Vanessa did not answer.
For the first time during the interview, she seemed to recognize that the explanation she had been repeating since the incident could not account for the action shown on the recording.
REBECCA SHAW: "You have said several times that you did not know she was a judge. I understand that you did not recognize her. But I need you to explain why you continued using force after she was restrained."
VANESSA BLAKE: "I was frustrated."
REBECCA SHAW: "Frustration does not establish a threat. Did you have any other reason for striking her?"
Vanessa looked toward her representative.
VANESSA BLAKE: "No."
Rebecca wrote down the answer.
The interview continued for another hour.
Vanessa described her understanding of the assignment, her interpretation of Danielle's questions, and her decision to use force. Some of her answers were consistent with the written report. Others introduced details that had not appeared in the original account.
Rebecca recorded each discrepancy.
She did not tell Vanessa what the final findings would be. She explained that the investigation would compare her statements with the original message, the video, and the independent witness accounts.
When the interview ended, Vanessa left the room looking considerably less confident than when she had entered.
Rebecca remained behind to review her notes.
One admission stood out.
Vanessa had acknowledged that Danielle was not attacking her, attempting to escape, or reaching for her equipment when the slaps occurred.
She had also acknowledged that she was frustrated.
Those answers did not settle every question about the incident, but they made it increasingly difficult to describe the blows as a response to an immediate physical threat.
The next step was to compare Vanessa's interview with her written report.
The report referred to resistance, noncompliance, and the need to maintain control. It did not describe the two slaps in clear terms. It also failed to acknowledge that Danielle had repeatedly asked the officer to verify her identity.
Rebecca prepared a table comparing the officer's account with the visible sequence on the recording and the observations recorded by the witnesses.
The differences were significant.
But she still needed to examine the communication system and determine whether any information had been overlooked before Vanessa approached Danielle.
The investigation was not complete.
And as Rebecca continued reviewing the evidence, a new question emerged from the original assignment record: someone in the clerk's office had updated Renee Carter's case before the confrontation began.
The update had been entered into the system, but the security office's records did not yet establish whether Vanessa had seen it.
If she had received the information and ignored it, the failure would be different from a situation in which the update had never reached her terminal.
Rebecca requested a complete technical audit.
She also asked to speak with the clerk who had entered the update, because the timing of that entry could help establish what information was available before the confrontation.
The clerk's name was Susan Miller.
Susan arrived at the courthouse the following morning carrying a printed copy of the case-management record.
She explained that Renee Carter had checked in earlier than expected and had been directed to the correct office. The update was entered to prevent unnecessary enforcement action while the clerk confirmed the status of the case.
REBECCA SHAW: "Did you notify security that Renee Carter had arrived?"
SUSAN MILLER: "I entered the update into the case-management system. I believed the security staff would be able to see it."
REBECCA SHAW: "Did you speak directly with Officer Blake?"
SUSAN MILLER: "No."
REBECCA SHAW: "Did you receive confirmation that she had reviewed the update?"
SUSAN MILLER: "No."
Rebecca reviewed the timestamp.
The update had been entered before Vanessa approached Danielle.
That fact did not prove Vanessa had seen it, but it established that the court's record had changed before the physical confrontation.
Rebecca requested the system's access logs and asked the technical team to determine whether the update had been displayed on Vanessa's assigned terminal.
The audit would take time.
In the meantime, Rebecca continued interviewing witnesses and reviewing the available footage.
Every additional account strengthened the central sequence: Danielle had been standing peacefully in the corridor, Vanessa had approached her based on an unverified assumption, and the encounter had escalated after Danielle asked for an explanation.
The investigation was beginning to reveal that the most serious issue was not simply that Vanessa had mistaken one woman for another.
It was that she had treated a question as defiance, interpreted a calm refusal to comply with an unexplained demand as a challenge, and continued using force after the person she had restrained was no longer in a position to threaten her.