Inspired by Chicago - The truth in the satire

The musical Chicago is a famous, favorite musical. It may interest many to know that Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart were real people, but had different names. The woman reporter who covered these events wrote the show Chicago as a satire and wanted us, as the audience, to hate the characters portrayed. They weren't written to be related to, at all.

Maurine Watkins, 28,  wrote about Belva Gaertner (Velma Kelly) and Beulah Annan (Roxie Hart) as if they had been guilty and played the system. She was put on the murderess row beat because it was too boring for the men, apparently. Murder, boring? Ha!

What you have to know about a reporter's access to jails was that they had 24-hour access in 1924. They competed with police to solve crimes, in their minds. Watkins would go in acting like what they used to call a "sob sister". As a result, they talked to her and she could use their words against them.

Sob sisters were a way of playing the system and creating sympathy for the woman trying to get off for murder, rather than sympathy for victim. The "sob sister" would become upset over the "wrongly jailed woman", creating press coverage that made the woman look good to a jury. Think Mary Sunshine, if you need an illustration of this.

Another thing to note, in this time period in Illinois, was that all male juries were the, stubbornly common, normal. The Victorian ideal that women didn't become violent, but only became that way for good reason, was alive and well here. This created an easy way to play the jury, by being a weak looking female to get off for murder.

Belva Gaertner

She was a cabaret singer and divorcee, and a woman who was possessive of her men, dangerously possessive. Unlike the musical portrayal, she didn't do a double homicide. She shot Walter Law in her car after a cabaret gin party and claimed to remember nothing, except hearing an explosion and feeling him fall on her.  Belva Gaertner and William Gaertner divorced multiple times and it was he who divorced her for abuse the last time. Thus proving that women can be abusive, too. 

Beulah Annan

This one was almost the same as the musical, pregnancy claim and all. Except for one thing; she changed her story three times. 

She shot her lover Harry Kalstedt, whom she met while working as a book-keeper. Afterward, she left her husband's phonograph playing for hours, then finally called her mechanic husband to say she killed a man. She divorced her husband, whom she had used as a meal ticket, directly after the trial on grounds of desertion. She had faked a pregnancy for sympathy and broken down in front of the jury in the course of the trial. 

Her first story about the crime was that his advances caused her to shoot to defend her honor. The story morphed into him leaving and her shooting him for leaving. The story she settled on was self-defense. "They both reached for the gun", which was said at the actual trial and made into one of Billy Flynn's featured songs in the musical. 

What ultimately happened

These two women were acquitted, but did I even need to tell you these women were let off the hook? If you watched the musical, no, but I say it for the benefit of those who don't know. 

Annan died of tuberculosis at age 29. Gaertner lived to the ripe old age of 80 and lived with her sister after her husband died in 1948. 

As usual, check my facts and keep me posted on what you want to hear about. I aim to arm writers with truth and history.

Informants, legal informants

Informants are legal, first of all. They confidentially provide information to law enforcement agencies. Yes, they can get paid, but that is the minority. Most got caught doing something and complied with a sting operation (being undercover) to get leniency or charges dropped.

One thing to remember with this topic is that their identity is protected unless they are called as a witness in court. Also, to be a legal informant, many things are considered. Some of this is common sense to an investigative mind, but some aren't. Below is a simple list of what is considered.

1. age
2.alien status
3.are they party to privileged info?
4. relevance of info
5.relationship to anyone involved
6.ability of officer to ensure they only do what they are supposed to / how they would use legitimate organizations for info
7. motivation
8. various risks to case
9. can statements be backed?
10. reliable/truthful?
11. prior record as witness
12. criminal history
13. risk of flight or harm to general public?
14. substance abuse.
15. relative in law enforcement?
16. harm to self/family if inform?


When it comes to legal informants, the pre-chosen (a common example is drug buying) crime is pardoned so they can be undercover and help bust someone. If they do what was pre-arranged well they receive their leniency, charges are dropped, or they are paid. It's rather simple compared to some legal concepts. It's a deal made with law enforcement, at its most basic.

It is equally important to note that private investigators don't get this legal privilege and don't have the regulation law enforcement agencies have. Law enforcement and PIs aren't the same. They may have helpful sources on the side, but they aren't called informants in that situation.

Check my research. Keep me honest, fellow writers. I aim to educate you with the truth. When you write your informants to life, keep in mind the paid are the minority and there are laws to follow when using them. I can only put so much in one blog post, so if you want to hear more, comment below. 

Court Evidence- is it admissible or not?

Investigators have to be aware of whether evidence is admissible in court or not. It is important to your story line and plot that you know what can and can't be used as evidence in a court of law. You have the power to make your characters win and lose court cases based on this information alone.

Admissible evidence is defined as being relevant, reliable, and obtained legally. Relevant means it must prove or disprove important facts in the case. Reliable means it is credible.

Basically, you can't have an illegally obtained recording, an unreliable video tape that's bad quality, or an irrelevant Facebook post as evidence. Any good lawyer would object to this evidence, but then again, does your lawyer character have to be a good lawyer? That's your call, fellow writers.

Inadmissible evidence is basically the opposite of what admissible is. It can't be used against anyone in court. Below I have listed some of the specifics of why it can be declared inadmissible (some have exceptions, so do your research on your specific circumstances):

prejudiced evidence
wastes time
misleading
hearsay (testimony outside of court)
character
expert testimony not from an expert
privileged information

What is evidence? Anything that can prove anything in court. Recordings, photos, testimony, statements, demonstrations, etc.... Keep in mind that if it is found to be illegally obtained evidence your private investigator or detective messed up, big time.

In conclusion, your private investigator or detective can throw a monkey wrench in their own case if they illegally collect their evidence (recordings without legal consent and shooting video on private property are just a few ways), so know your law and do your extra research. Check my facts, if you like. I aim to inform and arm writers with truth, so hold me accountable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inadmissible_evidence 
https://connorreporting.com/photo-video-evidence-always-admissible-court/ 
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/admissibility-evidence/ 
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-admissible-evidence.html 

Stalking- what is it according to the laws?

I've talked about how private detectives can be booked for stalking if they stake-out and tail people wrong. If you tail someone like detectives from noir movies your fictional investigator can get picked up for stalking, and the fictional police will laugh at your private investigator for their stupidity. What is considered stalking by law? Do you actually know? No matter what people claim it is, here are the facts when it comes to the actual (Ohio) laws.

Private Detectives (PIs) can be picked up because someone is scared and perceives a PI driving by their home or office as a threat. Tailing too obviously, and too often, has the same effect and therefore the police can pick up your fictional PI and put them in jail.

The laws on stalking/menace by stalking say that there is perceived threat (much like self-defense laws) of physical or mental harm. There is also a pattern of malicious behavior with the intention of intimidation. This can be cyber, too. Cyber is connected with sexual situations, commonly, and inciting someone to stalk/intimidate with a post or message of any kind is also menace by stalking.

The results of Stalking/Menace by Stalking

People can put in a civil protection order against someone who allegedly stalked them. To do this they can't be married to the person the order is against.  Civil protection orders state that the other person can't be within 500 feet of whoever filed the order. Breaking this order has penalties to the alleged stalker.

The first case of Menace by Stalking results in a misdemeanor in the first degree, and a second case makes it a felony of the fourth degree.

A case can be a felony of the fourth degree under these 9 circumstances (all except two apply to the alleged stalker):

-not the first time   -direct threat of physical harm  -trespassing  -the victim was a minor (under 18)
-history of violence -had a weapon -broke protection order  -prior to, was a danger to self or others
 -victim suffered harm on their own property at the hands of the stalker

What this means for  your fictional characters

As you can probably see, most stalking is involved with domestic abuse and domestic violence. As mentioned earlier, most cyberstalking has "sexual motivation", which is defined as a desire to satisfy sexual desires and needs, particularly for the offender.  For your fictional PI, or fictional character in general, they may fit the legal definition of a stalker, or not.

Given that most people don't know these legal definitions, "stalking" can be a term that is thrown around carelessly. "Facebook stalking", looking through people's profiles out of curiosity or boredom, is a term our society has used quite often, but legally if you tried to accuse someone of this it wouldn't hold water. Check me on that if you want. I personally think it wouldn't fit this definition because the malicious intent is, most likely, not there.

Your fictional characters, whether villains, heroes, victims, or wrongly accused neighbors, will be impacted by what you know about the law, especially in courtroom situations, so please check my facts. I invite you to correct me if I get something wrong. I aim to arm writers with correct information.


As always, comment what you want to know!