Tag Archives: Crime

MERRY CHRISTMAS & WHATSUP FOR 2019 WITH GARRY RODGERS’ WRITING

First off, a very Merry Christmas to each and every one of you. And if you’re offended by the “C” word, I’m not sorry. I’m actually offended by the politically and culturally correct crowd who can’t say Christmas. Having worked in different levels of government, I’ve experienced these onion skins. I don’t know what makes these twits tick, but how anyone gets upset by hearing “Christmas” seriously baffles me. For example, some idiot city councilor in Victoria, British Columbia near my home recently got his knickers knotted because somebody gave him a potted poinsettia and he made a big deal because that was too close to Christianity for him. “F” him, I say.

Enough of that rant. So, 2018 was a busy writing year for me, though you wouldn’t know it by the sheer number of books I didn’t publish. This was a swing time where I did an enormous amount of research for forthcoming projects. I also wrote a pile of commercial website content pieces for my daughter’s writing agency. And, from time to time, I managed to pen a few blog posts. But most of this year was prepping for whatsup in 2019. Here’s what’s about to happen with Garry Rodgers and the DyingWords brand in the coming year.

The biggest news—by far—is that Adam Croft is taking me on as a personal understudy. If you don’t know who Adam is, he’s one of the world’s top-selling crime & psychological thriller writers. At one point in 2018, Adam Croft held the #1 best-selling spot on all of Amazon, right ahead of JK Rowling. Adam will work with me on all parts of my indie writing business from craft to marketing. This will take my writing career to an entirely new level, and I am absolutely honored to be one of five select students Adam will tutor.

Another interesting venture is entering the CBC Books 2019 Short Story Competition. My piece is The Old Stone Butter Church. It’s inspired by an epiphany experienced inside an abandoned 140-year-old stone church on southern Vancouver Island. The first prize is 6-grand in cash plus a 2-week writing residency at the prestigious Banff Center for Fine Arts. Wish me luck. The coin will help offset Adam’s fee for tolerating me.

The Lindsay Buziak murder is one of Canada’s highest-profile unsolved homicides. It’s also one of the most solvable, given the circumstances. Someone knows something and they’ll eventually talk – as long as the suspect tree shakes. Eleven years ago, Lindsay was a vibrant 24-year-old Victoria, B.C. real estate agent stabbed to death while showing a vacant high-end house. There is no doubt Lindsay Buziak’s death was a planned killing and the case is as murky as a pail of used engine oil. The suspect list reaches from her beefcake boyfriend at the scene, his mother, one of Lindsay’s closest friends, into an international organized crime cartel, and upward to the highest levels of a corrupt government scandal. This year I’m helping to shake the suspect tree with a proposed book on the case facts called Someone Knows Something – The Shocking Story of Lindsay Buziak’s Unsolved Murder.

I’m almost finished the manuscript for Sun Dance – Why Custer Really Lost the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This started 2 years ago with a root cause analysis for a blog post. I found an angle to one of the most researched and written-about North American historical events that no one seems to have dug into. That’s the psychological impact Chief Sitting Bull’s sun dance ceremony had on psyching his warriors to annihilate the U.S. 7th Cavalry in 1876. It covers the events leading to, during, and the fallout after this famous event. I’m out of the rabbit hole now and will shop Sun Dance to traditional publishers.

Continuing on my based-on-true crime books like In The Attic and Under The Ground, I’m 2/3 of the way through the manuscript for From The Shadows. It’s about a family of 6 — 3 generations — who were savagely murdered with their bodies concealed. It resulted in one of Canada’s most-encompassing homicide investigations. From The Shadows should be ready for indie publishing in the spring of 2019. If anyone’s interested in a free advanced reading copy (ARC) in digital form, give me a shout.

Next up for 2019 are two more based-on-true crime books where I was involved in the investigations. One is On The Floor which is about the most cold-blooded execution murders I ever saw. The husband and wife owners of a gun store were robbed of a horde of assault weapons and handguns, then laid on the floor and shot in the back of their heads. On The Floor follows the investigation through the biker world and the Asian drug triads before ending in an extraordinary gunfight with the perpetrators. Watch for On The Floor in the summer of 2019.

Beside The Road is next in line. It should be ready in 2019’s fall. Carrying on in the based-on-true crime theme, this story captures a bizarre case where we found a decomposing body down a bank beside a road. This case ticked off all the forensic investigative aid boxes before identifying who it was and the one-in-a-million cause of death. Beside The Road is the weirdest homicide I ever experienced.

If there’s time left, I have a bunch of working titles on the list. There’s no material shortage out there and it makes for great based-on-true crime stories like By The Book, At The Cottage, Behind The Badge, Off The Grid, and Through The Ice. Realistically, these are 2020 or 2021 undertakings because of another previous project taking shape from a 2018 effort.

This year I developed an outline for a screenplay. It’s suitable for a 10-part series, and it’s based on an emotion-evoking true crime investigation I headed. The working title is The Battered Woman. It follows the path of a battered wife’s fight against “the system” after she repeatedly shot her passed-out husband and evoked the battered woman syndrome defense. We’ll see where this goes.

That’s a wrap on an ambitious agenda. I still plan on doing a blog post every second Saturday morning and will keep experimenting with topics. It seems my pieces on analyzing high-profile events are the most popular. However, I have a few interesting guests in the lineup for interviews. Stay tuned to find out who.

Merry Christmas, everyone! May you have more Christmas eats and drinks than humanly healthy. May you have good Christmas times with great friends around you. And may my books make you sleep with one eye open—at 3 am on Christmas morning—when Billy Ray slips down from your attic with his ax.

~Garry

THE MOTHER FROM HELL—MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY

If I’d mention “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy”, you’d likely have no idea what I was talking about. That’s understandable—I certainly didn’t when I heard it, and I’m not making this up. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, or MSbP, is a rare and real form of child abuse where a caregiver intentionally inflicts harm on a helpless dependent in order to gain perverted attention towards themselves. It’s a grievous crime, and sometimes MSbP turns deadly. No, I’d never heard of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Not until I investigated the Mother From Hell.

It was 1993 when I met the Mother From Hell—twenty years before Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy was officially designated as a serious psychiatric affliction in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Edition 5 (DSM-5). Technically, MSbP is categorized as Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA) which is a recognized form of medical child abuse. You’ll also hear this crazy condition called Factitious Disorder by Proxy (FDbP) and Malingering Stimulation of Disease (MSoD). No matter what term, premeditating to put one’s own child in medical peril is a sick, sadistic and heinous crime.

Before getting into details on what Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy involves, who the stereotypical offenders are and what the medico-legal ramifications are, let me tell you how this investigation went from confusingly bad to uncontrollably worse. It’s a classic case of how a poorly-understood subject gets manipulated by the “system” and fails to protect those unable to protect themselves—especially from monsters like the Mother From Hell.

Our Serious Crimes Section got a call from the British Columbia Childrens Hospital in Vancouver, Canada reporting a suspected case of child abuse involving Liza Nellis and her two-year-old daughter, Mariana. (Names changed to prevent me from getting sued over this case—again.) Allegedly, BC Childrens Hospital medical staff caught Liza Nellis in the act of intentionally choking little Mariana to unconsciousness.

I’m the poor bastard who got the police file.

Obviously, I’d never heard of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, let alone how to pronounce it. Neither had any of my detective colleagues. Nor was anyone in the prosecutors’ office and in the regular medical community familiar with this devious derangement. It was only one young pediatrician at Childrens Hospital who’d recently attended a child abuse seminar where this extremely rare psychiatric and criminal disorder came up.

The first part of any criminal investigation always involves establishing the basic case facts. Liza Nellis had a continuous history of medical complaints involving her two adopted children. One was Marianna, a toddler. The other was her older brother, four-year-old Michael. Both children were adopted from Honduras as part of a Christian Baptist placement program. Kerry Nellis, the adoptive father and Liza’s legally married husband, was a commercial fisherman and absent for long periods. For the most part, Liza Nellis was raising the two children on her own.

Criminal suspicion of child abuse within the Nellis family simmered slowly. For approximately one year, a pattern emerged where Liza Nellis reported apnea (breathing interruption events) happening with Mariana. Her family doctor and a pediatrician specialist documented the same thing had happened with the older Nellis child. Michael seemed to grow out of breath-lapse episodes once he turned three and was able to talk. Now the same pattern was occurring with the younger Nellis girl—Mariana.

The family doctor and pediatrician couldn’t find any medical cause for either Michael or Mariana’s distress. To them, both children appeared normal and healthy. These medical professionals told Liza that Mariana would also grow out of it and not to worry. Liza, the Mother From Hell, refused to take no for an answer. She started taking Mariana into the regional hospital’s emergency department on a regular basis.

The local ER folks also noticed an emerging pattern. All of Mariana’s apnea, or stop-breathing incidents, occurred out of the hospital and were only witnessed by her mother. An ER-doc consulted with the family physician, both finding the case history peculiar but not necessarily alarming. To them, Liza Nellis appeared the epitome of the perfect mother.

Many other people in the community also thought Nellis was an angel. By anyone’s standards, she was attractive—impeccably dressed and groomed. Liza Nellis was highly educated with a nursing degree and possessed a concert-quality pianist gift with a choir voice. She was a pillar in her Baptist church where she taught Sunday School as well as providing piano lessons to troubled teens. But, it was well-known that Liza and Kerry Nellis were childless on their own. It made perfect sense that someone as apparently selfless like Liza Nellis would step up to the admirable task of adopting foreign orphans.

Mariana’s apparent distress escalated to an episode where Liza Nellis called 911 reporting her daughter was unconscious and not breathing. Attending ambulance attendants arrived at the Nellis home to find Mariana awake after Liza reportedly performed CPR to revive her. Out of caution, the EM responders transported Mariana straight to the regional hospital where the staff made a critical decision. Based on the history, they transferred Mariana to the specialists at Childrens Hospital. Liza Nellis insisted on accompanying Mariana—dutifully staying at her daughter’s side at all times.

Mariana Nellis underwent exhaustive tests at Children’s Hospital. Some were invasive and uncomfortable, especially for a two-year-old. Like the regional hospital professionals, the specialists at Childrens found nothing wrong with Mariana. They directed her discharge despite Liza reporting several more apnea episodes while only Liza was in the room with her uncommunicative little girl.

Then it happened. Liza was alone in the private ward with Mariana when a hospital worker suddenly walked in on them. “What are you doing?” the worker screamed. She’d caught Liza Nellis with her fingers pinching Mariana’s nose and her hand cupping the wee girl’s mouth. A started Nellis let go and stammered an excuse that her daughter went into another acute apnea episode and she was beginning CPR. “That’s not how you do CPR!”, the worker said. “You’ll kill her doing that!”

That set off alarms inside Childrens Hospital. The staff began comparing notes, and another worker reported also finding Liza Nellis in a suspicious position. A young pediatrician clicked into the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy scenario and a collective medical team began taking a close look into the case history. Without question, the only apnea episodes occurred when Liza Nellis was alone with Mariana. And, a close physical exam on Mariana found petechial hemorrhages in Mariana’s eyes—those tiny blood spots associated with suffocation. To them, this was conclusive evidence of foul play. Someone had intentionally choked Mariana Nellis. The only logical suspect was her mother.

Out of extreme caution, management at Childrens Hospital placed a guard in Mariana’s room while they contacted authorities. First was the Child Protection Agency who took emergency intervention by seizing custody of Mariana and prohibiting Liza’s contact with her daughter. Then they called the cops. As fate goes, that involved me.

With Marina under protection and Liza Nellis at arms-length, there was time to do a cautious and careful investigation—or so I thought. This was new ground for me as well as the other multidisciplinary team members. All of us had a hard time getting our heads around why an apparently model mother would intentionally harm her child. So, we started a two-pronged investigative approach. One was to interview witnesses. The other was reviewing medical records.

Witnesses included the staff at Childrens Hospital, the regional hospital, the family physician and a specialist pediatrician who initially assessed and monitored both Nellis children. There was no question, according to the Childrens Hospital witnesses, that Liza Nellis had been caught choking Mariana with physical evidence corroborating it. The regional staff was suspicious, but they deferred to the pattern of reports as recorded on hospital charts. The family doctor was ambivalent. He was old, ready to retire and really didn’t want any part of a criminal matter.

The specialist pediatrician, however, was a piece of work. She was downright hostile. Her only statement was, “I can’t believe any mother would intentionally harm her own child!” I had to get a search warrant to get her medical records on the Nellis family to which she tried to get a Supreme Court quash. It didn’t work. But, by the time I wrested the files from her cold hands, I’d learned that both the pediatrician and Liza Nellis were friends and leading members in their Baptist church congregation.

The medical record review team did an admirable job. They amassed a spreadsheet and graphs that conclusively established a clear pattern where Liza Nellis—and only Liza Nellis—was present when Mariana’s incidents allegedly occurred. There were no independent witnesses to innocent occurrences, and nothing whatsoever to indicate anything but direct involvement by Liza Nellis. It was time to bring Liza Nellis in and confront her.

At this point, there was no need to arrest the Mother From Hell. Sure, we had a decent circumstantial case, but what we really needed was her confession. For that, we had a game plan. We knew it wouldn’t be easy if we wanted to get an inculpatory statement that was admissible in court.

I phoned Liza Nellis, asking her to come into the police office for an interview. We made an appointment, and she was punctual. She also brought along her husband, Kerry Nellis. The pair couldn’t have been nicer. I explained the situation and read Liza Nellis her rights. “No need for a lawyer,” she said. “I haven’t done anything wrong. All I want is what’s best for the child.”

“The child.” “The child?” That statement hit me between the horns. Now, at this time, I had two little kids of my own—Emily and Alan. In my life, I’d never referred to either Emily or Alan as “The child”. This showed me some kind of emotional detachment from a parental instinct, regardless if the kids were adopted. No, something was wrong here. Seriously wrong.

As with every controlled criminal interview (I try to avoid the interrogation-word), I video and audio recorded Lisa Nellis’ time with me. I methodically laid out the information, evidence if you’d like to call it, and asked for her responses. Often, she’d tear-up and defer to her husband who held her on a high-horse pedestal as to how anyone could think this beautiful person could do such a horrid thing.

That wasn’t the question. The question was how to get Liza Nellis into a denial box where she had no option but to uphold her honor. For help, I turned to the Behavioral Science Unit and our polygraph section. They’d reviewed every bit of information including the psychological profile we’d amassed on Liza Nellis.

The profile portrayed Lisa Nellis as a prima donna. She’d spent a lifetime grooming a persona of perfection establishing her surface perception as beyond approach. Her husband bought it. Her church bought it. But her in-laws didn’t buy it one bit. We uncovered a nasty culture within Lisa Nellis’s inner life where her blood relatives didn’t exist. She’d long been ostracized from her birth family, and the extended Nellis side saw right through her. They viewed Liza as a despicable bitch constantly striving to be the center of attention.

My interview with Liza Nellis ended in a stalemate—exactly where we wanted it. It ended with my invitation for her to take a polygraph examination. Kerry Nellis was quick to the mark. “What about her accusers taking a polygraph?” We were a step ahead. We’d already polygraphed the Childrens Hospital eyewitness and the one who saw something suspicious. That cut the Nellis’ off at the knees.

We were ready to go with the polygraph. I have no doubt Kerry Nellis was totally sucked in with his wife’s “innocence”. We explained that polygraph procedure required an attentive subject and, unlike the structured interview, Kerry Nellis would have to wait in the lobby while we polygraphed Liza. Now, she was trapped between a rock and a hard place.

Lisa Nellis peaked the points, as they say in the polygraph biz. On one the key questions— regarding if she’d intentionally harmed Mariana in order to instigate medical reports—Liza Nellis nailed it. She was so clearly deceptive that the polygraphist didn’t have to do a quantitative scoring. He moved in for the interrogation kill.

To make a long story short, Liza Nellis confessed in the “post-test interview”. She admitted to prolonged and systematic injury infliction, not just to Mariana, but to Michael as well. It was an emotional, sob-filled breakdown we call “venting the tank”. That’s where a guilty subject releases pent-up stress. It usually comes with a full confession providing corroborative verification that they’re truthful.

In homicide cases, corroboration is often leading cops to the body and/or the murder weapon. It’s also revealing corroborative evidence like other witnesses who know something. But, that wasn’t the case with the Mother From Hell. There was no body, no smoking gun and no independent witnesses. We knew that and had another angle planned for corroborating her confession.

After Liza Nellis confessed, we brought in her husband. Our plan was to have Liza repeat to Terry exactly what she said to us—how she’d committed countless counts of child abuse on their kids. We assumed she’d been broken and would be truthful. That was a giant mistake.

There are laws about privileged communication. Sacred is lawyer-client communication. There’s no way the state can listen into a lawyer and client conspiring about defense strategy. Nor, can the state eavesdrop on wife-husband conversations like what Liza was about to tell Kerry Nellis in that private post-confession room.

Kerry Nellis came out swinging. Not only did Liza tell him the cops forced her into a false confession, she accused the polygraphist of coming on to her. There was no way of rationally dealing with how fast she turned the tables. It was out of control, and we had one decision. That was to arrest Liza Nellis… or let her go.

As far as we were concerned, we had admissible evidence of Liza Nellis committing serious indictable offenses—repeatedly assaulting her two-year-old daughter to the point of endangering her life. We could have legally held her and thrown her in jail. But we’d bide our time, deciding to let her go, present our evidence to the Attorney General’s prosecutor and ask for an indictment. Then, we’d let the courts sort it out.

The courts never settled it. The Mother From Hell went on an offensive rampage invoking the power of the church, the muscle of special-interest activists and the reach of mainstream media who love a controversial story, despite the plight of innocent and abused children. I was turned into the demon.

Before I tell you how this sad situation finally played out, let’s look at Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP) from a clinical and symptomatic angle. Factitious Disorder Inflicted on Another (FDIA), or Pediatric Condition Falsification (PCF), is rare. Really rare. According to the Cleveland Clinic which is a leading authority on MSbP, FDIA, PCF or however you want to acronym it, happens to 2 in 100,000 American children. Most are younger than 4 because of their vulnerable inability to tell what’s happening to them.

Here are more statistics on Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The DataCenter records there are 20 million kids in America under 4 years old. That means about 400 American children suffer abuse related to dangerous people like the Mother From Hell. And the Open Medicine Journal says that mothers are the big MSbP offenders, not fathers. Studies show 93% of MSbP offenders are female. Why? No one seems to know.

You’re probably wondering where the name “Munchausen” originated. The disorder dates back to 1700s Germany where Baron Karl Friedrich von Munchausen was diagnosed as a notorious liar and fabricator of fictitious exploits and exaggerated injuries. The Munchausen name stuck as a syndrome for people making up their own illnesses. It extended to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, those who make up illnesses about others—including cases like the Mother From Hell who intentionally harm their kids for self-attention.

Deferring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5), the official designation is now Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA). It’s no longer Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, however, many still call it Munchausen’s. Here are the official DSM-5 criteria for diagnosing FDIA:

  1. Falsification of psychological or physical signs or symptoms, or induction of disease or injury in another, associated with identified deception.

  2. The individual presents another individual (victim) to others as injured, ill, or impaired.

  3. The deceptive behavior is apparent even in the absence of external incentives.

  4. The behavior is not better explained by another mental disorder.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Munchausen’s or FDIA is any case where “the patient’s caregiver fabricates the signs or symptoms of the disease or complaint in question. It accompanies seemingly inexplicable findings or treatment failures”. The AAP lists five leading examples of MSbP/FDIA:

  1. A mother taking her child to the doctor for frequent evaluations of sexual abuse, despite the absence of objective evidence or credible abuse history.

  2. A mother insisting her child be treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder although there is no evidence to make the diagnosis.

  3. A mother starving her child while claiming multiple food allergies.

  4. A mother reporting hematologic disorders after intentionally bruising her child.

  5. A mother purposely suffocating her child and deceptively claiming sleep apnea.

Returning to the Cleveland Clinic report on MSbP/FDIA, there are common characteristics that offenders display and warning signs evident for those trained to recognize them. In no particular order, they include:

  1. The offender is, or appears, medically knowledgeable and clearly articulates symptoms.

  2. The offender is reluctant to leave their child’s side during examination and treatment.

  3. The offender appears unusually calm in the face of apparently serious difficulties.

  4. The offender is insistent of medical intervention including seeking second opinions.

  5. The offender is, or has been, employed in the healthcare industry.

  6. The offender has other children with similarly reported difficulties.

  7. The offender has distant relationships with extended family members.

  8. The offender becomes highly defensive when their reports are challenged.

  9. The offender seeks external support with religious or social activist groups.

  10. The offender resorts to media attention as a defense mechanism when confronted.

*   *   *

Okay, back to what eventually happened with the Mother From Hell. We filed criminal charges against Liza Nellis. There’s no specific offense for committing “Munchausen by Proxy” so the most-fitting law was a blanket count of assault causing bodily harm pertaining to Mariana. After a preliminary hearing (like a Grand Jury procedure), Nellis was indicted to stand trial.

Meanwhile, another hearing took place. That was a custody matter regarding both Nellis children. By this time, it was a media circus instigated by Liza Nellis and a loyal band of special interest supporters. The Baptist Church congregation picked the courthouse and lobbied the police chief. He gave them the obstruction of justice option. The friendly local pediatrician rallied the medical community who, in turn, took on the legal system… and the political one, too.

Vancouver radio and TV talk shows gave the Nellis case high priority by dragging my name and my colleagues’ as low as could go. Then there was newspapers and op-eds. Thankfully, this was the days before online social media or I would have been really in-famous.

The “system” buckled under the force of special “mis-interest” pressure. The prosecutor’s knees bent and he folded. He’d had a second look at the evidence, he said, and now felt there was little likelihood of convicting Liza Nellis. He felt her confession wouldn’t stand the admissibility of evidence test at trial—even though the preliminary hearing court had no issues with it after watching the post-polygraph interview recording.

It was the prosecutor’s decision that there was no public interest in prosecuting Nellis, and he withdrew the charge. Later I learned the true direction came from the Attorney General’s office. Who knows what led them to jump ship. Liza Nellis was free from criminal court jurisdiction, but she had one more hurdle. That was regaining custody of her kids.

With criminal proceedings stopped, the family courts reassessed their position. Forgetting that he’d watched the Nellis confession, listened to the Childrens Hospital witnesses and now seeing the crowded courtroom of supportive faces, the family court judge ruled the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy “theory” was unsubstantiated evidence based on the balance of probabilities. He returned Michael and Mariana to Liza Nellis, wishing her Godspeed and good fortune.

About six weeks went by after the end of criminal and family court matters. Then I got a call to drop by the Sheriff’s office. “Sorry to do this to you,” the Deputy said as he served me the summons. Liza Nellis sued me for defamation and harassment. Now I was the one facing court.

The civil court case dragged over two years. First, it was filing motions and then my statement of defense. I wasn’t singled-out, though. Nellis also sued the polygraphist, the police department and the witnesses at Childrens Hospital. She made a run for the prosecutor’s throat, but he was protected by a point in law.

We went through the examination for discovery process during the civil lawsuit. During it, we played the damming confession video and filed the graphs and the charts and the witness statements and the expert opinion evidence linking Liza Nellis’ documented behavior as a classic case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. She was the poster girl of the Mother From Hell.

And finally, it stopped. I was told the police force settled out of court. How much Nellis got, I don’t know. That was a matter of non-disclosure, but I suspect it was hefty. My bills were covered as I’d been sued while in an act of duty. One-by-one, the other defendants settled their civil case with Liza Nellis and it was finally over.

*   *   *

Moving forward five years. One day, I was off duty and at a playground with my kids. They were about 12 and 10 by now, and integrating with another girl and boy about their ages, as children do. I was at a picnic table. It was a sunny fall day, and I was enjoying watching the four kids laugh, squeal and delight with each other.

Then… the mood changed. Something was wrong here. Seriously wrong. You know that feeling you get when someone’s watching you and wanting to kill? That neck-hair-stand, spine-shiver, gut-creep thing like a cross between fingernails-on-blackboard and an embedded-tapeworm shocked from deep sleep? I turned. And there she was—at the next table—firing eye-daggers straight at my soul.

It was the Mother From Hell.

SECRETS OF WRITING BESTSELLING CRIME THRILLERS WITH SUE COLETTA

Every once in a while a bright star emerges—no matter what writing galaxy you’re in. But, they’re never overnight stellars. They’re self-made products with years in craft study, committed practice, unswerving belief in themselves, refusal to give up and respectful networking with humble appreciation. And a few have God-given talent. They make it all work. That’s the secret successful combination bestselling author Sue Coletta tells you about in her travel toward the top of the crime thriller genre.

I met Sue Coletta three years ago—just before her first published book. Sue shipped me a draft of MARRED for my thoughts. I was a page in and stopped. I backed up. Read it again. And I thought, My God! Can this writer write! Today, Sue and I are professional colleagues and personal friends. I watch her progress with awe.

In a short span, Sue Coletta’s produced five fantastic novels and several stand-alones. She’s slain story structure, captured book marketing and mastered social media. Through her plotting, penning and promoting, Sue’s stayed down-to-earth and kept her wicked sense of humor. And despite demands, Sue Coletta still makes time to selflessly share her secrets of writing bestselling crime thrillers—Sue was silly enough to drop in for a DyingWords chat.

*   *   *

Hey, Sue! Great having you back in the DyingWords shack. *locks door* What a coincidence—it happens to jive with the release of your new crime thriller, SCATHED, the Grafton County Series, Book #3. I just finished a non-stop SCATHED read, and I gotta say, “Wow!” I didn’t think it possible to exceed your other novels, but you’re becoming a better writer all the time. *disconnects phone* Tell us about SCATHED. *draws curtains* What’s in it? How’d it come to be?

What’s SCATHED about?

On a picturesque fall morning in Grafton County, New Hampshire, a brutal murder rocks the small town of Alexandria. In the backyard of a weekend getaway cabin, a dead woman is posed in red-satin, with two full-bloomed roses in place of eyes.

In her hand she holds a mysterious envelope addressed to Sheriff Niko Quintano. Inside, Paradox vows to kill again if his riddle isn’t solved within 24 hours.

With so little time and not enough manpower, Niko asks his wife for help. But Crime Writer Sage Quintano is dealing with her own private nightmare. Not only did she find massive amounts of blood on the mountain where she and her family reside, but a phone call from the past threatens her future—the creepy mechanical voice of John Doe, the serial killer who murdered her twin sister.

Together, can Niko and Sage solve the riddle in time to save the next victim? Or will the killer win this deadly game of survival?

—   —   —

The book description doesn’t match the initial story idea. It all started with the Tim McGraw song, “Live Like You Were Dying.” All writers have a weird and wonderful way of coming up with story ideas. This post gives readers a peek into my thought process for SCATHED. Which made perfect sense to me at the time. Not sure anyone who reads the post would agree, but it all worked out in the end.

You flesh your characters so well. In SCATHED, you put Sage and Niko through the wringer, and Paradox is quite the enigma. Your plotting is outstanding. I’m not going to do a spoiler alert about the finale, but I did not see that coming. How do you do such a good job of character and plot building?

I studied story structure for years, and I put that knowledge to work. Here’s a quick overview of the milestones all stories must hit in order to work, regardless of genre …

Hook: Open the novel with a bang. In other words, hook the reader and don’t let go. Force them to flip the page, then the next, and the next after that. The hook is something that creates a question the reader wants answered; doesn’t need context with protagonist’s needs or stakes.

Inciting Incident (optional, but I include it): Game-changing event occurring during Part 1, often leading to a decision at the First Plot Point.

First Plot Point (20% – 25% into the novel): The most important moment in the story, because it kicks off the quest. Something forces the protagonist to act.

First Pinch Point (about 37.5% into the novel): Reminder of the story’s antagonist, not filtered by narrative or protagonist’s description, but directly visible to the reader.

Midpoint (at 50%): New information or awareness that changes the experience or understanding of context for the protagonist and/or reader; a catalyst activating new decisions/actions.

Second Pinch Point (at roughly 62.5%): Reminder of the story’s antagonist, as the antagonist ups the game against the protagonist’s attacks.

All is Lost Moment (optional): A slower paced, all-hope-is-lost lull before the Second Plot Point, where the protagonist feels gutted.

Second Plot Point (placed at 75%): The final injection of new information into the story (doesn’t need to be fully understood by the protagonist yet); protagonist’s quest is accelerated.

As for characterization, the best advice I can give is to slip into your character’s skin. Know your character as well as yourself, then ask three questions …

What’s their public persona? (1st dimension of character; the face they show to the world)

How do they act with friends and family? (2nd dimension of character; the face they show to those closest to them)

If they were trapped in a movie theatre during a fire, would they elbow their way through the crowd, or would they help others escape the blaze? (3rd dimension of character; their true character — who they are when the shit hits the fan.)

This is called the three dimensions of character. By fleshing out these questions, we’re able to create living, breathing human beings, with hopes, fears, worldviews, religious beliefs, phobias, dreams, plans for the future, etc. We don’t show all these things of course, but we should still know the answers. I even listen to their favorite music to help get into character.

No doubt you’ve got a Grafton County Series #4 in mind. What’s happening on that front?

Book 4 is all planned out. It’s sitting on the back burner to cool while I finish writing Silent Mayhem, Mayhem Series, Book 3.

Okay. Let’s talk shop, and hear some crafty wisdom from crime writer Sue Coletta. I know you’re a big plotster rather than a pantster. Tell us about your story structure philosophy.

Whoops. Jumped the gun on this question. It’s answered above.

“Point of View”. We could go on all day about POV techniques. I see you used two POVs in SCATHED. Sage Qunitano, your protagonist, is in 1st, and the other POV characters are in 3rd. How did you get the combination to work so well?

Point of View is another style choice. I’ve always written my stories with dueling protagonists, so it’s become second nature. The main squeeze, so to speak, I write in 1st person. The others I write in deep 3rd. How do I get the combination to work? Practice makes perfect. Hahaha.

Okay, serious answer… By narrowing my focus to one POV character per scene — which is a writing “rule” — I experience their surroundings as if I’m inside their body. Anything they can’t hear, see, taste, smell, feel, must go. No exceptions. When we ground the reader in the character’s point of view, it doesn’t matter if we write in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or a combination of all three. They’ll go along for the ride.

While we’re on the POV subject, you use a lot of what’s called “Deep Point of View”. Tell us how you pull that off.

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

What’s your thoughts about how important “Show vs Tell” is? After all, most people would say you actually tell a story rather than show it.

Actually, we show and tell a story. Showing comes into play when we write from one character’s perspective and only one character’s perspective per scene. A new scene means we can switch to a different character’s perspective as long as we remain consistent. I should add, it’s best not to have too many POV characters to avoid confusion. I usually limit mine to three, rotating the POV characters between chapters to create a rhythm to the overall story.

Telling also has its place in a story. If we showed each and every detail, the final page count would grow exponentially. Let’s say we need to transition through time. After all, if nothing interesting happens, then there’s no need to bore the reader.

Example: Three hours later, I was on my knees in the driveway, scrubbing blood off the bumper of my 1967 Corvette.

Voice. I think your voice is so strong in your writing. How would you describe “Voice”, and how do you know when you’ve found it?

*blush* Thank you. Voice is one of those elusive things that’s almost impossible to define. A writer’s voice is as unique as their fingerprints. Voice is the combination of syntax, diction, punctuation, dialogue, sentence rhythm, and character development across their entire body of work. Just as a flute doesn’t sound like a clarinet, neither does one writer from another.

But it’s more than that.

By remaining true to our characters in dialogue as well as in the narrative, by our use of syntax, diction, punctuation, dialogue, pace, and sentence rhythm, combined with our ability to write beyond our comfort level and share our demons, our past, our life experience as a whole, by writing “in the zone” with authenticity and honesty throughout our career, with consistency, by daring to reach into the darkest recesses of our soul and spill our darkest fears, joy, sorrow, pain, hopes and dreams on the page, our distinct writing voice blossoms. Thus, voice is an extension of our truest self.

How about the black cloud of “Head-Hopping”? Does the average reader really recognize it, or is head-hopping one of those rules that gurus, rather than writers, preach?

It depends on if we’re talking true head-hopping or an omniscient POV. Which is an important distinction, I think. Head-hopping causes confusion, because the reader doesn’t know whose head they’re in half the time. With an omniscient POV, the character who’s thinking, hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling, is clear. Years ago, I went to a Mystery Writers of America conference and the class instructor insisted omniscient POV was the only way to tell the full story. Not true. There’s no right or wrong way to tell a story. Years ago, most writers used omniscient narrators, so I’m not about to critique the classics. I will say, writers do need to learn the “rules” of storytelling before we break them, though.

Head-hopping is problematic for several reasons …

  • It confuses the reader;
  • The storyline doesn’t focus on one character at a time;
  • Tends to go hand-in-hand with on-the-nose dialogue;
  • It distances the reader from the character;
  • Lacks emotion;
  • Often there’s author intrusion, where the author inserts facts that haven’t been unearthed in a natural way.

An omniscient narrator has two main problem areas …

  • It distances the reader from the character;
  • If not done well, it slips into head-hopping.

You effectively used a prologue in SCATHED. *Reader Alert* (Once you get to the end, you’ll see how important the SCATHED prologue is.) Like you, I’ve read all kinds of pros & cons about prologues. Personally, I have no problem with a good prologue like you used in SCATHED. What’s the trick or tricks to making a prologue effective?

Ah, prologues … I love ‘em. Here again, there are “rules” to follow so the reader doesn’t read the word “prologue” and think it’s all backstory. One of my favorite ways to use a prologue is called a jump cut or scene cut. The prologue starts a scene that takes place later in the story. Chapter One then backtracks — example: three days earlier — and the story unfolds. This device is effective, because the reader gets a peek at what’s in store for the protagonist. The anticipation is almost palpable as they flip pages, waiting to see how it all plays out.

Another great way to use a prologue is by showing the villain killing the first victim. By giving readers a peek at the antagonist and what he or she is capable of, they fear for the protagonist’s safety.

The final way to use a prologue is to show an event that occurred at a different place or time, but only if the past event impacts the present. An example of this is the prologue of MARRED, where I showed Sage and Niko at their baby’s funeral. It’s a gut-wrenching prologue, but it was important to show, as readers soon find out in Chapter One. For those who don’t understand what I mean, read the sample on Amazon.

Date & time prompts and sub-heads. SCATHED is full of them, and I like it. But, many writing wizards scathe others for using prompts. Your view is…?

The gurus say not to date your book, and I agree, unless the date impacts the story in some way. In MARRED, the date was an important factor. For this reason, in subsequent books in the series, I made the date important to the storyline in some way. For example, in SCATHED, the date shows why Sage is overly suspicious, because only months earlier (in CLEAVED) she fell victim to a vicious serial killer. A traumatic experience impacts not only the victim’s life but the victim’s family, as well. The passage of time needed to reflect that.

Now, I’ll always have to use dates in order to remain consistent throughout the Grafton County Series. The biggest problem I’ll face is how to age the dogs, Colt and Ruger. Ruger’s already of advanced age, and limps from arthritis in his wrist. Over time, climbing stairs became difficult for him. Showing the progression of the arthritis isn’t the problem. My biggest obstacle is myself. I adore Ruger — or as Sage calls him, Rugey. The thought of losing him kills me, so he may end up being the oldest living English Mastiff in history. 😉

In my Mayhem Series, I included a date line in Wings of Mayhem before my views changed. But the date wasn’t important to the series as a whole, so I didn’t include a date line in Blessed Mayhem or Silent Mayhem (which I’m still writing). Instead, I wrote, Tuesday, 10 p.m. (no month or year). I do the same with the new series I’m working on.

Pet words or tics. All of us are guilty of this and I make no apology. Something that jumped out in SCATHED was you used the word “hinky”. Where’d you get that? You been hanging around with a bunch of cops, or what? I tried to get away with “hinky’ once, and my editor made me change it to “kinky” — said no one would understand what I meant by “hinky”. But we die-hard crime writers know there’s a big difference. It’s like hinky is using a feather and kinky is using the whole f’n bird, right?

Hahahahahaha! I’d love to tell you a fascinating story behind that word choice, but there isn’t one. My parents used the word a lot — “there’s something hinky going on in that house” — and I’ve been known to toss it around as well, so “hinky” was a natural fit for Sage when a moving truck sputtered past her bedroom window after midnight.

Profanity. *Spoiler Alert* (If the F-Bomb offends you, SCATHED might not be your thing.) You’re no stranger to profanity but, it’s not like your use of profanity is flagrant or inappropriate. IMO, your dialogue is realistic for the genre and characters. Cops, crooks and writers swear all the time. In fact, one Sergeant I worked with made a perfectly grammatically correct sentence using a series of F’s with one conjunction and a noun. IYO, when is profanity acceptable?

Tough question! Dropping the F-bomb is a tricky subject. Like you, I portray my characters as real cops and real killers. To think a cop wouldn’t swear is ridiculous. That said, I do try to keep it to a minimum wherever possible. There isn’t much I can do about Deputy Frankie Campanelli. She’s her own woman. To censor her would ruin her characterization. Although I do try to offset her more colorful language with “effin’” or “frickin’.”

Sage rarely swears. She’s only dropped the F-bomb one time in all three books, and that happened in SCATHED. It wasn’t an easy decision, either, but I did it to show her level of frustration. The F-bomb acted as a slap across her husband’s face. When Niko heard his wife use the F-bomb, it forced him to pay attention.

Sex Scenes. Okay, you caught Frankie Campanelli in the act. What’s your take on writing appropriate sex scenes?

Oy. You had to go there. Thanks, buddy. Here’s my take on sex scenes. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. If a sex scene fits with the storyline, crime writers can’t skip over it. But we can get in and out, so to speak, as quickly and painlessly as possible. Next question?

*blush* Ah, yeah, okay, so, ah, like we’ve covered the dirty stuff. Now let’s, let’s tackle some clean shit like… like editing and formatting. What’s your editing process? Who do you have help from? Is it ever okay to self-edit?

Confession time. I have no idea how to format for Kindle vs. print. That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t be any good at self-publishing. In fact, didn’t you have to write me step-by-step instructions on how to format my 60 Ways to Murder guide in order for me to muddle through it? My publishers handle that aspect for my novels and novellas, thank God.

Self-editing? Absolutely! I’m an edit-as-I-go type of writer. Meaning, I start the day by editing what I wrote the day before. It may not be the popular choice, but I don’t believe our first draft needs to be a mess. Besides, I’d rather not rewrite a gazillion times before the manuscript is ready for submission.

After the initial draft, I use a few different tricks to search for typos and such.

  • Read the work out loud;
  • Change the format; meaning, change the Word doc to pdf and upload to the Kindle app. By changing the format, it tricks the eye to catch words we’d normally miss.
  • Change the font and point. I like to make the font so large that I don’t need to wear reading glasses. Some writers even change the color.

Even with self-editing, my editor catches things I’ve missed. Sometimes even the proofreader misses things as well, and a typo or two will end up in the final version. Eh, what can ya do? We’re only human.

Commas. For the life of me I can, never get comma use right. How about some tips? And, what’s your view of the Oxford/Serial comma?

For those who don’t know, let’s clarify what the Oxford comma is. When used in a list, the comma before the conjunction “and” is called the serial comma aka the Oxford comma or Harvard comma.

Example: The fair served fried dough, corndogs, ice cream, and watermelon. The comma before “and” is the serial comma aka Oxford or Harvard comma.

I’m a fan of the Oxford comma, because it leaves little confusion as to what the writer meant. The Elements of Style and The Chicago Manual of Style are both pro-Oxford comma. As far as I know, its use is also the industry standard. Well, that’s what my editors tell me anyway. As with most things writing, whether to use an Oxford comma is a style choice. The most important thing is consistency.

Comma Tips from a Crime Writer

I use that title because I don’t claim to know all the rules. Hence why we love our editors. Comma use comes naturally after a while, but it does take manuscripts full of red ink in order for the “rules” to sink in. At least it did for me.

For non-lists, add the Oxford comma if the phrase after the conjunction reflects an emotion or reaction. Example: The bear huffed, and I screamed.
Could we skip the comma before “and” and still be clear? Sure. But it reads better with the comma, by inserting a natural pause.
Leave it out when the subject is doing more than one thing. Example: The bear huffed and stomped the ground.
Gerund clauses at the beginning of a sentence need a comma. Example: Judging by his appearance, he didn’t sleep well last night.
Use a comma after an introductory phrase. Example: When he delivered the speech, he held his chin high.
After a clause that begins with “If.” Example: If I keep adding comma tips, this post will be nine pages long. Same rule applies to clauses that begin with “Because” and “Since.”
Add comma before “then.” Example: He read the post, then needed a nap.
Add comma after a phrase that begins with “After.” Example: After he woke from his afternoon nap, he added a shot of whiskey to his coffee.
Add comma before gerund clause. Example: She skipped past the school, whistling at the boys on the jungle gym.
Use a comma to offset a name or title for clarity. Name example: My landlord, Mr. Edwards, peeks through my bedroom window at night. Title example: I loved your new psychological thriller, SCATHED. J

Dialog Tags/Speech Attributes. Looking back through SCATHED, I don’t see many (or maybe any) dialogue tags. What’s your recommendation about how authors should mark who’s saying what?

I use dialogue tags only when I want to show how the character said something, i.e. “he warned.” I also use tags when I want to show how the POV character interpreted what someone else said.

Example from SCATHED …

A switch clicked in my brain as the connection to the hacker became clear. In slow motion, I shielded my gaping mouth. “You don’t think—”

“No, I don’t,” he countered, reading my mind. “And neither should you.”

In the above example, “countered” indicates a quick response; “reading my mind” after the tag shows how Sage, the POV character of the scene, interpreted Niko’s response.

Otherwise, I prefer a body cue or inner dialogue. My advice is to mix it up. Too much of one or the other can ruin the story rhythm. Ultimately, it’s another style choice.

Also, my personal rule for rapid-fire dialogue between two people is to leave out the tag as well as the body cue. But, and this is important, we can’t go too long without either the tag or body cue, or we risk confusing the reader. (ß notice the serial comma before the last “or”? A comma is used because the phrase that follows is a reaction/emotion) To avoid confusion, my personal preference is three or four lines, tops.

Example of rapid-fire dialogue in SCATHED:

Mind whirling with endless possibilities, Niko raised his gaze to Dr. Gaines. [ßbody cue to ground the reader; with this one body cue it’s clear the conversation that follows will be between Niko and Dr. Gaines, with Niko speaking first] “Sorry. What?”

“I said, is the card an invitation of some sort?”

“You could say that, yeah.”

“To where, if I may ask?”

“Nowhere good, Doc. Nowhere good.”

Fonts. Maybe this is a self-pub choice or handled by your traditional publisher, but I noticed my ARC of SCATHED is printed in sans serif. I think most TPs get printed in a serif font like Times New Roman where many SPs have a sans serif font like Ariel. What say you on font effects?

Sorry. That’s out of my wheelhouse. My publisher decides, not me. Interesting question, though. I never noticed SPs had different fonts from TP books. Hmm, I wonder why. Let’s ask the Dying Words community to weigh in on this question. Do you prefer one font over another?

Covers. You have amazing covers thanks to the magnificent Elle J. Rossi (EJR Digital Art). What do you think makes for a great cover?

Isn’t she amazing? She’s done some awesome covers for you, as well.

I’ve learned a lot about covers through trial and error. Mostly, what not to do. For example, CLEAVED’s cover is one of my favorites, but the book doesn’t sell as well as the others at book signings. Why? Even if a reader is die-hard crime thriller fan, there’s something about blood on a cover that turns people off. Go figure.

Covers in a series need to resemble each other. At the same time, they need to be different enough from the other books in the series. This was a hard lesson to learn. Our view of the cover might not match the average reader’s view. The perfect example of this is Wings of Mayhem and Blessed Mayhem. To me, they’re very different covers, but because the colors match, many readers think they’re the same book. At signings, I need to point out that they aren’t. Ah, well. Live and learn.

The sweet spot is the Grafton County Series. Even with the blood on CLEAVED’s cover, a reader can tell right away that the books belong together, yet each cover is distinct.

And then there’s marketing. It strikes me that today, unless you’re a big established name, you’re responsible for your own marketing. What really pays off in book marketing and what’s a waste of time and money?

BookBub is the ultimate. Their email list is so huge that they guarantee a certain number of sales. It’s not cheap. There’s also no guarantee that you’ll score a featured deal. But if you do, it’s well worth the money.

ENT is another great site for sales.

I don’t bother with the nickel-and-dime sites. They’re cheap and sometimes they pay off, but the majority of the time we don’t make our investment back.

Facebook ads work, if you include detailed targeting. Same with BookBub ads, but I haven’t figured out the best way to target their audience. Their algorithm works differently than Facebook. I’ve heard good things about Amazon ads but haven’t tried them yet. Posting to Facebook groups is a PITA, but it’s free and sometimes works for sales. Personally, I limit my posting to Facebook groups so I don’t come off as a spammer. Three groups a couple times per week is enough, IMO. Same with Twitter. I leave a promo post pinned to my timeline, but I may only tweet it once a day. With all social media, we need to follow the 80/20 rule — 80% non-book related; 20% promo. I lean more toward 90/10.

If you have a large marketing budget, International Thriller Writers offers various advertising options, and recommends several crime magazines. Taking out an ad in your local paper works, too, especially if you’ve got a signing coming up in the area.

What can we expect from Sue Coletta in the future? Right now, you have the Mayhem Series and the Grafton County Series. Are you sticking with those books? Or have you some other shive up your sleeve?

I’ll continue to write both series. I’m also adding another series, which I’m really excited about. The series is set in Africa, specifically on the savannah. Can’t say more than that right now. I’d hate to ruin the surprise.

I recall you did some children’s writing some time ago. Ever think of doing true crime, non-fiction or even poetry? I tried poetry once, and it turned out as a limerick about a man from Nantucket that was too vulgar for even Chuck Wendig of Terrible Minds to run. What about doing some script or screenplay writing? Co-writing, maybe?

Over the winter I was offered a co-authored project, but honestly, I doubt I’ll be able to squeeze in another project this year. If Patterson asked, I may be more apt to clear my schedule.

While watching the wildlife play in my yard, I’ve written about nine children’s books in my head. Someday I’ll take the time to write the stories for my grandchildren. As for true crime, I’ve mulled over the possibility. Only time will tell.

I’m no poet, so that’s not in my future. I may do another non-fiction project, though.

Finally, where can DyingWords followers and others find your work?

Probably the best place is my website: https://suecoletta.com. From there, readers can choose their preferred format to fit any device, read samples of all my books, and/or request autographed paperbacks.

*   *   *

Sue Coletta’s bio includes Member of Mystery Writers of America, Sisters in Crime, International Thriller Writers, and NH Writers Project, Sue Coletta is an award-winning, bestselling, multi-published crime writer. Sue’s also a proud member of the Kill Zone, an award-winning writing blog, where she posts every other Monday. In 2017, Feedspot honored her Murder Blog with the Top 50 Crime Blogs on the Net Award. She’s also the communications manager for the Serial Killer Project and Forensic Science and founder of #ACrimeChat on Twitter.

Join Sue’s Crime Lover’s Lounge and be the first to know about giveaways, contests, and have inside access to deleted scenes (when available). Your secret key code will unlock the virtual door. Or follow the blog. Either way, you’ll score two free killer reads!

Sue lives in northern New Hampshire with her husband, who deals with a crazy crime writer feeding circus peanuts to crows named Poe and Edgar (and family), her favorite squirrels, Shawnee and Monny, and a special chipmunk dubbed “Hip” for his enthusiasm and excited leaps each time he scores a peanut … “Hip, hip, hooray!” Under no circumstances can the other 11 chippies find out she plays favorites, or they may retaliate.

Get SCATHED, Sue Coletta’s newest crime thriller at Amazon