On the night of October 12th, the ”Sunburst Medallion” was stolen from the highly secured display case in the city museum. The theft occurred sometime between the museum closing at 10:00 PM and the night guard, Mr. Hemant, completing his final round at 1:00 AM. Three primary suspects were identified, all of whom had recently been dismissed from their museum positions: Anjali, the former curator; Bharat, the former security expert; and Chitra, the former exhibits designer.
Here are the established facts and their alibis:
• The security system logs show that the display case was opened using a specific five-digit code, which only Anjali and the museum director (who was out of the country) knew.
• Bharat’s alibi is that he was at a distant relative’s birthday party from 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM. Multiple independent witnesses confirmed his presence throughout the entire period.
• Chitra’s alibi is that she was working late at a downtown graphic design studio. A timestamped security camera from the studio’s entrance shows her entering at 7:00 PM and exiting at 11:45 PM. The studio is a 20-minute drive from the museum.
• Mr. Hemant, the night guard, stated he checked the medallion at 10:30 PM, and it was still there.
• Further investigation revealed that a small, distinctive silver button was found near the display case. Anjali is known to frequently wear a coat with similar unique silver buttons. The security expert, Bharat, had previously boasted that he could remotely disable a
certain type of magnetic lock-the same type used on the medallion’s case-without needing the code, though the log suggests the code was used. (269 words)

Deduction and Contradictory Evidence
If the theft was committed by Bharat, which established fact must be incorrect, based on the provided information?