Acting Irrationally and Being Radical Doesn't Help Crime and Its Victims

by Stacy Dittrich

Last year, I received an email from an inmate in an Illinois maximum security prison who had been convicted of child murder. Of course, he was wrongly accused and told me, “you need to write my story.” In my own deranged way I was somewhat flattered that a complete stranger chose me. My first novel had just been released and I could’ve patted myself on the back and said, “Voila! I’ve finally arrived as a successful writer, now people are coming to me to write their stories!” Now, after having my eyes opened to the plethora of the strange and unusual thrown my way, I think back to that day and shudder. In fact, receiving an email from a convicted murderer is one of the simpler requests I receive. I’ve learned, undeniably, there is a large cult-like following out there in cyberspace—on the blogs, in the forums, and in the instant messages—they are the radical crime followers and victim’s advocates.

For those of us that live on the surface of reality, and whose professional lives are involved in the criminal justice system, to those who impatiently wait for the next Women in Crime Ink contributor’s novel or true crime to hit the stands, it’s merely a job or a healthy interest. But there is growing factions of bloggers, advocates, and activists that put the word “healthy” aside, and embark on a mission of hell fire to aid victims or solve a case before the cops. And, there is nothing that will stop them in completing this “mission” either.

This was a new world to me. I understood the criminals that we define by their lengthy police record. The armed robbers, burglars, rapists, vandals, thieves, and stalkers were within the realm of comprehension as a police officer. As a writer with a law enforcement background, the playing field changed drastically. I’ve spoken to several of the WCI contributors—and many others lately about this topic. After hearing their own stories, and a slight chuckle, I felt like a naïve buffoon.

All of their stories were the same as my own.

I receive many requests to “look into cases.” Some are clearly written by those that mirror L. Ron Hubbard’s affliction for aliens, but once in awhile, I come across one or two that actually read legitimate. Say for instance, I receive a well written email from a professional business person claiming to have stumbled across compelling evidence in a high profile case. Okay, I keep reading. In fact, I even decide after a lengthy criminal background check (clean as a whistle)and references that their “evidence” is solid and meet them in person. Ignoring all of the red flags I learned as a law enforcement officer—the ones that scream “Get out now! Save yourself!” I keep going. When I get to something that doesn’t make sense, this person becomes angry, irrational.

To make a long story short, this lonely person followed a high profile case, minute by minute for years. After becoming a self-proclaimed “expert” they literally formed relationships—close ones, with the family members of the victims, the suspect, and law enforcement. Now, they wanted to cash in. Throughout the entire ordeal, I kept asking myself, “Who does this? Who spends every waking minute and thousands of dollars of their own money following a case and becoming a part of it?” (Calling Pat Brown, insert profile please). The ultimate outcome was that this person had banded together with several people close to the suspect. It’s my opinion they wanted their “evidence” published into the public to throw the media attention towards someone else. It was completely foreign to me. And, the elaborate and meticulous planning of it was a little frightening.

When you look at the growing debacle of the Caylee Anthony case and those who are trying to cash in and insert themselves for fame, reassurance, or unknown reasons (Leonard Padilla) I can only imagine the wealth of at-home-super-sleuths that feverishly write law enforcement and true crime writers claiming to have the “golden ticket.” They believe their intelligence is unsurpassed. They have graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of NYPD Blue and CSI: Miami. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the cyberspace conspiracy theorists.

Granted, in my days of street patrol I would get slightly irked when someone would demand that I perform a DNA test on a broken porch light because they know for a fact it can be done—they saw it on television. When I ask them if they are willing to foot the $10,000 bill for such a test on a minor misdemeanor they quietly go inside. In cyberspace it is a far greater scale.

Then come the irrational and self-proclaimed victim’s advocates. These are the people who have known a crime victim and feel the need to speak on their behalf. This is a wonderful thing, actually. However, it’s when groups of them band together and target well known victim’s advocates who are frequently in the media, things get a little harried. If the advocate isn’t working fast enough or to their standards, they begin to blast district attorneys, blogs, news media, and forums with hate mail—sometimes violent. In their own minds they believe they are getting their voices heard. I have seen this on Facebook; some “questionable” pages are bombarded with death threats, harassment, and violent intimations—usually from the same people or groups. These people, like the "radical" crime conspiracy theorists, can’t be rationalized with—it’s their way or the highway. Try to explain a documented and legitimate fact of a case to them and all hell breaks loose.

What these radical theorists and advocates don’t realize, and clearly don’t want to hear, is that they are doing far more damage to current crime cases and victims voices than helping them.
There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way, whether or not your intentions are the same.

It’s rather unfortunate that in my own pile of emails I have received some genuine pleas for voices to be heard, but it’s the others that take up my time and cloud my vision. The family of Davina Buff Jones was one of those “genuine” pleas, and I was more than happy to spread their heart wrenching—and legitimate, story. And, a few similar ones still remain.

The Internet has allowed us to bring the world of crime to those “healthy” followers via blogs, forums, and Internet radio. Women in Crime Ink showcases a bevy of women who are “in the know,” and makes them accessible to our readers. Blogtalk Radio shows like The Dana Pretzer Show, The Levi Page Show, and my own Justice Interrupted provide a wealth of knowledge and insight to those who want to kick back, grab a glass of wine, and listen. We all have our faithful listeners who chime in from time to time and whom we look forward to seeing in our chat rooms each week. But every once in awhile . . .

To readers and listeners of blogs, most of us love controversy and heated debates, but we don’t warm too well to comments where one hopes something bad happens to one of our kids because we didn’t jump on your cause.

The cold-hearted truth is that if you have no law enforcement or criminal justice experience, chances are you didn’t figure something out that the cops weren’t aware of and they probably won't take your phone calls or emails. But, have fun blogging about your theories, that's what they're for! We all theorize on crimes, the majority of us just happen to do it rationally. Lastly, if you know a crime victim and feel that by using bully tactics you will get their voice heard louder—chances are you are hurting the one you love even more.

Try sleeping on that for awhile.

Tweet

To Write or Not to Write

by Diane Fanning

Throughout the publication of eight true crime books, I’ve heard from a lot of readers. Once in a while, I get what I consider is a slanted criticism. Some folks bash one of my books in an attempt to come to the defense of the perpetrator, telling me I am biased because I wrote that a convicted murderer is actually guilty. Other people simply do not want a book written about a particular case under any circumstances.

I collided with that reaction last week as I worked on a book about the Caylee Anthony case. I checked my inbox and found this email from Marty: “There is a rumor you have been given a contract to write a book on the Caylee Anthony story and her egg donor. Is this true?

If so, shame on you. Just another vulture profiting from this heinous crime. This poor child has not even been laid to rest and the vultures are circling. I will not purchase your books or anyone who tries to profit on the blood of sweet Caylee.”

I responded: “My objective in writing is to memorialize the victim so that all of my readers understand the great loss we as a society suffer when an innocent is killed through an act of violence. And to educate and empower my readers to limit the incidents of homicide.”

That’s when I learned why Marty was so distressed. She thought that the Anthony family would profit from my book and she suspected the family aided and abetted Casey. She was certain that I could not write about the story without the permission of the family.

That is one of the most persistent myths of true crime writing and it’s not true. When a story is news, a true crime writer, just like a newspaper or television journalist or a blogger can write about it—no permission needed.

Marty, though, did not believe me when I told her that I did not have a financial agreement with the Anthonys. Because of that, she was still angry and wrote: “Just disgusting. I intend on boycotting this particular book of yours, and any "sponsors" affiliated. I will also contact your publisher to convey my sentiments and I am gong to ask bloggers on "many" Internet sites to do the same. Get ready to be "bombarded". The public does not need you to tell us "Caylee's story".

Well, I was bombarded but not exactly as Marty imagined.

Only one other person sent a negative email. That woman wanted me to reconsider writing a book about Caylee. That’s another point where the reality of true crime writing calls the shots. I’d already signed a contract with my publisher. Once any writer signs, there is a legal obligation to produce a book. Changing your mind is not an option.

The rest of the flood of messages I received were positive—supportive not just of me but of the many other ethical people who write about crime in any medium. Stephanie’s email expressed that attitude but also praised this whole group: "I am a fan of Women in Crime Ink blog... I wanted you to know that I support your writing this book. Here's what I just recently posted:

‘This writer is a member of a fantastic group of women DEDICATED & DEVOTED to victims of crime.‘…I find it to be part of my personal integrity to financially support the work of highly devoted and ethical writers such as Diane Fanning. In other words, buying her book (or one like it that meets my standards) is my "vote" for responsible writing (and journalism) that is sensitive to the victim's sad story and attempts to explain in order to help others understand and be forewarned. I know that you would want some other family to gain insight that would prevent another precious little girl being murdered like Caylee, right? Well, only the GOOD books about this story will do so, not the shallow and sensationalized ones. And I believe D. Fanning is extremely ethical, responsible, and respectable. IMO.

‘Every time you read a news story about Caylee, someone is making money. Oh, well, news is different... No, it's not. It's just that news articles can only go so far. If you're like me, you hunt around for different sites, different articles, different authors of the articles to read about aspects of this case such as the psychology involved, about how the justice system in Florida works and is different from what I am used to, about the financial impact this case has had on the OCSO and the citizens of Orange County, about groups like TX Equusearch, about the shadiness of Kid Finders, etc., etc. Well, a book can put this all together for us and perhaps draw some well-founded conclusions and thoughts and I am looking forward to reading such a book, by such a person as is a member of Women In Crime Ink.'”

Thank you, Stephanie! I’ve always been proud to be part of this incredible group of woman, but never more than now.

Writing true crime is challenging and, at times, heartbreaking work. We are often haunted by crime scene photographs, sickened by autopsy reports, threatened with law suits and revolted by some of the people we interview.

One of the things that keeps me going are readers like Stephanie who understand that knowledge is empowering and possesses the potential for saving lives. I write true crime books because I want to understand why these crimes happen and how I can protect myself and loved ones from becoming victims--and to share that information with my readers.

In short, I write true crime because I want to make a difference.

I can't do anything for Caylee but honor her memory with my words. But I hope that what I am writing about this little girl will one day be used by someone to protect the life of another innocent child.

Tweet