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 returns to the mari­na deeply trou­bled by Lib­by Manning’s death in a plane crash, despite not hav­ing been close to her. He shares the news with Alli­son, who is shocked and strug­gles to process the loss. The crash, caused by an engine fire, leaves lit­tle evi­dence, and Stone spec­u­lates about pos­si­ble mechan­i­cal fail­ures due to lax over­sight. Allison’s ini­tial grief is com­pli­cat­ed by the real­iza­tion that Libby’s death relieves her of a $400,000 finan­cial oblig­a­tion, spark­ing a moral dilem­ma about whether the mon­ey should still be paid to Libby’s poten­tial heirs.

    Alli­son ques­tions whether she is legal­ly bound to hon­or the agree­ment with Lib­by, giv­en that the phys­i­cal doc­u­ments were lost in the crash. Stone explains that Libby’s heirs could still claim the mon­ey if evi­dence of the agree­ment exists, such as a copy or a wit­ness. How­ev­er, he acknowl­edges that with­out such proof, Allison’s posi­tion is legal­ly secure. The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to eth­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions, with Stone sug­gest­ing she search for Libby’s heirs to ful­fill her moral oblig­a­tion, though Alli­son resists the idea, pri­or­i­tiz­ing her finan­cial gain over eth­i­cal con­cerns.

    Stone reveals that Libby’s alimo­ny had recent­ly expired, mean­ing her claim to the estate was base­less, and she had essen­tial­ly lucked into the $400,000. Alli­son is angered by this rev­e­la­tion but acknowl­edges Stone’s ear­li­er advice to pay Lib­by was sound under the cir­cum­stances. Stone reit­er­ates that while Alli­son has no enforce­able legal oblig­a­tion to pay Libby’s heirs, she still faces a moral deci­sion. Alli­son, how­ev­er, remains focused on the legal loop­holes that allow her to keep the mon­ey, dis­miss­ing the eth­i­cal impli­ca­tions.

    The ten­sion esca­lates as Alli­son chal­lenges Stone’s own morals, accus­ing him of hypocrisy for engag­ing in a rela­tion­ship with her while rep­re­sent­ing her as a client. Stone defends him­self with legal­is­tic rea­son­ing, which amus­es Alli­son, light­en­ing the mood. Despite the laugh­ter, the under­ly­ing con­flict about ethics and respon­si­bil­i­ty remains unre­solved, high­light­ing the com­plex inter­play between legal­i­ty and moral­i­ty in their sit­u­a­tion. Allison’s final words sug­gest a mix of affec­tion and admi­ra­tion for Stone’s unwa­ver­ing adher­ence to his prin­ci­ples, even as she resists them.

    FAQs

    • Answer:
      Allison faces both legal and ethical dilemmas regarding the $400,000 payment. Legally, if Libby had heirs or a will, they could claim the money, especially if evidence of the agreement exists (e.g., a copy mailed to a relative). However, since the original agreement was lost in the crash and no evidence suggests Libby disclosed it, Allison’s position is legally secure. Ethically, Stone advises her to search for Libby’s heirs to fulfill the agreement’s intent, but Allison resists, prioritizing her financial gain over moral obligations. The chapter highlights the tension between legal technicalities (enforceability) and ethical responsibilities (fairness to potential heirs).

      2. How does Stone’s emotional reaction to Libby’s death contrast with his professional advice to Allison?

      Answer:
      Stone feels inexplicable guilt and depression over Libby’s death, despite not being close to her, suggesting a subconscious moral conflict. Professionally, however, he objectively outlines Allison’s legal options, emphasizing her lack of enforceable obligations while still advocating for ethical transparency. This contrast reveals his internal struggle: as a lawyer, he prioritizes Allison’s interests, but as a human, he grapples with the broader implications of her choices. His emotional response humanizes him, while his legal counsel remains detached and pragmatic.

      3. Analyze the significance of Allison’s comment about Stone’s morals in the context of their relationship.

      Answer:
      Allison’s accusation—that Stone compromised his morals by becoming romantically involved with her (a client) while committed to another woman—serves multiple purposes. First, it deflects attention from her own ethical dilemma by shifting focus to Stone’s behavior. Second, it underscores the hypocrisy she perceives: Stone lectures her about ethics while violating professional boundaries. Stone’s defensive, legalistic response (“no ethical requirement not to fuck you”) highlights his discomfort and the absurdity of reducing moral questions to technicalities. This exchange deepens the tension between personal and professional ethics in their relationship.

      4. Why does Allison resist Stone’s suggestion to search for Libby’s heirs, and what does this reveal about her character?

      Answer:
      Allison resists because she prioritizes financial self-interest over moral accountability. She rationalizes keeping the money by dismissing the likelihood of heirs and mocking the idea of funding a “statue” for Florida. Her refusal to investigate reveals a transactional worldview: she views the $400,000 as a windfall rather than a debt owed. This contrasts with Stone’s emphasis on due diligence, exposing Allison’s opportunism and lack of empathy. Her reaction aligns with her earlier relief that Libby’s death “saves” her money, underscoring her pragmatic, self-serving nature.

      5. How does the chapter use the airplane crash as a metaphor for unresolved consequences?

      Answer:
      The crash symbolizes the abrupt disappearance of evidence (the agreement) and the unresolved moral questions it leaves behind. Just as the plane’s wreckage is irrecoverable in deep water, Libby’s death obscures the truth about the payment, allowing Allison to avoid accountability. The mechanical failure (possibly due to negligence) parallels Allison’s ethical shortcuts. Stone’s remark that “you need the airplane to figure out why it crashed” mirrors his later point: without proof (heirs or documents), the ethical “crash” of the agreement remains unexamined. The metaphor underscores themes of hidden truths and moral ambiguity.

    Quotes

    • 1. “‘Libby Manning is dead,’ he said. ‘Come again? I don’t think I heard you right.’ ‘Libby is dead. Chester crashed shortly after takeoff this morning, and Libby and a local woman were killed, along with Chester.’”

      This exchange marks the pivotal moment of revelation in the chapter, where Stone delivers the shocking news of Libby’s death to Allison. The blunt delivery and Allison’s disbelief underscore the suddenness and tragedy of the event, setting the stage for the ethical dilemma that follows.

      2. “‘Maybe I shouldn’t be depressed,’ Allison said. ‘After all, her death saves me four hundred thousand dollars.’”

      This quote captures Allison’s immediate, morally ambiguous reaction to Libby’s death, highlighting the tension between personal gain and human loss. It introduces the central ethical conflict of the chapter—whether financial obligations survive the payee’s death.

      3. “‘I mean, the proper thing to do would be to search out Libby’s executor, if she has one, and pay him the money. Then he could distribute it to any heirs or family she may have had.’”

      Stone presents the ethically rigorous position, emphasizing legal and moral responsibilities even when they conflict with self-interest. This statement crystallizes the chapter’s core debate about posthumous obligations and the limits of legal enforceability.

      4. “‘You also have a moral obligation, but whether or not you meet it would depend on the condition of your morals.’”

      This blunt assessment from Stone starkly separates legal technicalities from ethical imperatives, forcing Allison to confront her own values. The quote’s power lies in its challenge to reconcile what one can legally avoid with what one should morally do.

      5. “‘It’s also very sweet,’ she said, wiping the tears from her cheeks, ‘and I love you for it. I know now, if I didn’t before, that I have the most legally and ethically prop…’”

      The truncated final line captures Allison’s emotional pivot from confrontation to affection, revealing how Stone’s rigid ethical stance—while frustrating—ultimately reinforces her admiration for him. This moment blends the chapter’s themes of morality, professionalism, and personal relationships.

    Quotes

    1. “‘Libby Manning is dead,’ he said. ‘Come again? I don’t think I heard you right.’ ‘Libby is dead. Chester crashed shortly after takeoff this morning, and Libby and a local woman were killed, along with Chester.’”

    This exchange marks the pivotal moment of revelation in the chapter, where Stone delivers the shocking news of Libby’s death to Allison. The blunt delivery and Allison’s disbelief underscore the suddenness and tragedy of the event, setting the stage for the ethical dilemma that follows.

    2. “‘Maybe I shouldn’t be depressed,’ Allison said. ‘After all, her death saves me four hundred thousand dollars.’”

    This quote captures Allison’s immediate, morally ambiguous reaction to Libby’s death, highlighting the tension between personal gain and human loss. It introduces the central ethical conflict of the chapter—whether financial obligations survive the payee’s death.

    3. “‘I mean, the proper thing to do would be to search out Libby’s executor, if she has one, and pay him the money. Then he could distribute it to any heirs or family she may have had.’”

    Stone presents the ethically rigorous position, emphasizing legal and moral responsibilities even when they conflict with self-interest. This statement crystallizes the chapter’s core debate about posthumous obligations and the limits of legal enforceability.

    4. “‘You also have a moral obligation, but whether or not you meet it would depend on the condition of your morals.’”

    This blunt assessment from Stone starkly separates legal technicalities from ethical imperatives, forcing Allison to confront her own values. The quote’s power lies in its challenge to reconcile what one can legally avoid with what one should morally do.

    5. “‘It’s also very sweet,’ she said, wiping the tears from her cheeks, ‘and I love you for it. I know now, if I didn’t before, that I have the most legally and ethically prop…’”

    The truncated final line captures Allison’s emotional pivot from confrontation to affection, revealing how Stone’s rigid ethical stance—while frustrating—ultimately reinforces her admiration for him. This moment blends the chapter’s themes of morality, professionalism, and personal relationships.

    FAQs

    Answer:
    Allison faces both legal and ethical dilemmas regarding the $400,000 payment. Legally, if Libby had heirs or a will, they could claim the money, especially if evidence of the agreement exists (e.g., a copy mailed to a relative). However, since the original agreement was lost in the crash and no evidence suggests Libby disclosed it, Allison’s position is legally secure. Ethically, Stone advises her to search for Libby’s heirs to fulfill the agreement’s intent, but Allison resists, prioritizing her financial gain over moral obligations. The chapter highlights the tension between legal technicalities (enforceability) and ethical responsibilities (fairness to potential heirs).

    2. How does Stone’s emotional reaction to Libby’s death contrast with his professional advice to Allison?

    Answer:
    Stone feels inexplicable guilt and depression over Libby’s death, despite not being close to her, suggesting a subconscious moral conflict. Professionally, however, he objectively outlines Allison’s legal options, emphasizing her lack of enforceable obligations while still advocating for ethical transparency. This contrast reveals his internal struggle: as a lawyer, he prioritizes Allison’s interests, but as a human, he grapples with the broader implications of her choices. His emotional response humanizes him, while his legal counsel remains detached and pragmatic.

    3. Analyze the significance of Allison’s comment about Stone’s morals in the context of their relationship.

    Answer:
    Allison’s accusation—that Stone compromised his morals by becoming romantically involved with her (a client) while committed to another woman—serves multiple purposes. First, it deflects attention from her own ethical dilemma by shifting focus to Stone’s behavior. Second, it underscores the hypocrisy she perceives: Stone lectures her about ethics while violating professional boundaries. Stone’s defensive, legalistic response (“no ethical requirement not to fuck you”) highlights his discomfort and the absurdity of reducing moral questions to technicalities. This exchange deepens the tension between personal and professional ethics in their relationship.

    4. Why does Allison resist Stone’s suggestion to search for Libby’s heirs, and what does this reveal about her character?

    Answer:
    Allison resists because she prioritizes financial self-interest over moral accountability. She rationalizes keeping the money by dismissing the likelihood of heirs and mocking the idea of funding a “statue” for Florida. Her refusal to investigate reveals a transactional worldview: she views the $400,000 as a windfall rather than a debt owed. This contrasts with Stone’s emphasis on due diligence, exposing Allison’s opportunism and lack of empathy. Her reaction aligns with her earlier relief that Libby’s death “saves” her money, underscoring her pragmatic, self-serving nature.

    5. How does the chapter use the airplane crash as a metaphor for unresolved consequences?

    Answer:
    The crash symbolizes the abrupt disappearance of evidence (the agreement) and the unresolved moral questions it leaves behind. Just as the plane’s wreckage is irrecoverable in deep water, Libby’s death obscures the truth about the payment, allowing Allison to avoid accountability. The mechanical failure (possibly due to negligence) parallels Allison’s ethical shortcuts. Stone’s remark that “you need the airplane to figure out why it crashed” mirrors his later point: without proof (heirs or documents), the ethical “crash” of the agreement remains unexamined. The metaphor underscores themes of hidden truths and moral ambiguity.

    Note