Keene objected.
The judge sustained the objection to speculation.
The jury had already heard the distinction.
My testimony lasted two days.
The prosecution used me to explain how independent records converged. Not to tell the jury who was guilty. Judge Ortiz made that boundary clear before I took the stand.
I described the audit process, the records we removed after finding innocent explanations, the body-camera archive, complaint reclassifications, evidence discrepancies, and the Blue Ledger reconstruction.
Miriam Cho asked why the removal of unsupported findings mattered.
"Because an audit is not a collection of the worst things you can say," I answered. "It is a process for narrowing uncertainty. If evidence explains a discrepancy, the honest result is to remove the discrepancy."
"Even if that makes your case look smaller?"
"Especially then."
Keene spent nearly four hours cross-examining me.
He returned again and again to the fact that no single document ordered anyone to commit a crime.
"There is no email from Mr. Vale saying 'hide evidence from the defense,' correct?"
"Not in those words."
"No message saying 'steal cash.'"
"Correct."
"No message saying 'falsify complaints.'"
"Correct."
"So your theory depends on interpreting shorthand and context."
"The audit interpretation depends on shorthand, surrounding records, resulting system changes, witness testimony, and timing. The criminal theory belongs to the prosecution, not me."
He paced slowly.
"Let's talk about D-H. You say that means discovery-hold."
"Multiple witnesses identified it that way, and records bearing that code corresponded with withheld discovery segments."
"But Mr. Vale never wrote a glossary."
"Not that we found."
"So you cannot climb inside his mind and tell this jury what he intended."
"No."
He stopped.
"Thank you."
Then Cho stood for redirect.
"Ms. Brooks, do auditors usually climb inside people's minds?"
"Not with the current budget."
The courtroom laughed before I could stop myself from smiling.
Judge Ortiz rubbed his forehead.
"Let's keep moving."
Cho asked the real question.
"If you cannot determine intent, what can you determine?"
"What changed. Who had access. What instructions were recorded. Whether stated explanations match system behavior. Whether the same pattern repeats. Intent is for the fact-finder to infer from all admissible evidence."
That was the end of my testimony.
Judge Evelyn Carter testified later as a fact witness about the courthouse morning.
Seeing her in the witness box instead of behind the bench felt strange.
She described Vance's grip on my wrist, his refusal to release me immediately, his movement toward the Taser holster, and his claim that the briefcase contained restricted hazardous police property.
Keene asked whether she disliked Vance after witnessing that conduct.