"What did he ask you to do?"
"He asked me to locate the original documents and provide the most recent versions."
"Was that unusual?"
"Not by itself. Supervisors request records all the time."
"Then what concerned you?"
Lawson paused.
"In two cases, the original reports described money as seized property. The later versions described it as voluntarily surrendered."
Bennett's pen stopped.
"Did you change the wording?"
"No."
"Did you authorize the changes?"
"No."
"Do you know who did?"
"I saw the amendment history."
"Did you preserve it?"
"Some of it."
"Where is it now?"
"I kept copies of the audit summaries when I left the department."
Bennett did not react immediately.
"Peter, I need you to understand that we cannot rely on incomplete or unofficial copies without verifying them."
"I know."
"Do not alter them. Do not send them to anyone else. We need to establish how they were obtained and whether they are authentic."
"Understood."
"Are you willing to provide a formal statement?"
Lawson was silent.
Then he said, "Yes."
Bennett scheduled an interview through the independent oversight office.
She did not tell him what the investigators had already found.
She did not mention Jason Miller's corridor confrontation.
She simply documented the call and notified Helen Morgan that a potential witness had come forward.
By noon, Lawson was seated in a small interview room with Helen, an independent investigator named Michael Turner, and a recording device placed on the table.
Evelyn did not attend.
She had deliberately removed herself from the interview because her own encounter with Jason could create the appearance that she was influencing the broader review.
Turner began with basic questions.
"What was your position in the department?"
"Records and information management clerk."
"How long did you work there?"
"Eleven years and eight months."
"Did your duties include modifying incident reports?"
"No. I could retrieve documents and assist with administrative corrections, but I could not authorize substantive changes to an officer's narrative."
"Did you ever modify reports at the request of Lieutenant Hayes?"
Lawson thought carefully.
"I corrected formatting and administrative fields when instructed. I did not change the substance of a report."
"Did anyone ask you to change the description of seized property?"
"Not directly."
"What do you mean by that?"
Lawson folded his hands.
"Sometimes I was asked to replace an attachment with a revised version. I wasn't always told who had made the revision or why."
"Did that concern you?"
"At first, no. I assumed the supervisor had approved it."
"And later?"
"Later I noticed that the original and revised versions described the same incident differently."
Turner leaned forward.
"Can you provide an example?"
Lawson described one report in which the original narrative stated that an officer had retained cash during a search. The revised narrative stated that the individual had voluntarily handed over the money for verification.
He could not establish who had written the revised language.
He could establish that the revision occurred after the complaint was submitted.
"Did you raise the issue?" Turner asked.
"Yes."
"With whom?"
"Lieutenant Hayes."
"What did he say?"
Lawson looked down.
"He said the officer had clarified the circumstances and that the revised report reflected the final account."
"Did you ask to see the clarification?"
"Yes."
"What happened?"
"He told me it was a supervisory matter and that I should focus on maintaining the records."
Turner made a note.
"Did you comply?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
Lawson took a long breath.
"Because he was my supervisor, and I thought he had authority to approve the changes."
"Did you believe the changes were improper?"
"Not at the time. I thought there might be a legitimate explanation."
"And now?"
Lawson looked directly at him.
"Now I think the original records should be examined."
The interview continued for another hour.
Lawson did not claim that Hayes had stolen money.
He did not claim that Jason Miller had lied.
He did not claim to know why the recordings were missing.
He provided a narrower, more useful account: several reports had been amended, the changes altered the description of property, and the original audit history might still exist.
Turner asked whether Lawson had retained any documents.
"I have two audit summaries," Lawson said. "I also have an email asking me to retrieve the latest versions of three reports."
"Who sent the email?"
"Lieutenant Hayes."
"Do you still have it?"
"Yes."
"Will you provide it voluntarily?"
"Yes, through the appropriate process."
Turner nodded.
"Thank you."
After the interview, Helen called Evelyn.
"We have a witness."
Evelyn stood beside her desk.
"What kind?"
"A former records clerk. He says several reports were amended after complaints were filed. He has retained audit summaries and an email from Hayes requesting the latest versions."
Evelyn closed her eyes briefly.
"Does he allege that the changes were fraudulent?"
"No. He says he did not know whether they were legitimate at the time."
"Good. Keep the statement precise."
"We will."
"Have the documents authenticated independently."
"Already requested."
Evelyn looked at the folder on her desk.
"Then we may finally be able to establish the sequence of changes."
Helen lowered her voice.
"There is something else. Lawson says he raised concerns about the records before he left the department."
"With whom?"
"Hayes."
Evelyn was silent.
"What happened?"
"He says Hayes told him to focus on maintaining the records and not question supervisory decisions."
Evelyn wrote down the statement.
"That could have several explanations."
"I know."
"But it is relevant."
"Yes."
After the call ended, Evelyn sat back.
For months, the investigation had been built from fragments.
A missing receipt.
An amended report.
An unavailable recording.
A complaint withdrawn before review.
Now a former employee had provided a way to reconstruct the sequence.
It was not proof of a conspiracy.
It was not proof of theft.
But it was the first time someone with direct knowledge of the records process had come forward to explain what they had seen.
The investigation had moved forward.
And the people whose decisions were under review would soon have to answer more specific questions.
CHAPTER 10 — THE QUESTION HE COULD NOT ANSWER
Jason Miller was called into an interview room at 3:30 p.m.
He had expected a routine follow-up about the corridor confrontation.
Instead, the independent investigator placed a copy of the original roadside report in front of him.