Page 145 of Murder in the Family

(takes a deep breath)

Taking them in turn, I’m sure you’ll understand me if I say that – theoretically speaking, of course – a middle-aged woman who was suffering from severe arthritis would be an unlikely suspect for the murder of a very fit 26-year-old male.

BILL SERAFINI

We don’t know how old heactuallywas, of course, but point taken.

However – and likewise, purely hypothetically – there’d be nothing to stop someone in that state of health from getting another person to commit the crime on her behalf. Especially someone close to her, who also stood to gain financially. Like her own kid.

PETER LASCELLES

Of course. And any competent police officer would conduct their enquiries accordingly. Such a child would be investigated and his – or her – alibi verified.

BILL SERAFINI

And?

PETER LASCELLES

Well, as you well know, Bill, some alibis are harder to verify than others. Especially if by the time you speak to the person in question they’re no longer in the country.

BILL SERAFINI

And I guess in those circumstances you’d want to establish exactly when they left. As in, did they leave before orafterthe date of the crime.

PETER LASCELLES

Precisely. And in our hypothetical case it was three days after the murder.

BILL SERAFINI

And wouldn’t that timing strike you as suspicious? Might it make you think they were fleeing the jurisdiction?

PETER LASCELLES

Clearly that would have been an important consideration. And even if the person concerned had insisted that they’d been planning that particular trip for some time, that would have been hard to verify. Twenty years ago, travel documentation wasn’t digitized like it is now.

BILL SERAFINI

And in any case he’d still need an alibi for the night in question.

PETER LASCELLES

Right. But again, there was a lot less technical evidence to draw on back in the day – there weren’t many CCTV cameras, even in city centres, and only a very few mobile phones had GPS tracking. So almost all alibis relied on human beings, not digital data.

BILL SERAFINI

(nodding)

And unlike machines, people can lie. And even if theythinkthey’re telling the truth their memories can still deceive them. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

PETER LASCELLES

I agree, though when a suspect offers an alibi witness who allegedly spent several hours with them on the evening of the crime, then the evidence provided should in theory be a lot more solid.

Always assuming, of course, that the witness hasn’t mistaken the day. Either accidentally or, of course, deliberately.

BILL SERAFINI

---