He had decided not to sell the business to Pike’s partnership.
The decision was not based solely on the camera investigation.
He had reviewed the revised purchase terms with Leah and discovered that several employee protections were weaker than they appeared.
He wanted to pursue refinancing and a smaller restructuring instead.
The bank had not promised approval.
It would require difficult budget changes and honest conversations with staff.
I asked whether he was prepared for the risk.
He said he was tired of treating the employees as obstacles on a spreadsheet.
He had worked beside most of them since high school.
Our father had trained several workers personally.
I told Daniel that caring about employees did not make the business financially secure.
He agreed.
We spent the afternoon examining costs rather than arguing about principles.
We found opportunities to reduce unused storage, renegotiate supply schedules, and offer optional retirement incentives without pressuring anyone.
The plan was imperfect.
It was also ours.
Before I left, Daniel handed me the spare key our father had carried.
He said I should keep it until we decided what to do with the building.
I turned it over in my palm.
The key was scratched and ordinary.
Unlike the camera, it represented access someone had deliberately entrusted to me.
Chapter 34: The First Real Lead
Sato asked me to come to the station for an update after several weeks of waiting.
She told me investigators had identified a connection between Wesley Pike and HavenScope Services through business records.
The connection did not prove a coordinated conspiracy.
It established that Pike had provided consulting work to the company during the period when my camera was installed.
Investigators were examining whether information from the device had reached anyone involved in the machine shop negotiations.
Sato said Patricia had been interviewed with counsel present.
She declined to summarize the interview because the investigation was ongoing.
I asked whether Patricia admitted placing the camera.
Sato said she could not answer yet.
Then she gave me a piece of information that made me sit forward.
The camera’s activity records included the time of the disconnection and an associated alert sent to a monitored account.
The alert occurred less than a minute before Patricia called me.
That timing supported the inference that someone with access to the account knew the device had stopped transmitting.
It did not by itself identify the person who viewed the alert.
Sato asked whether I was willing to provide a formal victim statement describing my loss of privacy and the effects on my work and relationships.
