NATALIE: "The list includes comments about personnel transfers and performance reviews. Several of the individuals were moved after submitting concerns about the maintenance process."
Whitmore leaned back.
For a moment, he seemed unable to find an explanation.
Then he spoke quietly.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "I didn't create that file."
NATALIE: "I didn't say you did."
MAJOR WHITMORE: "I never authorized anyone to punish personnel for raising concerns."
NATALIE: "Then tell us what you know about the list."
Whitmore looked at the names.
He recognized several of them.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "I remember some of these transfers."
NATALIE: "Why were they approved?"
MAJOR WHITMORE: "I was told they were routine staffing adjustments."
NATALIE: "Did you review the reasons?"
MAJOR WHITMORE: "Not in every case."
Natalie waited.
Whitmore finally admitted that the former deputy commander had frequently requested changes to the staffing structure before major evaluations.
Some technicians who questioned the maintenance process were moved away from the aircraft they had previously inspected.
Others were assigned to less desirable shifts.
At the time, Whitmore had assumed the changes were part of normal operational management.
Now, he was beginning to understand that they might have been used to isolate personnel who had raised concerns.
Natalie asked him whether he had ever discussed those personnel changes with Marcus Reed.
Whitmore nodded.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "Marcus provided recommendations."
NATALIE: "Based on what?"
MAJOR WHITMORE: "He said certain technicians were difficult to manage and did not follow the reporting process."
NATALIE: "Did he provide evidence?"
Whitmore hesitated.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "Not always."
Natalie made a note.
NATALIE: "You will identify every staffing recommendation you received from him and explain how you approved it."
Whitmore nodded slowly.
The major was no longer trying to present himself as a completely uninvolved officer.
He had begun to recognize that his own decisions might have contributed to the situation.
But Natalie still needed to establish who had organized the entire process.
The former deputy commander remained the central figure.
At 18:10, headquarters responded to Natalie's request.
The former deputy commander, General Adrian Cole, had been located at a headquarters facility.
He was informed that his former installation was under a formal investigation and that his account had been involved in an unauthorized archive session.
He denied personally directing anyone to access the system.
He also denied authorizing changes to aircraft maintenance certifications.
However, he agreed to provide a formal statement.
Natalie requested that the interview take place through the appropriate command and investigative channels.
She did not want an informal conversation that could later be challenged.
The next morning, the investigation team received a new piece of evidence.
Captain Lawson had provided a statement.
He said that General Cole had called him and instructed him to retrieve a specific file from the restricted archive.
The general had told him that the file was needed for a routine administrative reconciliation.
Lawson said he had been given the former deputy commander's credentials because his own account did not have access to the archive.
He admitted that he should have questioned the instruction.
He also disclosed that the general had asked him to locate the personnel complaint spreadsheet.
According to Lawson, the general wanted to identify which employees had spoken to the inspection team.
Natalie read the statement carefully.
She then requested the original call records and any written messages that could support or contradict the account.
The investigation team also compared the archive session with the security footage.
The timestamps matched.
Captain Lawson had entered the archive shortly after receiving a call from General Cole.
That evidence did not by itself establish the general's full responsibility for the altered maintenance records, but it supported the conclusion that he had been attempting to obtain information about the investigation.
Natalie asked headquarters to preserve the general's relevant official records and communications through the proper procedures.
She also requested that he be temporarily removed from any role involving the installation's maintenance reporting process while the investigation continued.
The request was approved.
By midday, the entire installation knew that the case had expanded.
Personnel began speaking more openly.
Several technicians contacted the investigation team.
One described being instructed to change a maintenance classification after the aircraft had already been cleared for operation.
Another said that a supervisor had warned him not to write unresolved discrepancies in the official system.
A third provided a copy of an email in which Marcus Reed asked him to sign an inspection sheet before the physical inspection had taken place.
The email was short.
It contained no explanation.
It simply said that the document needed to be completed before the end of the shift.
The technician had refused.
Two days later, he was removed from the maintenance team.
His transfer had been recorded as a routine staffing decision.
Now the investigators were examining whether that decision had been retaliatory.