MARCUS: "Did he say why he wanted them?"
MOTHER: "He said there had been a review of old police records. He claimed he was trying to help."
MARCUS: "Did he mention the case?"
MOTHER: "He mentioned the evidence that was supposedly recovered from your father's office."
Marcus closed his eyes briefly.
The old case had involved a missing shipment of seized property. His father had been accused of mishandling evidence, and several documents had been used to support the allegation.
Yet the records had never fully explained how the property was accounted for, who had handled it before the alleged discovery, or why several entries appeared inconsistent.
MARCUS: "Did he ask you to give him anything?"
MOTHER: "He wanted copies. I refused."
MARCUS: "Good. Don't send anything to anyone until we establish who they are."
MOTHER: "Marcus, what's happening?"
He took a slow breath.
MARCUS: "I don't know yet. But I think someone is looking at the old case again."
His mother did not answer immediately.
When she finally spoke, her voice had become quieter.
MOTHER: "Does that mean they're going to accuse your father again?"
MARCUS: "No. It means we need to understand what the records actually show."
MOTHER: "We already tried to understand them years ago."
MARCUS: "I know."
MOTHER: "We went to meetings. We wrote letters. We asked for explanations. Every time, someone told us the file was complete."
Marcus looked at the photograph on his phone.
MARCUS: "If it was complete, we should be able to verify that."
MOTHER: "Your father used to say the same thing."
The words stayed with him after the call ended.
Marcus prepared a simple meal, though he barely tasted it. His mind kept returning to the photograph, the anonymous messages, and the restriction placed on the old evidence file.
He could not yet tell whether the events were connected.
But he could no longer treat the old case as an isolated administrative problem.
Someone had recently accessed information about his father. Someone had warned him to stop investigating. And someone had apparently known that the records were being reviewed before the review became widely known.
Those facts required answers.
The following morning, Marcus arrived at the regional oversight office before eight.
Evelyn Price was already there, seated at a conference table with a laptop open and several folders arranged beside her.
EVELYN: "I received the initial records overnight."
MARCUS: "The original entries?"
EVELYN: "Some of them. The system administrator has placed the rest under review because of the restriction."
Marcus sat down.
MARCUS: "Who authorized the restriction?"
EVELYN: "That's still unclear. The authorization field contains a reference number, but the name attached to it doesn't match the current staff directory."
MARCUS: "Could it be an old employee account?"
EVELYN: "Possibly. The account appears to have been created years ago, but the system doesn't show a clear closure date."
Marcus opened his notebook.
MARCUS: "Let's separate what we know from what we suspect."
Evelyn turned her laptop toward him.
The first document was a digital record of the old evidence inventory. Several entries were visible, each with a date, a property description, and an employee identification number.
The original record indicated that the missing shipment had been received by the property unit on a Monday morning.
A later amendment changed the time of receipt.
Another amendment changed the person responsible for transferring the property.
A third entry had been added several days after the case was formally closed.
Marcus read the entries twice.
MARCUS: "Why was the responsible employee changed?"
EVELYN: "The amendment doesn't say."
MARCUS: "Who approved it?"
EVELYN: "The system lists an administrative supervisor, but the approval timestamp was added later."
MARCUS: "How much later?"
EVELYN: "Eleven months."
Marcus leaned back.
A delayed correction was not automatically evidence of misconduct. Records could be amended for legitimate reasons, especially when departments moved between recordkeeping systems.
But an amendment that changed responsibility for missing property, without a clear explanation or contemporaneous approval, required further examination.
MARCUS: "We need the audit history. Every change, every account, every timestamp."
EVELYN: "I've requested it."
MARCUS: "And the original paper documents?"
EVELYN: "The archives team is checking storage."
Marcus pointed to another entry.
MARCUS: "What is this reference?"
Evelyn leaned closer.
EVELYN: "A transfer receipt."
MARCUS: "It refers to a second location."
EVELYN: "Yes. The property was apparently moved before the alleged discovery in your father's office."