He was compelled to give evidence at the inquest
but given immunity from prosecution if he told the truth at the inquest into what happened to Matt — but on Friday he admitted to having lied to the court about his police interview.
It is understood that police used Mr Atkins confession to having lied as leverage to get him to confess to where Matt’s body is.
He had told police when he was interviewed after Matt’s disappearance, he claimed to have been asleep in the couple’s flat and woke up to find Matt missing but he was confronted with CCTV footage of him buying a mattock and duct tape at Taren Point Bunnings.
Mr Atkins had first told the inquest last week that he had told police the truth in the interview.
Then on Friday he admitted that he had lied to them because he was “scared” of them —
and therefore lied to the inquest.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...y/news-story/c1cd2e7d942ade34a5f7d7b59f76874f
Does this mean no immunity?