I am printing verbatim the entire story as it appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Not a single word has been changed and nothing has been deleted or altered:

          Woman Charged with Dismembering Husband

A woman was indicted on murder and other charges alleging that she killed her husband, stuffed his remains in three suitcases and dumped them in the ocean.

Melanie McGuire was indicted in Newark on charges of murder, desecration of a corpse, perjury and a weapons violation. The body of William T. McGuire floated ashore in his own matching luggage.

          LA Times, P. A24, Thursday October 13, 2005.

You might observe that this story had both too much detail and yet, strangely, not enough. What about that weapons violation? His "own matching" luggage? And what about the perjury charge? Did she declare "dogfood" in the suitcases instead of "human remains as she passed through customs? I’m glad to know it was his own luggage. He probably would have been uncomfortable in someone else’s.

One of journalism’s fabled 5 W’s is missing.

Lawyers often make the same mistake. We forget to tell our readers--judges, clients and other lawyers--WHY we are writing to them. This story is a demonstration of what happens when the "why" is missing. Something just seems off.  I’m sure that many judges and clients have waded through pages of facts hoping to learn whether the number of suitcases is really significant simply because we have omitted or buried the "why."

Don’t leave your client or the judge guessing about the point of the story. All the details should be focused on the point. If you have a point you should be able to strike a balance between too much detail and too little. You also won’t leave your readers feeling puzzled.

Do you think that weapon was a chain saw?

Posted by Joseph R. McFaul on Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 00:00 Comments Closed (0)

View Weblog Archive