Restricted Case File

Alan Greaves

Select Dossier

COT / MI5 Case File

Restricted

Eyes Only

Maritime Evidence Dossier Alan Greaves

Subject: Alan Greaves

Overview

This dossier contains confidential records for Alan Greaves.

Material is provisional, cross-referenced from recovered files, protected records, and field notes.

FORMAL SAFETY INTERVIEW RECORD

SUBJECT: Alan Greaves

CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE // SAFETY INVESTIGATION

REFERENCE: CONTROLLED COPY // COT/MARINE/2035/CTC061

Document control

CASE REFERENCE: COT/MARINE/2035/CTC061

SUBJECT: Alan Greaves

CENTRAL RECORD: COT40678C61C1F9B

RANK / APPOINTMENT: Forensic technician

ORGANISATION: MCA forensic recovery

DATE OF BIRTH: 1992-03-03

PLACE / NATIONALITY: Unknown, Unknown, British

INTERVIEW STATUS: Witness / account holder

LOCATION: Secure interview suite — location withheld

DATE: 19 September 2035

LEAD AUTHORITY: Marine Accident Investigation Branch

RECORDING MEDIA: Two sealed digital masters and one independent evidential hash

DISTRIBUTION: Named recipients only. No automated onward distribution.

NOTE: Handling notice. This document contains operational, personal and evidential material. It may be read only by a person with both the required clearance and a recorded need to know. Extraction of images, transcript segments or metadata creates a new controlled copy.

Identity and visual evidence control

VISUAL ASSET STATUS: Passport image: attached; dossier image frames available: 2; surveillance frames available: 0; identity match: matched by subject/asset map.

Passport-style identity photograph for Alan Greaves — IDENTITY EXHIBIT P-01 Controlled identity photograph retained for internal case comparison. Not for release outside this compartment; confirm against the subject record and custody ledger.

Reason for interview or reconstruction

This record concerns the subject's knowledge of Argus, black box, MCA, MV Argus; and associated decisions, communications and evidence handling. The scope of this record is confined to the matters set out above and to evidence formally introduced during the session.

Preliminary investigator note

The subject asked that every pause, qualification and refusal be retained in the written transcript. No request was made to remove material already placed on the record.

Recorded interview transcript

LEAD INSPECTOR: State your full name for the record.

ALAN GREAVES: Alan Greaves

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you understand the status of this interview and the limits placed on distribution?

ALAN GREAVES: I understand the status. I do not accept that the distribution is as limited as the header suggests.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Have you been offered the representation, legal advice or staff support applicable to this procedure?

ALAN GREAVES: Yes. The offer should not be mistaken for my acceptance of your account.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-01 Retained extract: As she climbed onto the deck, the technician handling the black box—Alan Greaves—looked up. Associated persons: Natalie Brooks Relevant systems or locations: Argus, black box, MCA

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

ALAN GREAVES: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.

LEAD INSPECTOR: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?

ALAN GREAVES: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. Natalie Brooks can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-02 Retained extract: Greaves worked quickly, wiping down the unit before plugging it into the analysis station. Associated persons: Natalie Brooks Relevant systems or locations: MV Argus, Argus, AIS, bridge, ballast, black box, MCA

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

ALAN GREAVES: The values agree with one another. Agreement is not proof that they describe the real world. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?

ALAN GREAVES: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. Natalie Brooks can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?

ALAN GREAVES: I am saying you should preserve the contradiction instead of choosing the tidier version.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-03 Retained extract: Brooks leaned forward, her breath slowing. “Pull up the AIS logs.” Greaves typed in the command. Associated persons: Natalie Brooks Relevant systems or locations: AIS, bridge, ballast

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

ALAN GREAVES: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Why was the matter not escalated through the ordinary reporting route?

ALAN GREAVES: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-04 Retained extract: Someone had forced the ship into the path of the Orion Star. “We’re looking at deliberate tampering,” Greaves said quietly. Associated persons: Natalie Brooks Relevant systems or locations: Orion Star, Argus, bridge, ballast, MCA, North Sea

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?

ALAN GREAVES: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. Check Orion Star against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.

LEAD INSPECTOR: What part of the retained record is incomplete or misleading?

ALAN GREAVES: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?

ALAN GREAVES: I am saying the record should remain evidence, not become an alibi for the system that produced it.

Dossier visual exhibit C-01 concerning Alan Greaves — DOSSIER IMAGE EXHIBIT C-01 Internal restricted case image retained in the subject folder. Use only within this compartment; verify context against the interview record, source ledger and custody notes.

[Exhibit S-01 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]

LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?

ALAN GREAVES: I identify myself in the frame. I cannot authenticate the date from the crop alone.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Can you establish the location or date from anything visible in the frame?

ALAN GREAVES: The location is supportable from the surroundings. The purpose you are implying is not.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Were you aware that the image was being made?

ALAN GREAVES: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.

LEAD INSPECTOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?

ALAN GREAVES: That depends on whether the source is an official system, a copied feed or a separate observer.

LEAD INSPECTOR: What does this image prove, and what does it not prove?

ALAN GREAVES: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.

Dossier visual exhibit C-02 concerning Alan Greaves — DOSSIER IMAGE EXHIBIT C-02 Internal restricted case image retained in the subject folder. Use only within this compartment; verify context against the interview record, source ledger and custody notes.

[Exhibit S-02 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]