Chapter 3 - WHAT SEBASTIAN ACTUALLY DID
Sebastian’s first formal interview lasted six hours.
He arrived with counsel.
He did not deny blocking Evelyn’s access.
He did not deny handling letters.
He denied framing her.
That distinction became the center of the case.
Naomi asked:
“Did you tell your father Evelyn had stolen company records?”
“Yes.”
“Had she?”
“She copied them without authorization.”
“Did you tell Theodore she had sabotaged anything?”
“No.”
“Did you tell Evelyn you could make the footage look like she entered the control room before the fire?”
“No.”
“Did you tell her Theodore wanted no contact?”
“No.”
Then documents.
One email from Sebastian to Redline Protective:
“Preserve control-room footage index. We may need to establish E.B. access if she continues threatening disclosure.”
Date:
four days after the fire.
Not before.
No evidence Sebastian altered timestamp.
Another email to safety director:
“If Evelyn forces this outside, legal needs a complete narrative of her unauthorized access.”
Again:
narrative.
Not fabrication necessarily.
Then a draft memo found in Sebastian’s old archive:
Potential exposure points:
- unauthorized file removal
- after-hours control-room entry
- emotional volatility
- conflict with father
- possible motive to embarrass company
Naomi asked:
“What was this?”
“A legal-preparation note.”
“Why emotional volatility?”
“She was upset.”
“Was that relevant to whether alarm logs were accurate?”
Sebastian looked away.
No.
The note showed he was building credibility attack.
But did he threaten Evelyn?
Lena’s records included a later email from Evelyn to an attorney she briefly consulted:
My brother said if I go public he will tell police I altered the alarm settings. I did not. He knows I entered after the fire to copy logs.
Attorney replied:
Do not destroy anything. Do not meet him alone. If you have evidence, preserve copies and consider regulator counsel.
That contemporaneous record supported Evelyn.
Still no recording.
Then a security supervisor came forward.
His name was David Molina.
Retired.
He had worked Redline at Port Mercer.
He remembered Sebastian asking:
“How hard would it be to make a camera index show a different access sequence?”
David said:
“I told him the index can be exported in different sort orders but timestamps remain.”
“Did he ask you to change timestamps?”
“No.”
“Did he ask you to fabricate?”
“No.”
“What did you think he wanted?”
“Leverage.”
That word.
Not proof of a specific threat.
But context.
David also remembered Evelyn arriving at the plant after fire.
She used her badge at 1:14 a.m., twenty-six hours after incident, to enter records office and control-room corridor.
She copied files.
No evidence she touched physical controls.
Security report initially said:
“unauthorized access to restricted area.”
Sebastian later summarized to Theodore:
“Evelyn entered the control room after hours.”
Technically true in broad sense.
Misleading because timing relative to fire mattered.
He let Theodore infer more.
This pattern repeated.
Sebastian rarely wrote:
Evelyn caused fire.
He wrote facts in arrangements that made her look dangerous.
Theodore realized:
“You never had to lie completely.”
Sebastian did not answer.
The independent engineering review reopened Port Mercer not to retry history but to assess records.
The fire cause remained:
electrical ignition in recovery unit cabinet.
Contributing factors:
poor maintenance,
inadequate sensor redundancy,
one channel in override,
incomplete manual checks,
weak escalation.
Could Sebastian have prevented?
As operations VP, he had authority to shut line.
But safety director and plant manager also shared.
No criminal charge after twenty years? Statutes, evidence, causation.
State environmental and workplace agencies reviewed archival disclosure.
They found company’s old report had understated:
frequency of alarm bypasses,
number of worker symptom complaints.
Civil enforcement options largely time-barred.
But worker claims might reopen under fraud/concealment doctrines depending law.
Blackwood Materials, now a subsidiary, created compensation process overseen independently.
Important:
not hush fund.
Workers could retain counsel.
No NDA required for medical facts.
Independent medical review.
The company funded long-term respiratory screening for former Port Mercer workers.
Not every symptom deemed caused by exposure.
Some claims denied with appeal.
Specific.
Theodore personally wanted to pay everyone.
Naomi said:
“Do not buy moral certainty. Build a fair process.”
He hated.
Correct.
Then Sebastian’s handling of Evelyn’s disappearance.
Family-office records showed:
twenty-seven letters or contact attempts from Evelyn over twelve years.
Disposition:
nineteen routed to Sebastian.
five marked duplicate/no action.
three unclear.
Sebastian admitted reading some.
“Why not tell Theodore?”
“Because he was finally functioning.”
Theodore stood.
“You do not get to use my grief as authority.”
Sebastian’s lawyer asked for break.
Later Sebastian continued:
“Dad, you were destroyed. She had taken files. She was accusing the company. Lawyers said contact was dangerous.”
Harold Finch, old GC, had not said no personal contact.
Sebastian knew that now.
Did he know then?
Email:
Harold to Sebastian:
“Company communication should remain through counsel. Family communication is separate. I am not advising Mr. Blackwood regarding his daughter.”
Clear.
Sebastian received.
So:
he knew.
He also told Evelyn Theodore rejected her?
Evidence stronger than voicemail note.
One letter from Sebastian to Evelyn, preserved by Lena:
Father does not wish direct contact while you continue attacking the company and family. Any legitimate legal issue should go through counsel.
Signed:
Sebastian.
Theodore never authorized.
There.
Not forged Harlan signature.
Direct misrepresentation.
Could it be criminal?
Maybe not automatically.
But if part of obstruction of regulator reporting?
Need link.
Sebastian also threatened:
If you publish confidential materials, we will pursue theft and damages.
Legal threat potentially legitimate.
But one paragraph:
You should understand that your after-hours access places you in a very difficult position regarding the fire investigation.
That carried implication.
Was this extortion?
Prosecutors reviewed decades later.
No demand for money.
No explicit demand to surrender legal right for threat of false charge? It asked cease disclosure.
Potential witness intimidation/obstruction, but statute and time limits.
Current prosecutable conduct arose elsewhere.
During new investigation, Sebastian initially produced a family-office archive that omitted an old correspondence folder.
Forensic team compared backup index.
Missing:
EVELYN / EXTERNAL.
Naomi asked.
Sebastian said:
“Archived separately.”
Where?
His home safe.
Why not produce under board preservation notice?
“I forgot.”
Investigators obtained.
The folder contained Evelyn letters.
Because preservation notice was current and explicit, his failure became possible current obstruction.
His lawyer found the folder during the home collection and disclosed it before the subpoena deadline, so prosecutors did not charge current obstruction.
His lawyer found folder during home collection and immediately disclosed before subpoena deadline.
No obstruction charge.
Good.
No stacking.
The strongest current legal consequences were corporate/fiduciary, not criminal for 20-year-old conduct.
But one thing changed.
The old worker compensation settlements at Port Mercer included declarations:
company had disclosed known monitoring failures.
Those declarations were signed by Sebastian under oath in civil proceedings seventeen years earlier.
New raw logs showed he knew one sensor channel had been bypassed and omitted.
Could that support fraud on court/settlement?
Potential.
Statute? Fraud may allow reopening civil settlements.
Three former workers petitioned.
Company chose not to fight limitations where concealment was shown.
It reopened.
Sebastian faced civil fraud claims and board action.
Prosecutors examined perjury limitations; too late.
No retroactive invention.
Theodore asked:
“So he walks?”
Naomi said:
“He loses positions, faces civil liability, restitution, and public findings. Criminal law is not the only accountability.”
Theodore hated simplicity.
Life refused it.
Sebastian was removed as Blackwood Holdings chair pending review.
Independent board investigation concluded:
he had materially misled founder and board regarding Evelyn’s access and Port Mercer disclosures.
he had interfered with family communications.
he had failed to preserve distinction between corporate legal strategy and private family contact.
he had supported inaccurate settlement disclosures.
He resigned.
Clawback:
three years incentive compensation under current policies? Can you claw 20-year-old? No. Only current severance and unvested comp forfeited.
His lawful shares remained.
No impoverishment theater.
Autumn asked Theodore:
“Is Sebastian going to jail?”
Theodore answered:
“I don’t know. Probably not for the old things.”
“Then nothing happens?”
“No.”
He explained:
job lost.
money repaid in civil cases.
records corrected.
workers can reopen claims.
family boundaries.
Autumn frowned.
“That’s complicated.”
“Yes.”
“Mom would hate that.”
“Probably.”
Theodore smiled.
Evelyn had hated complexity when complexity protected powerful people.
But she also wrote:
Sebastian did not start the fire.
Do not let them make me say more than I know.
That line saved the story from revenge.
Her accusation remained specific.
So did the evidence.
That was stronger.
The board’s decision to remove Sebastian also created a temptation to rewrite his entire career.
Some directors wanted every project he touched re-audited.
Naomi pushed scope.
High-risk areas:
Port Mercer.
worker settlements.
family security directives.
communications involving Evelyn.
related compliance representations.
Not:
every factory expansion since age thirty.
Why?
Investigations should follow evidence.
The targeted audit found two unrelated procurement failures under Sebastian’s divisions:
one vendor selection with weak conflict disclosure,
one maintenance contract renewed without competitive bid.
Neither involved fraud.
Corrected.
It also found dozens of competent decisions.
That result made the main findings stronger.
The report could say:
Sebastian had been an effective executive in many domains and still committed serious misconduct in these domains.
No total-character shortcut.
Theodore hated the ambiguity at first.
He wanted a verdict on his son.
Board could only give:
specific findings.
May you like
Family would have to live with the rest.
That was perhaps healthier than a single word.
