‘Thanks very much.’

Michael could tell that she was pleased at the compliment.

‘So you feel the same?’ Draper asked. ‘You think they’ve read Kash wrong too?’

‘No, not at all.’ Draper’s reaction to the answer made Michael laugh. She seemed to visibly deflate. ‘I had exactly the same feeling about Kash as Derek did. I don’t think that kid did any of the things he’s accused of. I just don’t buy it. But it’s good that you’re cynical about him. One of us should be. You can keep your eyes open and your wits about you while I’m off on a crusade.’

Draper did not answer, which did not surprise Michael. It was very unlikely that she in her eight years at the Bar she had encountered a QC who seemed pleased that his junior disputed his assessment. Many barristers in Michael’s position would take such disagreement as an insult. A challenge to their superiority.

Ego, Michael knew, was usually everything.

He watched as Draper thought it through. If she had the mind that her reputation suggested then she would see the good sense in having a team made up of half passion and half sceptical logic. It covered all of the bases, even if it was an unusual approach.

‘So you want me to stay off-side?’ Draper asked. ‘You want me to keep doubting everything our client says?’

‘I think I need you to keep doubting,’ Michael replied. ‘I’ve bought into this boy, Jenny. More and more so as I read the evidence. But belief can cause blind spots. You stay as you are and that will help us avoid them.’

Draper sat back into her chair as a smile spread across her face. The good sense in Michael’s approach was not lost on her, he could see.

Maybe the reputation’s deserved after all, Michael thought. So let’s see.

‘What do you think of Terry Colliver’s evidence?’ he asked out of nowhere. He had already identified Terry Colliver as their best line of attack. He wanted to know if Draper had done the same.

‘I think he’s the prosecution weak spot,’ Draper replied. ‘At least from a jury point of view.’

‘Why?’

‘Because he has motive to lie. He was arrested for the murder. The telephone evidence places him near the scene, if not at the scene. He was facing a trial as the killer and he suddenly gives up O’Driscoll and Kash’s names. In return for a plea for a much less serious offence.’

‘Correct.’ Michael nodded, pleased with the answer. She had identified the witness’s primary weakness, but she had missed another.

‘And why would the police have taken his word as gospel?’ he asked. ‘Why did they basically swap him for O’Driscoll and Kash?’

‘Because their intelligence told them O’Driscoll was involved,’ Draper replied. ‘They just didn’t have enough admissible evidence to support what they already knew. Colliver’s testimony gave them that admissible evidence.’

‘But why name Kash too?’ Michael was nudging Draper forward. ‘Why not just give up O’Driscoll?’