Nathan had acknowledged that he had not done so.
That fact did not depend on whether he had opened the update.
It was an independent part of the investigation.
At ten o'clock, Rebecca met with Helen Brooks, the county public safety director.
She summarized the evidence collected so far and explained that several questions remained open. The witness accounts and video supported the conclusion that Nathan had pushed Evelyn to the floor and continued using force while she was down. His report did not fully describe those actions.
The original message also indicated that verification was required before any detention was initiated.
Helen listened carefully.
COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR HELEN BROOKS: “Do you have enough information to recommend an interim restriction?”
REBECCA SHAW: “Yes. The available evidence raises serious concerns about the officer's conduct and the accuracy of his initial account. I recommend that he remain off active enforcement duties while the review continues.”
HELEN BROOKS: “Would that be a disciplinary finding?”
REBECCA SHAW: “No. It would be a temporary measure to protect the integrity of the process while the facts are examined.”
Helen nodded.
COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR HELEN BROOKS: “Make the recommendation in writing and specify the evidence supporting it. We should not confuse an interim decision with the final outcome.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Agreed.”
The recommendation was submitted that afternoon.
Nathan was notified that he would remain temporarily reassigned while the investigation continued. He was instructed not to contact the witnesses about their statements and not to access the relevant case records outside the scope of his authorized duties.
His department representative acknowledged receipt.
The investigation was moving beyond an argument about a mistaken identity.
It was becoming a formal examination of an officer's decisions, the instructions he had received, the force he had used, and the report he had submitted afterward.
But Rebecca knew that one important step remained.
She needed to speak with Clara Bennett.
Clara's case had triggered the original message, and her check-in record might help explain why the officer had been searching the fourth floor that morning. Her testimony could clarify the court's instructions, although she had not witnessed the confrontation with Evelyn.
Rebecca located the contact information provided by the clerk and arranged an interview.
Clara arrived at the courthouse later that week, accompanied by a legal representative. She appeared anxious and repeatedly asked whether her own court matter would be affected by the investigation.
Rebecca assured her that the purpose of the interview was to establish the timeline and understand the communication process, not to pressure her about her case.
REBECCA SHAW: “Please tell me when you arrived at the courthouse that morning.”
CLARA BENNETT: “A little before nine. I checked in at the front desk, and the clerk told me where to go.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Did anyone tell you that a police officer would be looking for you?”
CLARA BENNETT: “No. I didn't know anything about that until people started talking about what happened.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Did you have an outstanding warrant, to your knowledge?”
Clara shook her head.
CLARA BENNETT: “I had received a notice about a court appearance, and I came because I wanted to resolve it. I wasn't trying to avoid anyone.”
Rebecca asked her to explain the notice and provide any correspondence she had received.
Clara produced a copy of the document and described the instructions she had followed when she arrived.
Her account was consistent with the clerk's statement that she had checked in before the confrontation. It did not, by itself, answer whether Nathan had received the update, but it helped establish that the original assignment concerned a matter that required verification rather than an immediate assumption of identity.
When the interview ended, Clara appeared relieved.
CLARA BENNETT: “Am I going to be blamed for what happened to the judge?”
REBECCA SHAW: “No one should draw that conclusion from the fact that your case prompted a preliminary notice. We are examining the decisions made during the incident and the process that led to them.”
Clara nodded slowly.
CLARA BENNETT: “I just hope nobody treats the next person the way he treated her.”
Rebecca wrote down the statement.
It was not a technical finding, and it would not determine the outcome of the investigation. But it captured a concern that had begun appearing in several conversations: the fear that a person's presence on a court list could cause an officer to assume the worst before checking the facts.