WHAT THE CAMERA RECORDED. WHAT THE REPORT KEPT.
The comparisons place the recorded exchange beside Deputy Miguel Bittony’s written narrative and the September criminal complaint, identifying what was preserved, compressed, or left out.
New comparison · September 18, 2026
The original report already omitted the explicit four-contact count and did not preserve the private-area progression in the summary of the female passenger’s own statement. The complaint signed by Deputy Miguel Bittony goes further: the words describing continued contact and her immediate confrontation are absent.
On Bittony’s bodycam at approximately 02:14, the female passenger says “Four times” and indicates four with her fingers. In the surrounding 01:28–02:20 exchange, she describes and physically demonstrates the contact and its progression toward her private area. The comparison concerns an account given to the deputy on camera.
I made contact with [the female passenger], and stated she got onto the bus from Phoenix, AZ. [The female passenger] stated she sat next to Shubham and was moving around to get comfortable. [The female passenger] stated she suddenly felt her right side buttocks touched but thought nothing of it at first; thinking Shubham was moving to get comfortable. However, she continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers where she immediately confronted Shubham. [The female passenger] stated she told Shubham to stop and began to record him with her cell phone. [The female passenger] stated Shubham was saying he was sorry and covered his face. Shubham stated she told the bus driver about the incident and she was told the police will be notified.
I made contact with [the female passenger], and stated she got onto the bus from Phoenix, AZ. [The female passenger] stated she sat next to Shubham and was moving around to get comfortable. [The female passenger] stated she suddenly felt her right side buttocks touched but thought nothing of it at first; thinking Shubham was moving to get comfortable. However, she told Shubham to stop and began to record him with her cell phone. [The female passenger] stated Shubham was saying he was sorry and covered his face. Shubham stated she told the bus driver about the incident and she was told the police will be notified.
The female passenger’s name is replaced with bracketed text in this public comparison. Highlighting identifies the passage absent from the complaint. The source wording “Shubham stated she” is retained as written.
The original moves from an initial possible explanation—Shubham getting comfortable—to continued contact and an immediate confrontation. The complaint keeps the initial explanation but moves directly from “However, she” to “told Shubham to stop.” Those missing words explain why the passenger stopped treating the contact as incidental.
I SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH ABOVE ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION AND BELIEF. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT IN A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.
This is the narrative in a signed criminal complaint filed with the court on September 10. Who made the change, who reviewed it, and why was a description of continued contact left out before Bittony signed?
What remains: The driver-attributed paragraph still says “touching her butt area” and “trying to touch further into her private area.” The finding is not that every private-area reference vanished. The passenger’s own four-contact account remains incomplete, and the continued-contact passage present in the original report is missing from the complaint.
The documents establish the difference in wording and identify the signer. They do not establish who edited the text, why it changed, or a finding of perjury.
Bittony bodycam · review 01:28–02:20, especially 02:14 · Original report · page 2 · Filed complaint · PDF pages 2–3 · Oath and signature · PDF page 3 · The passenger’s open letter
How to read this page
The relevant question is whether the narrative preserves the material allegation, accurately identifies who supplied each account, and lets a later reviewer understand how the investigation was conducted. Silence in the report is identified as silence—not proof that an event did not occur.
The comparison
Reported contact count
Bittony: “Once, twice?”
Female passenger: “Four times.”
The passenger paragraph says she felt her right-side buttocks touched and “continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers.”
The report does not preserve the explicit four-contact count.
OMITTED DETAILBody areas and progression
The female passenger describes and demonstrates repeated contact involving her butt and private area, then gives the four-contact count.
The driver paragraph preserves “touching her butt area” and “trying to touch further into her private area.” The passenger paragraph identifies her right-side buttocks and continued contact by hands and fingers.
The private-area progression appears in the driver-attributed paragraph, but not in the paragraph summarizing the passenger’s own statement. Her recorded account is divided and compressed.
PARTLY PRESERVEDSeat position
Bittony confirms she was not taking another space and was “just in your seat.”
The narrative says the passenger “was moving around to get comfortable” and later attributes to Shubham that she had been moving around in her seat.
The report does not include the recorded confirmation that she remained in her own seat. It preserves movement without that limiting context.
CONTEXT OMITTEDLanguage access
Shubham requests a translator, says he speaks “little bit,” twice says he does not speak proper English, and struggles to state the allegation—including “Why she say touch?” at 18:49.
The narrative summarizes Shubham’s answers but does not mention his translator request, his limited-English statements, or the recorded comprehension problems.
A later reader cannot tell from the report that language access was an issue during the interview or how comprehension was assessed.
PROCESS NOT DOCUMENTEDPossible witnesses
Shubham asks whether other nearby people can be questioned. Bittony responds that he does not think those people would know or want to talk.
The narrative records accounts from the female passenger, the driver, and Shubham. It does not document an attempt to identify or question other bus passengers.
The available report does not show whether potential passenger witnesses were identified, approached, or ruled out.
FOLLOW-UP NOT DOCUMENTEDHow the allegation was presented
The review identifies six formulations using generic “touching” before the only identified buttocks-specific formulation at 28:31. The recorded exchange does not clearly present the complete butt-and-private-area allegation to Shubham.
The narrative says Shubham denied touching the passenger and ends by stating that the parties gave conflicting accounts.
The report records a denial but not the specificity of the allegation actually put to him—or the specificity that was not.
INTERVIEW CONTEXT OMITTEDWho supplied the explanations
The review identifies ten moments in which Bittony supplies or reintroduces sleep, movement, seat-space, bag, or accidental-hand explanations. Some are rejected or not supported by the answer.
The narrative attributes movement statements to Shubham: that the passenger moved around, that he moved, and that he tried not to touch her.
The report does not show which possible explanations originated in Bittony’s questions, when they were introduced, or which were rejected.
SOURCE ATTRIBUTION LOSTThe promised report
Bittony says what Shubham tells him will go in the report and later says both parties’ accounts will be included.
The narrative includes the passenger’s allegation, Shubham’s denial, movement statements, and a conclusion that the accounts conflict.
Both sides are represented, but the report omits the four-contact count, language-access record, witness discussion, and questioning sequence.
PARTIAL PRESERVATIONTone, reassurance, and speculation
The review identifies nine reassuring or minimizing statements. At 34:47, Bittony says, “You’re not going to go to jail”; five seconds later he says he still has to gather the evidence. The later conversation turns to money and insurance-fraud analogies without a recorded payment demand from the female passenger.
The narrative does not describe those reassurances, their timing, or the later discussion of a possible financial motive.
The report gives a later reviewer no view of the interview’s tone or the unsupported motive speculation that followed.
PROCESS NOT DOCUMENTEDWhat the report does preserve
What it does not let a reviewer see
The September 10 filing adds a criminal charge and summons. Its incident narrative substantially repeats the July report, but omits the passage describing continued touching and an immediate confrontation. Read the exact paragraph comparison above. The table below places that change alongside the other recorded omissions.
| Issue | Bittony bodycam | Original report | September complaint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contact count | At 02:14, the passenger gives an explicit four-contact count. | Page 2 describes continued contact but gives no numerical count. | PDF pages 2–3 do not supply the four-contact count. |
| Continued contact and confrontation | The passenger describes repeated contact and gives the four-contact count at 02:14. | Page 2 says she “continued to feel Shubham’s hands and fingers” and “immediately confronted Shubham.” | That passage is absent. “However, she” leads directly to “told Shubham to stop.” Compare the paragraphs. |
| Body-area wording | The passenger’s account at 01:28–02:20 concerns her butt and private area. | Page 2 puts the butt/private-area progression in the driver-attributed paragraph; the passenger paragraph specifies her right-side buttocks. | The driver-attributed butt/private-area wording and the passenger’s right-side-buttocks description recur. |
| Attribution and denial | The recording allows the reader to distinguish each person’s statements from the deputy’s questions. | The narrative includes the passenger’s allegation, the driver’s account, Shubham’s denial and movement account, and a conflicting-statements conclusion. | Those accounts and the conflicting-statements conclusion recur; the question-and-answer sequence is not added. |
| Language-access record | At 11:35 a translator is requested; later limited-English statements and attempts to obtain help are documented in the existing timestamp guide. | No translator request or explanation of language assistance appears in pages 2–3. | The supplied complaint does not add that interview context. |
| Other witnesses | The 17:23–17:42 exchange concerns questioning other nearby people. | No canvass of the other bus passengers is documented. | No later passenger canvass or additional witness interview is described. |
| Later investigative work | The July 16 recording cannot establish what happened afterward. | The July narrative ends with a proposed DA referral. | The same referral wording remains. The filing documents the prosecution step, but its narrative does not describe new interviews, newly obtained GPD recordings, or collection of the ticket photograph. |
The complaint alleges battery under Section 30-3-4. The accompanying summons orders an October 2, 2026 appearance and contains a September 10 certificate of mailing. Those are documented developments; neither the charge nor the repetition of a narrative establishes guilt or answers how the investigation was conducted.
Bittony recording and elapsed-time guide · Original report, pages 2–3 · Complaint, PDF pages 2–3 · Summons, PDF page 1
Check the record
Record update · September 21, 2026
The produced September 9 email to Bernitz lists a Word narrative attachment. The reproduced narrative still includes the continued-touching and immediate-confrontation passage. It therefore supplies an intermediate comparison between the original report and September 10 complaint.
The passenger raised the discrepancy on September 17 and sought native files, drafts and the editing and review history. Those requests do not establish who made the change or whether a correction followed.
Read the original intermediate narrative PDF → · September 17 #10 production → · Who changed and reviewed it? → · What review or correction followed? →
September 22–24 · Prosecutor’s response
Bernitz said testimony and video could address the account at trial, said he did not believe the continued-touching discrepancy was material, and then deferred further replies until after October 2. The response does not identify who changed the wording or document a correction.
Read the dated DA excerpts in context · The remaining review question