We talked a little longer, not about evidence but about the ordinary experience of having a house feel safe again. Linda told me she had planted tomatoes behind her new place and that nobody had yet fined her for them. I told her my lawn was too small for serious gardening but that I had repaired the gutter and intended to put a bench beneath the sycamore. At the end of the call, she said it was nice to hear about my house without hearing about Patricia. I agreed.
The district attorney's office made its own decisions slowly.
Deputy Salas gave investigators the call history, the available recordings, and the incident reports he had documented. The office compared the statements made in those reports with property records, photographs, dates, and information obtained from former homeowners who chose to cooperate. They also examined the purported parking agreement. I provided the original copy I had photographed, my communications with Linda, and the records relevant to my own property. When an investigator requested a statement, I gave one as a private citizen through the ordinary process.
I did not contact the prosecutor in charge to ask how the case was going. I did not call judges who might know the people involved. I knew that the existence of twenty-seven calls did not mean twenty-seven crimes had been committed. Somebody can misunderstand a property boundary in good faith. Somebody can report something suspicious that turns out to be harmless. A prosecutor has to distinguish mistakes from knowingly false assertions, and the difference matters regardless of whether the person making the reports is likable.
The investigators took their time because those distinctions mattered. They examined what Patricia knew about the occupants of the house on particular dates, whether she had received documents contradicting her claims, and what she said when she called the department afterward. They reviewed her statements about the motor home against the former owner's denial and the purported agreement. They sought independent verification instead of treating my account as decisive because of my profession. That was exactly what I wanted them to do.
In October, the district attorney filed charges arising from a limited number of the knowingly false reports and related conduct supported by the investigation. The filing did not accuse Patricia of every bad motive I had imagined or every injury the prior owners had suffered. It alleged particular acts on particular dates. That is how the criminal process is supposed to work. It was not a community referendum on whether Patricia Voss was a pleasant neighbor, and it was not a substitute for civil claims other people might choose to pursue.
I read about the filing in the newspaper, as did everyone else.
The article named Larksburg Commons and summarized the history of repeated complaints at one address. It did not dwell on my judicial position, perhaps because the investigators had made clear that the complainant's profession was not part of the case. The paper quoted the district attorney's office on the importance of public reporting systems being used in good faith. It also noted that Patricia disputed parts of the account and was entitled to respond in court.