Motive, means, and opportunity – My side of the story

You could say there was a story to tell, because when it came down to it, the answers to the specific questions put to me during an interview which I learned later, had been fueled by another interview, required truthful answers, and those answers were, in reality, quite damning.

It just shows what can happen when you’re ambushed by a very clever detective seeking a specific result.

It ran, in part, thus:

The first: did you know (name).

The simple answer was: yes

So, if I left it at that, the note in the detective’s notebook would say, the suspect knew the victim.

Next question, did you know the victim was dating your ex-wife?

The simple answer to that question was yes. But there was more to it than just a yes, but I was not given the chance to explain the complexities of that answer.

But here’s the story that goes with that answer: I knew my ex was seeing someone else long before we broke up, but it only became clear who it was when she moved out. He inadvertently came to the house when she was out, but that was just confirmation.

It had to be one of her old boyfriends, she had hinted at it often enough.

Did it surprise me? No. She had to be seeing someone because she wasn’t talking to me, and her grief had become more manageable over time. And given her dislike of psychiatrists, she wasn’t getting help from that quarter.

But I was not asked about those circumstances, nor when I tried to, was I given a hearing. If I had anything further to add, I would be given the chance later.

Instead, we moved on to the next question, laying the foundations of the case against me.

What did you think of Garry given his relationship with your wife?

Answer: I didn’t think anything. It was clear early on that the marriage was irrevocably broken, I’m sure you are aware of the circumstances that led to that breakdown, and that it was inevitable she would seek solace elsewhere. She put the blame for the death of our son on my doorstep and was never going to forgive me.

At that point, there was a subtle change in the detective.

Did he or did he not know what the cause of our marital breakdown was? He tried to make it look like he didn’t, but if I knew (name) it would be the second item out of her mouth, after the accusation I was the perpetrator.

He said: You can see how this looks?

I said: How what looks? I was guessing this was the time to start acting dumb and being careful what I said.

As far as the detective was concerned, and had been hinting at, was that I had a motive, and it wouldn’t, in the end, matter what I said, or left unsaid, he had already decided who was guilty.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.