Cover of [Stone Barrington 03] • Dead in the Water
    Adventure FictionFictionThriller

    [Stone Barrington 03] • Dead in the Water

    by Stuart, Woods,
    In “Dead in the Water,” part of Stuart Woods’ Stone Barrington series, the suave attorney and former NYPD detective finds himself embroiled in a high-stakes legal thriller. While vacationing in the Caribbean, Barrington is drawn into a case involving a wealthy woman accused of murdering her husband at sea. As he investigates, he uncovers layers of deception, maritime law complexities, and dangerous adversaries. The novel blends legal intrigue with action, showcasing Barrington’s wit and resourcefulness. Themes of justice, trust, and survival underpin this fast-paced entry in the popular series, appealing to fans of courtroom dramas and adventure alike.

    Stone meets with Jake Bur­rows and reporter Chris Wheaton from *60 Min­utes* at a local bar to dis­cuss the upcom­ing inter­view with his client, Alli­son Man­ning. Wheaton, a sharp and cam­era-ready jour­nal­ist, prefers not to meet Alli­son until film­ing to keep the inter­view fresh. Stone agrees to the open-end­ed dis­cus­sion but real­izes the extend­ed tap­ing could lead to selec­tive edit­ing, poten­tial­ly skew­ing the nar­ra­tive. He empha­sizes Allison’s need for breaks if over­whelmed, while Wheaton remains focused on the story’s poten­tial.

    The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to Stone’s unex­pect­ed involve­ment in Allison’s case, which began when he attend­ed her inquest as a bystander. Wheaton probes his motives, ques­tion­ing why a New York lawyer is han­dling a local case. Stone explains his pro bono role and the bizarre nature of St. Marks’ legal sys­tem, urg­ing Wheaton to high­light its irreg­u­lar­i­ties. She finds the sys­tem out­ra­geous and hints at broad­er cov­er­age, includ­ing the upcom­ing tri­al, while Stone hopes media scruti­ny will ben­e­fit Alli­son.

    Wheaton’s ques­tion­ing turns per­son­al as she digs into Stone’s back­ground, ref­er­enc­ing his past as a cop and recent legal suc­cess­es. She sub­tly chal­lenges the coin­ci­dence of his pres­ence in St. Marks, but Stone defends his cred­i­bil­i­ty. The ten­sion ris­es when Wheaton men­tions Stone’s girl­friend, Arring­ton Carter, and her asso­ci­a­tion with actor Vance Calder. Stone remains com­posed, though irri­tat­ed by Wheaton’s prob­ing.

    By the end of the din­ner, Wheaton decides to stay for the tri­al, sig­nal­ing her com­mit­ment to the sto­ry. Stone feels cau­tious­ly opti­mistic, rec­og­niz­ing the poten­tial media lever­age but aware of Wheaton’s relent­less approach. The chap­ter under­scores the del­i­cate bal­ance between Stone’s legal strat­e­gy and the media’s influ­ence, with Allison’s fate hang­ing in the bal­ance.

    FAQs

    • 1. What are Stone’s main concerns about the upcoming 60 Minutes interview with Allison Manning, and how does he attempt to manage them?

      Answer:
      Stone is primarily concerned about the interview’s editing process, as Chris Wheaton mentions they might talk for over an hour, meaning the final segment will only include select portions. This could potentially portray Allison in an unfavorable light. While Stone recognizes it’s too late to renegotiate terms, he tries to mitigate risks by suggesting breaks if Allison becomes tired or upset. He also strategically emphasizes the bizarre nature of St. Marks’ legal system, hoping media coverage might indirectly benefit Allison’s case by exposing potential injustices.

      2. How does Chris Wheaton’s line of questioning reveal her journalistic approach and suspicions about Stone’s involvement?

      Answer:
      Wheaton adopts an investigative, somewhat skeptical tone, probing Stone’s motives and background. She questions why a New York lawyer would take Allison’s case without discussing fees, implying this is unusual. Her knowledge of Stone’s past (his police career, townhouse, and personal injury case) shows she’s done her research. Most pointedly, she suggests Stone’s presence in St. Marks might not be coincidental, hinting at a possible hidden agenda. This mirrors classic investigative journalism tactics—verifying narratives and uncovering inconsistencies.

      3. Analyze the power dynamics between Stone and the 60 Minutes team. How does each party leverage their position?

      Answer:
      The interaction shows a delicate balance of power. The 60 Minutes team holds media influence, which Stone hopes to harness for Allison’s benefit by encouraging coverage of the flawed legal system. However, producer Jake Burrows clarifies they’re not there to advocate for Allison. Meanwhile, Stone asserts control by refusing access to Allison’s local lawyer and redirecting uncomfortable questions. Wheaton wields her knowledge of Stone’s personal life (like Arrington’s whereabouts) as leverage, creating subtle tension. Both sides are maneuvering to shape the narrative to their advantage.

      4. What strategic value does Stone see in having 60 Minutes cover Allison’s trial, and what risks might this pose?

      Answer:
      Stone believes media exposure could pressure the St. Marks legal system by highlighting its irregularities, potentially securing a fairer trial for Allison. He explicitly asks Wheaton to emphasize the court’s “outrageous” procedures and suggests cameras outside the courtroom. However, this strategy risks backfiring—excessive scrutiny might antagonize local authorities, and selective editing could distort Allison’s portrayal. Additionally, Wheaton’s decision to stay for the trial introduces unpredictability, as her continued investigation might uncover details Stone can’t control.

      5. How does the chapter illustrate the theme of perception versus reality, particularly in Stone’s interactions with Wheaton?

      Answer:
      The dialogue underscores how perceptions shape narratives. Wheaton’s probing questions imply skepticism about Stone’s altruism, while Stone carefully crafts responses to appear cooperative yet guarded. For instance, he downplays his legal success (“run-of-the-mill” cases) despite Wheaton referencing his high-profile wins. Their exchange about Arrington and Vance Calder reveals how personal details can be weaponized to imply instability or dishonesty. Stone’s internal irritation at Wheaton’s knowledge of his private life highlights the tension between the image he projects and the reality he protects.

    Quotes

    • 1. “I don’t get it,’ Wheaton said; ‘why would this Sir Winston guy want to make trouble for this poor widow?’”

      This quote highlights the central mystery of the chapter - the apparent persecution of Allison Manning by local authorities. It represents the outsider’s perspective on the injustice and sets up the exploration of the flawed legal system.

      2. “Bizarre, and I hope you’ll bring that out in your piece.’ He told her about the preliminary hearing and what he had learned about how the court operated.”

      This key quote reveals Stone’s strategy of using media exposure to combat the unfair legal proceedings. It introduces the theme of the corrupt local justice system that becomes central to the story’s conflict.

      3. “We’re not here to fight your battles for you; you have to understand that.’ ‘Sure I do, but if just doing your job happens to work to Allison’s benefit, that’s okay with me.’”

      This exchange captures the delicate negotiation between Stone and the journalists, showing his attempt to align their professional interests with his client’s needs while respecting their impartial role.

      4. “It just seems odd that you would just happen to be here when Allison Manning came sailing in. Could that be a bit more than a coincidence?‘”

      This probing question from Wheaton introduces an element of doubt about Stone’s motives and sets up tension about potential hidden connections in the story.

      5. “I know a good story when I see one,’ she said. ‘You can explain that to them in New York.’”

      This decisive statement marks a turning point where Wheaton commits to covering the trial, showing her journalistic instincts and the story’s growing significance beyond just a single interview.

    Quotes

    1. “I don’t get it,’ Wheaton said; ‘why would this Sir Winston guy want to make trouble for this poor widow?’”

    This quote highlights the central mystery of the chapter - the apparent persecution of Allison Manning by local authorities. It represents the outsider’s perspective on the injustice and sets up the exploration of the flawed legal system.

    2. “Bizarre, and I hope you’ll bring that out in your piece.’ He told her about the preliminary hearing and what he had learned about how the court operated.”

    This key quote reveals Stone’s strategy of using media exposure to combat the unfair legal proceedings. It introduces the theme of the corrupt local justice system that becomes central to the story’s conflict.

    3. “We’re not here to fight your battles for you; you have to understand that.’ ‘Sure I do, but if just doing your job happens to work to Allison’s benefit, that’s okay with me.’”

    This exchange captures the delicate negotiation between Stone and the journalists, showing his attempt to align their professional interests with his client’s needs while respecting their impartial role.

    4. “It just seems odd that you would just happen to be here when Allison Manning came sailing in. Could that be a bit more than a coincidence?‘”

    This probing question from Wheaton introduces an element of doubt about Stone’s motives and sets up tension about potential hidden connections in the story.

    5. “I know a good story when I see one,’ she said. ‘You can explain that to them in New York.’”

    This decisive statement marks a turning point where Wheaton commits to covering the trial, showing her journalistic instincts and the story’s growing significance beyond just a single interview.

    FAQs

    1. What are Stone’s main concerns about the upcoming 60 Minutes interview with Allison Manning, and how does he attempt to manage them?

    Answer:
    Stone is primarily concerned about the interview’s editing process, as Chris Wheaton mentions they might talk for over an hour, meaning the final segment will only include select portions. This could potentially portray Allison in an unfavorable light. While Stone recognizes it’s too late to renegotiate terms, he tries to mitigate risks by suggesting breaks if Allison becomes tired or upset. He also strategically emphasizes the bizarre nature of St. Marks’ legal system, hoping media coverage might indirectly benefit Allison’s case by exposing potential injustices.

    2. How does Chris Wheaton’s line of questioning reveal her journalistic approach and suspicions about Stone’s involvement?

    Answer:
    Wheaton adopts an investigative, somewhat skeptical tone, probing Stone’s motives and background. She questions why a New York lawyer would take Allison’s case without discussing fees, implying this is unusual. Her knowledge of Stone’s past (his police career, townhouse, and personal injury case) shows she’s done her research. Most pointedly, she suggests Stone’s presence in St. Marks might not be coincidental, hinting at a possible hidden agenda. This mirrors classic investigative journalism tactics—verifying narratives and uncovering inconsistencies.

    3. Analyze the power dynamics between Stone and the 60 Minutes team. How does each party leverage their position?

    Answer:
    The interaction shows a delicate balance of power. The 60 Minutes team holds media influence, which Stone hopes to harness for Allison’s benefit by encouraging coverage of the flawed legal system. However, producer Jake Burrows clarifies they’re not there to advocate for Allison. Meanwhile, Stone asserts control by refusing access to Allison’s local lawyer and redirecting uncomfortable questions. Wheaton wields her knowledge of Stone’s personal life (like Arrington’s whereabouts) as leverage, creating subtle tension. Both sides are maneuvering to shape the narrative to their advantage.

    4. What strategic value does Stone see in having 60 Minutes cover Allison’s trial, and what risks might this pose?

    Answer:
    Stone believes media exposure could pressure the St. Marks legal system by highlighting its irregularities, potentially securing a fairer trial for Allison. He explicitly asks Wheaton to emphasize the court’s “outrageous” procedures and suggests cameras outside the courtroom. However, this strategy risks backfiring—excessive scrutiny might antagonize local authorities, and selective editing could distort Allison’s portrayal. Additionally, Wheaton’s decision to stay for the trial introduces unpredictability, as her continued investigation might uncover details Stone can’t control.

    5. How does the chapter illustrate the theme of perception versus reality, particularly in Stone’s interactions with Wheaton?

    Answer:
    The dialogue underscores how perceptions shape narratives. Wheaton’s probing questions imply skepticism about Stone’s altruism, while Stone carefully crafts responses to appear cooperative yet guarded. For instance, he downplays his legal success (“run-of-the-mill” cases) despite Wheaton referencing his high-profile wins. Their exchange about Arrington and Vance Calder reveals how personal details can be weaponized to imply instability or dishonesty. Stone’s internal irritation at Wheaton’s knowledge of his private life highlights the tension between the image he projects and the reality he protects.

    Note