Fiction story plausibility check (mystery)

[Tog]

I found a critique forum that is set up in a way that stories can be posted for review without actually being "published on the Internet".

In my second story I put up, people are taking issue with one part that really confuses me. it has to do with a photograph of the site of a crime/accident, and what can be inferred from it, and by whom.

The details are as follows:
There is guard rail about 18 inches off of the ground. On the far side is a drop of about 100 feet to the obligatory jagged rocks below. On the near side is a blacktop surface covered with pea gravel.
On the railing, right at the top, are a pair of blood stains about 8 inches apart, and more or less equal in every way.
On the blacktop just in front of the railing are a pair of scuff marks that run directly to or away from the blood stains. The scuffs are basically uniform in length and appearance.

There are three ways the victim could have gone over the edge; jumped, tripped, or pushed.

My main character says that if she jumped, she would have climbed over the railing first, or taken a running start at it. If she had tripped, there would be only one scuff mark on the ground. It would be from the foot that initially made contact with the rail. The foot wold hit the rail, then step down quickly to regain her balance, as the other foot tried to step up and over the obstacle.

The only explanation is that the person was standing by the rail and was pushed from behind, her shins scraping the top as she went over, and both feet scuffing the ground as she went.

The problem people are having with it is that the person that figured this out is a "19 year old intern" at the magazine company. So far, 5 of 5 have said that it was too unbelievable that a "19 year old intern" would know that sort of "CSI Stuff".

My question is: is it? Is it really implausible that a 19-year old person who has a habit of falling down a lot would be able to put that together? To be clear, they don't have an issue with the deduction, only the person that made it.

[tashirosgt]

I think if the character made several clever observations, not necessarily about crime, then the deduction from the photograph would be a plausible accomplishment. If this was the only clever thing the character does, it seems unnatural.

By the way, I don't find it plausible that scraping ones shins on a rail as one is pushed over it will leave blood stains, at least not large ones.

[Delvo]

What in the world is supposed to be reason why not? The idea that there's even an issue here at all doesn't make any sense.

[Delvo]

(BTW, I'm presuming you didn't mean 18"... that's not a guardrail, that's a triprail! And it changes the dynamic options for the fall...)

[Tog]

What in the world is supposed to be reason why not? The idea that there's even an issue here at all doesn't make any sense.

The reason seems to be that she's too young to have that sort of knowledge. The things being said are similar to "How would a 19-year old intern even know that?" I honestly didn't see this objection coming, yet everyone that's commented has said the same thing.

And yes. I do mean 18 inches. It has to be below knee height. I mainly see it as being something to just let a driver know they are close to the edge. The place where I used to go scoping had a similar railing. I actually based the overlook on that parking lot.

[Tobin Dax]

"How would a 19-year old intern even know that?"

a) It's a fairly logical deduction.
b) Maybe they like mysteries and/or watch a lot of TV.

What's considered the typical 19-year-old might not be able to deduce that, but that doesn't mean that any 19yo couldn't. I wonder if part of the reaction is due to a stereotype about the character based on his/her choice of job.

[Fazor]

Eh, to me it sounds plausible. It's not like seeing two skid marks and realizing that both feet had to be slipping at once is something that requires any kind of special training. Just a keen eye and some deduction.

[Strange]

I don't really see a problem with a smart teenager working this out - as long as, as someone else said, it isn't a one-off. If she is clearly smart in other ways, then no problem.

The only explanation is that the person was standing by the rail and was pushed from behind, her shins scraping the top as she went over, and both feet scuffing the ground as she went.

This is the bit I have a problem with. It might work with something stiff, but a living person is going to twist, lift a leg, or something when they feel the push. So I can't see the marks being that symmetrical. Maybe if they are standing with their shins hard up against the rail. But why would they do that? Also, if the victim is pushed in the back and "pivots" over the rail, it seems unlikely to cause much damage. I wouldn't expect bleeding. Maybe a slight scratch...

[jokergirl]

Maybe she does Parkour in her free time?

[Fazor]

I agree with Henna. I wouldn't think that the skids on the pavement would be identical. One foot would slip a bit, or throw up gravel, as it's quickly lifted in an attempt to step forward to catch the forward-falling weight. The other could skid as the first catches against the rail, and the whole body tumbles forward in fall.

You'd still have two skids to give away that it was a push, as in a trip you likely wouldn't see the rail coming (why else would you trip?) so the foot that hits the rail wouldn't skid against the pavement-it's in the air already. In a jump, you wouldn't skid at all.

Also, you could always change the blood on the rail to scraping marks. For instance, a parking lot rail that low would likely be covered in grime from car exhaust and dirt thrown up by tires, etc. There could be two "clean" spots where the shins wiped across the dirt as she went over the rail.

[rommel543]

This day and age with TV shows like CSI, Bones, Criminal Minds, etc its not completely implausible that a 19 year old would have the ability to deduce a crime scene by looking at the artifacts around them (possible is another story though)

I will point this out though. 18" is only a foot and a half. If the person was pushed there is a good chance that her shins would not have hit a railing that low hard enough to cause them to bleed (or even hit the railing at all). I don't think that her feet would cause two scuff marks on the ground either. For the scuff marks you would need the body to pivot at a certain point (an impact with an immovable object). With a railing of only 18" the majority of the body would fall over the rail (from the force of the push) and she would simply fall banging her ankles as she went over, similar to tripping over the rail. If the railing were higher, say 32"-36" (waist high), then her lower body would impact the railing. The force of the push would cause her upper body to go over the rail, the body would then pivot at the waist and her legs would go out behind her causing scuff marks.

[Tog]

Thanks for the input on this.

For the height of the railing and the scuff marks, the killer was another woman that didn't really give a good push. The victim shifted forward and fell, shins first, against the rail, before the rest of her body passed over it. Before I wrote it, I actually took volunteers from a couple of women at work. I also based it on the booby trap at the grocery store where I used to work. The bottom of the safe was about 18 inches tall, and was well hidden behind the door you opened to get into the booth. If you weren't watching, or worse, timed it poorly, that door would take your foot out from under you. I came up with a bloody shin a few times.

Good call on the clean spots on the rail instead of blood though.

Still, you guys make a lot of good points. The main focus on this story was actually the dialog and banter in the office, so the fixation on the idea that this 19 year old intern couldn't possibly know that caught me really off guard.

When I was 12, I would go back over my bike wrecks and reconstruct them in my head to figure out how I ended up hurt the places I did. I got pretty good at it, and it didn't really seem like that big of a stretch to me.

[henriquefd]

Is it possible for a 19 year old boy to reach those conclusions?

Yes.

Mozart was a genius at a very young age.

But we are talking about plausability. That means the reader of your story shouldn't be bothered by the 19 year old. In order to do that, I think that 19 year old can't be just some passerby.

If the character is developed enough in the story to let the reader understand that he was capable of making that assumption, then I see no problem.

Concluding, if the 19 year old was just a passerby, a figurant, an important character in the story, then, to the reader, it is possible, but not plausible, that he would make that assumption.

Now, if the 19 year old is a character developed in the story to make the reader understand he is capable of those assumptions, then it is not only possible, but also plausible.

So, it's not really what you are presenting to the reader, but how you are presenting it.

[Delvo]

But we are talking about plausability. That means the reader of your story shouldn't be bothered by the 19 year old. In order to do that, I think that 19 year old can't be just some passerby.

Why not? Anybody could come up with this kind of stuff if they took the time to observe and think about it. There's no issue here at all at even half the given age.

[henriquefd]

Why not? Anybody could come up with this kind of stuff if they took the time to observe and think about it. There's no issue here at all at even half the given age.

For the reasons I explained. The OP asked our thoughts on the matter and I offered mine for him to use in any way he pleases.

[Tog]

But we are talking about plausability. That means the reader of your story shouldn't be bothered by the 19 year old. In order to do that, I think that 19 year old can't be just some passerby.

If the character is developed enough in the story to let the reader understand that he was capable of making that assumption, then I see no problem.

So, it's not really what you are presenting to the reader, but how you are presenting it.

That may well have been the case. The character up to that point was a silent observer. The story takes place in a office during a blackout, and it's mostly the rest of the staff talking about the dead person and her husband. People hated that too.

[Tobin Dax]

One could take people hating the subject of their story as a good thing.