He deleted the final paragraph and started again.
For the first time, Nathan considered the possibility that the investigation would not be satisfied by an explanation of what he had intended to do.
It would examine what he had actually done.
That distinction was the one he had tried to avoid from the beginning.
On Monday morning, Rebecca placed the video timeline, the original message, and Nathan's first report on the table.
She asked him to review each item carefully.
REBECCA SHAW: “We are going to revisit the sequence of events. I want you to respond to the evidence, not to what you now believe you may have intended.”
Nathan nodded, looking increasingly uncomfortable.
REBECCA SHAW: “The original message instructed you to verify the identity and court status before taking action. You have already acknowledged that you did not do that. Is your account unchanged?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “Yes.”
REBECCA SHAW: “The video shows you approaching Judge Whitmore while she is walking through the corridor. It does not show her threatening you or attempting to strike you before you take hold of her arm. Do you dispute that?”
Nathan stared at the screen.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
REBECCA SHAW: “The footage then shows you pushing her backward, causing her to fall. Your report does not describe the push in those terms. Why?”
Nathan rubbed his palms together.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I wrote the report while I was still trying to process what happened.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Did you have an opportunity to review it before submitting it?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “Yes.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Did anyone prevent you from describing the push accurately?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
Rebecca gave him time to answer.
REBECCA SHAW: “The report states that the fall occurred during a struggle. The recording shows you pushing her backward. Is there a reason you did not describe that action directly?”
Nathan looked down at the documents.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I thought the wording described the overall situation.”
REBECCA SHAW: “It does not describe the physical action shown in the recording. Do you agree?”
After a long pause, Nathan nodded.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “Yes.”
Rebecca moved to the next segment.
REBECCA SHAW: “The footage also shows you moving your foot toward her while she is on the floor. In your first interview, you said you were trying to keep her from getting up. What specific threat were you responding to?”
Nathan did not answer immediately.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I thought she might get up and continue resisting.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Was she attacking you?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Was she reaching for your equipment?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Was there any other immediate threat you can identify?”
Nathan shook his head.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
Rebecca placed a copy of the witness statements beside the video timeline.
REBECCA SHAW: “Three witnesses independently described you continuing to use force after she fell. Their accounts are consistent with the visible sequence on the recording. Do you dispute that you used your foot against her while she was on the floor?”
Nathan's face tightened.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I did use my foot to keep her down.”
REBECCA SHAW: “And you did not immediately assess her injury or call for medical assistance?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “No.”
Rebecca paused.
REBECCA SHAW: “Your original report does not clearly describe either of those facts. Why were they omitted?”
Nathan looked at the table for several seconds.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I was focused on explaining why I had approached her. I didn't want the report to sound as if I'd lost control.”
REBECCA SHAW: “Were you trying to make the encounter appear less serious than it was?”
Nathan's hands tightened together.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I didn't think of it that way when I wrote it.”
REBECCA SHAW: “That is not the same as answering the question.”
Nathan swallowed.
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “I knew it looked bad. I wanted to explain why I thought the encounter had started.”
Rebecca made a note and returned to the original report.
REBECCA SHAW: “An explanation of why you approached someone does not remove the need to accurately describe what happened afterward. Do you understand that distinction?”
OFFICER NATHAN COLE: “Yes.”
REBECCA SHAW: “I want you to consider whether there is anything else in your initial account that needs to be corrected.”
Nathan stared at the page.
For a long moment, he said nothing.