Before she left, Marcus asked her to check whether any of the anonymous messages had been sent through a channel already associated with the case.
Evelyn explained that the number alone would not reliably establish the sender's identity. Any technical examination would need to follow the appropriate legal and procedural requirements.
Marcus agreed.
He would not try to trace the sender through unofficial means.
If the messages were relevant to the investigation, they would be preserved and assessed through authorized channels.
The following morning, the archive manager reported that the storage location had been found.
The room was small, with metal shelving along two walls and sealed boxes stacked on the lower shelves.
The independent custodian photographed the room before anyone began searching.
Each box was checked against the inventory.
Most contained ordinary administrative files.
Some were empty.
Others held documents from unrelated cases.
After nearly two hours, the team reached a box marked with the same reference number that appeared in the contractor's transfer inventory.
The label had faded, and the handwritten description was incomplete.
The box had not been opened since it entered the central archive, according to the available records.
The seal number did not appear in the digital index.
The custodian documented the discrepancy, photographed the seal, and verified the authorization to inspect the contents.
When the box was opened, it contained several folders and a thick ledger bound in dark green cloth.
The ledger's spine was worn, and its pages had yellowed with age.
The reference number matched the one from the original inventory.
No one spoke for several seconds.
Evelyn looked at Marcus.
EVELYN: "We found it."
Marcus nodded, but he did not reach for the book.
MARCUS: "Document everything before we examine the contents."
The custodian photographed the ledger from every side and recorded its condition. The cover, binding, page edges, and internal markings were documented before the book was opened.
Only after the initial record was complete did the team begin a controlled examination.
The first pages contained routine entries: dates, property descriptions, receiving departments, and transfer signatures.
The handwriting varied from one section to another.
Some entries were typed and pasted onto the pages.
Others had been written directly into the ledger.
Marcus turned carefully through the records until they reached the date associated with his father's case.
There it was.
The shipment appeared in the ledger several days before the alleged discovery in his father's office.
The listed quantity differed from the quantity in the final report.
A note in the margin referred to a temporary storage location.
Another entry recorded that the shipment had been transferred to a different unit.
The receiving signature was partially obscured by an old stamp.
Evelyn leaned closer.
EVELYN: "This is the same shipment reference."
MARCUS: "Yes."
She compared the ledger with the digital inventory.
EVELYN: "The quantities don't match."
Marcus checked the entries again.
MARCUS: "And the transfer dates are different."
The ledger did not establish where every item had gone.
It did establish that the shipment had passed through a sequence of documented transfers that the final report did not fully describe.
The independent custodian photographed the relevant pages and recorded their location within the ledger.
Marcus asked that the original remain under the custodian's control while the records were digitized.
He did not want to risk damaging the pages or creating uncertainty about their handling.
As the examination continued, they found another entry.
It referred to a discrepancy discovered by the property unit several days after the original transfer.
The note stated that the quantity received did not match the amount recorded as dispatched.
A supervisor had been notified.
The supervisor's name was Harold Vance.
Evelyn checked the personnel record.
EVELYN: "Vance signed the authorization in the original file."
MARCUS: "And he was notified about the discrepancy."
EVELYN: "According to this entry, yes."
Marcus looked at the next page.
A later notation stated that the discrepancy had been resolved.
But there was no explanation of how it had been resolved.
No additional receipt.
No corrected inventory.
No supporting signature from the receiving unit.
Just a short sentence indicating that the matter had been closed.
Marcus read it twice.
MARCUS: "We need the documentation supporting this closure."
EVELYN: "I'll add it to the request."
The discovery did not prove that Vance had acted improperly. It showed that he had been involved in the administrative process and that the file contained an unexplained discrepancy.