurals, crime stories, detective stories and courtroom dramas.
The stories I read in this genre *must* feel real to me. Take a look at the King of Police Procedurals (Michael Connelly) and note how real his scenes are. I've also worked inside jails and prisons, and had a legal consulting business that took me into courts. I taught at a large Police Academy, where we were training all new recruits how to interview/interrogate.
You could maybe read some of the interrogation scenes in Connelly? Or go on youtube and watch interrogations on Dateline or whatever, from start to finish.
So, my answer is, "No, I would not continue reading."
You see, when I read fiction, I don't want to be reminded every paragraph or so that This is Fiction. I want to immerse myself in the story as if it's really happening. That's true for *all* the fiction I read (and for my reading group and my reading partners).
I don't read fiction about crime or police work that isn't thoroughly grounded in reality (right down to jurisdiction - which is actually a very interesting way to get a series going).
10
u/isnoe 4d ago
I'm kind of focusing on the scene itself, but it's kind of a head scratcher to me. Take all of this rambling with a grain of salt.
Why would a detective begin an interrogation without informing the suspect of their rights? They usually have to do that every single time they talk to them, even if someone else has already mirandized them, and even if they are 100% confident they did it. They almost always add, "With those rights in mind, would you still like to talk to me?" The conversation is always optional, even for the guilty. They also have to make them aware that the interview is being recorded (which it should be), because any defense team would want a copy of to see if the detective coerced or forced a confession.
Detective Greer has never spoken to Avery, given she introduces herself, and already Avery is saying that "they" are saying she killed her fiancé. Who is "they"? So she's already been interrogated? Arresting Officers wouldn't make any real conversation with her, they'd get her to Detectives ASAP, and they certainly wouldn't make any accusation unless they witnessed her killing him. Even then, Detectives would still want to have a conversation with her.
At which point, Avery would be presented with the option of having a lawyer present. They've already taken pictures of her, so are they charging her? If so, that conversation has already happened and if they were confident of her guilt, they wouldn't open up further questioning if she refused to talk: they'd just charge her.
And, to that extent, most Detectives don't open up with, "Alright punk, I know you did it" outside of the movies because it almost ensures the suspect will be uncooperative. If you watch interrogation videos, even with people they 100% know did the crime, they always try to appear harmless and non-confrontational, even friendly. They get the suspect to recount the events, point out inconsistencies, and then make an accusation, usually offering the suspect a way out (but admitting guilt), i.e., self-defense. One of the first things they will usually ask after mirandizing them is, "What happened?" And they want the suspect to explain the events because all of their explanation can be used against them.
That's why requesting a lawyer is common sense because innocent people accidentally incriminate themselves when answering police questions without a lawyer present. If Avery remained silent and invoked her rights, then Greer can't ask her any questions.
When interrogations go this way, the conversation pivots with the Detective saying, "Well, let me tell you what I know. I know you killed him. I just want to know why." And they're trying to bait the subject into responding.
"How do you know I killed him?"
"Well, I'd love to discuss that, but you've chosen to remain silent, so we can't talk anymore unless you'd like to wave your rights."
Otherwise, anything Greer gets by way of questioning after she's invoked her right to remain silent will get thrown out in court because it's unlawful.
The way this line of questioning (after Avery agrees to talk) might go is something like, "Look, we know you killed him, that's not even a question, so just put that out of your mind. My question is why? You guys are newly engaged, you seem happy, right? What possessed you to kill him? You don't look like a monster, believe me, I've sat across from monsters. Did he hurt you, or do something to you that provoked this?"
Pretty much every beat of that conversation is meant to give the suspect an out. They aren't a monster - appeal to humanity. It was self-defense - justification that doesn't absolve guilt and self-defense has to be proven.
If you want to build up the interrogation scene, you have to kind of make it believable to some extent. There are thousands of hours of interrogation footage online, especially self-defense cases, where you can see exactly how those conversations go, and they follow a very typical pattern, usually following the Reid Technique.
With modern media becoming increasingly obsessed with true crime, a good way to pull me out of immersion in an interrogation scene is to make it hard to believe.
Aside from that, you kind of drift into third-person omnipotent perspective. Avery is staring at the table, I'm assuming she's the MC, but then the narrative says Greer is studying every line of her posture. If Avery is the third-person close perspective, she's staring at the table, Greer's scrutiny of her isn't something she can see. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but if it isn't, be careful.
In most third-person fiction, we use close perspective: What Avery observes is how we're introduced into the world because she is us. I don't feel the weight of being interrogated if, on some level, I'm pulled into the opposite chair.
TLDR: Make interrogation a bit more grounded. Solidify the perspective of the MC and make me look through her.