Writer Karen Scioscia Discusses Her Book 'Kidnapped by the Cartel'

In our ongoing series of WCI interviews, we're talking today with Karen Scioscia, novelist, columnist and freelance writer. Her debut novel, Kidnapped by the Cartel: A Novel Inspired by a True Story, was released earlier this year. She also has a passion for acting and is a card-carrying member of the Screen Actors Guild.

Women In Crime Ink: Welcome, Karen. First of all, when did you begin writing, and what inspired you?

Karen D. Scioscia: My father was a college professor who taught English and speech until he was 83 years old. He also wrote and directed many plays. My maternal grandmother wrote a weekly column in a newspaper in Florida until her death at age 96. Writing is in my genes.

WCI: How often do you write? And how do you manage to fit in writing amidst all your other commitments? 

KS: I write whenever I can. The best times for me creatively are first thing in the morning and later in the evening. The mid-day hours are filled with so many of my other endeavors. I am also out conducting interviews during the day for my newspaper column.

WCI: In what genre do you most enjoy writing?

KS: True stories, or “based on” true stories, are my favorite. My novel, Kidnapped by the Cartel, released this year, was inspired by a true story.

WCI: You wrote the book after a family member was kidnapped and missing for 11 days. How difficult was that on your family and, eventually, for you to do research write about it?

KS: The goal was to find her and get her back. It was a harrowing experience for everyone. I was involved in the search for several days. My heart went out, after this experience, to everyone who's ever had a family member abducted. Family members encouraged me to write about this.

I found out that this was not an isolated incident. In my research, the things I was hearing were even more harrowing than what we had gone through. So, I created a character, Amanda, in my book. It's a compilation of all the different things I learned and the research I did.

WCI: What else draws you to that genre?

KS: I find people so interesting and everyone’s life is some kind of story. Some folks are just more fascinating -- good or evil -- to read about than others.

WCI: What are your current projects?

KS: I am currently writing two articles for the November edition of Mob Candy Magazine. It's a special issue focusing on women involved with the Mafia. My stories are on Mob girlfriend and courier, Virginia Hill, and Marion "Kiki" Roberts, a dancer who got herself tangled up with the wrong people.

I'm also in the beginning stages of an exciting novel about terrorism and the container shipping industry. The research part is fun and challenging. I also write a weekly column for the Charlotte Observer and I'm a contributor to Yahoo.com. I'm working on budgeting my time!

WCI: What has been the reaction to your book from readers?

KS: I’ve had a very favorable response. The book was on Amazon’s “Hot List of New Books” the first week it came out. Readers have said things like, “I couldn’t help but feel the pain and horror the parents felt when searching for their daughter,” “great attention to detail,” and “I highly recommend this book.”

WCI: What are two of your favorite books, and why?

KS: Tough question to answer since I have so many books I like a lot, but I’d have to say Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is one of my all-time favorites. So interesting and thought provoking, it was difficult for me to put down. I like almost anything by the late, great Nora Ephron. She had the ability to make you laugh and think at the same time.

WCI: What are your writing plans for the future?

KS: I enjoy writing books, so I’ll be working on another one. I intend to keep up my newspaper column, plus Yahoo.com, and I’m thinking of taking a screenwriting class.

You can learn more about Karen Scioscia on her website by clicking here. Her book, Kidnapped by the Cartel, can be ordered here.

Tweet

On Land or on Water

by Pat Brown

Women in Crime Ink contributor Dr. Lillian Glass recently wrote a post concerning her belief that Tiffany Hartley, the wife of missing jet skier, David Hartley, has not been telling the truth concerning his disappearance on Falcon Lake on the Texas-Mexico border. Peter Hyatt, a statement analyst, also came out early on with his dissection of Hartley's comments and has said she is being deceptive. Many people have noted something seems wrong with Tiffany's "story," as she calls her version of the event. However, quite a few people, including the Texas authorities, believe she is telling the truth. I won't recount all the details and deceptions here; I want to focus on where I think the event occurred.

I believe she is telling the truth... sort of. She is describing the murder of her husband by drug dealers. She says she did not have any reason to want to kill her husband. I believe her. I just don't believe she is telling the truth about where the event went down. This could be why some of her story rings true and parts of it make no sense. This could also be why certain "facts" change. She may want us to believe her story, so she tries to make it as convincing as possible, fixing things a bit as time goes on without giving up the whole truth. If she is being deceptive, she may be trying to save herself from the inside of a jail cell.

Sometimes when people lie about a tragic crime, which they are guilty of committing or having some sort of involvement in, they change the time it happened or the location of where it happened to eliminate themselves. I think Tiffany may be doing this. I think the murder occurred and Tiffany escaped, but I think the whole thing may have gone down on the shore and not on the lake. I think no boats came after them, just men. Replace the "water" with "land," and "boats" with "men," and see if her story doesn't now seem to make a whole lot more sense.

I had problems with her story. but it all came together for me with Tiffany's recent emphatic statement that her husband's body would be found on land. Why would it be found on land if he were shot on the water? Why wouldn't the cartel just get the heck out of Dodge as soon as they committed the crime? On water, they would be out in the open where they could be seen if they wasted time retrieving his body and trying to trail his jet ski behind their boat or riding off on it. Most bodies are just left where they go down if time is limited to deal with. The only reason Tiffany should be so sure the body is on land is because that is where she saw it last and it makes sense for the killers to then go bury or burn the body, because they have it right there with them in Mexican territory. The jet ski would be right there on their shore, and it makes sense they would then hide it or paint it and sell it.

Tiffany doesn't seem to be very mad at her husband's murderers. She stated on "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" that "we just want David back. And maybe they can't provide a body, I don't know. But they can provide something of evidence... And then we'll go away." Really? You will just leave them alone and not seek justice even though they brutally killed your husband and destroyed your life? Tiffany keeps saying she just wants the body back so she can "move on" and they can "move on." She wants them to be able to go back to dealing drugs and murdering people? How generous! I guess as long as she gets proof he is dead, the insurance money will come in and she can "move on," even if only a couple of weeks have gone by. And why would anyone be so naive as to think a drug cartel would give up evidence that could lead to them, especially one that just sent the head of the lead investigator back in a suitcase? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Because they want Tiffany and David's family to have closure? Unlikely.

By the way, Tiffany and David don't look a bit Mexican, so mistaken identity is not a motive. I doubt the cartels would shoot just anyone, just in case, and bring unnecessary attention to themselves.

So, on to where the murder occurred. When they were leaving the "area," men waved at them. This happens when you are being friendly or saying good-bye, not when you are about to go gun down people. Tiffany also recounts having conversations with the killers, over the sounds of the jet skis and boats and gunshots. It sounds more like parties involved are toe to toe, not bouncing around on the water. Sometime in the scenario, David Hartley gets shot in the forehead, according to Tiffany's story, but that she did not know he was shot in the head until she turned over his body, which had been face down in the water (also, she used two fingers and pointed to her forehead on television when describing the shot that killed him). She commented on how the killers got so close to her she found herself looking down the barrel of a gun. All of these descriptions sound like an encounter one might experience during a drug transaction gone bad... on land.

After David gets shot, Tiffany tries to lift him "onto the jet ski," but he is too heavy. If she tried to get him to his feet on land, he would be too heavy as well. She asks him, "What should I do? What should I do?" I think he would tell her to run, and I would guess she would run to her jet ski and take off and not look back until she was far enough away to take a chance on checking to see if they were following her.

Another fascinating statement Tiffany makes is that she would take a bullet for David because he took one for her. How is that? If they were both simply trying to outrun shooters, wouldn't he just have been the unlucky schmuck who got hit? He wouldn't have done anything spectacular, like trying to save Tiffany. But, on land, maybe he did step in front of her to protect her and got shot. And maybe the reason Tiffany got away was that three men were not shooting at her with machine guns, just one man with a handgun whose clip ran out giving her time to flee.

Those three boats were more likely three men. If one takes the whole scenario and moves it from the water to the land, the way it went down starts to add up. Try it.

Tweet