2.5 Noting discrepancies on the timeline

As you observed the interview, you may have noticed a few discrepancies between what Mick was saying happened and the other evidence. If you haven’t already, make sure you have noted these on your timeline.

• In Week 3 (regarding the new potential suspects in the case), you may remember that according to his initial statement, taken at the time, Brough claimed to have been at home watching TV during the time period of the offence.
• In the interview, it would be difficult for Mick to maintain that claim because he has been sighted at the scene, and his car has been picked up close to the scene, both at the relevant time points.
• However, in the interview we see that Mick claims not to have left his car, which is inconsistent with the account of the witness who saw him walk up the drive of 24 Abigail Crescent.
• He also claims to have been there for a shorter time period, saying he left at 7.30 pm, which is inconsistent with the ANPR record, which shows the car leave at 8.07 pm.
• Additionally, Mick claims not to have been at the property in three years, and this conflicts with the forensic evidence – in particular the spit found on the face of the murder victim.

There are, therefore, a number of conflicts between the other evidence and the story that Mick is trying to present that can be seen when you attend to the timeline of events.