Price: "I should have insisted on proper interviews. I should have made sure the evidence was collected. I should have refused to close complaints without a complete record."
Investigator: "Did you deliberately remove any documents?"
Price: "No."
Investigator: "Did you instruct anyone else to remove documents?"
Price: "No."
Investigator: "Did you alter any complaint records?"
Price: "No."
The investigator recorded each answer.
Price was asked to provide copies of any communications he still possessed concerning the complaints.
He agreed.
After the interview, the team informed Darius that Price's account had created a new line of inquiry.
Darius listened carefully.
Darius: "Then we need to verify it."
Michael: "The team is reviewing emails and internal messages."
Darius: "Good. We should not assume that every decision was made for the same reason. Some may have been negligence. Some may have been pressure. We need to know the difference."
Robert: "And what happens if Langley denies everything?"
Darius: "Then the evidence will determine what happens next."
That afternoon, the independent team recovered an internal email exchange from the department's archive.
The messages concerned one of the earlier complaints against Ward.
In the first email, Price had recommended a formal review and requested that the complainant be contacted again.
A response from Langley's office advised him to consider resolving the matter administratively.
Another message, sent several hours later, stated that the complaint should not be allowed to consume unnecessary resources.
The final entry showed that the complaint had been closed.
The messages did not prove that Langley had ordered anyone to falsify records, but they supported Price's account that he had been encouraged to avoid a formal investigation.
The team continued searching.
They found another exchange.
Then another.
The pattern was similar.
A supervisor raised concerns.
Langley's office recommended an informal resolution.
The complaint was closed.
Darius read the emails in silence.
When he finished, he placed them on the table.
Darius: "Now we have something that can be verified."
Michael: "The messages are from the original department archive. The technical team has confirmed their timestamps and sender information."
Darius: "Good. Preserve the metadata."
Robert looked at the final email.
Robert: "This could become a serious matter."
Darius: "It already is."
He stood.
Darius: "I want Langley formally notified that the investigation has identified communications concerning the complaints. He will be given an opportunity to respond through the independent process."
Michael: "Should we suspend him?"
Darius considered the question.
Darius: "Not on the basis of suspicion alone. But he will remain excluded from the review and from any decisions affecting the witnesses or records. If the investigators identify a specific risk of interference, we will take further action."
Robert nodded.
For the next two days, the investigation continued.
Ethan Ward was interviewed in detail.
At first, he maintained that he had been attempting to control a difficult situation.
He said Darius had refused to identify himself and had become confrontational.
But when the investigators showed him the footage, his account began to change.
Investigator: "You stated that the visitor moved toward you aggressively."
Ethan: "He was challenging my authority."
Investigator: "That isn't what we asked. Did he physically move toward you?"
Ethan: "He was standing close."
Investigator: "The footage shows him taking a step backward when you approach. Do you dispute that?"
Ethan watched the screen.
Ethan: "No."
Investigator: "Did you grab his tie?"
Ethan: "Yes."
Investigator: "Why?"
Ethan: "I thought he was refusing to cooperate."
Investigator: "Was grabbing his clothing an approved security procedure?"
Ethan: "No."
Investigator: "Did you have evidence that he posed an immediate physical threat?"
Ethan did not answer.
Investigator: "Did you strike him?"
Ethan: "Yes."
Investigator: "What justified that action?"
Ethan rubbed his forehead.
Ethan: "I lost my temper."
The investigator waited.
Ethan: "I shouldn't have done it."
Investigator: "Why did you tell Lieutenant Price that the visitor was getting in your face?"
Ethan: "Because that's how I remembered it."
Investigator: "The footage does not support that description."
Ethan looked down.
Ethan: "I was angry."
Investigator: "Was your anger related to the visitor's behavior or to your belief that he was questioning your authority?"
Ethan remained silent for several seconds.
Ethan: "I didn't like the way he was talking to me."
Investigator: "What did he say?"
Ethan: "He said he had an appointment."
Investigator: "And why did that make you angry?"
Ethan finally looked up.
Ethan: "I thought he was trying to tell me how to do my job."
Investigator: "Did you consider checking the appointment schedule?"
Ethan: "No."
Investigator: "Did you consider asking reception to confirm it?"
Ethan: "No."
Investigator: "Did you consider calling a supervisor?"
Ethan: "No."
Investigator: "Why not?"
Ethan stared at the table.
Ethan: "I thought I could handle it."
The investigator closed the folder.