"Why?"
"Because he was acting like I had no authority."
"Did you have authority to demand that he show you the contents of his folder?"
"No."
"Was the folder part of the reason you approached him?"
Cross looked up sharply.
"Who told you about the folder?"
"That detail appears in the preliminary accounts."
Cross swallowed.
"I wanted to know what he was carrying."
"Why?"
"I thought it might be related to the evidence investigation."
"Had you been instructed to inspect the folder?"
"No."
"Did you have reason to believe it contained an immediate threat?"
"No."
The investigator closed the notebook.
"Thank you. You will have an opportunity to clarify your statement if additional evidence becomes available."
Cross left the room looking pale.
He had expected the interview to focus on the takedown.
Instead, the investigator had focused on what happened before it.
The sequence mattered.
And he had just admitted that he initiated the physical contact without a clear operational reason.
Across the building, Marcus provided his own statement.
He described the confrontation calmly and without embellishment.
He acknowledged that he had used physical force.
He explained why.
He described the grab, the shove, the pull, and the loss of balance.
He did not claim that Cross had attempted to seriously injure him.
He did not claim that Cross had struck him.
He did not say that the takedown was retaliation.
He said he had acted to stop the physical aggression and control the situation.
When asked whether he could have withdrawn, Marcus answered carefully.
"I had already attempted to create distance. He followed me, grabbed my collar, and shoved me into the wall. At that point, I believed I needed to stop the assault before he could continue."
"Did you intend to injure him?"
"No."
"Did you continue using force after he stopped resisting?"
"No."
"Did you strike him?"
"No."
"Why did you maintain control of him on the floor?"
"Because he was still trying to get free. I was concerned that if I released him while he was struggling, the situation would escalate again."
The investigator nodded.
"Is there anything else you want included?"
Marcus considered the question.
"Yes."
"What is it?"
"I want the department to examine why Officer Cross was already angry with me before he entered the restroom."
"Do you have evidence that his anger was related to the evidence investigation?"
"I don't know what he knew. I know we had a disagreement the previous evening about a discrepancy in the property records. I also know that my report about the incident that followed that disagreement does not appear in the system."
The investigator looked up.
"What incident?"
Marcus took out a copy of his handwritten note.
"I was injured in Lieutenant Hayes's office. I attempted to document what happened. The report has not been located."
The investigator's expression changed.
"Are you alleging that Lieutenant Hayes assaulted you?"
"I'm reporting what happened. He grabbed my arm while trying to take my notebook. I pulled away, and my face struck the cabinet. I cannot tell you what he intended. I can tell you that I was injured and that the report I attempted to file is missing."
The investigator carefully recorded the statement.
"Do you believe the restroom incident was connected?"
"I don't know."
"Then why mention it?"
"Because if the department is trying to establish what happened this morning, you need to understand what happened before it."
The investigator nodded.
"That is a reasonable distinction."
When the interview ended, Marcus returned to the medical room to collect his belongings.
He did not feel victorious.
He did not feel relieved.
He felt exposed.
For months, he had tried to do the right thing without becoming the center of a departmental dispute.
Now his name was attached to a use-of-force review, an allegation involving a lieutenant, and a missing report.
He knew the investigation might clear him.
He also knew that being cleared would not automatically repair the relationships that had already begun to fracture.
He had chosen to tell the truth.
Now he would have to live with whatever the truth revealed.
CHAPTER 7 — THE CAMERA OUTSIDE THE RESTROOM
At 4:10 p.m., the technical team completed the first review of the security footage.
The camera outside the restroom did not record audio inside the room, but it captured the doorway and part of the corridor.
The footage showed Marcus entering at 7:41 a.m.
He appeared tired. He touched his mouth briefly before disappearing inside.
Cross entered less than a minute later.
For several seconds, the hallway remained empty.
Then the restroom door shifted slightly, as if someone inside had pushed against it.
A shadow moved behind the frosted glass.
The camera could not establish exactly what was happening inside.
At 7:44 a.m., the door opened.
Cross emerged first.
He was breathing heavily. His uniform was disheveled, and he paused in the corridor with one hand against his ribs.
He looked back toward the restroom.
Then he took out his phone.
He remained near the door for nearly a minute.
At 7:45 a.m., he walked away.
Marcus emerged later, accompanied by Sergeant Bennett.
He moved carefully, one shoulder held slightly stiff.
The technical team preserved the recording and documented the timestamps.
It did not prove every detail of either officer's account.
But it established a sequence that mattered.
Cross left the room before Marcus.
He appeared distressed.
Marcus emerged with a visible injury and an escort.
The footage also showed that Cross used his phone while standing outside the restroom.
The investigators requested preservation of any relevant department-issued device records, subject to the appropriate authorization and privacy safeguards.
No one assumed the call was improper.
It could have been a routine notification.
But given the allegations involving the evidence records, the timing required clarification.
When Helen Morgan saw the footage, she called Evelyn Brooks, who had been assigned to advise the oversight team on evidence-preservation procedures.
"Have you seen the corridor recording?" Helen asked.
"Not yet."
"It establishes the sequence, but it doesn't capture the actual struggle."
"Then we need to be careful about what we say it establishes."
"Agreed."
Helen described the footage.
Evelyn listened without interrupting.
"Did Cross appear to be injured?"
"He was holding his side. We cannot determine whether he was hurt before or during the confrontation."
"Then document the observation without drawing a conclusion."
"Already done."
"What about Marcus?"
"He emerged with Bennett. His shoulder appeared stiff."
Evelyn considered that.
"Both officers should have their injuries documented independently."
"They have."
There was a pause.
Then Helen said, "Marcus has raised an allegation involving Hayes."
Evelyn closed the file on her desk.
"I heard."
"What do you think?"
"I think the allegation must be investigated independently. My involvement should remain limited to the procedures I can help clarify."
"Do you believe Marcus?"
Evelyn took a breath.
"I believe he deserves a fair investigation. So does Hayes. So does Cross. The evidence must determine what happened."
Helen was silent.
Then she said, "You sound like you're trying to keep everyone from choosing sides."
"I am."
"Why?"
"Because the moment this becomes a contest between personalities, the facts become secondary."
Helen gave a quiet sigh.
"That may already be happening."
"Then we need to work harder to prevent it."
After the call, Evelyn sat for a long time.
She knew Marcus was facing a difficult situation.
He had defended himself during a physical confrontation, and now he was reporting an earlier incident involving a supervisor.
She also knew that an officer who used force could be investigated even when the force appeared justified.
The process was necessary.
The same rules that protected Marcus from an unsupported accusation also required him to explain his actions.
That was not persecution.
It was accountability.
But accountability could become a weapon when people used it selectively.
If the department scrutinized Marcus's takedown while ignoring Cross's initial aggression, the investigation would be incomplete.
If it investigated Marcus's allegation against Hayes while assuming the lieutenant was guilty, the investigation would be equally flawed.
And if anyone altered the records, pressured witnesses, or accessed restricted files without authorization, the department would have to examine those actions separately.