The next set of records arrived shortly before the scheduled evidentiary hearing. Mr. Collins asked me to come to his office so he could explain what the investigators had established and what remained uncertain. He had received a summary of the law firm's response, along with a request for additional documentation concerning Olivia's internship.
The firm had confirmed that Olivia had been placed in an administrative role where she could handle routine correspondence under supervision. The records showed that she had been present during the period when a communication connected to the amended report was processed. That fact alone did not prove she had drafted, sent, or influenced the communication, but it established that she was in a position to know about it.
Mr. Collins placed the relevant dates beside the timeline from the collision investigation. The overlap was striking. The communication had been processed after the original report but before the later version became the basis for the identification attributed to me. The firm was still determining which employee had prepared the correspondence and whether Olivia had any direct involvement.
“Could she have used her internship to influence the investigation?” I asked.
“It's a possibility the investigators are examining,” he replied. “But we cannot state that she did so until the evidence supports it. We need to know who prepared the communication, who approved it, and what information it contained.”
I nodded. The temptation to see the entire story in one glance was strong, but the case had taught me that every conclusion needed a foundation. Olivia had taken my identity, and my father had hidden my acceptance letter. Those facts were no longer merely suspicions. The connection between Olivia's internship and the amended report, however, still required proof.
The prosecutor requested a copy of the defense's timeline and agreed to compare it with the firm's records. The investigators planned to interview the employee responsible for processing the communication and determine whether any correspondence had been omitted from the original case file.
While we waited, my mother sent me a message asking me to meet her at a café near the courthouse. I hesitated, then agreed to a short conversation in a public place. Mr. Collins advised me not to discuss the evidence in detail and to leave if she tried to pressure me into changing my position.
My mother arrived ten minutes late. She looked tired, with dark circles beneath her eyes and her hair pulled back in a careless knot. She sat across from me and wrapped both hands around a cup of tea she barely touched.
“Olivia says you're trying to ruin her career,” she began.
“I haven't contacted her employer. The investigators are examining records connected to the case.”
“You know what happens when a law firm hears that someone is under investigation.”
“Yes.”
“She could lose everything she's worked for.”
I looked at her. “What about everything I lost?”
My mother stared into her cup. “I know what happened with your letter was wrong.”
“Do you?”
She nodded, but the movement was small.
“I thought I could fix it before you found out,” she said. “I thought Olivia would finish school, and then we could tell you. Perhaps we could help you return to university later.”
“You kept moving the moment when I was allowed to know the truth.”
She began to cry, but she didn't reach for my hand. “I was afraid you would hate us.”
“I was already hurting, Mom. You just made sure I had to do it without understanding why.”
For a long moment, she said nothing. Then she asked whether I believed Olivia had been involved in the amended report.
“I don't know,” I answered. “That's why the records are being examined.”
My mother looked up sharply. “But you suspect her.”
“I suspect everyone whose actions need explaining. That includes you, Dad, Ethan, and Olivia. I'm not going to decide what happened based on who cries the hardest.”
Her face changed at that. She looked as though I'd struck her, though I had spoken quietly.
“You've become so cold,” she whispered.
“No. I've stopped mistaking guilt for proof of love.”
She pushed back her chair and left the café without finishing her tea.
I returned to Mr. Collins's office and documented the conversation. He said my mother's response might help explain the pressure the family was placing on me, but it would not establish Olivia's involvement in the communication. We would continue to rely on the records and the testimony of people who had handled them.
The following morning, the employee from the law firm was interviewed. I was not present, but Mr. Collins later told me that the employee had confirmed the firm processed a communication during the relevant period. The employee could not yet say who had drafted the material, and the records did not conclusively establish that Olivia had sent it. Further review was required.
The investigators also requested Olivia's internship logs and any surviving records showing the tasks she had performed. The firm agreed to cooperate, subject to the appropriate legal procedures. The prosecutor informed the court that the state was examining whether the communication had any bearing on the original identification.
At the next hearing, the judge asked the prosecutor to clarify the purpose of the inquiry. The prosecutor explained that the records might help establish how information had entered the case file and whether the later amendment relied on a source that had not been adequately examined. He emphasized that the state was not yet alleging that Olivia had deliberately influenced the investigation.
Mr. Collins argued that the defense needed the full record to assess whether the identification attributed to me had been supported by reliable evidence. He asked the court to direct the production of any remaining correspondence and the records showing who had prepared and approved the communication.
The judge granted the request, subject to the usual requirements for disclosure and admissibility. He also directed the parties to preserve the internship records and refrain from contacting potential witnesses outside the proper process.
Olivia sat very still throughout the discussion. My mother watched her from the corner of her eye, while Ethan stared at the floor. My father appeared to be listening, but his hands were clenched tightly together.
After the hearing, Olivia's attorney spoke with her near the courtroom doors. I couldn't hear their conversation, but I saw Olivia shake her head repeatedly. Her attorney remained calm and appeared to be explaining the need to respond accurately to questions about the records.
My mother approached me as I walked toward the exit.
“Please,” she whispered. “If Olivia made a mistake, let her explain it privately. Don't make everything public.”
I stopped.
“That's what you wanted four years ago. A private solution. A quiet correction. A way to keep everyone comfortable while I lost my place.”
“She was afraid.”
“So was I.”
My mother looked away. She seemed to have no answer for that.
I continued toward the exit. I wasn't trying to punish her. I was refusing to let her decide that my suffering was acceptable simply because it was easier to hide.
That evening, the anonymous sender contacted me again.
The firm has a copy of the message. Ask who approved it before it was sent.
I forwarded the message to Mr. Collins. He said the investigators had already requested the approval records, but the anonymous information reinforced the importance of obtaining them. He warned me that the sender's claim still needed verification.
A few days later, the firm produced an additional set of administrative records. The documents identified a supervisor who had reviewed the communication before it was processed. The supervisor's name was not Olivia's, but the records showed that Olivia had been assigned to the administrative team during the same period.
Mr. Collins studied the pages and said the next step was to establish what the supervisor had reviewed and whether the communication had been based on information supplied by someone outside the firm. The record did not prove that Olivia had drafted it or that the supervisor had acted improperly. It did, however, identify another person whose account could clarify the sequence.
I looked at the name on the page.
It was a new name in a case that had begun with my family insisting that no one else needed to be involved.
For the first time, the evidence was pointing beyond our household. Someone outside the family had reviewed a communication that may have influenced the investigation, and that person would have to explain what they knew.
I left Mr. Collins's office with a copy of the request for the supervisor's interview. The case was becoming more complicated, but the central question was finally receiving the attention it deserved.
Who had supplied the information that made my name appear in the amended report, and why had that information been accepted without resolving the discrepancies that now stood before the court?
Click here to continue reading: PART 16: The Supervisor’s Testimony Exposed a Gap in the Official Account, and Ethan Finally Faced the Question He Had Avoided for Four Years
My Family Ordered Me to Take the Blame, but One Envelope on the Defense Table Threatened Everything They Had Built
Part 15 of 20
