Daniel nodded.
DANIEL MERCER:
“Understood.”
Simone looked at the timeline again.
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“What about the identity of the person who contacted Kessler?”
DANIEL MERCER:
“We're still working on that.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Then that's the priority.”
***
The following week, investigators interviewed the communications supervisor whose account had been used to update the dispatch record.
Her name was Laura Mitchell.
She had worked for the county for eleven years and had never previously been disciplined.
During the interview, she explained that she had left her workstation unattended during a shift change.
She denied entering the suspicious-material note.
She also denied giving her login details to another employee.
The investigators asked whether anyone else could have used her terminal.
Laura hesitated.
LAURA MITCHELL:
“Captain Reeves sometimes uses the communications room when he wants to review an incident.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did he use your workstation on the date in question?”
LAURA MITCHELL:
“I can't remember.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did you see him there?”
LAURA MITCHELL:
“I remember him coming in, but I don't know what he accessed.”
The interview continued.
Investigators asked whether she had received instructions to add information to the Hartwell stop record.
She said no.
They asked whether anyone had discussed the Hartwell family with her before the stop.
She paused.
LAURA MITCHELL:
“Someone called the department asking whether the family had been involved in any recent police activity.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Who called?”
LAURA MITCHELL:
“I don't know. The person didn't give me a name.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“When was this?”
LAURA MITCHELL:
“A few days before the stop.”
The investigator recorded the statement.
It did not prove that the caller had been connected to the development company.
But it provided another lead.
Meanwhile, Captain Reeves submitted a written statement denying that he had directed Kessler to stop the truck.
He said that he had been informed of the encounter only after the tactical team arrived.
However, his phone records showed that he had received a call from Kessler shortly before the stop.
The discrepancy required further examination.
When Reeves was asked about it, he said he could not remember the details of the conversation.
Investigators asked whether he had discussed the Hartwell property with Kessler.
He denied doing so.
The review continued.
***
Richard Vance finally agreed to an interview after receiving a formal request from the investigators.
He arrived at the federal office wearing an expensive dark suit and carrying a leather folder.
He was in his late forties, with carefully styled hair and the confident manner of a businessman accustomed to controlling meetings.
He had spent years building his development company.
The proposed logistics corridor was his largest project.
It involved warehouses, transportation facilities, and several commercial partnerships.
The Hartwell property was one of the last significant parcels he wanted to acquire.
During the interview, Vance insisted that his company had acted lawfully.
RICHARD VANCE:
“We made a commercial offer. Mr. Hartwell declined. That's his right. We moved on to other negotiations.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did you contact Captain Reeves about the Hartwell property?”
RICHARD VANCE:
“I've spoken with several local officials about the development project.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did you discuss the possibility of police action against the family?”
RICHARD VANCE:
“No.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did you contact Officer Kessler before the traffic stop?”
Vance leaned back.
RICHARD VANCE:
“I speak with a lot of people. I don't remember every call.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Would you object to providing the relevant communication records?”
RICHARD VANCE:
“My company has legal counsel. Any records will be handled through the appropriate process.”
The investigator nodded.
INVESTIGATOR:
“That is understood.”
Vance left the interview believing that he had avoided giving investigators anything useful.
But the review team had already obtained additional records through separate channels.
Those records showed that his company had paid a consulting firm for services connected to the logistics project.
The consulting firm had also made payments to a company linked to an associate of Captain Reeves.
The payments were not automatically evidence of wrongdoing.
They could have represented legitimate services.
But the dates and descriptions required verification.
The team began examining the contracts.
One invoice included a vague reference to “community coordination and regulatory support.”
Another described “property acquisition assistance.”
A third contained a payment made shortly before the first complaint about Marcus's property was closed.
The investigators did not immediately draw conclusions.
They requested the underlying agreements, work records, and communications.
The financial trail was beginning to provide a clearer picture of the relationships surrounding the project.
***
Two weeks after the roadside incident, Marcus received a call from an unknown number.
He was working near the barn when his phone rang.
He looked at the screen, hesitated, and answered.
MARCUS HARTWELL:
“Hello?”
UNKNOWN CALLER:
“Mr. Hartwell, we need to talk about your property.”
Marcus stopped moving.
MARCUS HARTWELL:
“Who is this?”
UNKNOWN CALLER:
“You know who we are. We're trying to find a solution that works for everyone.”
MARCUS HARTWELL:
“I already told your people I'm not selling.”
UNKNOWN CALLER:
“You might want to reconsider.”