Warehouse Theft Timeline and Three Statements
At 07:00 a warehouse manager reports 12 tablets missing from a locked cage. The theft window is 19:00–23:00 the previous night. Three guards were on duty: P at the main gate, Q on the floor, and R in the CCTV room. Statements: P says at about 20:15 he saw Q come out of aisle 4 carrying a cardboard box and walk toward the break room. Q says he was in the break room from 20:00 to 20:30 and never entered aisle 4. R says the break-room camera shows Q there from 20:05 to 20:25, but the aisle 4 camera was offline from 20:10 to 20:40. The electronic door log shows Q's access card opened aisle 4 at 20:18. The exit bag scanner did not alarm because the tablets had no security tags. Q's card was also used at the staff room at 20:31. P admits the floor lights were dim and he was 25 m away. No other camera covers aisle 4.
1. Identify the central contradiction and explain why it is not resolved by the break-room camera alone.
Read the worked answer
The central contradiction is between Q's alibi and two independent records: P says he saw Q at aisle 4 at about 20:15, and Q's card opened aisle 4 at 20:18. Q says he was in the break room from 20:00 to 20:30. The break-room camera showing Q from 20:05 to 20:25 does not fully resolve it. First, it proves Q's location only if the camera clock is accurate and the footage is continuous. Second, the door log proves the card was used, not who used it. Third, P's sighting is weak: 25 m away in dim light, and he may have seen another guard in similar uniform. The defensible position is that Q's card was used at 20:18 while Q's personal presence there is contested. The camera makes P's identification doubtful, but it does not prove the card was not misused.
2. Construct the most defensible timeline using only facts that are independently corroborated. Mark each fact as confirmed, probable, or unverified.
Read the worked answer
Confirmed: the door log recorded a card event at aisle 4 at 20:18; the same card was used at the staff room at 20:31; the aisle 4 camera was offline 20:10–20:40; 12 tablets were missing. Probable: Q was in the break room 20:05–20:25, subject to camera time verification. Unverified: P's sighting of Q at 20:15; that Q personally used the card at 20:18; that the theft occurred at 20:18. Most defensible timeline: 20:05–20:25 Q is probably in the break room. 20:18 an unknown person uses Q's card at aisle 4. 20:10–20:40 the aisle camera is offline, creating the theft opportunity. 20:31 Q's card is used at the staff room. The tablets could have left between 20:10 and 20:40. This timeline fits the records without concluding Q's guilt.
3. What single follow-up check would best distinguish Q's personal theft from misuse of his card by another guard? Justify.
Read the worked answer
The best single check is the access-control audit trail for the 20:18 event: does the reader record a PIN, biometric, or only a card number, and is there a corridor camera covering the door? If the system requires only a card, another guard could have borrowed it. If it requires a PIN or fingerprint, Q's alibi collapses or is strengthened. A corridor camera at the aisle entrance would show who carried the box. A weaker check is re-interviewing P with a photo array, because his identification is already compromised by distance and light. The audit trail distinguishes card misuse from personal use more directly than motive or demeanour.