“This is getting closer.”
DANIEL MERCER:
“Yes, Director. But we're still missing one important piece.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“What?”
Daniel hesitated.
DANIEL MERCER:
“We need to establish who authorized the original instruction and whether the traffic stop was intended to create a false criminal allegation.”
Simone looked toward the closed conference room door.
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Then that's what we find next.”
***
The following morning, Peter Lawson arrived for a second interview.
This time, he brought a handwritten notebook.
He placed it on the table.
PETER LAWSON:
“I wasn't sure whether I should keep this.”
The investigator opened it.
Inside were dates, short descriptions, and references to several records that had been changed.
PETER LAWSON:
“I started writing things down because the same names kept appearing. I didn't want to forget what I had seen.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did anyone ask you to make these changes?”
PETER LAWSON:
“Not directly. I was asked to retrieve the records. Later, I noticed that the status had changed.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Who asked you to retrieve them?”
Peter looked down.
PETER LAWSON:
“Captain Reeves's office.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did Captain Reeves speak to you personally?”
PETER LAWSON:
“Once. He said the Hartwell file needed to be reviewed before the next planning meeting.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did he mention Richard Vance?”
PETER LAWSON:
“Yes.”
The investigator made a note.
PETER LAWSON:
“He said the development company needed accurate information about unresolved property complaints.”
INVESTIGATOR:
“Did that seem unusual?”
Peter considered the question.
PETER LAWSON:
“At the time, I thought it was normal. But the records were not being requested through the usual process.”
The interview continued for several hours.
Peter provided details about the workstation, the request history, and the changes he had noticed.
His notebook did not establish who had altered the records.
But it helped investigators identify the exact dates and systems that needed to be examined.
After the interview, Daniel Mercer contacted Simone.
DANIEL MERCER:
“We have a new witness.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Who?”
DANIEL MERCER:
“Peter Lawson. He worked in the records unit. He says Captain Reeves requested the Hartwell files before the traffic stop.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Did he say why?”
DANIEL MERCER:
“He said Reeves referred to the upcoming development meeting and the unresolved property complaints.”
Simone leaned back.
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“That's important. What else?”
DANIEL MERCER:
“He kept a notebook documenting changes to several records.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Has the notebook been preserved?”
DANIEL MERCER:
“Yes.”
SIMONE HARTWELL:
“Good. Make sure the investigation doesn't depend on one witness. We need the system logs to support his account.”
DANIEL MERCER:
“That's already underway.”
She ended the call.
For the first time, the investigation had a witness who could explain how the records had been handled from inside the department.
But there was still no final answer about the person who had initiated the original traffic stop.
And until that question was resolved, the larger picture remained incomplete.
***
Meanwhile, Richard Vance was becoming increasingly concerned.
He had expected the Hartwell property dispute to remain a local matter.
He had believed that a few administrative complications and a firm negotiation strategy would eventually convince Marcus to sell.
He had not expected a CIA director to become involved.
More importantly, he had not expected the federal review team to examine the relationships between his company, the local department, and the records system.
He called Captain Reeves.
The captain did not answer.
He tried again.
Still no answer.
Finally, he sent a message.
RICHARD VANCE:
“We need to speak immediately. This situation is becoming dangerous.”
Several minutes passed.
Then Reeves replied.
THOMAS REEVES:
“Do not contact me about this matter again.”
Vance stared at the message.
He called again.
This time, Reeves answered.
RICHARD VANCE:
“What is going on?”
CAPTAIN THOMAS REEVES:
“You need to stop calling me.”
RICHARD VANCE:
“You said this would be handled.”
CAPTAIN THOMAS REEVES:
“I said nothing of the kind.”
RICHARD VANCE:
“Don't pretend you weren't involved.”
Reeves lowered his voice.
CAPTAIN THOMAS REEVES:
“You need to speak with your attorney.”
RICHARD VANCE:
“What about Kessler?”
CAPTAIN THOMAS REEVES:
“Do not mention his name on this call.”
RICHARD VANCE:
“You're telling me to walk away after everything we've done?”
Reeves paused.
CAPTAIN THOMAS REEVES:
“I'm telling you to stop calling me.”
He ended the call.
But Vance had already made another mistake.
The call had been placed through a company communications system that retained metadata.
The investigation team later obtained the relevant records.
The timing corresponded with a series of messages sent between Vance and a consultant involved in the property acquisition.
Those messages were added to the review.
***
Several days later, the federal team received a new piece of evidence.
A former employee of the development company had contacted investigators.
Her name was Rachel Morgan.
She had worked as an administrative coordinator and had left the company after a disagreement over the way certain property negotiations were being conducted.
She told investigators that she had been instructed to prepare a spreadsheet listing the remaining landowners along the proposed corridor.
The spreadsheet included the Hartwell property.