Interview with Crime Writer Richard T. Cahill - S. 5, Ep. 11

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:44 — 19.4MB) | Embed

Debbi Mack interviews crime writer and non-fiction author Richard T. Cahill on the Crime Cafe podcast.

Read along with the podcast or, if you’re in a rush, download a copy of the show notes here.

Debbi: [00:00:13] Hi, everyone. This is the Crime Cafe, your podcasting source of great crime, suspense, and thriller writing. I’m your host, Debbi Mack. Before I bring on my guest, I’ll just remind you that the Crime Cafe has two ebooks for sale: the nine-book box set and the short story anthology. You can find the buy links for both on my website DebbiMack.com, under the “Crime Cafe” link. You can also get a free copy of either book if you become a Patreon supporter. You’ll get that and much more if you support the podcast on Patreon, along with our eternal gratitude for doing so.

Debbi: [00:01:02] Hi, I’m pleased to have with me today another lawyer-turned-writer, which in my book is always a great thing. A member of the New York State Bar, he’s worked as both an assistant district attorney and a criminal defense attorney. Not at the same time, of course. And he also practiced civil law—practices, I should say, civil law. He currently represents injured workers and volunteer firefighters, which is way cool in my book. He has written and published two true crime books. His latest work is a crime fiction thriller. It’s my great pleasure to have here today Richard T. Cahill. Thank you so much for being here today, Richard.

Richard: [00:01:51] Well, thank you for having me.

Debbi: [00:01:54] It’s a pleasure to have you on. Your first book was Hauptmann’s Ladder, is that the correct pronunciation?

Richard: [00:01:59] It is.

Debbi: [00:02:02] Which was a detailed account of the Lindbergh kidnapping. At the very beginning of the book, you talk about what drew you into writing this book. Maybe you can do that. Tell us a little about that, as a teaser for the book, for readers.

Richard: [00:02:18] Sure. Well, when I was 18 years old, I was in my freshman English class and the professor, Dr. Cotter, said that he wanted us to write a research paper. And so I thought, well, no problem. I’d read some books about, you know, the Lincoln assassination and I could do something about that. But then, being a wise professor, he then announced that it had to be something that you’ve never read anything about or ever done any research on. So part of me, I have to be honest, said, well, maybe I’ll just do it anyway. But then I thought, now I’ve got to follow the rules. So I went to the library and I started looking around to see what I could find. And I found this small book and it had a whole series of stories in it, stuff like did Jesse James die the way history records? You know, did Neil Armstrong really walk on the moon? You know, stuff like that. And one of them was, did Bruno Richard Hauptmann kidnap and kill the Lindbergh baby? And as I read that particular article, I then remembered many years ago seeing an old TV show called In Search of … with Leonard Nimoy. And all I remember was they did a show on it. And the only thing I could remember, there was a guy with a mustache who said that it was a miscarriage of justice. That’s really all I remembered. So I thought this might be interesting. So I read one book. Ironically, I later found out it was written by the guy with the mustache. I didn’t find it out for many years later that that’s who it was. And I read two magazine articles.

[00:03:45] And I wrote what I thought was a wonderful paper proclaiming that Hauptmann was framed, didn’t do it, and so forth. And it came back, and I believe I got a B or a B-plus as memory serves me. And, geez, I should have gotten an A. Well, now, looking back, seeing the paper, my lousy research and so forth, I should have gotten an F. So the professor was very kind in what he gave me. But from there I read, I saw another book not long after that on the case and I read it. And that was one by Sir Ludovic Kennedy, which took the position that he didn’t do it. But his was more reasonable and didn’t say some of the outrageous things that Anthony Scaduto did.

So I still maintain that Hauptmann didn’t do it, but I just had different reasons why. And then I got another book from another perspective that said that he did do it. And I’m reading through this and I’m, like, it was written by Jim Fisher, called The Lindbergh Case and I’m reading. And I’m like, boy, he makes a compelling case. So I decided I would take a look at the original source material just to see, you know, what really happened. You know, satiate my curiosity. Well, 20 years later, after going through this, I thought to myself, you know what? I’ve always wanted to write a book, and no human being should have to go through what I’ve just gone through. I want to write a book and answer the question. And so I wrote Hauptmann’s Ladder. And the rest, as they say, is history.

“So I still maintain that Hauptmann didn’t do it, but I just had different reasons why. And then I got another book from another perspective that said that he did do it. And I’m reading through this and I’m, like, it was written by Jim Fisher, called The Lindbergh Case and I’m reading. And I’m like, boy, he makes a compelling case. So I decided I would take a look at the original source material just to see, you know, what really happened. You know, satiate my curiosity. Well, 20 years later, after going through this, I thought to myself, you know what? I’ve always wanted to write a book, and no human being should have to go through what I’ve just gone through. I want to write a book and answer the question. And so I wrote Hauptmann’s Ladder. And the rest, as they say, is history.”

Debbi: [00:05:05] It’s fascinating. How many hours of research did it require?

Richard: [00:05:12] I couldn’t calculate in hours, I can tell you that I started my research in, well, 1989. And the book came out in 2014, and I had finished writing it … ~~well, I finished writing the first draft in 2012. Strike that.~~ The end of 2011. I had just finished the first draft, but it was very rough and I had to work on it. And then in February of 2012, my father passed away. And I really, me and my dad were very close and I was completely devastated. And I needed to throw myself into something just to, you know, to have something else to focus on. Because all I was thinking about was that and I couldn’t be my job as an attorney because that was something that Dad and I were, you know, his father was an attorney. It was something that really made me think of him. So I thought, well, you know what? Let me revise this book. That’ll take me a long time. So I threw myself into that. And in just a few weeks, I had it revised, so I said, well, I’ll do another revision. That took me two weeks. So, I thought, well, let me start the publishing process. That’ll take forever. And next thing I know, in June, I got the letter saying they were willing to do it. And it went from there. So that should give you the time frame. This was a lot of research over a lot of years.

“So I thought, well, you know what? Let me revise this book. That’ll take me a long time. So I threw myself into that. And in just a few weeks, I had it revised, so I said, well, I’ll do another revision. That took me two weeks. So, I thought, well, let me start the publishing process. That’ll take forever. And next thing I know, in June, I got the letter saying they were willing to do it. And it went from there. So that should give you the time frame. This was a lot of research over a lot of years.”

Debbi: [00:06:24] Yes. I was going to say. Was any of it … was most of it secondary? Or did you actually talk to people?

Richard: [00:06:34] Well, there was a lot of it that was secondary, but that turned out to be problematic, because many of the secondary sources cite things as truth that are not true. For example, a lot of the secondary sources say that a Daily News reporter named Cassidy completely made up something, that he planted evidence. And there’s no evidence to support that he didn’t. But it became, it was like a rumor that was going around at the time. And some books picked up on it and printed that. And next thing you know, when magazine articles come out, they cite those books as a source.

So I went back to a lot of the primary materials. As far as talking with the people who were involved, most of them had already passed away by that. And the few who were alive, a lot of them didn’t want to talk to people, because they had been misused before where they’d be contacted and then misquoted. And then the two that I did not want to contact. Well, Mrs. Lindbergh was still alive then, although she wasn’t well. But I had no intention of contacting her or her family, because her other children were not even alive when this happened. And they’d been harassed many times over the years by people claiming to be their long-lost brother and so forth. And, you know, it’s got to be a burden to them. They wouldn’t really offer anything.

[00:07:50] And if you want the perspective of the Lindbergh children, there’s a book written by Reeve Lindbergh where she makes reference to that. And it’s … when you read that, if you still want to contact or to talk about it, I think you have no heart, because she basically tells a story, how somebody came to the door once and her father went and took care of it. The other person was the son of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. He was still alive at the time, but he also didn’t know anything about it. And the only thing you’d get from him would be something his mother told him. You know, mother had nothing to do with what happened. Neither did he. So I just didn’t see the need to bother them.

“And if you want the perspective of the Lindbergh children, there’s a book written by Reeve Lindbergh where she makes reference to that. And it’s … when you read that, if you still want to contact or to talk about it, I think you have no heart, because she basically tells a story, how somebody came to the door once and her father went and took care of it.

So other than that, the only other person … there was a juror down in Florida, but she was very old at the time, and then it was a man named Stockburger. But he didn’t want to talk to anybody anymore. You know, he would talk to Mark Falzini, who was the head archivist at the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives, which maintains all of the evidence, the original evidence. And he would talk to them. He had a good relationship with them. So if you wanted to ask a question, you could go through him. But Mr. Stockberger preferred to be left alone, and I wasn’t going to violate his privacy.

Debbi: [00:09:01] Well, it sure must have been tricky getting at the truth behind all of these rumors. So I really respect that kind of attention to detail and the need to check your sources. You got a Gold Medal Prize for the book from the INDIEFAB True Crime Book of Year. So that’s awesome. Congratulations.

Richard: [00:09:27] Oh, thank you. That was, that was quite a thrill.

Debbi: [00:09:30] I can imagine. Now, your second book Sidetracked got an honorable mention in that contest in 2017. Now, I took a look at the description of the book and to say that it’s mindblowing isn’t saying enough. It’s like the ultimate war story. Can you give readers a little bit of an idea in your own words what the book is about?

“There was a murder that took place in the city of Kingston in 1988. The victim was Annie Kithcart, who was a year ahead of me in high school. I knew her. Not well, because she was a very popular kid and—big surprise—I was a geek. But she was always very nice to me. You know, the popular kids never would speak to the, you know, the unpopular kids. But unlike a lot of them, she wasn’t, you know, unkind. She was pleasant. And it was something that really rocked Kingston when it happened.

Richard: [00:09:57] Sure. There was a murder that took place in the city of Kingston in 1988. The victim was Annie Kithcart, who was a year ahead of me in high school. I knew her. Not well, because she was a very popular kid and—big surprise—I was a geek. But she was always very nice to me. You know, the popular kids never would speak to the, you know, the unpopular kids. But unlike a lot of them, she wasn’t, you know, unkind. She was pleasant. And it was something that really rocked Kingston when it happened. And what really made it worse was about nine months before that was the famous Tawana Brawley case down in Poughkeepsie. And, as such, at the time this occurred, the Kithcart murder, that racial tensions were really, really tense. And here when Annie was found, she was found behind Kingston Hospital, which in those days was a wooded area with old abandoned railroad tracks that went through it. And she was found. Her body had been stripped and scrawled on her legs with the letters KKK. And there was a K on her stomach, but it was the KKK on her thighs that was really the big media mover, because as soon as that happened, Reverend Al Sharpton and his supporters, including two prominent individuals, immediately got involved and two of them came to Kingston.

“[W]hen Annie was found, she was found behind Kingston Hospital, which in those days was a wooded area with old abandoned railroad tracks that went through it. And she was found. Her body had been stripped and scrawled on her legs with the letters KKK. And there was a K on her stomach, but it was the KKK on her thighs that was really the big media mover, because as soon as that happened, Reverend Al Sharpton and his supporters, including two prominent individuals, immediately got involved and two of them came to Kingston.”

[00:11:17] And, you know, it turned into a real … I hate to call it a circus, but it really was. I mean, the reverend made a comment that was picked up by one of the papers where he said that, you know, that if the district attorney heard something moving in a tree, it wasn’t a cat. It was going to be him. The idea being that he was watching him and so forth. And, you know, a lot of outrageous comments and so forth, because what happened thereafter was Annie Kithcart was of mixed race. Her mother was Caucasian, was white, and her father was African-American. So initially, of course, then you see the KKK. With someone of that race, that immediately it’s going to inflame tensions.

[00:11:58] And then they arrested a man named Kiernan for engaging in illicit activities with the body, we’ll say. More details are given in the book, but I don’t know the age range of who’s listening to your podcast. So I don’t want to go into too much detail. But suffice it to say, if you read the book, there’s a comment that the guy makes that’s incredible. But regardless … you’re laughing, I guess you read it and know what I’m talking about? Anyway, he was arrested for that. And so Sharpton and his supporters began to say that this guy was a scapegoat and they were covering it up. At one point, one of his supporters made a comment that would lead one to believe they were accusing the police. They never actually directly said that. But some people thought that’s what they meant. And eventually they made an arrest. They actually arrested the guy who did it. A man named Jeff Dawson, who was also African-American. So the racial part of it appeared not to be. It really wasn’t the motive or anything. And, at that point, Mr. Sharpton left Kingston, and, to the best of my knowledge, has never returned. So it was a really wild. I mean, this went on … you know, the few weeks before the arrest, it was really, really tense in the city of Kingston. And, you know, having grown up there and lived there, it was something to remember.

Debbi: [00:13:18] There is a mention in there of Interpol and the CIA, I think?

“Well, Kiernan, the man they arrested for doing improper things with the body, he was not mentally stable. He had some serious mental issues. And he used to go around claiming that he was a member of Interpol. He was a member of the CIA. In fact, he made comments that he was undercover at the time that he was arrested.”

Richard: [00:13:22] Well, Kiernan, the man they arrested for doing improper things with the body, he was not mentally stable. He had some serious mental issues. And he used to go around claiming that he was a member of Interpol. He was a member of the CIA. In fact, he made comments that he was undercover at the time that he was arrested. And he said one thing about, I guess I went too far. I let my hair grow too long. And, you know, he just had serious mental issues. And so he made a lot of, you know, wild statements. And he became very much a puppet being used in this whole thing, because, you know, initially he was very, you know, he admitted what he did. He was very sorry and so forth. And then later he began to say he was a scapegoat and he was being set up and so forth. And I actually was through my research, able to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether he was guilty or not. But for that, you’re going to have to get the book and read it. But I was able to pretty much prove his guilt or innocence. And I can’t say what. One, cause I want you to buy the book. And two, because it would require me to be a little more descriptive of what he did than I’m comfortable doing without knowing if children are listening.

Debbi: [00:14:34] No problem. No problem whatsoever. Well, it sounds like a fascinating book.

Richard: [00:14:41] Well, I think so. But I’m a little biased.

Debbi: [00:14:43] Well, just a little, but that’s okay. That’s understandable. Your third book, The Aftermath, has been described as a crime fiction thriller in the mold of Michael Connelly, but with a faster pace similar to Stuart Woods.

Richard: [00:14:59] Well, that’s my description.

Debbi: [00:15:01] Okay.

Richard: [00:15:02] Well, it has not yet been published. That description comes from the letter that I’ve been sending around trying to get it published. I’ve had some interest and hopefully will be published. Basically, I’ve always wanted to write something in fiction. And this is a story that I enjoyed writing this a lot. It was fun.

It’s written mostly in the first person, which I’ve always wanted to do. But there are a few scenes where it goes to the perspective of a killer and those perspective, those parts of the book, I should say, it’s written in the third person. And I’m biased, but I thought when I got the third person, I was surprised how creepy it came out. You know, I’d never written that type of stuff before. I was always very, you know, matter of fact in my writing and so forth. And so this was an attempt to branch out. I’m hopeful that, you know, the manuscript is done. It’s copyedited. It’s all ready to roll. I’m just hoping that, you know, I’m waiting. I got a few agents are waiting to hear back from. I’m hoping that we’re going to get that out in the near future. But I’m looking forward to it because my hope is that if it gets out and people like it, to be able to make a series about it.

About writing his first crime novel: “It’s written mostly in the first person, which I’ve always wanted to do. But there are a few scenes where it goes to the perspective of a killer and those perspective, those parts of the book, I should say, it’s written in the third person. And I’m biased, but I thought when I got the third person, I was surprised how creepy it came out.”

But what I can say is basically the gist of it is that the main character, of course, is a guy named in Connor Phelan, and basically he was on top of the world. He had the job he always wanted. He wanted to be a prosecutor. He was the first assistant, basically, or chief assistant it’s sometimes called, and he was seen to be the next D.A., you know, because it was a powerful guy who was the county D.A. And he was looking to, you know, he was married to another assistant D.A. in the office and they were expecting their first son. And then tragedy struck out of nowhere. And his wife and child, an unborn child, died, and he could not continue with the timing. As a prosecutor, he basically shut down and he took a job down in New York City where he would commute from Rockfield, New York, which doesn’t exist. It’s just a place I made up. But it’s the idea that where it would be is somewhere near the area, what is now called Greene County. It fits in somewhere in that area.

So in the story, he’d commuted down Amtrak and was very good at what he did. He was starting to do personal injury work. And he made a lot of money, but he was just hiding from, you know, hiding from his pain and so forth. And as the book progresses, he, you know, I can’t go to too much to [inaudible], but basically, the person that he’s gonna be up against who’s a killer, had a similar past. The killer lost his family in a similar way. A little more horrible. And he lost his mind, turned to murder as a way to, in his demented mind, to purge his pain. And basically it’s kind of a story of how two people with similar stories went totally different ways. And now in the aftermath, the two of them are trying to get back to where they think they need to be. And inevitably, the two of them have to clash and only one can survive it. And I thought it came out pretty good, but like I said, I’m biased. But hopefully when it comes out, it’ll be well-received. And then I can read a sequel. Because it was a lot of fun to write that. It really was.

Debbi: [00:18:21] I was going to say the fact that you can use narrative structure in the way that you did, in the kind of not usual way or slightly different way than just your straightforward first person or third person, shows that you’re a gifted storyteller.

Richard: [00:18:40] I appreciate that. Thank you. I didn’t know if I could do it. I’d never tried it before, but it was fun.

Debbi: [00:18:45] Yeah, it is actually, to do that. To play with perspectives that way. And my guess is that your experience as a trial lawyer has helped you in terms of storytelling. That’s one of the things, I noticed you do mentoring for high schools. I’ve done that back when I was practicing law. I did that once. It was just the most wonderful experience. But one of the things I advised a group that I recently did, a mock trial-type thing, you know, I was a judge in a mock trial, and one of the things I advised them was learn about storytelling, because it will help you when you’re trying to explain your side of the case.

Richard: [00:19:31] Sure, sure. Writing in this way was different. It was different even than that, in that … well, first off, for the trial, you have to stay to the story that’s presented to you. As with this, I can change the story as I want to because I’m making it all up. But it was, you know, it was interesting. I took some of the characters that were based, at least in part, on some people that I know and I added to that, you know, and stuff. And it was it was fun to put it together. And, you know, the weird thing was that my favorite character ended up not even being the lead character. It was another character named Casey Franklin, who I think, I really think could be the one that becomes the more popular if I’m successful in getting this out there, because she’s just a really, really fun character that I think everybody will know somebody like this character. And, you know, it was just it was just a pleasure to write. I mean, you know, the other two was were tremendous amounts of work. And it doesn’t mean I didn’t work on this newest one, but this was the most fun to write of them all. The others was, you know, it was really hard work. And you want to be so careful because it’s true crime. You want to make sure you don’t make a mistake and you’re being very careful. But with the fiction one it was so much fun to do. I really enjoyed it.

About writing fiction: “Writing in this way was different. It was different even than that, in that … well, first off, for the trial, you have to stay to the story that’s presented to you. As with this, I can change the story as I want to because I’m making it all up. But it was, you know, it was interesting. I took some of the characters that were based, at least in part, on some people that I know and I added to that, you know, and stuff. And it was it was fun to put it together.”

Debbi: [00:20:46] It’s great when you can just make it up, huh?

Richard: [00:20:47] Yeah. Yeah, that’s true. You’re not bound by the darned truth, you know?

Debbi: [00:20:52] Exactly. Thank you.

Richard: [00:20:54] It was fun. It was a lot of fun. You know, it was. And I took some experiences of myself from my career. You know, odd trials or things that I twisted them a little bit and, you know, and had some fun with it. And, you know, the names are changed to protect the innocent, as they say. But it was, you know, that there were some things that were based on the actual experiences I had or attorneys that I know had. And because every attorney. I’m sure you’re the same. You have you had the war stories. Everybody talks about them. In the attorneys’ room, in court, actually. You know, and of course, they’re never, by the time the stories, you know, after they’re five or six years old, they become more grandiose. And, you know, the basic part is true. But as it goes along, it comes more, you know? In other words, in the beginning the judge was grumpy. By the end of it, the judge was so terrible, he was out to get me. But I said … you know. You’re an attorney, you understand. You know, and you do that and then you can have fun with it and make it even more fantastic as part of fiction. What a blast. I enjoyed it a lot.

Debbi: [00:21:57] Well, yeah, that’s funny. Is there anything else you’d like to say before we wrap up?

Richard: [00:22:06] Yeah. I hope that everybody within the sound of my voice runs out and buys 10 copies of each book.

Debbi: [00:22:11] Absolutely. You do that. Right now.

Richard: [00:22:14] I thank you for the opportunity. I enjoyed it. Thank you.

Debbi: [00:22:20] Well, thank you very much for being here, and I enjoyed talking to you. With that, I will just conclude by saying that the Crime Cafe nine-book set and short story anthology are available for sale from all online retailers. And if you’d like to become a patron at any level on Patreon for the podcast, you’ll get copies of those books. Not to mention early access to the podcast. That’s another thing. So every other Sunday it’s on my blog along with the show notes, which is to say the full transcript for your reading pleasure. Just go to DebbiMack.com to check it out. And with that, I’ll just say that our next guest will be Les Abend or A-bend. I’m not sure which. I’ll have to find out. So stay tuned for that. And in the meantime, happy reading.

*****

Become a podcast patron and check out the continually updated drafts of my work-in-progress! (Talk about walking a tightrope without a net!) 🙂