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 24

    by Stuart, Woods,

    Stone, while trou­bled by rumors about Paul Manning’s affairs, is joined by reporter Jim For­rester dur­ing lunch. For­rester, a key wit­ness, con­firms he avoid­ed being sent off the island by hid­ing from the police. Stone ques­tions him about his tes­ti­mo­ny, focus­ing on Paul and Alli­son Manning’s seem­ing­ly hap­py rela­tion­ship dur­ing their meet­ing in Las Pal­mas. For­rester agrees to tes­ti­fy but reveals an ear­li­er con­nec­tion to Paul from their col­lege days, though he empha­sizes Paul’s cheer­ful demeanor and lack of sui­ci­dal ten­den­cies. Stone con­sid­ers this his­to­ry use­ful for the tri­al, espe­cial­ly to counter claims about Paul’s alleged dis­sat­is­fac­tion with Alli­son.

    For­rester hints at a poten­tial eth­i­cal dilem­ma regard­ing Paul’s leather-bound notes, sug­gest­ing he could fab­ri­cate details to counter the prosecution’s unfair tac­tics. Stone advis­es against this, stress­ing the risks of per­jury. The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to the Park­er Sport­ster dinghy, which For­rester notes could the­o­ret­i­cal­ly be sailed. He spec­u­lates Paul might have faked his death, but Stone dis­miss­es the idea, reveal­ing the dinghy was found unused on the boat. For­rester is relieved, as he didn’t want to impli­cate Alli­son in a con­spir­a­cy. Stone encour­ages him to include this detail in his arti­cle to dis­pel future sus­pi­cions.

    For­rester shares that his edi­tor is high­ly inter­est­ed in Allison’s sto­ry due to its pub­lic­i­ty. Stone acknowl­edges the piece could help Alli­son by sat­is­fy­ing pub­lic curios­i­ty, though he wor­ries she under­es­ti­mates the sever­i­ty of her sit­u­a­tion. For­rester observes Allison’s open­ness but sens­es her denial of the risks. Stone admits he hasn’t addressed this with her, believ­ing her atti­tude might help her cope. The reporter then press­es Stone for a can­did assess­ment of Allison’s chances, lead­ing to a sober­ing dis­cus­sion about the trial’s unpre­dictabil­i­ty.

    Stone con­cedes Alli­son could face exe­cu­tion, a stark con­trast to how the case would like­ly be dis­missed in the U.S. due to lack of evi­dence. Both men reflect on the injus­tice of her predica­ment, won­der­ing how things might dif­fer if she had land­ed in anoth­er juris­dic­tion. The chap­ter ends with their silent con­tem­pla­tion of the worst pos­si­ble out­come for Alli­son, under­scor­ing the grav­i­ty of her sit­u­a­tion and the lim­i­ta­tions of their efforts to help her.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What key ethical consideration does Stone raise when discussing potential testimony about the leather-bound book, and why is this significant?

      Answer:
      Stone emphasizes the importance of maintaining ethical integrity by advising against fabricating testimony about the leather-bound book, even though it could marginally help their case. He warns that deviating from the truth risks perjury charges and undermines credibility (Stone says: “I think it’s best to play this straight… you open yourself up to getting caught lying”). This highlights the legal and moral boundaries in courtroom strategy, where short-term gains must be weighed against long-term consequences. The discussion also reveals the adversarial nature of the trial, as Forrester notes the opposition isn’t “playing fair.”

      2. How does Forrester’s revelation about the Parker Sportster dinghy’s sailing capability create tension, and how is this resolved?

      Answer:
      Forrester suggests the dinghy could theoretically have been sailed back to the Canaries, implying Paul Manning might have faked his death—a theory that would cast suspicion on Allison. This creates narrative tension by introducing doubt about the case’s central premise. However, Stone resolves this by revealing the dinghy was found unused aboard the yacht, eliminating the possibility. The exchange underscores how small details can dramatically shift legal narratives while also showcasing Stone’s thorough investigative work. Forrester’s relief (“Boy, am I glad to hear that”) reflects the emotional stakes for Allison’s defense.

      Answer:
      Stone’s grim assessment (“Yes, I do” when asked if Allison could hang) starkly contrasts with Forrester’s modern sensibilities (“It just doesn’t seem possible… in this day and age”). This highlights the jurisdictional disparities in justice—Allison would likely avoid prosecution in the U.S. due to evidentiary standards, but the island’s legal system presents existential risks. The conversation critiques the unpredictability of legal outcomes based on geography and cultural norms, emphasizing the arbitrary nature of justice. The silence that follows their exchange underscores the gravity of the situation and the human cost of these systemic differences.

      4. How does the chapter use Forrester’s dual role as journalist and witness to explore themes of truth and narrative control?

      Answer:
      Forrester navigates conflicting responsibilities: as a witness, he must provide factual testimony (“play this straight”), but as a journalist, he crafts a compelling narrative (e.g., planning to include the dinghy detail to “make the piece more interesting”). This duality raises questions about how truth is shaped—whether in courtrooms (where selective details like the routing argument are omitted) or media. Stone even suggests leveraging Forrester’s article to sway public opinion in Allison’s favor, illustrating how legal and public narratives intersect. The tension between factual accuracy and persuasive storytelling permeates their dialogue.

    Quotes

    • 1. “I think it’s best to play this straight… The difference in the effect of your testimony would be small, and anytime you start deviating from the straight and narrow, you open yourself up to getting caught lying.”

      Stone emphasizes ethical integrity in legal proceedings, rejecting Forrester’s suggestion to fabricate testimony about the leather-bound book. This highlights the moral stakes of the trial and Stone’s professional principles.

      2. “That Paul Manning could have conceivably sailed the thing back to the Canaries and faked his own death, for whatever reason.”

      Forrester raises a provocative theory about Paul Manning’s possible survival, introducing doubt about the case’s central premise. This exchange underscores the speculative undercurrents surrounding Allison’s trial.

      3. “Right now, at this moment, what do you estimate her chances are of getting out of this?… Do you think there’s really a chance she could hang?”

      “Really.”

      This stark admission from Stone about Allison’s potential execution marks a pivotal moment of gravity in the chapter. It crystallizes the life-or-death stakes of the legal battle and the harsh realities of the island’s justice system.

      4. “It just doesn’t seem possible that this sort of thing could happen in this day and age… if she’d fetched up in the United States, she’d be walking around scot free, wouldn’t she?”

      Forrester’s disbelief highlights the jurisdictional inequities at play, contrasting the island’s harsh legal system with more lenient Western standards. This underscores the arbitrary nature of Allison’s perilous situation.

    Quotes

    1. “I think it’s best to play this straight… The difference in the effect of your testimony would be small, and anytime you start deviating from the straight and narrow, you open yourself up to getting caught lying.”

    Stone emphasizes ethical integrity in legal proceedings, rejecting Forrester’s suggestion to fabricate testimony about the leather-bound book. This highlights the moral stakes of the trial and Stone’s professional principles.

    2. “That Paul Manning could have conceivably sailed the thing back to the Canaries and faked his own death, for whatever reason.”

    Forrester raises a provocative theory about Paul Manning’s possible survival, introducing doubt about the case’s central premise. This exchange underscores the speculative undercurrents surrounding Allison’s trial.

    3. “Right now, at this moment, what do you estimate her chances are of getting out of this?… Do you think there’s really a chance she could hang?”

    “Really.”

    This stark admission from Stone about Allison’s potential execution marks a pivotal moment of gravity in the chapter. It crystallizes the life-or-death stakes of the legal battle and the harsh realities of the island’s justice system.

    4. “It just doesn’t seem possible that this sort of thing could happen in this day and age… if she’d fetched up in the United States, she’d be walking around scot free, wouldn’t she?”

    Forrester’s disbelief highlights the jurisdictional inequities at play, contrasting the island’s harsh legal system with more lenient Western standards. This underscores the arbitrary nature of Allison’s perilous situation.

    FAQs

    1. What key ethical consideration does Stone raise when discussing potential testimony about the leather-bound book, and why is this significant?

    Answer:
    Stone emphasizes the importance of maintaining ethical integrity by advising against fabricating testimony about the leather-bound book, even though it could marginally help their case. He warns that deviating from the truth risks perjury charges and undermines credibility (Stone says: “I think it’s best to play this straight… you open yourself up to getting caught lying”). This highlights the legal and moral boundaries in courtroom strategy, where short-term gains must be weighed against long-term consequences. The discussion also reveals the adversarial nature of the trial, as Forrester notes the opposition isn’t “playing fair.”

    2. How does Forrester’s revelation about the Parker Sportster dinghy’s sailing capability create tension, and how is this resolved?

    Answer:
    Forrester suggests the dinghy could theoretically have been sailed back to the Canaries, implying Paul Manning might have faked his death—a theory that would cast suspicion on Allison. This creates narrative tension by introducing doubt about the case’s central premise. However, Stone resolves this by revealing the dinghy was found unused aboard the yacht, eliminating the possibility. The exchange underscores how small details can dramatically shift legal narratives while also showcasing Stone’s thorough investigative work. Forrester’s relief (“Boy, am I glad to hear that”) reflects the emotional stakes for Allison’s defense.

    Answer:
    Stone’s grim assessment (“Yes, I do” when asked if Allison could hang) starkly contrasts with Forrester’s modern sensibilities (“It just doesn’t seem possible… in this day and age”). This highlights the jurisdictional disparities in justice—Allison would likely avoid prosecution in the U.S. due to evidentiary standards, but the island’s legal system presents existential risks. The conversation critiques the unpredictability of legal outcomes based on geography and cultural norms, emphasizing the arbitrary nature of justice. The silence that follows their exchange underscores the gravity of the situation and the human cost of these systemic differences.

    4. How does the chapter use Forrester’s dual role as journalist and witness to explore themes of truth and narrative control?

    Answer:
    Forrester navigates conflicting responsibilities: as a witness, he must provide factual testimony (“play this straight”), but as a journalist, he crafts a compelling narrative (e.g., planning to include the dinghy detail to “make the piece more interesting”). This duality raises questions about how truth is shaped—whether in courtrooms (where selective details like the routing argument are omitted) or media. Stone even suggests leveraging Forrester’s article to sway public opinion in Allison’s favor, illustrating how legal and public narratives intersect. The tension between factual accuracy and persuasive storytelling permeates their dialogue.

    Note