Very nice work overall on this assignment. And no fatals! But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:
This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:
Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.
Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. Either that, or I'd be looking very carefully at Ryan and Elliott. And backing away verrry slooooowly.
Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!
It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:
The robber was between 5 foot 10 inches and 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.
This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.
No comments:
Post a Comment