And the third was Colin Voss.
For several seconds, Camille stared at the page.
Then looked toward the independent investigator.
"What does the evidence establish at this stage?"
The woman explained the documented transactions and the remaining questions.
Camille listened carefully.
Then asked whether there was any indication that Voss received personal benefits connected to particular towing requests.
The investigator answered cautiously.
"There's information that requires further verification."
Camille nodded.
She didn't leap to a conclusion.
The investigation needed to distinguish suspicious associations from provable misconduct.
But the findings supported something she'd begun suspecting during the afternoon encounter.
Voss's insistence on towing her Bentley might have involved more than wounded pride.
And that possibility made the broken windows part of a much larger story.
The financial trail eventually led investigators to an unusual arrangement involving a small business registered under the name of Voss's younger brother.
The business supposedly provided transportation coordination and administrative consulting for several commercial clients.
Some of its activities were legitimate.
But investigators identified payments associated with towing referrals that lacked a clear business explanation.
The records also showed that Voss's brother had maintained a consulting relationship with a Ridgeway-associated entity during the period when disputed impounds increased.
That didn't automatically establish that Colin Voss had received improper compensation.
Family relationships alone weren't proof of wrongdoing.
But communications obtained through appropriate legal procedures raised additional questions.
Some messages discussed specific vehicle referrals before the owners received formal towing information.
Others referred to expected fees or storage revenue linked to vehicles held during investigations.
Investigators began comparing those communications with dispatch records and payment documentation.
The findings revealed a pattern that was difficult to dismiss as coincidence.
Certain vehicles were selected for towing after relatively minor or unresolved registration concerns.
Their owners sometimes received contradictory explanations about release requirements.
And the fees generated by those holds supported transactions between related businesses.
The investigation still needed to establish who knowingly participated.
But the central concern was clear.
Public authority may have been used to generate private financial benefits.
One of the most troubling records concerned a young woman named Jasmine Brooks.
Jasmine was twenty-six, worked at a medical billing office, and drove a used luxury sedan she'd purchased after years of saving.
Several months earlier, Voss stopped her near a shopping center and questioned her registration.
Jasmine provided the documents.
The vehicle wasn't reported stolen.
Yet the stop escalated into a disputed tow.
She spent two days trying to recover the car.
By the time the paperwork was resolved, she faced fees she could barely afford.
Jasmine borrowed money from her mother to pay them.
She later submitted a complaint to the sheriff's office.
The response was brief.
Her concerns were classified as a disagreement over administrative towing procedures.
No one interviewed her in depth.