He had learned long ago that memory could become unreliable under pressure, and that people often remembered the same incident differently. The safest approach was to record what each person had observed before later conversations influenced their recollections.
The first witness he interviewed was Daniel Price, the young attorney who had seen Nathan seize Evelyn's arm.
Daniel sat in a small administrative office with his hands folded tightly on the table.
ARTHUR BENNETT: “Please describe what you saw from the moment you first noticed the officer.”
DANIEL PRICE: “I was walking toward Courtroom Four. I heard him tell her to stop. She turned around and asked whether she could help him.”
ARTHUR BENNETT: “Did you hear her refuse an instruction?”
DANIEL PRICE: “She asked why he wanted her to come with him. He kept telling her to turn around, but I didn't hear him explain why.”
Arthur wrote down the response.
ARTHUR BENNETT: “What happened next?”
DANIEL PRICE: “He grabbed her arm. She told him to let go. Then he accused her of resisting, and she said she wasn't resisting.”
ARTHUR BENNETT: “Did you see her strike him or attempt to injure him?”
DANIEL PRICE: “No. She looked startled. She was trying to understand what was happening.”
Arthur looked up.
ARTHUR BENNETT: “Did you see the fall?”
DANIEL PRICE: “Yes. He pushed her backward. She tried to catch herself on the bench, but she missed it and landed on the floor.”
ARTHUR BENNETT: “What did the officer do after she fell?”
Daniel hesitated, clearly uncomfortable with the memory.
DANIEL PRICE: “He kept shouting at her. She tried to get up, and he moved toward her. Then he used his foot against her while she was on the floor.”
ARTHUR BENNETT: “Can you describe the movement as accurately as you remember it?”
DANIEL PRICE: “He brought his boot down beside her head, then struck toward her while she was trying to cover herself. I saw her recoil. When she moved her hand away from her hair, there was blood.”
Arthur recorded the statement without interrupting.
He did not ask Daniel to speculate about Nathan's intentions. He did not suggest what the officer might have meant to do. He simply documented the sequence of events Daniel said he had witnessed.
When the interview was finished, Arthur asked him to review the written account and correct any mistakes.
Daniel read it carefully, then signed it.
The next witness was Linda Foster, the court interpreter.
Her account was consistent with Daniel's on several important points. She had heard Evelyn ask why she was being detained, and she had seen Nathan grab her before the fall.
She also remembered Evelyn attempting to shield her head.
LINDA FOSTER: “I thought he was going to stop when she fell. I expected him to call for help, or at least step back.”
ARTHUR BENNETT: “What did he do instead?”
LINDA FOSTER: “He told her to stay down. He looked angry, as if she had embarrassed him.”
Arthur recorded the statement but did not include Linda's interpretation of Nathan's expression as an established fact. He noted that she had perceived the officer as angry and that she believed his response after the fall had been inappropriate.
The distinction mattered.
An investigation needed to separate what a witness had directly observed from what that witness had inferred.
By midday, several statements had been collected.
Each witness had seen a different portion of the confrontation, but their accounts shared a common sequence: Nathan approached Evelyn, demanded that she accompany him, failed to provide a clear explanation, grabbed her arm, pushed her down, and continued using force after she was on the floor.
None of the witnesses Arthur had interviewed so far described Evelyn attacking Nathan.
Meanwhile, the security supervisor had obtained the original message from the department's internal system.
Arthur read it twice.
The message concerned Clara Bennett, a woman expected to attend a hearing that morning. It stated that a court notice required verification and instructed the assigned officer to confirm the woman's identity and the status of the matter with the clerk before taking further action.
The final sentence was unambiguous.
No arrest or detention was to be initiated solely on the basis of the preliminary notice.
Arthur placed the message beside Nathan's initial report.
The difference between the two documents was difficult to ignore.