Search Jump: Comments
    Chapter Index
    Back to Story
    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.
    PreviousNext
    [Stone Barrington 03] • Dead in the Water

    Chapter 19

    by Stuart, Woods,

    Stone Bar­ring­ton, while hav­ing lunch with jour­nal­ist Hilary Kramer, is inter­rupt­ed by a phone call from Bob Can­tor, a pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tor. Can­tor reports his find­ings on the Man­nings’ activ­i­ties in Las Pal­mas, reveal­ing that the cou­ple had a heat­ed argu­ment before their depar­ture, cen­tered on their sail­ing route. Addi­tion­al­ly, Paul Man­ning had a spe­cif­ic rub­ber dinghy, a Park­er Sport­ster, flown in from Barcelona after theirs was stolen. Can­tor notes the Man­nings’ rou­tine activ­i­ties in Las Pal­mas but finds no fur­ther leads, prompt­ing Stone to instruct him to return and con­tin­ue research­ing Manning’s back­ground ahead of the upcom­ing tri­al.

    Stone then ques­tions jour­nal­ist Jim For­rester, who con­firms din­ing with the Man­nings on their last night in Las Pal­mas. For­rester recalls their dis­agree­ment over sail­ing routes but denies wit­ness­ing a full-blown fight. He cor­rob­o­rates the detail about the Park­er Sport­ster dinghy, not­ing Paul’s metic­u­lous­ness about boat equip­ment. Stone, intrigued by the dinghy’s sig­nif­i­cance, arranges for his sec­re­tary to gath­er more infor­ma­tion on it. Mean­while, Forrester’s casu­al demeanor and accep­tance of a drink from Stone hint at their pro­fes­sion­al yet friend­ly dynam­ic.

    Back at his table, Stone observes Alli­son Man­ning being inter­viewed by Hilary Kramer. Kramer’s pos­i­tive impres­sion of Alli­son as hon­est and brave aligns with Stone’s own views, con­trast­ing with the skep­ti­cism of oth­ers like Chris Wheaton. Stone sub­tly probes Kramer for any incon­sis­ten­cies in Allison’s sto­ry, but Kramer finds none, rein­forc­ing Stone’s con­fi­dence in his client’s cred­i­bil­i­ty. This exchange high­lights Stone’s strate­gic approach to build­ing a strong defense for the tri­al.

    The chap­ter under­scores Stone’s method­i­cal inves­ti­ga­tion into the Man­nings’ past, focus­ing on key details like the dinghy and the couple’s argu­ment. His inter­ac­tions with Can­tor, For­rester, and Kramer reveal a blend of pro­fes­sion­al dili­gence and per­son­al intu­ition. As the tri­al approach­es, Stone’s efforts to uncov­er the truth and bol­ster Allison’s defense take cen­ter stage, set­ting the tone for the legal bat­tle ahead.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What key details did Bob Cantor uncover about the Mannings during his investigation in Las Palmas?

      Answer:
      Bob Cantor discovered several important details about the Mannings’ time in Las Palmas. First, their rubber dinghy was stolen, and Paul Manning went to great lengths to replace it with a specific model—a Parker Sportster—which had to be flown in from Barcelona. Second, the couple had a loud, violent argument the night before they departed, involving thrown crockery and tears, though the exact cause was unclear. Additionally, the Mannings were described as keeping to themselves, with Paul occasionally having drinks at the yacht club bar while Allison mostly stayed aboard their boat. These details suggest underlying tensions and Manning’s meticulous nature regarding boat equipment.

      2. How does Jim Forrester’s account of the Mannings’ last night in Las Palmas differ from or confirm Bob Cantor’s findings?

      Answer:
      Jim Forrester’s account confirms some of Bob Cantor’s findings while adding nuance. Forrester corroborates the disagreement between the Mannings but frames it as a debate over sailing routes rather than a full-blown fight. Allison insisted on a direct course to Antigua, while Paul argued for leveraging trade winds by sailing south first. Forrester also confirms Paul’s obsession with having specialized gear, like the Parker Sportster dinghy. However, Forrester didn’t witness the violent altercation Cantor described, suggesting the argument escalated after Forrester left. This discrepancy highlights Allison’s unusual involvement in sailing decisions and Paul’s controlling behavior.

      Answer:
      Stone’s focus on the Parker Sportster suggests he is building a case around Paul Manning’s character and habits. Manning’s insistence on this specific, expensive dinghy—despite other brands being available—paints him as meticulous, controlling, and possibly obsessive. These traits could undermine Allison’s credibility if the defense argues she couldn’t have overpowered him during the alleged attack. Alternatively, Stone might be probing for inconsistencies in Allison’s story or evidence of Paul’s temperament. By requesting a brochure, Stone may also be checking if the dinghy’s features (e.g., weight, stability) could play a role in the trial, such as supporting Allison’s account of the struggle.

      4. How do the reactions of Hilary Kramer and Chris Wheaton to Allison’s story contrast, and why might this matter for the trial?

      Answer:
      Hilary Kramer views Allison as “transparently honest” and admires her bravery, believing a jury will sympathize with her. In contrast, Chris Wheaton (implied by Stone’s comment) seems skeptical. This divergence highlights the subjective nature of credibility assessments. Kramer’s positive impression reinforces Stone’s confidence in Allison’s testimony, while Wheaton’s doubt suggests potential vulnerabilities the defense might exploit. The contrast underscores the importance of jury perception: if Allison can consistently project sincerity (as Kramer observed), it could outweigh factual ambiguities. Stone’s awareness of these differing opinions helps him anticipate how Allison might be cross-examined.

      5. What broader themes about relationships and control emerge from the chapter’s portrayal of the Mannings’ dynamics?

      Answer:
      The chapter reveals themes of control, isolation, and marital conflict. Paul’s dominance is evident in his insistence on specific equipment (the dinghy) and sailing routes, while Allison’s atypical involvement in navigation hints at her pushing back. Their public fight and her limited social interactions suggest an oppressive relationship. The stolen dinghy incident also symbolizes Paul’s need for order—when disrupted, he goes to extreme lengths to restore it. These dynamics foreshadow potential motives for Allison’s actions (if she felt trapped) or Paul’s volatility, both of which Stone may use to argue self-defense or premeditation, depending on his strategy.

    Quotes

    • 1. “A real knockdown, drag-out domestic dispute. Crockery was thrown, names were called, tears were shed, and the whole thing happened at top volume.”

      This vivid description of the Mannings’ fight in Las Palmas reveals the intensity of their marital conflict, hinting at deeper tensions that may be relevant to the case. The quote stands out for its dramatic imagery and suggests this altercation could be a key piece of evidence.

      2. “She wanted to sail a direct course from Puerto Rico to Antigua. Paul pointed out to her that the trade winds blow some distance south of the Canaries… She couldn’t seem to grasp that, for some reason.”

      This exchange highlights Allison’s unusual insistence on navigation matters (contrary to her typical disinterest in sailing) and Paul’s condescending response. The disagreement foreshadows potential motives and character dynamics central to the case.

      3. “He seemed obsessive about having just the right gear on his boat, I remember that well enough; every item on it seemed to have been chosen with great care.”

      This observation about Paul Manning’s perfectionism regarding boat equipment becomes significant when paired with the detail about the specially ordered dinghy. It suggests his meticulous nature and raises questions about what might be hidden in his “perfect” gear.

      4. “She’s a transparently honest girl; a jury is bound to see that.”

      Hilary Kramer’s assessment of Allison’s credibility contrasts with other characters’ suspicions, encapsulating the central question of the chapter: Is Allison genuinely truthful or skillfully deceptive? This quote represents the ongoing debate about her reliability as a witness.

      5. “And Chris Wheaton’s opinion opposed, he thought.”

      Stone’s private thought after speaking with Kramer reveals his strategic consideration of conflicting perspectives on Allison’s credibility. This brief internal monologue shows the legal maneuvering beneath the surface of the investigation.

    Quotes

    1. “A real knockdown, drag-out domestic dispute. Crockery was thrown, names were called, tears were shed, and the whole thing happened at top volume.”

    This vivid description of the Mannings’ fight in Las Palmas reveals the intensity of their marital conflict, hinting at deeper tensions that may be relevant to the case. The quote stands out for its dramatic imagery and suggests this altercation could be a key piece of evidence.

    2. “She wanted to sail a direct course from Puerto Rico to Antigua. Paul pointed out to her that the trade winds blow some distance south of the Canaries… She couldn’t seem to grasp that, for some reason.”

    This exchange highlights Allison’s unusual insistence on navigation matters (contrary to her typical disinterest in sailing) and Paul’s condescending response. The disagreement foreshadows potential motives and character dynamics central to the case.

    3. “He seemed obsessive about having just the right gear on his boat, I remember that well enough; every item on it seemed to have been chosen with great care.”

    This observation about Paul Manning’s perfectionism regarding boat equipment becomes significant when paired with the detail about the specially ordered dinghy. It suggests his meticulous nature and raises questions about what might be hidden in his “perfect” gear.

    4. “She’s a transparently honest girl; a jury is bound to see that.”

    Hilary Kramer’s assessment of Allison’s credibility contrasts with other characters’ suspicions, encapsulating the central question of the chapter: Is Allison genuinely truthful or skillfully deceptive? This quote represents the ongoing debate about her reliability as a witness.

    5. “And Chris Wheaton’s opinion opposed, he thought.”

    Stone’s private thought after speaking with Kramer reveals his strategic consideration of conflicting perspectives on Allison’s credibility. This brief internal monologue shows the legal maneuvering beneath the surface of the investigation.

    FAQs

    1. What key details did Bob Cantor uncover about the Mannings during his investigation in Las Palmas?

    Answer:
    Bob Cantor discovered several important details about the Mannings’ time in Las Palmas. First, their rubber dinghy was stolen, and Paul Manning went to great lengths to replace it with a specific model—a Parker Sportster—which had to be flown in from Barcelona. Second, the couple had a loud, violent argument the night before they departed, involving thrown crockery and tears, though the exact cause was unclear. Additionally, the Mannings were described as keeping to themselves, with Paul occasionally having drinks at the yacht club bar while Allison mostly stayed aboard their boat. These details suggest underlying tensions and Manning’s meticulous nature regarding boat equipment.

    2. How does Jim Forrester’s account of the Mannings’ last night in Las Palmas differ from or confirm Bob Cantor’s findings?

    Answer:
    Jim Forrester’s account confirms some of Bob Cantor’s findings while adding nuance. Forrester corroborates the disagreement between the Mannings but frames it as a debate over sailing routes rather than a full-blown fight. Allison insisted on a direct course to Antigua, while Paul argued for leveraging trade winds by sailing south first. Forrester also confirms Paul’s obsession with having specialized gear, like the Parker Sportster dinghy. However, Forrester didn’t witness the violent altercation Cantor described, suggesting the argument escalated after Forrester left. This discrepancy highlights Allison’s unusual involvement in sailing decisions and Paul’s controlling behavior.

    Answer:
    Stone’s focus on the Parker Sportster suggests he is building a case around Paul Manning’s character and habits. Manning’s insistence on this specific, expensive dinghy—despite other brands being available—paints him as meticulous, controlling, and possibly obsessive. These traits could undermine Allison’s credibility if the defense argues she couldn’t have overpowered him during the alleged attack. Alternatively, Stone might be probing for inconsistencies in Allison’s story or evidence of Paul’s temperament. By requesting a brochure, Stone may also be checking if the dinghy’s features (e.g., weight, stability) could play a role in the trial, such as supporting Allison’s account of the struggle.

    4. How do the reactions of Hilary Kramer and Chris Wheaton to Allison’s story contrast, and why might this matter for the trial?

    Answer:
    Hilary Kramer views Allison as “transparently honest” and admires her bravery, believing a jury will sympathize with her. In contrast, Chris Wheaton (implied by Stone’s comment) seems skeptical. This divergence highlights the subjective nature of credibility assessments. Kramer’s positive impression reinforces Stone’s confidence in Allison’s testimony, while Wheaton’s doubt suggests potential vulnerabilities the defense might exploit. The contrast underscores the importance of jury perception: if Allison can consistently project sincerity (as Kramer observed), it could outweigh factual ambiguities. Stone’s awareness of these differing opinions helps him anticipate how Allison might be cross-examined.

    5. What broader themes about relationships and control emerge from the chapter’s portrayal of the Mannings’ dynamics?

    Answer:
    The chapter reveals themes of control, isolation, and marital conflict. Paul’s dominance is evident in his insistence on specific equipment (the dinghy) and sailing routes, while Allison’s atypical involvement in navigation hints at her pushing back. Their public fight and her limited social interactions suggest an oppressive relationship. The stolen dinghy incident also symbolizes Paul’s need for order—when disrupted, he goes to extreme lengths to restore it. These dynamics foreshadow potential motives for Allison’s actions (if she felt trapped) or Paul’s volatility, both of which Stone may use to argue self-defense or premeditation, depending on his strategy.

    Note