Page 73 of Murder in the Family

RUPERT HOWARD

(tearing off his mic and getting up)

I’ve had enough of this – we’re done. I’d like you to leave.

Film cuts out to static.

CUT TO: Studio, as before.

JJ NORTON

That’s not exactly the demeanour of an innocent man. Not in my book. But as at now, that’s all we have on him.

LAILA FURNESS

Maybe ‘DP’ didn’t mean Dorney Place. He just used it as an excuse. A smokescreen.

HUGO FRASER

He was only 23 – what does a kid that age need a smokescreen for? He was hardly some big-time crime boss—

LAILA FURNESS

No, but he could have been dabbling in drugs – something like that—

HUGO FRASER

(smiling)

I get it – ‘DP’reallystood for Drug Pusher—

LAILA FURNESS

Thanks for the man-descension, Hugo, but you know as well as I do that he could easily have been doing a bit of dealing on the side. It would account for why he’s so touchy about it, not just then but especially now – it’s hardly a good look for an aspiring Tory MP.

BILL SERAFINI

For what it’s worth, I agree. But either way he does seem to have an alibi for that night. And to be honest, I still can’t see what motive he could have had.

That said, there may be something in the family finances that could have given him one. JJ – what did you find out about that?

JJ NORTON

Laila’s the one who’s been on the case there.

LAILA FURNESS

(looking up)

Ah, yes. To recap, this was all about establishing whether Rupert had a reason to kill Luke, his one-time friend, let’s not forget.

Given we’ve now confirmed that Rupert was definitely in Cambridge that night, it couldn’t have been an argument-gone-bad murder: someone else must have carried it out on his behalf. If not a professional hitman then a friend or associate. In other words, ithadto have been premeditated.

So did Rupert have a motive that was strong enough for him toarrangeto have Luke Ryder killed?

The short answer is, I don’t think so.

I took a look at Andrew Howard’s will—

---