Mitchell nodded.
Captain Mitchell: "I'll issue that instruction immediately."
Emily stood and walked toward the window.
She had hoped that the missing evidence would turn out to be an internal attempt to protect a criminal investigation from embarrassment.
But the possibility that someone had exposed a confidential informant changed everything.
The people responsible might not simply have been trying to avoid disciplinary consequences.
They might have been protecting an entire criminal network.
Emily returned to the table.
Emily Carter: "I want to know whether anyone outside this department accessed the informant's details."
Laura Bennett: "I can review the access history. However, some of the records may require cooperation from the telecommunications provider."
Emily Carter: "Start with the department's own systems. We'll handle the external requests through the appropriate legal process."
Laura nodded.
As the afternoon progressed, Captain Mitchell became increasingly quiet.
He had spent thirty-one years building his career. He had earned the trust of colleagues, worked through difficult cases, and believed that the department's purpose was to serve the community.
Now he was learning that some of the people he had trusted might have used their positions to undermine that purpose.
He looked at Emily.
Captain Mitchell: "Agent Carter, I want to ask you something."
Emily Carter: "Of course."
Captain Mitchell: "If the investigation confirms that senior officers were involved, what happens to the department?"
Emily considered the question.
Emily Carter: "The department will have to face the evidence. Individuals who committed misconduct will be held accountable through the appropriate legal and disciplinary procedures. The organization will need to examine how the failures happened and why they were allowed to continue."
Captain Mitchell: "And what if the public loses confidence in us?"
Emily Carter: "Then the department will have to earn that confidence back."
Mitchell looked down.
Emily Carter: "Public trust is not something an institution owns permanently. It is something people give when they believe the institution is acting fairly."
The captain remained silent.
Emily Carter: "The best way to protect the department is not to hide the misconduct. It is to identify it, correct it, and make sure it cannot happen again."
Mitchell slowly nodded.
He knew she was right.
At 4:10 p.m., James Walker received an update from the independent review team.
The team had located a former evidence clerk named Mark Sullivan.
Sullivan had left the department six months earlier after submitting a complaint about irregular record handling.
His complaint had been closed without a full investigation.
Walker read the old complaint.
It described several of the same problems now appearing in the federal investigation.
Missing transfer forms.
Changes to original signatures.
Unusual requests from the operations office.
And pressure to process documents without proper authorization.
Emily asked to see the complaint.
She read it carefully.
The complaint had been submitted in May.
It had been signed by Mark Sullivan and addressed to the department's internal affairs division.
The final response stated that the matter had been reviewed and no evidence of misconduct had been found.
But the investigation file contained only a single page.
There were no interview records.
No supporting documents.
No detailed explanation.
Emily looked at Mitchell.
Emily Carter: "Who reviewed this complaint?"
Mitchell checked the signature at the bottom.
Captain Mitchell: "Lieutenant Collins."
Emily closed the file.
The pattern was becoming impossible to ignore.
The same senior officer who had authorized questionable transfers had also reviewed the complaint that raised concerns about those transfers.
Emily Carter: "We need to contact Mark Sullivan."
Walker nodded.
James Walker: "I'll arrange an interview."
The former clerk was located at his home that evening.
He agreed to speak with the independent review team the following morning.
He confirmed that he had noticed irregularities before leaving the department.
He also provided copies of emails he had saved because he feared the original records might disappear.
One message was particularly important.
It had been sent by Lieutenant Collins.
The message instructed Sullivan to replace a transfer receipt because the original contained an "administrative inconsistency."
Sullivan had asked for clarification.
Collins had replied that the change had already been approved and that the original should not remain in the active case file.
Sullivan had refused to replace the document without proper authorization.
Several days later, he was removed from the evidence management assignment.
He eventually resigned.
The email did not prove that Collins had committed a crime, but it provided an important link between the earlier complaints and the current evidence changes.
The following morning, the independent investigation team began a formal review of the recovered records.
They compared the original transfer documents, electronic access logs, archived database versions, and statements from employees.
The evidence established a clear sequence.
On September 14, several items were received by the department.
On September 15, the database was updated to show that Detective Grant had accepted responsibility for the digital storage devices.
However, Grant was not present when the transfer occurred.
On October 22, an individual entered the evidence storage area after normal working hours.