CAU

CAU is shown as an investigative working group where agents compare evidence, reconstruct an attack, and coordinate protection for Dillon Savich. The available scenes establish its role through specific meetings and decisions rather than a full account of its formal structure or standing procedures.

Investigative Coordination

Two hours after Dewayne Malloy spoke with Savich, Savich, Sherlock, and four agents were seated around a table in the CAU conference room. There they reviewed how Moses Grace and Claudia had left a stolen Chevrolet van at Hooter’s Motel as a decoy, intending to draw in law enforcement and kill officers. Sherlock summed up the distinction between the intended target and the wider danger: Savich was the one Grace wanted to kill, while harm to others would have been an additional outcome. The meeting turned a past attack into an assessment of the offenders’ aims and the continuing risk.

Evidence Review

The agents also examined the visual evidence gathered in the investigation. Along with Claudia’s old identification photograph, they had sketches prepared by an artist with Dewayne Malloy. When the sketches were faxed to three waitresses, the women recognized the people depicted, giving investigators confirmation that the images matched their observations. The agents studied the drawings again as they considered Moses Grace’s identity, including the fact that investigators had found no felon or driver’s license under that name. Their discussion kept identification and unresolved background questions distinct: recognition supported the accuracy of the likenesses, but did not establish who Grace really was.

Protection and Operational Stakes

Sherlock told the agents that the threat was directed at Savich and asked them not to let him go off alone. She said she could take care of herself, but wanted the team to keep Savich safe. The agents acknowledged her warning and left the room, allowing her to speak with Savich privately. This exchange shows CAU’s immediate operational concern extending beyond interpreting clues: the agents had to account for the danger to a colleague while the investigation remained active. The evidence presents the group as a forum for analysis and shared threat awareness, without specifying a broader hierarchy or a complete organizational mandate.