Denise kept reminding me that Rourke was entitled to challenge the recordings and the charges. I did not dispute the principle; I wanted to stop feeling that my own profession had become a machine I understood and could not influence.
The defense argued that Simone's phone recording began too late to establish the reason for detention. Cross agreed about its limited beginning and relied on other evidence to address the approach.
The overhead views had no audio. Simone's file had sound but a narrower angle, and witnesses could describe words spoken before it began; no source contained everything, which was why the collection mattered.
I reviewed my statements during preparation. Cross explained that the purpose was to understand the questions and procedures, not to rehearse a performance in which every answer sounded effortless.
“If you need time, take it,” she said.
I almost laughed. I had said the same words to so many witnesses without understanding how much they might resent needing the permission.
One detail troubled me. In my preliminary account, I said Rourke reached toward my shoulder immediately before I brushed his wrist, but the second camera suggested his hand remained nearer my upper arm.
The difference did not change the central movement. It did change a description, and I told Cross I wanted to clarify it before anyone asked me in court.
She documented the correction and ensured it was disclosed. I felt embarrassed, then calmer; defending an uncertain inch would have cost more than acknowledging it.
Simone had her own preparation with the prosecutor. I did not attend or discuss her testimony with her, but Denise confirmed that she remained willing to appear despite the call at work.
Her employer agreed to provide time for the scheduled appearance after receiving proper documentation. There were lawful witness procedures for certain expenses, and Cross's office explained those without making Simone's participation depend on a favor from me.
I was glad someone considered the practical cost. A witness could be willing and still unable to miss another shift without help navigating the ordinary requirements.
Trent's administrative review concluded before the trial. The department found that his unauthorized call violated rules concerning witness contact and imposed discipline, while the criminal inquiry into the call did not produce the same result.
Denise explained the distinction to me. I did not like every limit, but I could see the difference between establishing improper conduct under workplace rules and proving a particular criminal allegation.
The courthouse also reviewed access to witness details. Simone's number had appeared in an incident contact list available to more personnel than necessary, and the system's permissions were narrowed.
That did not undo the call. It made another call harder, which was a useful purpose even when it arrived too late for the person who revealed the problem.
The Saturday lunch by the lake finally happened on a cold, clear afternoon. Aaron brought food from a deli, and we sat in the car with the heater running because the benches were wet.
For twenty minutes, we discussed a neighbor's ambitious garden fence and a book neither of us had finished. Then my phone lit up with a message from Denise about another scheduling change.
I turned it facedown without opening it. Aaron looked at me but said nothing, and I appreciated the absence of applause.
I had not defeated anxiety by leaving a message unread. I had simply chosen lunch for a little longer, which was a decision I wanted to become easier with practice.
On the return journey, we stopped for groceries and argued mildly about whether we already had rice. Neither of us checked the pantry photograph Aaron kept on his phone until we reached the checkout. We had enough rice for several more visits, which made us laugh with a disproportionate relief. It was a foolish mistake that remained a foolish mistake, and I cherished the fact that no one needed to defend, investigate, or explain it afterward.
On the way home, we drove past the courthouse. I noticed the building without immediately seeing the corridor inside it, and that small difference stayed with me after the calendar changed again
Simone testified before I did. The court's witness instructions kept me outside the room, so I learned the details afterward through the transcript and the lawyers rather than by watching her face while she spoke.
I was grateful for that separation. She deserved to answer without wondering whether my expression approved of her memory.
Cross began with the reason she was at the courthouse and the point at which she started recording. Simone explained the voice reminder, Rourke's raised voice, and the movement that made her point the camera toward us.