2.4 DS Sund interviews Mick Brough

Hello, Mick, my name is Detective Sergeant Sund. We are in an interview suite in Falldershire police force, and the date and time is 10:00 AM on Monday, the 17th of February. Would you like to take a seat and for the benefit of the tape–

No, I don’t fucking well like to take a seat.

OK that is your choice, Mick. For the benefit of the tape could you state your name and date of birth please.

Mick Brough, six of the fifth ‘86.

Thank you, Mick. I’m just going to take a seat myself.

Suit yourself, why am I here?

Mick, you have been arrested on suspicion of the murder of Leonard Anderson.

Who the fuck is that?

Leonard Anderson. Leonard was an elderly man who lived on Abigail Crescent. Mick, I need to explain the caution to you, and then I will go on to explain to you the reasons for your arrest. I need to caution you.

I already know all that.

Sorry?

The caution, I already know all about that.

OK, Mick, I’m just going to run it by you anyway to check your understanding. The caution is you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. What that means, Mick, is you do not have to speak to us today. But if you do speak to us we can use what you say as evidence in court. If you chose to use your right to remain silent, which is your right, then you absolutely do not have to speak to us.

But that said, if you fail to mention something which you later rely on in court, then the court might draw an adverse inference. By which I mean they might question why you didn’t mention it to me today.

Like I said, I already know all that. Why am I here?

Mick, you are here for the following reasons. Leonard Anderson was found deceased on the morning of Tuesday, the 11th of February.

Who found him?

The police found him deceased in his house. The estimated time of death is on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of February. Sometime between 7:00 and 10:00 PM. Additionally, Mick, the last time Leonard was seen out and about was on the Sunday morning, when he went for a pint with some friends at the bowling club. Importantly, on the evening of that same day, a local resident has provided a statement saying that they saw yourself and your sister Nita go into the property at around 7:00 PM.

Saw me? They saw me? How the fuck did they know it was me, eh? How the fuck does some local resident at the old dead bloke know me? Who am I to them, eh?

Their report says that they recognised your sister Nita, who we understand was in a relationship with Leonard. So it was–

Relationship?

–a regular visitor.

I don’t fucking think so. He’s old enough to be her dad.

It is our understanding, Mick, from speaking to people close with Leonard that they were in a relationship.

Oh, so that’s how you’ve obtained your evidence, is it? Speaking to people close to Leonard.

We also have an ANPR record match of your number plate passing Leonard’s road at 7:10 on Sunday evening. I need to tell you, Mick, that both yourself and your sister Nita have been arrested.

Nita’s been arrested?

That’s right. She is being held at a different police station and will be questioned too.

Oh for fuck’s sake. All because of some fucking neighbour, which neighbour was it?

As you’ll be aware, Mick, I can’t tell you that. Mick, I know this is quite a lot of information to take in but it is really important that you understand why you were here. As you can imagine, in a case like this, there are a lot of people from all different departments of the police working on different aspects of the investigation. But my role today is to speak to you and obtain your account.

What’s Nita said?

I don’t know that, Mick. Nita’s being interviewed at the same time as you but in a different location. Now, my manager here will coordinate across the different interview locations, but just to be clear, Mick, I will not be able to tell you what Nita has said. In fact, I am unlikely to find out myself. My job is to speak to you and not to worry about what Nita has said. I should stress to you, Mick, that you don’t even have to speak to me. It’s absolutely your right not to. But equally we are really curious to understand in what way you may or may not be involved in this situation. And our conversation today is a good time to discuss that. So that we can do the best thing by Leonard and investigate properly the circumstances of his death.

Go on, then. What’s your question?

I’m keen to establish, Mick, why you were driving down Leonard’s road at 7:10 on Sunday evening?

I was dropping Nita off.

Dropping her off?

Yeah, Leonard’s like– she can’t drive so I have to ferry her about the place.

OK and do you know what she was going to Leonard’s for that night?

I don’t know. To help him out with something.

Help him out?

Yeah with IT or something. He’s a bit shit with technology.

Yes it can be a problem I guess for the older generation. I’m not always brilliant at it myself. So you dropped her around. What did you do then?

I just waited outside. Sat in the car.

OK. I’m curious as to why, Mick. Why did you wait outside?

Because I couldn’t be arsed with the IT lesson.

OK so what did you do instead?

Well, I just waited. Had the radio on. Messing around with my phone. Usual things, you know.

And how long did you wait?

Not long, she was in and out really. 20 minutes, something like that.

OK so Nita came back to the car outside, did she?

Yeah after 20 minutes she came back to the car. Well what I’m saying 20 minutes. It might be less.

OK so take me forward from that point, Mick. Nita gets in the car.

Yeah she gets in the car. She says let’s go. We drive home.

OK so that means you should pass the camera again at around 7.30 PM, right?

What camera?

Oh, sorry. The ANPR camera that captured your number plane on the way into the road.

No, no because I drove in a different way.

Well, it is a cul-de-sac isn’t it, Mick? Where Leonard lives?

Yeah. Yeah, I guess it would have seen me leaving around then. There or thereabouts.

Just a thought, Mick, where had you come from? I mean what had you been doing before you dropped Nita around to Leonard’s?

Before?

Yeah. Do you know where you were driving there from, or what you had been doing earlier that evening?

No.

So have you ever been inside Leonard’s house, Mick? I know you mentioned that Nita used to go around regularly. Have you ever accompanied her in?

Maybe.

You’re saying that as if you’re unsure, Mick.

Well, if I’ve been in it. It would have been like, ages ago.

Ages?

Yeah, like years.

OK so if you’re unsure if you’ve been in or not, could you just cast your mind back a moment, Mick, and just think about whether or not you know what the layout of Leonard’s house is? Do you think you’ve ever seen his kitchen, for example. Just it might be a way to help you remember if you’ve been in or not, maybe.

Well I think I know what the inside is like so I must have been in. The kitchen’s sort of right at the back so yeah I must have been in. But like I said, years ago.

Years ago?

Yeah, when he first started to see Nita to check him over like.

Oh. Yeah, check out who it is your sister is seeing.

Well, sort of.

And when would that be, Mick? When did Nita start to get to know him? When you might have popped round?

Three years, something like that.

OK so what I’m hearing is that you think you have been inside Leonard’s house previously, but if you have been in, it hasn’t been for around three years or thereabouts. Is that correct? Have I got that right? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I want to be clear on exactly what you have said so correct me if I have any of that wrong.

No that’s right.

Because I’m curious to explore a couple of things, Mick. Things where there is a difference between what you were telling me and what has been established elsewhere. So you mentioned that you waited outside for 20 minutes and left at 7.30pm. Yet your car isn’t seen leaving the cul-de-sac until 8:07 PM.

I might have got it wrong. I said, that didn’t I? I said I might have got it wrong.

Yeah it’s possible. But I’m also curious about the fact that you are saying that you stayed in the car. Yet the neighbours account says that they saw you both, to be clear that’s both yourself and your sister Nita, walk up the drive to the house.

Fuck’s sake. Who is this neighbour? Maybe they don’t see too well. I was in the car.

OK and so you seem pretty sure about that, Mick. The fact that you stayed in the car.

Well I know I did. I was listening to the radio. And I didn’t see any people hanging around making notes on who was in the street at that time either.

Obviously on the one hand, Mick, I’ve got you saying that you stayed in the car and that you can remember listening to the radio. On the other hand, we have this neighbour here saying that they saw you go up the drive. And I’m just really curious to understand how both of those things can be right.

Well both can’t be right. This neighbour whoever they are is a bullshitter.

I really want you to think about this, Mick, it’s important.

No, it’s not important. It’s bullshit, unimportant bullshit.

Mick, you mentioned earlier that you haven’t been in the property for around three years. But the forensic reports we have states that there is forensic evidence to link you to Inside the property.

Well that proves it then doesn’t it? It is bullshit. Maybe it’s Nita’s forensic evidence. We are related, you know.

Mick, both yours and Nita’s fingerprints were found inside the property.

Well I’ve said that haven’t I. I’ve been in there, just a long time ago.

I have a forensic science report here, Mick from Richard Peters of the Forensic Science Service. Now, he conducted the analysis of items taken from the scene and also of samples taken from the deceased’s body. He mentions a number of items that were examined, but the most important were– exhibit DS6, green string with blood-staining taken from the floor of the box room at epigram Crescent, number 24. Now, that string was tested, Mick, and the blood-staining on this string was tested, and it matches that of the decedent.

So what? We know someone killed him, didn’t we? You saying they killed him with string?

Well, the report by Richard Peters also goes on to state the following. I was asked to examine the body of Leonard Anderson, deceased in order to obtain any forensically relevant information from the body. His findings go on to say that bodily fluid in the form of spittle was recovered from the left hand side of the face of the deceased. This spittle was tested and matches a buccal swab taken from Mick Brough. Now, I’m curious to understand how that can be the case, Mick, if like you say, you hadn’t been in the property for three years.

No comment.