When questioned about the March 1 incident, he again claimed his intention was to calm me down.

The photographs and recording were examined alongside that account.

There were places where the footage didn’t show every movement.

Those gaps were identified.

But the documentation contradicted important elements of his original explanation.

He could no longer make the lamp appear in a different location by describing it differently.

He couldn’t erase the damage to the door.

He couldn’t claim the search never happened.