Officer Fletcher's interview lasted nearly four hours.
He was nervous.
He knew that speaking truthfully might end his relationship with colleagues who believed loyalty meant protecting another officer from consequences.
But he had already watched the video.
He had already heard Caleb crying.
And he had spent three sleepless nights replaying the moment he could have intervened sooner.
The investigator asked him when he first believed Walsh was acting improperly.
Fletcher thought carefully.
"When he ordered them to leave after the permit appeared valid."
"Why didn't you intervene then?"
"I tried to clarify the permit."
"Why didn't you continue?"
Fletcher looked down.
"Walsh shut me down."
"Was he your supervisor?"
"He was the senior officer assigned to the unit."
"Did that require you to remain silent?"
"No."
"Then why did you?"
Fletcher swallowed.
"Because I was worried about what he'd do to my career."
The investigator let the answer stand.
Then he asked about the shove.
Fletcher acknowledged seeing it.
"And the cake?"
"Yes."
"Did you intervene before he threw it?"
"I said his name."
"Did you physically position yourself to prevent further destruction?"
"No."
"Why?"
Fletcher rubbed his hands together.
"I froze."
The investigator nodded.
"What changed?"
Fletcher stared at the table.
"When the kid started crying."
His voice weakened.
"I looked at him and realized I was standing there wearing the same uniform as the man who had just hurt him."
He took a breath.
"I couldn't pretend I wasn't part of what was happening."
The investigator asked whether Fletcher had anything else to add.
He nodded.
"Yes."
He looked directly at the recorder.
"I should have acted sooner."
The internal review uncovered troubling patterns in Walsh's previous complaints.
A Black college student had reported that Walsh searched his backpack after he questioned a parking citation.
A white construction worker claimed Walsh threatened arrest during an argument over a towing dispute.
A Latina mother said Walsh had shouted at her teenage son outside a convenience store.
Two complaints described unnecessary property damage during enforcement actions.
Several had been closed without sustained findings.
That did not automatically establish every allegation as true.
But investigators found recurring deficiencies in how the complaints had been handled.
Witnesses had not always been interviewed.
Body-camera footage had sometimes been reviewed only in part.
Written explanations relied heavily on Walsh's own descriptions.
And supervisors repeatedly accepted labels such as "combative" and "aggressive" without identifying the specific conduct supporting those labels.
The department had effectively turned vague adjectives into substitutes for evidence.