He said there were personal things on the phone he did not necessarily want officers examining. Investigators told him they were interested in case-related messages, not unrelated photographs or private material. They also explained that consent would allow them to perform the extraction more quickly, while refusing would force them to seek a search warrant if probable cause developed. Nathaniel remained hesitant.
At one point he showed them what he said were his latest messages with Zara, but detectives still wanted a forensic extraction. They explained that deleted information can sometimes remain recoverable even when it no longer appears in the ordinary message list. The source includes a lengthy technical explanation from an investigator about phone storage and deleted data; the important point was that police believed a forensic download could verify Nathaniel's account more reliably than simply scrolling through the screen. Nathaniel continued saying he would rather bring the device later.
The investigators tried another approach. They told him that cooperation could help remove him from the suspect list quickly. "We have a deceased woman, and her last romantic partner was you," one investigator explained. "We're trying to eliminate you." Nathaniel said he understood, but the repeated requests were making him feel as though he were already being accused.
The conversation about the phone went on for a long time because Nathaniel kept proposing alternatives. He suggested detectives obtain messages from Zara's device or retrieve information from a computer rather than take his phone. Detectives responded that they already had one side of the exchange and needed to compare it with his side. If his account was accurate and there were no threats, hostile exchanges, or sudden changes in the relationship, the phone could help prove that.
One investigator told him, "I can get her side. I can't get your side unless you let us look at your phone." Nathaniel answered that he had other material on the device he did not want police going through. The detective assured him they were not interested in unrelated photographs or private content and said the extraction would be directed toward communications relevant to the case. Nathaniel still preferred to wait until after work.
Detectives then explained why deleted messages mattered. They told Nathaniel that deleting something from the visible message list did not necessarily mean the data had disappeared from the device. A forensic extraction could recover information that an ordinary screen review might miss. Nathaniel showed them some recent messages but continued to resist giving them the device immediately.
The officers were careful to frame the request as consent rather than an order. They told him that if he declined, they could seek a search warrant if they later established probable cause. Nathaniel understood that distinction and said he was not trying to be disrespectful. His position was that the repeated questioning had changed the situation enough that he wanted to protect himself before voluntarily giving police more access.
The detectives repeatedly returned to the same point: their goal was elimination. They said they were speaking with family members, neighbors, coworkers, and anyone else with a close connection to Zara. They would compare stories, phones, locations, and physical evidence, then move people down or up the suspect list depending on what matched. Nathaniel's affair placed him near the top of the list at the beginning even if he had done nothing else.
Nathaniel asked why police kept returning to him when he had already answered questions. A detective said, "It feels like we're accusing you because we have to come back and verify things, but we're doing the same kind of work with everyone close to her." He explained that a supervisor would not accept "he told us there were no threats" as verification. They needed records that allowed them to say they had checked.
Nathaniel finally agreed that he could bring the phone later and allow an extraction, but he would not hand it over during the interview. The detectives gave him a card with the department address and asked him to stop by after work. They made clear that if he did, it could shorten the process considerably. He left that part of the conversation without having surrendered the device.
He did agree to a cheek swab for DNA. After collecting it, detectives began asking about firearms, criminal history, and Nathaniel's vehicle. Nathaniel said he did not own guns, did not have a FOID card, and had no violent arrest history. When they asked for permission to inspect his GMC Denali for possible evidence connected to the scene, he refused.
The refusal itself was not proof of guilt, but it kept investigators from checking another box in their elimination process. A detective explained that if he later had to report to supervisors that Nathaniel would not allow a vehicle search, the question would naturally become why. Nathaniel replied that he preferred to have legal representation present before consenting to a search. He insisted there was no blood, ammunition, or other crime evidence in the vehicle because he had not done anything.
The detectives spent several more minutes trying to persuade him. They said a simple inspection could help them document that his Denali did not contain obvious evidence from the crime. Nathaniel replied that he understood but did not see why he should waive his rights merely because police said cooperation would make him look better. He repeatedly returned to the idea of having an attorney present.
One detective gave Nathaniel a hypothetical defense he could later make: "If somebody accused me, I would want to be able to say I let police look in my car, I gave them DNA, and there was nothing there." Nathaniel answered that he understood the argument. He still did not consent. The investigator warned that the refusal meant his name would remain on the active suspect list longer because they could not independently exclude the vehicle.
Nathaniel became increasingly frustrated by the implication. He said, in substance, that police had called him back multiple times and were now asking for his phone, DNA, and vehicle, making him feel as though he had moved from witness to suspect. The detectives answered that a homicide involving four people required that level of thoroughness. They emphasized that the number of questions reflected the seriousness of the case, not a final conclusion about his guilt.
When Nathaniel mentioned legal representation, the detectives did not obtain consent to search the Denali. They told him to speak with a lawyer if that was what he wanted and said a lawyer would also be able to explain what consent meant. Nathaniel said he would rather take that route than make a decision under pressure at work. The interview therefore ended with police still lacking voluntary access to both the full phone extraction and the vehicle.
The detectives pressed him on that point without physically searching the Denali. They argued that a voluntary inspection could become part of his defense if suspicion later grew: he could say he had cooperated, given DNA, and allowed police to verify the vehicle. Nathaniel said he understood the logic but still wanted an attorney involved. "I've never even been questioned this much," he said, explaining that the repeated interviews were becoming alarming.
The case became more complicated when investigators reviewed Nathaniel's public background. They learned that he had operated a private security business called Black Bear Security. They also found Facebook photographs showing him with firearms, ammunition magazines, body armor, and a rifle. That evidence did not match his statement that he did not own guns and gave detectives another reason to question his credibility.
Even then, Nathaniel did not change his position about the vehicle. He said he was not refusing forever; he simply wanted legal representation before allowing the search. Eventually he indicated that he did not want to continue speaking without first talking to a lawyer. The detectives told him they could not eliminate him as quickly if he withheld access to the phone and vehicle, but they also acknowledged that he had the right to make that choice.
Before leaving, investigators made one final effort to convince him to bring in the phone voluntarily. They reminded him that he claimed to have an alibi at home with his girlfriend and that location records could potentially support that story. Nathaniel responded that he wanted police to do their job but did not want to "walk myself into" something he did not understand. The interview ended without an arrest.
The final exchange captured the tension clearly. Detectives told Nathaniel that if his phone was not placing him in Romeoville and his vehicle was not connected to the area, those records could help them move on. Nathaniel said he understood and promised he was not trying to obstruct the investigation. He simply felt the situation had gone from a quick conversation to repeated requests for increasingly private information, and he wanted legal advice before going further.
One investigator told him, "We're going to do our homework. We're not going to jump to conclusions." Nathaniel replied that he wanted them to do exactly that because four people had been killed, but he was frightened of becoming trapped in something simply because he had been involved with Zara. He said he would contact them about the phone after speaking with a lawyer. The detectives left him with their card and again asked him to follow up.
As detectives worked through the victims' phones, they found another layer of the case. Messages dating back to June 2023 appeared to warn or manipulate people around Nathaniel, telling them to stay away from him and suggesting he was about to become the center of a murder investigation. Nathaniel had also received strange threatening messages of his own. He told officers that unknown people, whom he believed to be connected to Bulgarian criminals, had warned him that he was being watched and might be killed within a year.
Those messages meant Nathaniel was not the only person investigators needed to understand. Detectives turned to Hermalinda Palomo, Nathaniel's longtime girlfriend. She had been with him since around 2015 and, unlike Zara, was part of his established home life.
Police approached Hermalinda knowing that the digital evidence could involve her phone, her accounts, or at minimum her knowledge of Nathaniel's movements.
Detective Garcia and another Romeoville detective contacted Hermalinda at home. They explained that they were investigating a murder and had recovered phones containing communications relevant to the case. The detectives said they wanted to speak with her privately, away from Nathaniel, and asked whether she was comfortable riding a short distance with them to talk. Hermalinda agreed, although she appeared increasingly emotional as the conversation began.