Overview
This dossier contains confidential records for Luis Fajardo.
Material is provisional, cross-referenced from recovered files, protected records, and field notes.
COT / MI5 Case File
Restricted
Eyes Only
Maritime Evidence Dossier
Luis Fajardo
Subject: Luis Fajardo
FORMAL SAFETY INTERVIEW RECORD
SUBJECT: Luis Fajardo
CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE // SAFETY INVESTIGATION
REFERENCE: CONTROLLED COPY // COT/MARINE/2035/CTC087
Document control
CASE REFERENCE: COT/MARINE/2035/CTC087
SUBJECT: Luis Fajardo
CENTRAL RECORD: COTEB9982774CDB7
RANK / APPOINTMENT: Engineering assistant
ORGANISATION: MS Orion Star crew / Echo Operators evidence chain
VESSEL / POSTING: MS Orion Star
DATE OF BIRTH: 2000-07-14
PLACE / NATIONALITY: Unknown, Unknown, Southeast Asian in old chapter layout; exact nationality not locked
INTERVIEW STATUS: Witness / account holder
LOCATION: Secure interview suite — location withheld
DATE: 26 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.
Reason for interview or reconstruction
This record concerns the subject's knowledge of Orion Star, identity, Hexline, Orpheus; 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.
LUIS FAJARDO: Luis Fajardo
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you understand the status of this interview and the limits placed on distribution?
LUIS FAJARDO: I understand. My agreement to answer does not waive any objection already entered into the record.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Have you been offered the representation, legal advice or staff support applicable to this procedure?
LUIS FAJARDO: Yes.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-01 Retained extract: One of the missing engineering crew had it listed as an identifying feature.” Maggie’s voice roughened. “Luis Fajardo. Relevant systems or locations: Orion Star
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INSPECTOR: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-02 Retained extract: DOV-14-001 retained Luis Fajardo as a provisional identity. Relevant systems or locations: Orion Star, identity
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. Check Orion Star against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?
LUIS FAJARDO: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUIS FAJARDO: I am saying it may be accurate about the event and wrong about the cause.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-03 Retained extract: The dental comparison matched two unusual restorations, the angle of a missing lower molar and an old root treatment recorded before Fajardo joined the Orion Star. Relevant systems or locations: Orion Star
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Why was the matter not escalated through the ordinary reporting route?
LUIS FAJARDO: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. the person who held the contemporaneous log can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-04 Retained extract: Fiona looked again at Fajardo’s confirmed identification. “His family?” “His listed family contact is being notified through the coroner’s liaison officer. Associated persons: Jack — Argus duty officer
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. Jack — Argus duty officer can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.
LEAD INSPECTOR: What part of the retained record is incomplete or misleading?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUIS FAJARDO: I am saying it may be accurate about the event and wrong about the cause.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-05 Retained extract: You searched for Fajardo by name, then ran the same window against EMH-2047-G.” “And found nothing.”
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Which physical record should be examined before this account is treated as settled?
LUIS FAJARDO: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-06 Retained extract: At 00:56, Fajardo’s identity approved a freight transfer through Zeebrugge. Relevant systems or locations: identity
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. Check identity against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Did anyone instruct you to describe the incident differently afterwards?
LUIS FAJARDO: The values agree with one another. Agreement is not proof that they describe the real world. Check identity against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUIS FAJARDO: I am saying two honest records can disagree when they were generated from the same compromised source.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-07 Retained extract: The system had noticed that a dead man had signed for freight and prepared to send the contradiction through a regional office to Fajardo’s family contact.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: The values agree with one another. Agreement is not proof that they describe the real world. the person who held the contemporaneous log can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.
LEAD INSPECTOR: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-08 Retained extract: Vale, Fajardo, Walsh, Sparky. Associated persons: Ethan Vale, Conrad “Connie” Walsh Relevant systems or locations: Hexline, Orpheus
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUIS FAJARDO: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. Check Hexline against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUIS FAJARDO: I am saying two honest records can disagree when they were generated from the same compromised source.
[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?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.
[Exhibit S-02 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.
SURVEILLANCE EXHIBIT S-03 // NOT ATTACHED. The corrected WebP asset bundle does not contain a matching image for this original exhibit slot.
[Exhibit S-03 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?
LUIS FAJARDO: 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?
LUIS FAJARDO: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Is there any material fact you have withheld because you consider this recording or its distribution unsafe?
LUIS FAJARDO: Yes. The existence of that fact is the most I will place in this copy.
LEAD INSPECTOR: What is the single next action this investigation should take?
LUIS FAJARDO: Return to the original physical record and identify every hand that altered its custody.
LEAD INSPECTOR: Do you wish to add or correct anything before the recording is suspended?
LUIS FAJARDO: Yes. Do not improve the certainty of my answers in the written summary.
[Recording suspended. Source media sealed. Any resumed session requires a new opening declaration and exhibit schedule.]
Confidential investigator assessment
The subject's account conflicts with at least one administrative record but not necessarily with the underlying physical evidence. The conflict is an investigative lead, not a concluded finding.
Actions and inconsistencies outstanding
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Jack — Argus duty officer; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Ethan Vale; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Conrad “Connie” Walsh; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with Orion Star, including audit history and physical custody.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with identity, including audit history and physical custody.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with Hexline, including audit history and physical custody.
NOTE: Finding limit. Nothing in this record establishes guilt, operational direction or final causation unless expressly stated as a supported finding. A valid credential, image or system entry proves only what that item can independently support.
LEAD INSPECTOR — sealed electronic signature held separately
Evidence custodian — receipt and hash recorded
END OF CONTROLLED RECORD — CTC-087