But she could not ignore the fact that the incident had begun with an officer who believed he knew the truth before he had checked it. The same principle now applied to everyone reviewing the case.
The records would have to speak for themselves.
The following morning, the employee responsible for the routing note arrived at the security office carrying a folder of printed records. Marcus had arranged for another investigator to attend the meeting and record the discussion. The original electronic file had been preserved, along with the audit history and the copy that had been circulated before the briefing.
The employee, a records coordinator named Peter Wallace, sat down and opened the folder.
PETER WALLACE: "I understand you're reviewing a change made to the Maya Reynolds entry."
MARCUS REED: "Yes. We need you to explain the original wording, the modification, and whether the change was authorized."
Peter looked at the printed versions.
PETER WALLACE: "I remember reviewing the file, but I need to see the audit history before I can tell you exactly what happened."
MARCUS REED: "That's why we have both versions. Please start with the original entry."
Peter leaned forward and began reading. At first, his expression was neutral. Then his eyes stopped at the field that had been modified.
He turned the page and compared it with the later copy.
PETER WALLACE: "This wording is different from what I remember entering."
MARCUS REED: "What do you remember entering?"
Peter took a moment before answering.
PETER WALLACE: "The original note said the clerk's office needed confirmation that Maya Reynolds had checked in. It did not say she was wanted for arrest."
Marcus looked at the second version.
MARCUS REED: "The later copy refers to locating her in connection with an enforcement inquiry."
PETER WALLACE: "That is not how I wrote it."
MARCUS REED: "Do you know who made the change?"
Peter examined the audit information again. The record showed an account identifier and a timestamp, but Peter did not immediately recognize the account.
PETER WALLACE: "I need to check the access list. I don't want to identify someone based on a username I haven't verified."
MARCUS REED: "That's the correct approach. We'll verify it through the system administrator."
Peter closed the folder and looked increasingly concerned.
PETER WALLACE: "If that wording was circulated before the briefing, it could have given the impression that there was an enforcement action."
MARCUS REED: "It could have. We need to establish when the change occurred and who received the modified version."
Peter agreed to provide his original notes and cooperate with the technical review. He left the office without making any accusation, but the meeting had established that the wording in the later document did not match the wording he remembered entering.
Marcus immediately requested a comparison of the distribution logs. The inquiry now had two distinct issues to examine: Daniel's failure to verify the identity and legal status of the woman he confronted, and the unexplained modification to the information that had circulated before the incident.
The two issues might be connected, but that connection had not yet been established.
At midday, Marcus received a preliminary response from the system administrator. The account associated with the modification belonged to an employee who had access to several courthouse records systems. The account had been used to open the routing note shortly before the morning briefing, and the modified version had subsequently been available to the security distribution list.
The administrator cautioned that an account record did not necessarily prove who had physically made the change. Accounts could be used from shared terminals, and the access logs needed to be compared with workstation records before a specific person could be identified.
Marcus requested those records as well.
When Elena received the update, she listened without interrupting. The information was important, but she did not want the investigation to jump from an unexplained modification to an unsupported conclusion about intent.
ELENA BROOKS: "Can we establish whether the modified version was the one Daniel saw?"
INVESTIGATING OFFICIAL: "We are checking the distribution logs and the briefing materials. The evidence suggests that the modified version was available, but we have not yet confirmed exactly what was displayed during the briefing."
ELENA BROOKS: "Then that distinction needs to remain in the report."
INVESTIGATING OFFICIAL: "It will."