3.3 SIO and the two detectives debrief the case

Well done there, Sund. He wasn’t the easiest to interview. But I hear you kept your cool.

Thanks, sir. Now I felt like I wanted to fight at first. But as per your advice and the advice of the interview advisor, I really worked hard to avoid any arguments. I didn’t want things to escalate.

Yeah, but you was firm too. You didn’t let him wriggle away with anything. A lesser officer might have felt intimidated. This guy was a seasoned violent offender. But you didn’t let that bother you.

We’ve been in the game long enough, sir.

So are we confident we’ve got our man?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. The forensic evidence regarding the spittle was pretty damning.

What about that then? What did he say about it?

Well, when we first introduced it, he went into no comment. But I kept progressing with questions.

To be fair, you did well there, Sund. You got him talking again, didn’t you?

I did eventually, yeah. It took a bit of patience. Later on in the interview, he tried to claim that the spit might have been on Leonard’s face because they’d argued earlier on in the street.

But that wasn’t consistent with the forensics, sir. The report from Peters was very clear on that. I’ve got it here. The amount of fluid recovered was significant and was consistent with a substantial amount of spittle being deliberately projected onto the face of the deceased in a spitting pattern. It is not consistent with the expected transfer of spittle, which may happen from conversing with an individual at close quarters.

So it sounds like the victim was spat on whilst he was laying there dying.

If someone spits in your face, your first instinct tends to be to wipe it off. We suspect, therefore, the suspect spat on his face when he was already incapacitated.

It makes sense. What about the sister?

Less involved, it would seem. Looks like she was maybe just there so that the old fella would open the door to let them in. She claims to have wandered back to the car as soon as Leonard let Mick in. Said in her interview that Mick had been taking them in some groceries. But she needed to make a phone call from the car to her work. So she didn’t hang around.

I see. Thoughts on that.

Hard to say. The phone records do show the phone call. And it was to a work colleague. But from the phone work, whether she was in the house or in the car, it’s hard to pinpoint. Obviously, the house had lots of her prints in it.

Yes. But she’s round there pretty regular. So again, hard one to say.

The phone call did, however, span a significant time period of the time in question. By that, I mean the time between the two ANPR hits of the car arriving and leaving. So it seems unlikely the call was made from inside the house.

So one last question. Why?

The usual, sir.

Cash. Leonard have been saving up for a trip to Australia to visit his daughter. He thought it might be his last chance either for him to visit her or for her and her family to come over and visit him. Nita worked occasional shifts at the bar at the bowling club, alongside her other job, and somehow got wind of the fact that Leonard had savings and befriended him.

And Nita told Mick?

Unfortunately, she did. Mick has a violent background. And he isn’t afraid to part people, even the elderly, from their hard saved cash. It seems the victim’s wrists were tied together. And he was probably being threatened before he died. There wasn’t cash in the property.

But we did find his cash card on the table. So we wonder if Mick was trying to get him to give him the pin.

That’s our theory. Of course, we will never absolutely know what went on and why, but money.

Which is often the motive.

Indeed. But the old fellow was no pushover. Being from an army background, we don’t reckon he will have given in easily.

So the charge for Mick is murder.

That’s right, guv.

Well done, team. Good job.