That distinction mattered.
The investigation was not intended to punish officers for failing to witness something they could not have seen. It was intended to establish whether they had acted reasonably based on the information available to them and whether they followed the required procedures after the scene was secured.
Mercer did not treat Carter and Turner as accomplices simply because they had pointed their weapons at Daniel. Their footage suggested that they had arrived during the struggle and responded to what appeared to be an immediate threat.
However, the recordings also showed how quickly Daniel's explanation had been dismissed once Hayes began accusing him.
Mercer noted the moment when Daniel asked the responding officers to check the bag and speak to witnesses. She noted that Hayes repeatedly interrupted him, insisting that Daniel was lying.
The evidence suggested that the investigation had begun with competing accounts, not a settled conclusion.
Mercer then interviewed Margaret Ellis.
Margaret described hearing Hayes order Daniel to stand. She recalled the officer asking about the contents of his pocket and later holding up a plastic bag. She had not seen the bag being placed inside the jacket, but she had seen Hayes grab Daniel's clothing and pull him away from the bench.
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "Did Mr. Brooks appear to be attacking the officer before the physical contact began?"
MARGARET ELLIS: "I didn't see him attack anyone. I saw the officer grab his jacket, and the man kept telling him to let go."
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "Did you see Mr. Brooks punch or kick Officer Hayes?"
MARGARET ELLIS: "No. I didn't see him punch or kick him."
INVESTIGATOR MERCER: "Can you be certain about everything that happened?"
MARGARET ELLIS: "No. I wasn't close enough to see every movement. I'm telling you what I saw."
Mercer appreciated the distinction. Margaret did not exaggerate her account or claim to have witnessed events outside her view. She acknowledged the limits of her observation while providing a consistent description of the officer grabbing Daniel's jacket.
Ethan's interview was similarly straightforward. He explained when he began recording, where he stood, and why he continued filming. He provided the original video and agreed to answer further questions if needed.
The investigators then compared the civilian recordings with the official footage.
The timelines aligned.
The park ambience, the positions of the people, and the sequence of shouted commands were consistent across the available recordings. Nothing in the initial review suggested that Ethan had fabricated the video or altered its sequence.
The footage still did not reveal the entire truth, but it established that the incident had unfolded in a way that differed from the simplest version of Hayes's written report.
Mercer turned to the physical evidence.
The laboratory analysis confirmed that the substance in the bag was an illegal controlled substance. That finding was important, but it did not establish that Daniel had knowingly possessed it. The laboratory could identify the contents, not determine who had placed the bag in the jacket.
The chain of custody showed that the bag had been photographed and collected after the responding officers arrived. Its location was documented before it was moved.
Mercer reviewed the records and found no indication that Daniel had handled the bag before Hayes produced it, although the absence of such a record was not conclusive proof by itself.
The next step was to establish whether any other evidence could clarify the officer's movements near the bench.
Investigators contacted the park administration and learned that a security camera near the main path covered part of the area. The camera was not positioned directly over the bench, and its image quality was limited by distance and tree cover. Nevertheless, it had recorded the entrance to the path and portions of the space around the oak tree.
The footage was retrieved and preserved.
When Mercer reviewed it, she saw Hayes approach the bench while Daniel was looking at his phone. Hayes moved behind the bench and briefly disappeared from the camera's view behind the tree trunk. A few seconds later, he stepped back into view and turned toward Daniel.
The camera could not show exactly what Hayes's hand had done inside the area obscured by the tree. It did, however, establish the positions of the men and the sequence of their movements.
The timeline was consistent with Daniel's account that he had been sitting quietly and had not noticed Hayes approaching from behind.
Mercer requested an enhanced review of the footage and compared it with the body-camera recording. The two sources offered different perspectives of the same period.