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 Bar­ring­ton receives a call from Bob Can­tor while hav­ing lunch at the Shipwright’s Arms. Can­tor, recent­ly returned from the Canaries, shares new find­ings about Paul Manning’s finan­cial sit­u­a­tion. Despite earn­ing a sub­stan­tial income, Man­ning was liv­ing on the edge, heav­i­ly reliant on loans to sus­tain his lifestyle. Can­tor reveals that Manning’s cred­it records show he was maxed out on cred­it cards and fre­quent­ly bor­rowed large sums to bridge gaps between roy­al­ty pay­ments. This finan­cial strain sug­gests Manning’s pre­car­i­ous posi­tion before his death, rais­ing ques­tions about the tim­ing of his demise.

    Can­tor admits to unau­tho­rized snoop­ing in Manning’s Green­wich home, uncov­er­ing detailed finan­cial records. Manning’s debts were so sig­nif­i­cant that his wife, Alli­son, would face sub­stan­tial liabilities—except for the rev­e­la­tion that he held $12 mil­lion in life insur­ance. The pre­mi­ums were exor­bi­tant, fur­ther strain­ing his finances. Can­tor notes that Alli­son has already trans­ferred most of the insur­ance pay­out to a Cay­man Islands account, sug­gest­ing shrewd finan­cial maneu­ver­ing. This devel­op­ment casts sus­pi­cion on Alli­son, as her husband’s death coin­cid­ed per­fect­ly with his finan­cial col­lapse, leav­ing her wealthy and debt-free.

    The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to the cir­cum­stances of Manning’s death. Can­tor and Stone spec­u­late whether Man­ning could have faked his death using a sail­able dinghy, but they dis­miss the idea since both dinghies remain on the yacht. The pos­si­bil­i­ty of Man­ning swim­ming back is also deemed unlike­ly due to sharks and the risk of being spot­ted. Stone acknowl­edges the mount­ing cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence against Alli­son but reit­er­ates his role as her lawyer, not an inves­ti­ga­tor. His pri­ma­ry focus is secur­ing her acquit­tal, regard­less of her guilt or inno­cence.

    Stone reflects on the eth­i­cal dilem­ma of defend­ing a poten­tial­ly guilty client but resolves to pro­ceed pro­fes­sion­al­ly. The chap­ter ends with Stone reaf­firm­ing his com­mit­ment to Allison’s defense, even as the evi­dence paints a damn­ing pic­ture. Cantor’s dis­cov­er­ies have unde­ni­ably shift­ed the nar­ra­tive, impli­cat­ing Alli­son in a pos­si­ble mur­der-for-finan­cial-gain scheme. How­ev­er, Stone’s duty remains clear: to nav­i­gate the legal com­plex­i­ties and ensure a fair tri­al, despite his per­son­al reser­va­tions about her inno­cence.

    FAQs

    • 1. What financial pressures was Paul Manning facing before his death, and how does this information impact the case?

      Answer:
      Paul Manning was living beyond his means despite earning between \(1-2 million annually. According to Bob Cantor's investigation, Manning was "maxed out" on credit cards and frequently borrowed \)100,000 at a time from banks to bridge gaps between royalty payments. His \(15,000/month life insurance premiums further strained his finances. This context raises suspicions about Allison Manning's potential motive, as her husband's death left her with \)12 million in tax-free insurance payouts, property, and cleared debts. The financial distress suggests Manning’s death was timely for Allison’s financial gain, adding complexity to Stone’s defense strategy.

      2. How does the presence (or absence) of the Parker Sportster dinghy affect theories about Paul Manning’s disappearance?

      Answer:
      The Parker Sportster—a sailable dinghy—could theoretically have allowed Manning to escape the yacht undetected, but both it and the non-sailable dinghy were found onboard. This eliminates the possibility Manning sailed away alive, leaving only two scenarios: he either died (supporting Allison’s account) or swam (deemed unlikely due to sharks and visibility). The dinghy’s presence undermines theories of premeditated escape, making foul play by Allison a more plausible suspicion, especially given her financial windfall.

      3. Why does Stone’s role as Allison’s lawyer create ethical tension in this chapter?

      Answer:
      Stone acknowledges the mounting circumstantial evidence against Allison (financial motive, insurance payout timing) but reiterates his duty to defend her regardless of guilt. He muses, “If she’s guilty, she won’t be the first guilty client I’ve represented,” highlighting the lawyer’s ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense. However, his personal desire for her innocence (“he wanted her to be innocent”) contrasts with his professional detachment, illustrating the conflict between moral judgment and legal responsibility.

      Answer:
      Allison’s swift transfer of insurance funds to the Cayman Islands—a jurisdiction known for banking secrecy—suggests premeditation and attempts to shield assets. This action, combined with selling the Greenwich property, implies she anticipated legal scrutiny. While Cantor notes insurers would struggle to reclaim the money, the move paints Allison as calculating, undermining her credibility. For Stone, this creates a challenge: jurors might interpret her financial prudence as guilt, even if it’s legally permissible.

      5. How does the chapter use Paul Manning’s life insurance policy to build narrative tension?

      Answer:
      The \(12 million policy, acquired just two years prior, becomes a pivotal plot device. Its exorbitant cost (\)15,000/month) and Manning’s unsustainable spending habits suggest he was a liability to his own estate. The policy’s payout timing—coinciding with his death and Allison’s immediate financial relief—raises red flags. The chapter leverages this detail to shift reader perspective: Manning’s death transitions from a tragic accident to a potential crime of opportunity, leaving Stone (and the audience) questioning Allison’s innocence.

    Quotes

    • 1. “Seems Mr. Manning was living right on the edge. He was pulling in a magnificent income, of course, probably something between a million and two million a year, and closer to two. But he was spending one hell of a lot of money, too.”

      This quote reveals the financial tension in Paul Manning’s life, showing that despite his high income, he was barely staying afloat. It introduces the key theme of financial motive that becomes central to the chapter’s mystery.

      2. “Bottom line is, Mrs. Manning’s husband could not have kicked off at a better time for her. If Manning had lived and had continued to live as he did, I reckon he wouldn’t have been able to afford the life insurance premiums much longer.”

      This impactful statement summarizes the suspicious timing of Paul Manning’s death and its financial benefit to Allison. It represents the turning point where the conversation shifts from financial troubles to potential motive.

      3. “I’m not the cops,” Stone repeated to himself. “I’m her lawyer, and if she’s guilty, she won’t be the first guilty client I’ve represented.” Still, he wanted her to be innocent.

      This quote captures Stone’s internal conflict between professional duty and personal desire. It serves as a powerful conclusion to the chapter, revealing the moral complexity of the situation.

    Quotes

    1. “Seems Mr. Manning was living right on the edge. He was pulling in a magnificent income, of course, probably something between a million and two million a year, and closer to two. But he was spending one hell of a lot of money, too.”

    This quote reveals the financial tension in Paul Manning’s life, showing that despite his high income, he was barely staying afloat. It introduces the key theme of financial motive that becomes central to the chapter’s mystery.

    2. “Bottom line is, Mrs. Manning’s husband could not have kicked off at a better time for her. If Manning had lived and had continued to live as he did, I reckon he wouldn’t have been able to afford the life insurance premiums much longer.”

    This impactful statement summarizes the suspicious timing of Paul Manning’s death and its financial benefit to Allison. It represents the turning point where the conversation shifts from financial troubles to potential motive.

    3. “I’m not the cops,” Stone repeated to himself. “I’m her lawyer, and if she’s guilty, she won’t be the first guilty client I’ve represented.” Still, he wanted her to be innocent.

    This quote captures Stone’s internal conflict between professional duty and personal desire. It serves as a powerful conclusion to the chapter, revealing the moral complexity of the situation.

    FAQs

    1. What financial pressures was Paul Manning facing before his death, and how does this information impact the case?

    Answer:
    Paul Manning was living beyond his means despite earning between \(1-2 million annually. According to Bob Cantor's investigation, Manning was "maxed out" on credit cards and frequently borrowed \)100,000 at a time from banks to bridge gaps between royalty payments. His \(15,000/month life insurance premiums further strained his finances. This context raises suspicions about Allison Manning's potential motive, as her husband's death left her with \)12 million in tax-free insurance payouts, property, and cleared debts. The financial distress suggests Manning’s death was timely for Allison’s financial gain, adding complexity to Stone’s defense strategy.

    2. How does the presence (or absence) of the Parker Sportster dinghy affect theories about Paul Manning’s disappearance?

    Answer:
    The Parker Sportster—a sailable dinghy—could theoretically have allowed Manning to escape the yacht undetected, but both it and the non-sailable dinghy were found onboard. This eliminates the possibility Manning sailed away alive, leaving only two scenarios: he either died (supporting Allison’s account) or swam (deemed unlikely due to sharks and visibility). The dinghy’s presence undermines theories of premeditated escape, making foul play by Allison a more plausible suspicion, especially given her financial windfall.

    3. Why does Stone’s role as Allison’s lawyer create ethical tension in this chapter?

    Answer:
    Stone acknowledges the mounting circumstantial evidence against Allison (financial motive, insurance payout timing) but reiterates his duty to defend her regardless of guilt. He muses, “If she’s guilty, she won’t be the first guilty client I’ve represented,” highlighting the lawyer’s ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense. However, his personal desire for her innocence (“he wanted her to be innocent”) contrasts with his professional detachment, illustrating the conflict between moral judgment and legal responsibility.

    Answer:
    Allison’s swift transfer of insurance funds to the Cayman Islands—a jurisdiction known for banking secrecy—suggests premeditation and attempts to shield assets. This action, combined with selling the Greenwich property, implies she anticipated legal scrutiny. While Cantor notes insurers would struggle to reclaim the money, the move paints Allison as calculating, undermining her credibility. For Stone, this creates a challenge: jurors might interpret her financial prudence as guilt, even if it’s legally permissible.

    5. How does the chapter use Paul Manning’s life insurance policy to build narrative tension?

    Answer:
    The \(12 million policy, acquired just two years prior, becomes a pivotal plot device. Its exorbitant cost (\)15,000/month) and Manning’s unsustainable spending habits suggest he was a liability to his own estate. The policy’s payout timing—coinciding with his death and Allison’s immediate financial relief—raises red flags. The chapter leverages this detail to shift reader perspective: Manning’s death transitions from a tragic accident to a potential crime of opportunity, leaving Stone (and the audience) questioning Allison’s innocence.

    Note