Daniel spent the weekend in a state of restless uncertainty.
His attorney had advised him to avoid discussing the case with colleagues, preserve all relevant records, and comply with lawful requests from investigators. Daniel followed those instructions, but he could not escape the consequences of what he had admitted.
The assault was no longer a matter of competing accounts. He had acknowledged grabbing Andre and striking him. His explanation that he had acted in anger did not erase the harm, nor did it resolve the questions surrounding his conduct during the narcotics investigation.
On Monday morning, Daniel requested another meeting with Captain Foster.
His attorney accompanied him.
“I want to correct something in my previous statement,” Daniel said when the recorder was switched on.
Foster waited.
“About the report?”
“Yes.”
“Go ahead.”
Daniel explained that he had changed the timestamp because he believed the earlier time would make the chronology appear more consistent with the evidence log. He admitted that he had not checked the original dispatch record before making the change.
“Why did you believe the earlier time was correct?” Foster asked.
“I didn't have a reliable basis for it.”
“Then why enter it?”
Daniel rubbed his hands together.
“I wanted the report to stop attracting questions.”
The answer was more revealing than he intended.
Foster asked whether anyone had instructed him to change the timestamp.
“No.”
“Did Victor Sloane tell you to make the change?”
“No. I changed it myself.”
“Did you tell Sloane about the discrepancy?”
“Yes.”
“When?”
“Before the restroom incident. I mentioned that Mitchell had raised a question about the timeline.”
“Did Sloane suggest that you alter the record?”
Daniel paused.
“He said I needed to make sure the paperwork was consistent.”
“Did he explicitly instruct you to change the time?”
“No.”
Foster documented the distinction.
“Did you later ask Sloane to remove, conceal, or destroy any copy of the file?”
Daniel looked at his attorney.
After a brief consultation, he answered.
“I asked whether he had a copy of the original chronology.”
“Why?”
“I was worried about what the audit would show.”
“Did you ask him to destroy it?”
Daniel swallowed.
“I asked whether the copy could be taken out of circulation.”
“Explain what you meant.”
“I wanted it removed from the review process.”
Foster's expression remained neutral.
“Did you understand that an original case record might be relevant to an official investigation?”
“Yes.”
“Did you understand that removing it could compromise the investigation?”
Daniel looked down.
“Yes.”
The admission did not establish that he had directed Sloane to destroy evidence. It did establish that Daniel had considered interfering with the circulation of a relevant record, a matter that required further examination.
Foster asked whether he would cooperate with efforts to recover the missing device and identify anyone who had accessed the file.
“Yes,” Daniel said. “I will answer what I know.”
The interview continued for another hour.
Daniel described his conversations with Sloane, the pressure he had felt after Andre questioned the report, and the fear that a discrepancy would damage his reputation. He acknowledged that he had treated Andre's correction as a personal challenge rather than a professional responsibility.
At one point, Foster asked him why he had been so angry with Andre.
Daniel stared at the recorder.
“Because he wouldn't let it go.”
“Was the discrepancy his fault?”
“No.”
“Was he disrespectful when he raised it?”
Daniel took a long breath.
“No. Not in the briefing.”
“Then why did you attack him?”
For several seconds, Daniel did not speak.
“Because I wanted him to back down,” he finally said. “I thought if I made it personal, he'd stop questioning me.”
The answer hung in the room.
Foster recorded it without comment.
After the interview, Daniel's attorney accompanied him to the lobby. Before leaving, Daniel asked whether he could provide a written apology to Andre.
His attorney advised him that any communication should be handled through the appropriate formal process, particularly while the investigation remained active.
Daniel agreed.
Meanwhile, Andre was working through his own conflicting emotions.
The admission confirmed what he had reported from the beginning, but it did not make the experience disappear. He still remembered the sudden pain of the punch, the pressure of Daniel's grip on his collar, and the moment he realized that his fellow officer was not going to stop simply because he asked.
He had also begun to question how long he had tolerated smaller incidents that seemed less serious at the time: dismissive remarks, unnecessary challenges, and the assumption that he needed to prove his competence more often than others.
He did not want those memories to become evidence unless they could be described accurately. He wrote down the incidents he could recall, separating firsthand observations from impressions, and submitted the notes to professional standards.
Later that day, Lieutenant Price asked if Andre was willing to attend a meeting with Deputy Chief Bennett.
Andre agreed.
Bennett received him in her office.
“Daniel has acknowledged the assault,” she said. “He has also admitted changing the timestamp without verifying the source record. The department is reviewing the disciplinary and legal implications.”
Andre listened quietly.
“We are not asking you to decide what consequence is appropriate,” Bennett continued. “Your role is to provide accurate information and cooperate with the investigation. The department must make its decisions independently.”
“I understand.”
“Do you feel safe returning to duty when the restrictions are lifted?”
Andre considered the question honestly.
“I want to return to work. But I need to know that the department will take retaliation seriously and that the investigation won't be quietly abandoned once the attention fades.”
Bennett nodded.
“That is a reasonable expectation. We cannot promise an outcome before the process is complete, but we can promise that the findings will be documented and reviewed.”
Andre thanked her.
Before leaving, he turned back.
“Deputy Chief, I don't want this to become a story about one officer being good and another being bad. I want the department to understand how the system allowed the report to be changed without a proper explanation.”
Bennett studied him for a moment.
“That is exactly why we are reviewing the process as well as the individuals involved.”
For the first time since the fight, Andre felt that the investigation might address something larger than his own injury.
Yet a major question remained unanswered.
Daniel had admitted changing the report. He had acknowledged discussing the discrepancy with Sloane. But he had not explained why the original file was exported, who had altered the supplemental evidence log, or what had happened to the missing storage device.
Those answers would determine whether the misconduct had been limited to Daniel's decisions or whether others had helped conceal the irregularities.
The investigation was nearing its most important stage.
And the final evidence had not yet arrived.