THE QUESTIONS ARE PUBLIC.

1. Why did substantive questioning continue after Shubham requested a translator?

2. After Shubham misunderstood a basic travel question, why was that not treated as evidence that a qualified translator was needed?

3. Why was the reported touching of a woman’s butt and private area reduced to generic “touching” six separate times?

4. Was Shubham ever clearly told the full allegation before being asked to respond to it?

5. Why did Deputy Miguel Bittony supply or reinforce ten possible innocent explanations during the interview?

6. Why were some of those explanations continued or repeated even after Shubham rejected them?

7. Why was Shubham reassured or the situation minimized nine times while the investigation was still underway?

8. How could Bittony say, “You’re not going to go to jail,” and five seconds later say, “I have to gather all the evidence”?

9. Why did speculation about the female passenger wanting money or committing insurance-type fraud enter the conversation when she had made no demand for money?

10. What steps did MCSO take to independently verify Shubham’s full legal identity?

11. What identification documents did deputies examine, photograph, record, or verify?

12. Did MCSO verify his citizenship or immigration status, and if not, why not?

13. What verified address, phone number, destination, or other locating information did MCSO obtain before allowing him to continue traveling?

14. What plan existed to locate him later if investigators, prosecutors, or the victim needed him?

15. Why were nearby passengers not meaningfully interviewed after Shubham repeatedly suggested asking other people what happened?

16. What information did the Greyhound driver provide, and did the final report accurately reflect what she said and did?

17. Why did Greyhound refuse to allow Shubham back onto the bus, and how was that fact documented or considered by MCSO?

18. What information that Bittony told the female passenger would be included in his report was actually omitted or changed in the final report?

19. Were any supplemental reports created after concerns about the original report were raised?

20. Who reviewed and approved Bittony’s report, and what exactly did that review involve?

21. Did Sergeant Savannah Benally independently review the bodycam, CAD, 911 audio, and other underlying evidence before approving or accepting the investigation?

22. What investigative standard did Sheriff James Maiorano III use when he described the investigation as “sufficient”?

23. Before calling it sufficient, did Sheriff Maiorano personally review the bodycam and compare it with the written report?

24. Did MCSO conduct any internal review after the documented concerns were brought to the Sheriff’s attention? If so, what were the findings?

25. What relevant training had Bittony received in interviewing people with limited English proficiency, sexual-assault or battery investigations, report writing, and investigative interviewing?

26. Were MCSO policies on translators, investigation, report writing, supervision, or body-camera review followed in this case?

27. What exactly was transmitted to the District Attorney’s Office, and when?

28. After Shubham left Gallup, what investigative work did MCSO perform to continue developing the case?

29. Why did the female passenger receive no meaningful follow-up from MCSO about the status or outcome of the investigation?

30. After all of this, what specifically made the investigation “sufficient”?