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 con­fronts Alli­son aboard the yacht *Expan­sive*, urgent­ly ques­tion­ing her about Paul’s first mar­riage. He reveals that Paul’s ex-wife, Lib­by, has arrived at the Shipwright’s Arms, claim­ing rights to Paul’s estate. Alli­son is dis­mis­sive, insist­ing Lib­by deserves noth­ing, but Stone press­es for details about their divorce. Alli­son admits she has nev­er seen a divorce decree and recalls Paul had been send­ing Lib­by month­ly alimo­ny pay­ments. Stone grows increas­ing­ly con­cerned about the legal impli­ca­tions, espe­cial­ly if the divorce was nev­er final­ized, which could com­pli­cate Allison’s inher­i­tance.

    Stone exam­ines Paul’s will, con­firm­ing Lib­by is not men­tioned, but remains wary. He explains that if the divorce is invalid, Lib­by could have legal claims as Paul’s sur­viv­ing spouse. Alli­son down­plays the threat, but Stone warns that Libby’s pres­ence could desta­bi­lize Allison’s upcom­ing tri­al, espe­cial­ly if manip­u­lat­ed by adver­saries like Sir Win­ston. The ten­sion esca­lates as Stone empha­sizes the need to remove Lib­by from the island quick­ly to avoid poten­tial legal and rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age.

    Alli­son sug­gests extreme mea­sures to deal with Lib­by, but Stone admon­ish­es her for reck­less talk. He pro­pos­es nego­ti­at­ing a finan­cial set­tle­ment to per­suade Lib­by to leave. Alli­son reluc­tant­ly agrees, reveal­ing she has over a mil­lion dol­lars in her bank account. Stone secures a blank check and signed doc­u­ments from Alli­son, prepar­ing to nego­ti­ate with Lib­by. His frus­tra­tion is evi­dent as he laments the lack of a divorce decree, which would clar­i­fy Libby’s legal stand­ing.

    The chap­ter ends with Stone leav­ing the yacht to han­dle the sit­u­a­tion, under­scor­ing the urgency and high stakes. Allison’s trust in Stone is test­ed as she hands over finan­cial con­trol, while Stone’s focus shifts to mit­i­gat­ing the risk Lib­by pos­es. The con­fronta­tion high­lights the pre­car­i­ous­ness of Allison’s legal posi­tion and the poten­tial for unfore­seen com­pli­ca­tions in her defense. Stone’s actions reflect a strate­gic effort to neu­tral­ize threats before they esca­late fur­ther.

    FAQs

    • 1. What is the central conflict introduced in this chapter, and why is Libby Manning’s arrival problematic for Allison?

      Answer:
      The central conflict revolves around the potential legal and financial threat posed by Libby Manning, Paul’s first wife, who arrives claiming rights to his estate. This is problematic for Allison because: (1) Libby’s claim could challenge Allison’s inheritance if their divorce was never legally finalized, (2) Libby might testify against Allison in her ongoing trial, and (3) her presence introduces unpredictability, as Stone fears she could be manipulated by adversaries like Sir Winston. The chapter highlights Stone’s urgency to resolve the matter quickly to avoid complications (e.g., “she’s a loose cannon, and she could turn out to be very dangerous”).


      Answer:
      Stone adopts a pragmatic, risk-averse strategy: (1) He prioritizes gathering evidence (e.g., seeking the divorce decree) to assess Libby’s legal standing. (2) He prepares to negotiate a financial settlement (blank check, signed documents) to expedite her departure, showing his understanding of leverage and compromise. (3) He rebukes Allison’s impulsive remarks (e.g., joking about violence), emphasizing professionalism. This reveals his legal acumen—balancing urgency with due diligence—and his protective yet authoritative dynamic with Allison, whom he guides firmly (“Not now, Allison; we have to talk”).


      3. How does the chapter use dialogue to contrast Allison’s emotional reactions with Stone’s calculated approach? Provide examples.

      Answer:
      The dialogue underscores their contrasting perspectives:

      • Allison reacts emotionally, calling Libby a “bitch” and making rash threats (“I’ll shoot her myself”), reflecting her personal stake and temper.
      • Stone remains methodical, focusing on facts (“Have you ever seen a copy of his divorce decree?”) and consequences (“Suppose she testifies…”). His tone is urgent but controlled (“Goddammit, I told you not to talk like that!”). This juxtaposition heightens tension while illustrating Stone’s role as the rational counterbalance to Allison’s volatility.

      Answer:
      If no divorce decree exists:

      1. Libby could claim spousal rights under Florida or Connecticut law, potentially contesting the will’s validity or claiming a statutory share of the estate.
      2. Allison’s marriage to Paul might be void, rendering her inheritance invalid (e.g., bigamy laws).
      3. Alimony payments (if court-ordered) could become a liability for the estate. Stone notes this “worst case” scenario (“she might have some sort of rights as the wife”), emphasizing the need for documentation to resolve ambiguity.

      5. Evaluate Allison’s statement: “Just tell her to call my lawyer… or go fuck herself.” Why does Stone reject this approach?

      Answer:
      Stone rejects Allison’s dismissive attitude because:

      1. Legal risks: Libby’s unresolved claims could escalate into protracted litigation or invalidate Allison’s inheritance.
      2. Reputational harm: Hostility might provoke Libby to cooperate with adversaries (e.g., Sir Winston).
      3. Strategic urgency: Stone prioritizes neutralizing Libby quickly (“get her off the island”) rather than provoking her. His response underscores the gap between Allison’s emotional defiance and the nuanced realities of legal strategy.

    Quotes

    • 1. “The first Mrs. Manning has just checked into the Shipwright’s Arms… She says she’s come to claim Paul’s estate.”

      This quote marks the introduction of a major conflict in the chapter, revealing the unexpected arrival of Paul’s first wife who threatens Allison’s inheritance. It sets up the legal and emotional tension that drives the rest of the scene.

      2. “Well, the absolute worst, legally, would be if they were never divorced. In that case, she might have some sort of rights as the wife…”

      Stone’s legal analysis here presents the chapter’s central dilemma - the potential invalidity of Paul’s divorce. This quote encapsulates the high stakes and possible consequences that create urgency in the narrative.

      3. “She’s a completely unknown quantity… she could turn out to be very dangerous.”

      This quote highlights Stone’s professional concern about the unpredictable threat Libby represents. It shows his strategic thinking about how her presence could complicate Allison’s legal situation beyond just financial matters.

      4. “Give me your checkbook… Sign it.”

      This tense exchange demonstrates the extreme measures Stone believes are necessary to resolve the situation quickly. The demand for a blank check shows both the urgency of the matter and the level of trust (or desperation) in their relationship at this moment.

      5. “If she wants more than that I’ll shoot her myself.”

      Allison’s hyperbolic threat, while meant as dark humor, reveals her volatile emotions about the situation and foreshadows potential future conflicts. Stone’s strong reaction to this statement shows how seriously he takes even casual violent remarks given their circumstances.

    Quotes

    1. “The first Mrs. Manning has just checked into the Shipwright’s Arms… She says she’s come to claim Paul’s estate.”

    This quote marks the introduction of a major conflict in the chapter, revealing the unexpected arrival of Paul’s first wife who threatens Allison’s inheritance. It sets up the legal and emotional tension that drives the rest of the scene.

    2. “Well, the absolute worst, legally, would be if they were never divorced. In that case, she might have some sort of rights as the wife…”

    Stone’s legal analysis here presents the chapter’s central dilemma - the potential invalidity of Paul’s divorce. This quote encapsulates the high stakes and possible consequences that create urgency in the narrative.

    3. “She’s a completely unknown quantity… she could turn out to be very dangerous.”

    This quote highlights Stone’s professional concern about the unpredictable threat Libby represents. It shows his strategic thinking about how her presence could complicate Allison’s legal situation beyond just financial matters.

    4. “Give me your checkbook… Sign it.”

    This tense exchange demonstrates the extreme measures Stone believes are necessary to resolve the situation quickly. The demand for a blank check shows both the urgency of the matter and the level of trust (or desperation) in their relationship at this moment.

    5. “If she wants more than that I’ll shoot her myself.”

    Allison’s hyperbolic threat, while meant as dark humor, reveals her volatile emotions about the situation and foreshadows potential future conflicts. Stone’s strong reaction to this statement shows how seriously he takes even casual violent remarks given their circumstances.

    FAQs

    1. What is the central conflict introduced in this chapter, and why is Libby Manning’s arrival problematic for Allison?

    Answer:
    The central conflict revolves around the potential legal and financial threat posed by Libby Manning, Paul’s first wife, who arrives claiming rights to his estate. This is problematic for Allison because: (1) Libby’s claim could challenge Allison’s inheritance if their divorce was never legally finalized, (2) Libby might testify against Allison in her ongoing trial, and (3) her presence introduces unpredictability, as Stone fears she could be manipulated by adversaries like Sir Winston. The chapter highlights Stone’s urgency to resolve the matter quickly to avoid complications (e.g., “she’s a loose cannon, and she could turn out to be very dangerous”).


    Answer:
    Stone adopts a pragmatic, risk-averse strategy: (1) He prioritizes gathering evidence (e.g., seeking the divorce decree) to assess Libby’s legal standing. (2) He prepares to negotiate a financial settlement (blank check, signed documents) to expedite her departure, showing his understanding of leverage and compromise. (3) He rebukes Allison’s impulsive remarks (e.g., joking about violence), emphasizing professionalism. This reveals his legal acumen—balancing urgency with due diligence—and his protective yet authoritative dynamic with Allison, whom he guides firmly (“Not now, Allison; we have to talk”).


    3. How does the chapter use dialogue to contrast Allison’s emotional reactions with Stone’s calculated approach? Provide examples.

    Answer:
    The dialogue underscores their contrasting perspectives:

    • Allison reacts emotionally, calling Libby a “bitch” and making rash threats (“I’ll shoot her myself”), reflecting her personal stake and temper.
    • Stone remains methodical, focusing on facts (“Have you ever seen a copy of his divorce decree?”) and consequences (“Suppose she testifies…”). His tone is urgent but controlled (“Goddammit, I told you not to talk like that!”). This juxtaposition heightens tension while illustrating Stone’s role as the rational counterbalance to Allison’s volatility.

    Answer:
    If no divorce decree exists:

    1. Libby could claim spousal rights under Florida or Connecticut law, potentially contesting the will’s validity or claiming a statutory share of the estate.
    2. Allison’s marriage to Paul might be void, rendering her inheritance invalid (e.g., bigamy laws).
    3. Alimony payments (if court-ordered) could become a liability for the estate. Stone notes this “worst case” scenario (“she might have some sort of rights as the wife”), emphasizing the need for documentation to resolve ambiguity.

    5. Evaluate Allison’s statement: “Just tell her to call my lawyer… or go fuck herself.” Why does Stone reject this approach?

    Answer:
    Stone rejects Allison’s dismissive attitude because:

    1. Legal risks: Libby’s unresolved claims could escalate into protracted litigation or invalidate Allison’s inheritance.
    2. Reputational harm: Hostility might provoke Libby to cooperate with adversaries (e.g., Sir Winston).
    3. Strategic urgency: Stone prioritizes neutralizing Libby quickly (“get her off the island”) rather than provoking her. His response underscores the gap between Allison’s emotional defiance and the nuanced realities of legal strategy.
    Note