If Suspect 1 were @anand, then since he answers truthfully to the second question, he is a knight, but then his first reply means that he once claimed he was a knave, which knights will not do. Hence Suspect 1 is not @anand.
If Suspect 2 were @anand, then he is either a knight or a knave. If he were a knight, then the answer to question 2 means he claimed he was not @anand, which is a lie. Hence he is a knave. But then the answer to question 1 is a lie, which means he has once claimed he is @anand, which a liar will not do. This contradiction means that he is not @anand.
Now Suspect 3 cannot be a knight, since he says his lawyer is truthful, and the lawyer says that he is a knave. So Suspect 3 is a knave. And so what he said is false, and his lawyer is a knave. But then the lawyer has uttered a falsehood. Of the conjuction he uttered, at least one conjunct is false.But the first conjunct is true, so the second is false. And Suspect 3 is indeed @anand!