For the rest of the day, she answered only the questions necessary to keep the investigation moving.
She did not give interviews.
She did not make public accusations.
She did not allow the discovery of the altered request to become proof of a conspiracy.
But as the day progressed, the review team began to uncover a pattern that was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The assignment had been changed.
The officer's account conflicted with the available evidence.
A person named in the report denied supporting it.
An unexplained message had reached that person shortly after the incident.
And someone outside the review team had attempted to access the incident file.
Each event could still have an innocent explanation.
Together, they demanded answers.
At the end of the afternoon, Robert Ellis received a final message from the technical team.
The workstation associated with the assignment change had been identified.
The device was located in an administrative office used by several employees.
Access records showed that one particular staff account had been active during the relevant period.
The account belonged to someone who had routine access to the courtroom schedule and could modify security requests.
Ellis read the name.
Then he read it again.
He recognized it from a separate set of documents connected to the courthouse's administrative review.
He did not immediately contact Victoria.
First, he asked the technical team to confirm the timestamp and determine whether another account had been used from the same workstation.
The team began a final verification.
An hour later, they confirmed that the account had been active when the assignment request was modified.
That finding did not, by itself, prove who had been at the keyboard.
It did, however, establish a concrete lead.
Ellis prepared a formal notice requesting an interview with the account holder.
He also asked the team to preserve all related communications, including messages sent before and after the assignment was changed.
As he completed the notice, he received another update.
The same account had accessed the incident file shortly after the first report was submitted.
Ellis sat back in his chair.
The access could have been part of routine administrative work.
But the timing connected the account to two separate stages of the unfolding incident: the assignment that sent Cross toward the fourth floor and the records created after Victoria was struck.
Ellis knew he could not treat that connection as proof of wrongdoing.
He also knew it could not be ignored.
He added the access record to the evidence log and requested an urgent meeting with Chief Judge Bennett.
By the time the chief judge arrived, the courthouse had grown quiet again.
The day's hearings were ending.
Staff members were closing files and preparing for the next morning.
Yet the investigation was entering a new phase.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "What have you found?"
Robert Ellis placed the verified records on the table.
Robert Ellis: "We have identified the administrative account that was active when the assignment request was changed. The same account accessed the incident file after the confrontation."
The chief judge studied the documents.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Do we know who used the account?"
Robert Ellis: "Not conclusively. The account belongs to a staff member with access to the relevant systems. We need to interview that person and verify the workstation activity."
Chief Judge Bennett looked up.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "And the message Lauren received?"
Robert Ellis: "We are still trying to establish its sender. The message may be connected, but we cannot confirm that yet."
Chief Judge Bennett closed the file.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Then the next interview is critical."
Robert Ellis: "Yes."
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Arrange it for tomorrow morning. Make sure the person understands that we are asking for an explanation, not announcing a conclusion."
Ellis nodded.
Robert Ellis: "I'll prepare the notice."
The chief judge rose to leave, then stopped beside the table.
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "One more thing. Has Cross been informed of the discrepancies in his report?"
Robert Ellis: "He has been told that the evidence is under review. A formal follow-up interview is scheduled."
Chief Judge Eleanor Bennett: "Good. His response needs to be recorded after he has had the opportunity to address the specific evidence."
Robert Ellis: "Understood."
After the chief judge left, Ellis gathered the documents and secured them in the designated review file.
He had spent years handling administrative disputes, and he knew how quickly a complicated situation could become distorted by rumors.
The investigation needed to remain disciplined.
No one should be accused simply because their account appeared in a troubling timeline.
No evidence should be withheld because it complicated an existing explanation.
And no one should be allowed to replace a verified fact with an assumption.