Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Has he been asked to respond to that discrepancy?"
Robert Ellis: "Not yet. We wanted to preserve the initial evidence first."
The chief judge nodded.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "That was appropriate."
Ellis placed another document on the table.
Robert Ellis: "There's a separate issue with the reference to Lauren Mitchell. The initial report says she witnessed the incident and could confirm his account. Her interview indicates that she did not speak to Cross and did not clearly see the slap."
Chief Judge Bennett frowned.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Did she agree to support his account?"
Robert Ellis: "No. She denies doing so."
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Then we need to understand how her name entered the report."
Ellis agreed.
The review was progressing, but the growing number of discrepancies meant that a simple explanation was becoming less likely.
That morning, Victoria attended a short meeting with the chief judge and the administrator.
She listened as Ellis summarized the findings.
Robert Ellis: "The physical confrontation is supported by the security footage and witness evidence. Cross's description of the sequence does not align with the footage available so far."
Victoria Hayes: "And the assignment?"
Robert Ellis: "The request was passed from an internal administrative account to Sergeant Reeves, who relayed information to Cross. We have not yet established who authored the original message."
Victoria: "Does the message contain Lauren Mitchell's name?"
Robert Ellis: "No. It contains an incomplete description of a woman connected to a pending matter."
Victoria considered that.
Victoria Hayes: "Then the link between the request and Lauren needs to be established separately."
Robert Ellis: "Agreed."
Victoria: "What did Cross say when asked why he believed I was the person he was looking for?"
Robert Ellis: "He said your clothing and location matched the description he had received."
Victoria: "Was the description specific enough to identify anyone?"
Robert Ellis: "Not based on the copy we've reviewed."
Victoria looked toward the chief judge.
Victoria Hayes: "Then the investigation needs to distinguish between what he was told and what he decided on his own."
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "That distinction will be made."
Victoria leaned forward.
Victoria Hayes: "I also want the report to distinguish between the original mistake and what happened afterward. Even if the assignment was wrong, it doesn't explain the slap or justify a report that contradicts the evidence."
Robert Ellis: "Understood."
The meeting ended with a clear list of outstanding tasks.
The technical team would authenticate the message.
The review administrator would obtain the complete access history.
Cross would be asked to respond to the video evidence.
Reeves would be asked to identify the source of the request.
Lauren's account would be checked against the timestamps from her courthouse check-in.
And every version of the officer's report would be preserved.
For the first time since the incident, Victoria felt that the process was moving in a direction that could produce reliable answers.
But later that morning, an unexpected development threatened to complicate the investigation.
A staff member from the administrative office contacted Robert Ellis to report that someone had requested access to the incident file.
The request had been submitted through an ordinary internal channel.
It appeared legitimate at first glance.
However, the person requesting access was not listed among those assigned to the review.
Ellis asked the staff member to preserve the request and verify the identity of the account holder.
Within minutes, the staff member returned with an update.
The account belonged to an employee who worked in courthouse administration.
The employee had not explained why access was needed.
Ellis contacted the employee's supervisor.
The supervisor said the employee had been instructed to gather information relating to the morning's incident, but could not identify who had given that instruction.
The request was suspended while the review team investigated.
When Chief Judge Bennett learned what had happened, she immediately restricted access to the incident file.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Only the assigned review team should have access to these records. Anyone requesting information must provide a documented reason."
Robert Ellis: "I'll update the access permissions."
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "And I want the request itself included in the timeline."
Robert Ellis: "Of course."
The development raised another uncomfortable question.
Why had someone outside the review team wanted access to the file before the investigation was complete?
There could have been a routine administrative explanation.
The employee might have misunderstood an instruction.
The request might have been part of an ordinary records process.
But given the earlier problems with the assignment message and Cross's report, the review team could not assume that the request was harmless without examining it.
Victoria was informed of the development shortly before noon.