spent his career working alongside law-enforcement and military personnel.
He also understood the difference between asking legitimate questions and using force against someone who was cooperating.
The central issue wasn’t whether an admiral should be questioned.
It was whether the officer had treated him lawfully, reasonably and with the dignity owed to any person.
Then an initial police incident report circulated through the legal process.
It described Solomon as verbally confrontational.
It stated that he refused to provide identification.
It alleged that he made a sudden movement toward his waistband.
Those statements contradicted the video.
Our attorney, Angela Foster, paused the recording at the moment Holt first seized Solomon’s arm.
Both of my husband’s hands were visible.
There was no movement toward his waistband.
No attempt to flee.
No physical aggression.
Angela turned toward us.
“This isn’t simply a dispute about what somebody remembers,” she said.
“The officer’s account is inconsistent with recorded evidence.”
She sent formal preservation notices covering body-camera footage, patrol-car recordings, dispatch communications, departmental messages and other evidence relating to the incident.
The department opened an internal investigation and placed Holt on administrative leave while it reviewed the encounter.
The local prosecutor’s office separately began evaluating potential criminal conduct.
Nothing happened as quickly as people online expected.
There were interviews, written statements, requests for records and repeated meetings with investigators.
Solomon had to describe his injuries again and again.
Micah gave a recorded statement with us present.
Ana provided her original video file.
Captain Park provided a statement about the verification call and the ceremony recording.
Weeks passed before investigators confirmed what Gail Worth had done.
The 911 recording was the first decisive piece of evidence.
The caller identified herself as Gail and claimed a man in a fake naval uniform had been trying vehicle doors near her home.
She gave a specific description of the man.
She claimed to have seen him around 4:52 p.m.
But her account contained a problem beyond the impossible timeline.
At the moment she claimed to be watching a suspicious stranger on Juniper Place, Gail had been interacting online with the veterans ceremony livestream.
One of her comments, preserved by another attendee, referred directly to Solomon’s remarks.
She knew who he was.
She knew he was speaking at the community center.
The investigator asked why she had described him as a stranger impersonating a naval officer.
Gail initially insisted that the person she had reported must have been someone else.
Then investigators compared her detailed physical description, clothing description and subsequent communications.
The explanation became increasingly difficult to sustain.
The most damaging evidence came from messages later obtained during the investigation through lawful records requests and legal process.
Before the 911 call, Gail had contacted Holt on his personal phone.
The two had become acquainted through neighborhood-watch meetings and community events.
One message was sent shortly after the veterans ceremony ended.
Gail wrote that Solomon would be returning through the neighborhood in his uniform.
She described him as someone who needed to be reminded that his rank did not give him control over the neighborhood association.
A later message made her intentions clearer.
“I want him stopped where people can see it.”
Holt replied that he could handle the situation if a complaint came through dispatch.
Gail then made the emergency
