The Science of Crime Writing

I found an interesting snippet on the Beeb this morning on the science behind crime novels, and how, despite the best of intentions and the most diligent of research, so many get it wrong.

My scientific knowledge is legendary. I’m not bad on astronomy. I can recognise the planets and the constellations and I know something about the stars which form them, but that’s not a lot of use when it comes to telling you how and when a body was murdered.

Chemistry? I know that water is H2O and that salt is NACL. And on body chemistry, I know that I’m a diabetic and I can’t have sugar because my crumbling body doesn’t handle it properly.

That’s it. That’s all I know.

It’s for this reason that you’ll find a marked lack of forensic bits and bobs in my novels. Obviously, I could research it, but come on… I have a life to lead.

What may be come obvious to readers of the STAC Mysteries is that Joe, Sheila and Brenda don’t solve crimes… well, they do, but it’s their observations which lead to police to a successful arrest, confession and (hopefully) prosecution. And they do it without the aid of forensic evidence. Their “proof” is based on observation and making those observations fit the facts.

It means Joe, Sheila and Brenda don’t have to worry about forensics, and by default, neither do I. The police can deal with the nitty-gritty while we all move on to the next murder.

And talking of the next murder, My Deadly Valentine is due out on February 6th. There’s a huge party on Facebook if you’d like to come along. You’d be more than welcome.

***

The STAC Mysteries now have their own website. To learn more about the characters and backgrounds to the tales click here. To download Kindle editions of any of the STAC Mysteries click on the cover images. For other formats go to the STAC Crooked Cat page.