Vance testified that he had recommended a forensic hold on the terminal and further review of the network logs before any definitive attribution was made. He had sent the diagnostic attachment through the city's secure document portal and received an automated receipt. Two days later, he had been told that the case team's evidence summary would not be revised because the prosecution considered the main financial trail sufficient.
Bennett asked who gave him that instruction. Vance consulted his notes, then identified a senior city legal liaison who worked with Pierce's office. He could not say whether the liaison had independently decided to close the issue or had relayed Pierce's decision. Elijah wrote the answer down, grateful that the witness did not reach beyond his knowledge.
"When the defense requested the diagnostic report," Bennett asked, "were you informed?"
"Not until this morning. I believed it had been provided with the other records."
"Why?"
"Because it was an important limitation on the evidence they were using."
The judge asked Vance to explain a phrase from his report that the jury had never heard. It described the transaction attribution as unresolved pending complete security analysis. Vance said the machine was definitely involved in processing commands, but the logs could not establish that Sarah was the person who issued them. In his professional opinion, Exhibit 42 presented more certainty than the underlying evidence justified.
For several seconds no one moved. Pierce had relied on that exhibit as though it contained a direct identification. Now the person who had studied the machine was telling the court that it did not. Harrison's expression stayed controlled, but he began making notes with unusual force.
Pierce questioned Vance on cross-examination. She asked whether criminals sometimes shared passwords and whether an insider could arrange remote access to disguise a transaction. Vance agreed both scenarios were technically possible. Pierce seized on the answers and asked whether the findings therefore proved nothing about Sarah's involvement.
"They don't prove her innocent," Vance said. "They also don't prove she was involved. My concern is that a jury has been told they do something they don't."
Pierce's face tightened. "So your testimony is that someone might have used her account?"
"My testimony is that the account was used through a compromised machine," Vance replied. "If you want to identify the human operator, you need evidence independent of that login."
Bennett returned briefly to establish the chain of custody of the report. Vance identified its electronic signature, revision history, and secure-upload receipt. The court clerk confirmed that a verified copy had now been received directly from municipal information security. Harrison admitted the documents for the limited evidentiary hearing and ordered the jury's prior exposure to Exhibit 42 examined before the prosecution could continue.