“I don't know. His login was used.”
Priya wrote that distinction down. She had seen investigations go wrong when a computer account was treated as proof of who sat at the keyboard. The logs established access, not identity. They would need schedules, security footage, and testimony to connect particular changes to particular people.
Over the next week, her team built a timeline. They compared seizure receipts, property-room intake forms, court orders, bank deposits, and the electronic records that linked them. They found mismatches across several years. Some resulted from ordinary mistakes that had been corrected transparently. Others were different. They consistently reduced amounts owed to individuals, appeared after business hours, and were supported by authorizations signed by the same small group of officials.
The pattern did not prove a conspiracy by itself. It justified looking closer.
One evening Dana stayed late to help locate a box of archived receipts. She and Priya worked in the basement beneath humming fluorescent lights. Dana found a binder labeled 2022 PROPERTY ADJUSTMENTS and placed it on the table.
“I tried to raise this once,” she said.
Priya looked up. “With whom?”
“Captain Vale. I told him the corrections needed independent verification.”
“What did he say?”
“He said the chief had already reviewed them.”
“Did you document the conversation?”
Dana opened the binder. Tucked behind the first divider was a printed email. She had written a brief summary to herself afterward and sent it to her work account.
“People say paperwork is a nuisance,” she said. “But sometimes it's the only way to prove you asked.”
Priya read the email carefully. It was dated eighteen months before the park incident. Dana had asked for a written explanation of three adjustments. Vale's reply instructed her to stop circulating questions about closed cases and route all concerns through his office.
Priya asked permission to copy the message. Dana nodded. Her hands were steady, but her voice was not.
“I don't want to lose my pension,” she said.
“I can't promise what will happen,” Priya answered. “I can promise your statement will be recorded accurately.”
Dana looked around the basement. “That would be a start.”
The state investigators interviewed Mercer nine days after the park incident. His attorney, Jonathan Bell, arrived with a leather briefcase and a list of conditions for the interview. Elena explained that Mercer was free to consult his attorney and decline voluntary questions, but that she would not agree to a private conversation whose contents could later be disputed. A recording device sat in the center of the table.
Mercer wore a gray suit. Without his department polo and the small crowd that usually followed him, he seemed less imposing. He asked whether Naomi had made a formal complaint. Elena told him she could not discuss other witnesses' statements.
“I want it understood that I requested an independent investigation,” he said.
“After the incident,” Elena replied.
“Yes.”
“Why did you approach the bench?”
“We were establishing a secure area for a community event.”
“Was the bench inside the event permit?”
“I understood that it was.”
“Who told you?”
Mercer shifted. “It was an operational judgment.”
“Who made that judgment?”
“I did.”
Elena allowed a moment to pass. “Did you tell Judge Bennett you were the rule?”
“I may have used an unfortunate expression.”
“Why did you reach for her folder?”
“I believed she was concealing something relevant to a security concern.”
“What security concern?”
“She was refusing to comply.”
“Refusing to comply with what?”
“With a lawful direction.”
Elena turned a page. “The lieutenant told her she was not detained. There was no posted closure. The event permit did not include the bench. What law authorized you to seize her papers?”
Bell leaned forward. “My client has answered that question.”
“He hasn't identified any legal authority,” Elena said calmly.
Mercer folded his arms. “She pulled away from me.”
“After you grabbed her wrist?”
“I was trying to prevent the situation from escalating.”
“By striking her?”
He looked toward his attorney. Bell asked for a break.
In the hallway, Mercer paced while Bell stood beside a window overlooking the parking lot. The attorney did not tell him the recording was harmless. He said the evidence would be assessed by prosecutors, and that Mercer's explanation needed to account for the full sequence, not merely the moment Naomi moved her arm.
“She embarrassed me in front of my officers,” Mercer said.
Bell regarded him. “That's not a legal defense.”
Mercer looked away. “You sound like her.”