The Pawnshop Alibi and the Fast CCTV Clock
At 6:10 p.m., a pawnshop inside a mall was robbed. The pawnshop CCTV clock is 4 minutes fast; it stamped the robber's entry at 6:14. The food court CCTV is synchronized to the mall system and shows suspect R entering at 6:02 p.m. and leaving at 6:12 p.m. The food court is a 5-minute walk from the pawnshop. R claims he stayed in the food court until 6:20. A mall guard says he saw R near the pawnshop at 6:10 by the guard's wristwatch, but the guard later admits his watch is 3 minutes slow. R's phone records show a call at 6:15 p.m. connecting to a cell site that covers both the food court and the pawnshop. The investigator also has a statement from a food court cleaner who says R left 'around 6:10' but cannot be more precise. The prosecutor asks whether the alibi is broken and what follow-up is needed before charging R.
1. Convert all relevant times to actual mall time and construct a timeline.
Read the worked answer
The pawnshop clock is 4 minutes fast, so its 6:14 stamp equals 6:10 actual mall time. That is the time of the robber's entry.
The food court CCTV is synchronized: R entered at 6:02 and left at 6:12.
The guard's watch is 3 minutes slow. His 6:10 reading equals 6:13 actual mall time.
The phone call at 6:15 is already in actual time if the phone record is reliable.
Actual timeline:
- 6:02: R enters food court.
- 6:10: robber enters pawnshop.
- 6:12: R leaves food court on CCTV.
- 6:13: guard's reported sighting of R near pawnshop.
- 6:15: R's phone call connects to cell site covering both locations.
- 6:17: earliest R could reach pawnshop after a 5-minute walk from food court.
2. Does the food court CCTV break or support R's alibi? Explain using travel time.
Read the worked answer
It supports the alibi for the robbery time. R is shown leaving the food court at 6:12. With a 5-minute walk, he could not reach the pawnshop before 6:17. The robbery entry is at 6:10 actual time. Therefore, if the food court CCTV is accurate and the walk time is reliable, R could not have been the person who entered the pawnshop at 6:10.
R's claim that he stayed until 6:20 is not accurate because the CCTV shows him leaving at 6:12. But that discrepancy does not place him at the pawnshop at 6:10. A false detail in an alibi weakens R's credibility; it does not by itself prove participation in the robbery.
3. Evaluate the guard's sighting and the phone record. What follow-up should the investigator do before deciding whether to charge R?
Read the worked answer
The guard's sighting is weaker than it first appears. His 6:10 reading is 6:13 actual time. That is after the robbery and still before R's earliest possible arrival at 6:17 if R left the food court at 6:12. The guard may have seen R near the pawnshop later, or he may have misidentified someone. His statement needs a precise location, direction of travel, duration of observation, and a photo lineup conducted properly.
The phone record is not probative on location because the cell site covers both the food court and the pawnshop. It does not show R at the pawnshop; it is consistent with R remaining in the food court area.
Follow-up:
- Verify the food court and pawnshop CCTV synchronization and preserve the original footage.
- Check all exits and travel routes between the two locations.
- Interview the cleaner with a written statement and test the 'around 6:10' estimate.
- Obtain detailed call and location records, not just the cell-site sector.
- Do not charge R on the guard's uncorrected time or on the shared cell site. The alibi is not broken on the present record.