Would police arrest on this evidence?

djunamod

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
179
Reaction score
5
Location
West Texas
Hi Everyone,
I am very new to building mysteries, but I am having a blast planning out the puzzle of my first mystery :).

I wanted some opinions, though.

First off, I am writing a historical mystery set in Northern California in 1902.

The police have a suspect for the murder of a young woman. The evidence they have against him are these:

- A pair of muddy boots where the soles match footprints made in the mud not far from where the body was found
- A letter that the victim wrote the suspect asking him to meet her at the place where the footprints were found at a certain time (the victim and suspect had a romantic relationship)
- An engagement ring that the suspect gave the victim when he proposed to her. The victim took the ring but asked for time to think about whether to accept it or not.

The theory of the police is that the suspect and victim met and that the victim refused his proposal and that he killed her.

My question is - is this enough evidence so that the police would arrest the suspect? Or would it all be considered too circumstantial for them to arrest him?

Keep in mind that this is a historical mystery so I'm not sure if police would have had more leeway to arrest suspects on circumstantial evidence than they do today.

What do you think?

Djuna
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
I am writing a historical mystery set in Northern California in 1902.
Djuna,

When I recently researched a short story involving real murders at the southern Oregon-northern California border involving a Southern Pacific train, I found in the early 1900s that railroad investigators, county sheriffs, and federal, state, and local police could and did arrest and jail for far less than the evidence you described.

Conviction by a jury was another thing, but many were also convicted on such evidence in those times.
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,519
Reaction score
22,742
Location
Aotearoa
Keep in mind that this is a historical mystery so I'm not sure if police would have had more leeway to arrest suspects on circumstantial evidence than they do today.

What do you think?
I think that if this is a key plot point, the question you should be asking is "Do you know of some primary sources I could look up to find out what the laws were at this time in this place under these circumstances?" Because you need to get it right, need to get it factually correct -- not base it on the consensus of some random peeps on the intertubes who may or may not know what they're talking about.

Notice what Chase, above, said: "When I did the research for my story..."
 
Last edited:

djunamod

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
179
Reaction score
5
Location
West Texas
Thank you for the feedback.

Unimportant: Wow. In one fell swoop, you managed to offend every single person who took the time to post to this thread, including me. You must feel real proud of yourself.

I don't appreciate the implication that people on this board are so clueless that they can't give their thoughts on something or that I am such an idiot that I don't know I need to research a historical mystery. I was asking for thoughts because I know there are many people here that have experience with writing mysteries and/or historical mysteries/novels. I am grateful for anyone who took the time to respond to this thread thoughtfully and with respect towards me and other writers. You are not on that list.

Give some of us a little credit for knowing when we need to do thorough research and when we can ask for opinions and thoughts. If you can't do that, then keep your comments to yourself.

Djuna
 
Last edited:

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,519
Reaction score
22,742
Location
Aotearoa
Unimportant: Wow. In one fell swoop, you managed to offend every single person who took the time to post to this thread, including me.
My apologies. That was certainly not my intention. I also apologise that you had to be the recipient of communications from Chase, JAR and T Robinson informing you of their offended feelings.

Give some of us a little credit for knowing when we need to do thorough research and when we can ask for opinions and thoughts. If you can't do that, then keep your comments to yourself.

Djuna
Again, I apologise. In my years on AW I have seen many, many people post threads asking for opinions on matters far more serious than a plot point -- e.g., asking for legal advice -- and likewise have seen many novice writers who were truly unaware that they needed to ensure factual accuracy for historical novels. "It's fiction, so I can make it all up" is not an uncommon belief.

I also tend to read things quite literally. So your statements of "I wanted some opinions", "I'm not sure if police would have had..." and "What do you think?" led me to believe that you had not acquired sufficient knowledge of the setting for your book and that opinions akin to "Well, it sounds believable to me" would be sufficient basis for decision-making. Obviously I misinterpreted your post, and for that I am very sorry indeed.

I assure you that I shall, as you requested, not share my opinions in future.
 

Treehouseman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
102
Although to Unimportant's credit, it might be better to ask a police officer. What is acceptable in one country/time is not acceptable in another.

As for the evidence, the only evidence is that they met before she died. Nothing says he "killed" her. It's all circumstantial. A good lawyer would get him off quickly!
 

MarkEsq

Clever title pending.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
1,139
Age
56
Location
In the wilds of Texas. Actually, the liberal oasi
I can't tell you what they would have done back then, but I can tell you that today I would not advise police to arrest on that evidence. I'm a prosecutor, so that's my job and I do like to think I know what I'm talking about. Sometimes.
 

Treehouseman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
102
In Australia you may "help police with their enquiries" for that much ;-) Its a favoured media euphemism for a visit to the station without being formally placed in custody.

Not certain what the US thing is (I've only seen TV), but down here he would certainly be interviewed to establish timelines. Mind you, if he blabs something incriminating during the interview the cops might decide to detain him on the spot.
 

heyjude

Making my own sunshine
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
19,740
Reaction score
6,192
Location
Gulf coast of FL
*mod peek in*

Everyone's behaving and knows how to ignore another member if so desired, right? Because I'm still full of pie and all sleepy and stuff, so... I don't want to be all modly and stuff.

*end mod peek in*
 

jeseymour

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
127
Age
61
Location
seacoast New Hampshire
Website
jeseymour.com
Not writing historical stuff myself, so take this with a grain of salt, but the things I have read about police work from that time (and a really good BBC documentary about police work from that time) lead me to believe that they might just arrest the guy and beat a confession out of him. That was fairly common back then.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Not writing historical stuff myself, so take this with a grain of salt, but the things I have read about police work from that time (and a really good BBC documentary about police work from that time) lead me to believe that they might just arrest the guy and beat a confession out of him. That was fairly common back then.


It depends on the country, and even on the city, but it really wasn't all that common, and usually happened only when they knew the person was guilty beyond doubt, but couldn't prove it in court for one reason or another. The other times was with very high profile crimes where pressure from above meant you needed to find a criminal fast.

The last thing police wanted to do was beat a confession out of someone, and then have the crime repeated, or the real killer show up. This meant they were usually pretty selective about when to actually beat a confession out of a suspect.
 

pdichellis

Murder! You want fries with that?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
553
Reaction score
63
Location
California, small beach city
Website
murderandfries.wordpress.com
Hi Everyone,
I am very new to building mysteries, but I am having a blast planning out the puzzle

Djuna

Creating the puzzle is one reason I enjoy writing mystery stories. I think you're in a good spot, because the evidence you've outlined arouses suspicion, but is not convincing enough for an arrest.

So your story can take whatever twist or turn you'd like: No arrest, but suspicious cops shadow the character, aggressive cops arrest him but are forced to release him and find more evidence, super aggressive cop plants one last bit of evidence (which does or does not work out), etc.

BTW, the time period in your story corresponds with the early adoption of fingerprint identification to solve crimes (Google: fingerprint history). Might make an interesting twist.

Good luck!
 

ironmikezero

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
426
Location
Haunted Louisiana
I think you may be overlooking a procedural step...

Even in the early 1900s, an arrest could only be made upon a warrant (absent an offence committed in the presence of the LE officer) issued by a court of record in the appropriate jurisdiction. That means that the investigators had to present the evidence (articulated in a sworn affidavit) in support of probable cause to the court and ask for the issuance of the warrant.

A savvy prosecutor would immediately see the weakness in the circumstantial nature of the evidence, discourage any premature filing of a probable cause affidavit, and recommend a more intensive search for more conclusive evidence.

Absent any more evidence forthcoming, the prosecutor would (if under sufficient pressure) likely present the case (all the circumstantial evidence) to a Grand Jury and let them decide to indict or not... Indictments have been returned on purely circumstantial evidence; but it's a burden for the prosecutor to mount an effective case for conviction.

Upon the return of a Grand Jury indictment, the court would issue a warrant for the person indicted. Then your character could be arrested.

Here's a link, a peek at the Grand Jury system in the early 1900s in California...

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19000826.2.84

I hope this is helpful. I agree that the research can be critically important. Of course, it's your story, but I urge you to make the effort to get the legal nuances right - it lends considerable credibility to the tale's plot. Best of Luck!