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 arrives at Sir Leslie Hewitt’s house seek­ing clar­i­ty after a tense meet­ing with Sir Win­ston Suther­land. To his sur­prise, he finds Hewitt hav­ing lunch with Alli­son Man­ning, their client. Stone is alarmed by this unau­tho­rized meet­ing and ques­tions Hewitt’s role, remind­ing him that he, not Hewitt, is the lead attor­ney. Hewitt dis­miss­es Stone’s con­cerns, claim­ing author­i­ty over the case. The ten­sion esca­lates as Stone insists on leav­ing with Alli­son, who resists but even­tu­al­ly com­plies. Hewitt’s errat­ic behav­ior, includ­ing for­get­ting Allison’s iden­ti­ty, hints at his declin­ing men­tal state, adding to Stone’s unease.

    Stone con­fronts Hewitt about the lunch with Sir Win­ston, who had become hos­tile dur­ing their dis­cus­sion. Hewitt warns Stone about the dan­gers of insult­ing Suther­land, sug­gest­ing it could jeop­ar­dize Allison’s case. Stone grows frus­trat­ed as Hewitt’s focus wavers, leav­ing him uncer­tain about the poten­tial con­se­quences. Alli­son, con­fused by Hewitt’s behav­ior, press­es Stone for answers. Stone avoids elab­o­rat­ing in front of the taxi dri­ver, height­en­ing the mys­tery and ten­sion as they return to the yacht.

    Back aboard the yacht, Alli­son demands an expla­na­tion for Hewitt’s actions. Stone reveals his con­cerns about Hewitt’s men­tal insta­bil­i­ty and reit­er­ates his role as her pri­ma­ry attor­ney. Alli­son admits Hewitt ques­tioned her exten­sive­ly about her case, act­ing as if he were her sole rep­re­sen­ta­tive. Stone admon­ish­es her for meet­ing Hewitt alone, empha­siz­ing the need for trans­paren­cy. The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to Stone’s meet­ing with Suther­land, where he reveals the judge inquired about Libby’s next of kin. Allison’s reac­tion to this news sug­gests she may be hid­ing some­thing, unset­tling Stone.

    Stone press­es Alli­son for full dis­clo­sure, warn­ing her against with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion that could under­mine their case in court. Alli­son insists she has been truth­ful but becomes emo­tion­al, leav­ing Stone to com­fort her. Despite his reas­sur­ances, Stone remains deeply wor­ried about the tri­al and Allison’s cred­i­bil­i­ty. The chap­ter ends with Stone grap­pling with his own doubts and the loom­ing threat posed by Suther­land, under­scor­ing the pre­car­i­ous­ness of their legal sit­u­a­tion.

    FAQs

    • 1. What is the nature of the professional conflict between Stone and Leslie Hewitt regarding Allison Manning’s representation?

      Answer:
      The conflict stems from differing views on their roles in Allison Manning’s legal defense. Stone asserts that he is the lead attorney making case decisions, while Hewitt acts as a local consultant for navigating the judiciary. This escalates when Stone discovers Hewitt meeting alone with Allison, which he views as inappropriate since it excludes him. Hewitt counters that local law requires him to be the lead attorney, referencing Stone’s own court declaration. The tension highlights jurisdictional complexities in legal representation and the importance of clear role delineation in attorney-client relationships.

      2. How does Sir Winston Sutherland’s behavior during the lunch meeting foreshadow potential complications for Allison’s case?

      Answer:
      Sir Winston’s aggressive questioning about Libby and his volatile interaction with Stone (“we ended up shouting at each other”) suggest he may use his authority to retaliate. Hewitt warns that Sutherland is “a very dangerous man to insult” and that his retaliation “could be the end of Allison,” implying political or legal repercussions. This foreshadows potential judicial bias, unethical leverage (e.g., digging into Libby’s background), or procedural obstacles, emphasizing the high-stakes power dynamics in St. Marks’ legal system.

      Answer:
      Allison’s shock (“Doesn’t he know who I am anymore?”) and dismay (“I’m being represented by a lawyer who’s gaga?”) reveal her naivety about the case’s complexities. Initially trusting Hewitt as her sole advocate, she fails to grasp Stone’s primary role until confronted with Hewitt’s memory lapse. Her focus on Hewitt’s competence—rather than Stone’s reassurances—suggests anxiety about inadequate representation, compounded by her emotional outbursts (“tears in her eyes”). This underscores her vulnerability and potential unreliability as a client, hinting at undisclosed information about Libby.

      4. Why does Stone emphasize the importance of Allison’s full transparency about Libby, and what might her evasive response imply?

      Answer:
      Stone stresses transparency to avoid courtroom surprises (“I don’t want to get into that courtroom tomorrow and have Sir Winston raise something I’ve never heard about”). His insistence reflects legal strategy: withholding information risks undermining Allison’s defense. Her evasion (“No, certainly not”) and tears suggest guilt or fear, possibly indicating she knows damaging details about Libby (e.g., financial ties or motives for her death). This tension between Stone’s need for truth and Allison’s secrecy heightens suspense about her credibility and the case’s outcome.

      Answer:
      Hewitt highlights the cultural expectation of civility among St. Marks’ attorneys, chastising Stone for shouting at Sutherland. This contrasts with Stone’s confrontational style, shaped by U.S. legal adversarialism. The clash reveals deeper stakes: Sutherland’s influence makes rudeness professionally perilous, as Hewitt notes (“It could be the end of Allison”). Stone’s frustration (“he really began to get up my nose”) risks alienating a key power figure, illustrating how cultural missteps may jeopardize legal outcomes in foreign jurisdictions.

    Quotes

    • 1. “‘Leslie, may I remind you that I am Allison’s attorney, and you are a consultant on the case, hired to help me with the local judiciary at the trial. You are not the lead attorney, and I must ask you not to have meetings with my client from which I am excluded.’”

      This quote highlights the tension between Stone and Hewitt over legal authority in Allison’s case. It underscores Stone’s insistence on maintaining control as the lead attorney while revealing Hewitt’s overreach, setting up a conflict that threatens their professional dynamic.

      2. “‘Winston is not a man to be dallied with… He could be a very dangerous man to insult. I hope you did not insult him.’”

      Hewitt’s warning about Sir Winston Sutherland’s potential retaliation emphasizes the high-stakes political and legal environment of St. Marks. This foreshadows possible consequences for Stone and Allison, adding suspense to the narrative.

      3. “‘Allison, I don’t want you ever to meet alone with Leslie again… Leslie is not…the man he once was.’”

      Stone’s revelation about Hewitt’s declining mental state marks a turning point, exposing vulnerabilities in their legal team. This moment forces Allison (and the reader) to question the reliability of their allies in the upcoming trial.

      4. “‘Because this is no time to start withholding information from your lawyer. I need to know everything there is to know.’”

      Stone’s urgent plea to Allison underscores the chapter’s central theme of trust and transparency in legal defense. His suspicion that Allison may be hiding something about Libby creates dramatic tension and foreshadows potential revelations.

      5. “‘I wouldn’t lie to you,’ she sobbed. ‘Why don’t you believe me?’”

      Allison’s emotional outburst encapsulates the chapter’s exploration of truth and deception. Her defensive reaction to Stone’s questioning raises red flags about her credibility, leaving the reader uncertain about what she may truly know.

    Quotes

    1. “‘Leslie, may I remind you that I am Allison’s attorney, and you are a consultant on the case, hired to help me with the local judiciary at the trial. You are not the lead attorney, and I must ask you not to have meetings with my client from which I am excluded.’”

    This quote highlights the tension between Stone and Hewitt over legal authority in Allison’s case. It underscores Stone’s insistence on maintaining control as the lead attorney while revealing Hewitt’s overreach, setting up a conflict that threatens their professional dynamic.

    2. “‘Winston is not a man to be dallied with… He could be a very dangerous man to insult. I hope you did not insult him.’”

    Hewitt’s warning about Sir Winston Sutherland’s potential retaliation emphasizes the high-stakes political and legal environment of St. Marks. This foreshadows possible consequences for Stone and Allison, adding suspense to the narrative.

    3. “‘Allison, I don’t want you ever to meet alone with Leslie again… Leslie is not…the man he once was.’”

    Stone’s revelation about Hewitt’s declining mental state marks a turning point, exposing vulnerabilities in their legal team. This moment forces Allison (and the reader) to question the reliability of their allies in the upcoming trial.

    4. “‘Because this is no time to start withholding information from your lawyer. I need to know everything there is to know.’”

    Stone’s urgent plea to Allison underscores the chapter’s central theme of trust and transparency in legal defense. His suspicion that Allison may be hiding something about Libby creates dramatic tension and foreshadows potential revelations.

    5. “‘I wouldn’t lie to you,’ she sobbed. ‘Why don’t you believe me?’”

    Allison’s emotional outburst encapsulates the chapter’s exploration of truth and deception. Her defensive reaction to Stone’s questioning raises red flags about her credibility, leaving the reader uncertain about what she may truly know.

    FAQs

    1. What is the nature of the professional conflict between Stone and Leslie Hewitt regarding Allison Manning’s representation?

    Answer:
    The conflict stems from differing views on their roles in Allison Manning’s legal defense. Stone asserts that he is the lead attorney making case decisions, while Hewitt acts as a local consultant for navigating the judiciary. This escalates when Stone discovers Hewitt meeting alone with Allison, which he views as inappropriate since it excludes him. Hewitt counters that local law requires him to be the lead attorney, referencing Stone’s own court declaration. The tension highlights jurisdictional complexities in legal representation and the importance of clear role delineation in attorney-client relationships.

    2. How does Sir Winston Sutherland’s behavior during the lunch meeting foreshadow potential complications for Allison’s case?

    Answer:
    Sir Winston’s aggressive questioning about Libby and his volatile interaction with Stone (“we ended up shouting at each other”) suggest he may use his authority to retaliate. Hewitt warns that Sutherland is “a very dangerous man to insult” and that his retaliation “could be the end of Allison,” implying political or legal repercussions. This foreshadows potential judicial bias, unethical leverage (e.g., digging into Libby’s background), or procedural obstacles, emphasizing the high-stakes power dynamics in St. Marks’ legal system.

    Answer:
    Allison’s shock (“Doesn’t he know who I am anymore?”) and dismay (“I’m being represented by a lawyer who’s gaga?”) reveal her naivety about the case’s complexities. Initially trusting Hewitt as her sole advocate, she fails to grasp Stone’s primary role until confronted with Hewitt’s memory lapse. Her focus on Hewitt’s competence—rather than Stone’s reassurances—suggests anxiety about inadequate representation, compounded by her emotional outbursts (“tears in her eyes”). This underscores her vulnerability and potential unreliability as a client, hinting at undisclosed information about Libby.

    4. Why does Stone emphasize the importance of Allison’s full transparency about Libby, and what might her evasive response imply?

    Answer:
    Stone stresses transparency to avoid courtroom surprises (“I don’t want to get into that courtroom tomorrow and have Sir Winston raise something I’ve never heard about”). His insistence reflects legal strategy: withholding information risks undermining Allison’s defense. Her evasion (“No, certainly not”) and tears suggest guilt or fear, possibly indicating she knows damaging details about Libby (e.g., financial ties or motives for her death). This tension between Stone’s need for truth and Allison’s secrecy heightens suspense about her credibility and the case’s outcome.

    Answer:
    Hewitt highlights the cultural expectation of civility among St. Marks’ attorneys, chastising Stone for shouting at Sutherland. This contrasts with Stone’s confrontational style, shaped by U.S. legal adversarialism. The clash reveals deeper stakes: Sutherland’s influence makes rudeness professionally perilous, as Hewitt notes (“It could be the end of Allison”). Stone’s frustration (“he really began to get up my nose”) risks alienating a key power figure, illustrating how cultural missteps may jeopardize legal outcomes in foreign jurisdictions.

    Note