The investigators were particularly concerned about complaints involving alleged misconduct and the handling of sensitive evidence. Some records showed that cases had been marked as complete even though required interviews had never taken place.
The department could not undo the harm caused by those decisions.
But it could stop pretending the harm had never happened.
A dedicated review team was established to identify affected cases and notify the appropriate oversight bodies. Unresolved complaints were reopened where legally appropriate. Cases involving potential criminal conduct were referred to the relevant authorities.
Elena worked long hours coordinating the process.
She met with former employees, reviewed archived files, and helped investigators identify missing documentation. She refused to treat the work as a chance to settle old personal scores.
When a former officer accused of misconduct was found to have been wrongly identified in one of the old records, Elena made sure the correction was documented.
Daniel noticed.
“You could have ignored that discrepancy,” he told her one evening.
“I could have,” Elena replied. “But then we'd be doing exactly what we accuse them of doing.”
Daniel gave a small nod.
“That's the standard.”
***
Thomas McAllister's position began to weaken when investigators obtained records from Northbridge's former financial administrator.
The administrator provided original invoices, email correspondence, and a spreadsheet showing how certain payments had been divided between multiple service categories.
The documents did not establish that every person named in the ledger had committed a crime. But they gave investigators a much clearer picture of how the financial arrangements had operated.
McAllister was asked to provide an interview.
He initially refused, citing the association's legal position. After receiving a formal request through the appropriate process, he agreed to attend with legal counsel.
During the interview, investigators asked about his approval of payments and his communications with Vance.
He maintained that the association's arrangements were legitimate and that he had never directed anyone to interfere with evidence.
When shown the original transfer register, he said he did not remember approving several entries.
The investigators then presented an email chain.
One message, sent from an account associated with McAllister, referred to an upcoming review of old property records. It instructed the recipient to ensure that the relevant boxes were no longer listed in the department's active inventory.
McAllister's attorney objected to the wording of the question.
The investigator explained that the email's authenticity was being examined and that McAllister would have an opportunity to provide his account.
McAllister said the message had been taken out of context.
But he could not explain why the same dates appeared in the transfer register, the Northbridge invoices, and the records from the Shadow Vault.
The interview ended without a confession.
It did not need one.
The investigators had begun building a case from independent sources that supported one another.
***
James Vance was interviewed several days later.
He arrived with an attorney and carried a thick folder of documents.
At first, he described himself as an administrator who had inherited a complicated department. He said he had relied on subordinate staff and had not personally reviewed every transaction.
When asked about the hidden storage room, he claimed he had not known it existed.
The investigator showed him a maintenance record containing his office's authorization for a change to the sub-basement access system.
Vance said the authorization had been routine.
Then came the transfer register.
He recognized several signatures and confirmed that the administrative office had approved some of the movements.
He denied that the purpose had been to conceal evidence.
The investigator placed a final document on the table.
It was a communication from Vance to an administrative employee, dated shortly before Daniel's arrival. The message referred to the need to prevent the incoming chief from gaining immediate access to certain records.
Vance stared at it.
His attorney leaned toward him.
The investigator asked whether Vance had instructed anyone to delay Daniel's access to the department's records.
Vance took a breath.
“I was trying to avoid unnecessary disruption during a leadership transition.”
“Why did that require withholding evidence records?”
“I did not say that it did.”
“Then why did you give the instruction?”
Vance did not answer.
The interview continued for another hour.
By the end, investigators had enough material to recommend further formal action, subject to review by the appropriate authorities.
Vance left without speaking to reporters.
For the first time, the man who had once controlled the department's internal decisions appeared to understand that his authority no longer protected him from scrutiny.
***
The public press conference took place the following Monday.
This time, Daniel stood at the department's main entrance.
Beside him were Elena Alvarez, a representative from the state investigative team, and the city's independent oversight officer.
The room was filled with reporters.
Daniel did not begin by defending himself.
He began by acknowledging the people who had been ignored.
“For years, people came to this department expecting their complaints to be heard,” he said. “Some were told their cases were being reviewed when no meaningful review had taken place. Some were left without answers. Some employees were discouraged from reporting misconduct because they believed doing so would cost them their careers.”