The third file belonged to Jerome Ellis, a music teacher in his early sixties who had been collecting donations after a school concert. Puit approached him outside the auditorium, questioned the cash envelope in his hand, and accused him of carrying money that might have come from a nearby theft. Jerome tried to explain that the donations were for a student instrument fund, but Puit demanded he open the envelope and threatened detention if he refused. The school's principal later confirmed every dollar was accounted for, yet the complaint was dismissed because the review concluded the officer's concern had been reasonable in context.
The three files did not prove by themselves that every accusation was accurate. Voss knew the difference between a complaint and a finding, and she intended to honor it even when the similarities were troubling. What mattered initially was the pattern of missing investigation steps: witnesses not interviewed, dispatch information not secured, camera footage never requested, and a final review that treated the officer's own explanation as sufficient. She copied the closure dates onto a fresh timeline and noticed the same authorizing signature at the bottom of each review.
The signature belonged to Deputy Chief Arnold Torres, who had supervised the administrative review process during much of Puit's career. There was also a notation that Dale Morrow, acting as union representative, had challenged the admissibility of outside witness statements in each case. Morrow was not the officer authorized to close the complaints; Torres was. But Voss could see that the union's influence and the department's reluctance to pursue independent evidence had interacted in ways that favored one outcome repeatedly.
Captain Felix Drury was the next witness she interviewed. He brought his original transfer recommendation, an attachment missing from the summarized personnel file. In precise language, Drury had warned that Puit's pattern of escalating noncriminal contacts created a foreseeable risk of unjustified detention and excessive force. He recommended remedial training followed by a probationary evaluation, not simply a transfer to a quieter sector. Somebody had removed the training recommendation from the final personnel action.
"Did you know it had been removed?" Voss asked. Drury looked at the document for a long moment. "I knew the transfer went through. I never received notice that the corrective conditions were rejected." His jaw tightened.
"I should have followed up." Voss did not excuse him. "You can give us a statement about the recommendation and the discussions surrounding it. We need the process, not your best guess about who changed it."
Drury gave her names, meeting dates, and the location of an archived email. In that email, a personnel manager explained that disciplinary language might invite a grievance and make the transfer difficult to complete before budget assignments closed for the quarter. A follow-up from Torres recommended handling Puit's history as a supervision issue rather than a formal misconduct finding. Voss read the words twice, conscious that the decision had moved risk from one neighborhood to another without ever addressing the behavior that created it.