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 43

    by Stuart, Woods,

    Stone meets Jim For­rester at a bar to rehearse his tes­ti­mo­ny for an upcom­ing tri­al. Stone empha­sizes the impor­tance of clar­i­ty and con­sis­ten­cy in Jim’s answers, guid­ing him on how to respond to ques­tions about his rela­tion­ship with Paul Man­ning, the defen­dant. They dis­cuss details like their col­lege bas­ket­ball con­nec­tion and their reunion in the Canary Islands, where Jim observed Manning’s hap­py mar­riage. Stone care­ful­ly refines Jim’s phras­ing to present a favor­able impres­sion to the jury, par­tic­u­lar­ly high­light­ing Manning’s affec­tion for his wife and their seem­ing­ly har­mo­nious rela­tion­ship.

    The rehearsal con­tin­ues as Stone prompts Jim to describe Manning’s per­son­al­i­ty and their inter­ac­tions, ensur­ing Jim’s tes­ti­mo­ny aligns with the defense’s nar­ra­tive. Jim recalls Manning’s out­go­ing nature and the couple’s affec­tion­ate behav­ior, which Stone under­scores as key points for the jury. They also review the time­line of events, includ­ing Jim’s brief encoun­ters with the Man­nings before their Atlantic voy­age. Stone is pleased with Jim’s account, espe­cial­ly the image of the cou­ple wav­ing and hold­ing hands as they sailed away, leav­ing a pos­i­tive final impres­sion.

    After con­clud­ing with Jim, Stone heads to the mari­na to meet Alli­son Man­ning, the defen­dant. As they pre­pare to review her tes­ti­mo­ny, Stone notices her casu­al attire and strug­gles to rec­on­cile her appear­ance with the mur­der charges. Their con­ver­sa­tion is inter­rupt­ed when Stone reads a fax Thomas had giv­en him ear­li­er, which vis­i­bly unset­tles him. Alli­son notices his dis­tress and asks what’s wrong, but Stone’s reac­tion sug­gests the fax con­tains trou­bling infor­ma­tion.

    The chap­ter ends on a sus­pense­ful note as Stone hands the fax to Alli­son, leav­ing the con­tent undis­closed but imply­ing it could sig­nif­i­cant­ly impact the case or their rela­tion­ship. The scene under­scores the ten­sion sur­round­ing the tri­al and the uncer­tain­ty about Allison’s inno­cence, while also hint­ing at a poten­tial twist in the nar­ra­tive. Stone’s pro­fes­sion­al­ism con­trasts with his per­son­al doubts, adding depth to the legal and emo­tion­al stakes of the sto­ry.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What is the purpose of Stone’s meeting with Jim Forrester, and what key details do they review about Paul Manning?

      Answer:
      Stone meets with Jim Forrester to prepare him for his courtroom testimony, ensuring their accounts align. They rehearse questions Stone will ask during the trial, refining Forrester’s responses for clarity and impact. Key details reviewed include Forrester’s past acquaintance with Paul Manning (their college basketball connection), their reunion in the Canary Islands, and observations about Manning’s marriage. Forrester emphasizes Manning’s friendly personality, his affection for his wife, and their seemingly happy relationship—highlighting moments like their physical touch and cheerful departure from Puerto Rico. Stone stresses the importance of these details to counter potential cross-examination about the depth of Forrester’s knowledge of the couple.

      2. How does Stone guide Forrester in tailoring his testimony for the jury, and why are these adjustments significant?

      Answer:
      Stone advises Forrester to simplify jargon (e.g., replacing “Sigma Alpha Epsilon” with “club”) and omit unnecessary details (e.g., “we weren’t close”) to make his testimony more accessible to the St. Marks jury, who may lack familiarity with American college culture. He also encourages Forrester to emphasize vivid, emotional details (e.g., the Mannings’ affectionate touching) to leave a lasting impression. These adjustments are crucial because they ensure the jury focuses on the couple’s harmonious relationship, which supports Stone’s case. By avoiding ambiguity and reinforcing positive imagery, Stone aims to preempt skepticism during cross-examination.

      3. Analyze the significance of the fax Stone receives and Allison’s reaction to it. What might this imply for the story’s progression?

      Answer:
      The fax, unexpectedly delivered in an envelope by Thomas, visibly shocks Stone, leaving him “numb.” Allison’s alarmed response (“You look awful”) suggests the document contains distressing information, possibly related to the trial or her own credibility. Given the context—Stone is about to review Allison’s testimony—the fax may reveal incriminating evidence about her involvement in the case or contradict her account. This moment creates suspense, foreshadowing a potential turning point in the trial or Stone’s perception of Allison’s innocence, complicating their preparation and the narrative’s direction.

      4. How does the chapter use dialogue to reveal Stone’s professionalism and Forrester’s reliability as a witness?

      Answer:
      The dialogue showcases Stone’s meticulous approach as he drills Forrester on precise wording (“Just say club”) and anticipates courtroom tactics (“Sir Winston may worm that out of you”). His interruptions to correct inconsistencies (e.g., the yacht club vs. marina detail) highlight his attention to detail. Forrester’s willingness to adapt—admitting mistakes (“the booze must be going to my head”) and incorporating feedback—demonstrates his cooperation and honesty, traits that bolster his credibility. Their exchange underscores Stone’s role as a strategic lawyer and Forrester’s value as a witness whose testimony, though imperfect, can be polished for impact.

      5. Evaluate the symbolic contrast between Allison’s appearance and the fax’s revelation. How might this deepen the story’s tension?

      Answer:
      Allison is described in carefree attire (“tight shorts and shirt tied under her breasts”), which Stone associates with innocence (“She couldn’t be a murderer”). This image sharply contrasts with the fax’s ominous content, which shatters his confidence in her. The juxtaposition creates dramatic irony: the audience senses impending betrayal, while Stone grapples with cognitive dissonance. This tension escalates as the chapter ends, leaving readers to question Allison’s true nature and whether Stone’s emotional bias has clouded his judgment—a pivotal moment that could redefine the trial’s stakes and their relationship.

    Quotes

    • 1. “‘Wig? You have to wear a wig?’ ‘I’m afraid so. You’ll have to try not to laugh; it wouldn’t look good for me in front of the jury.’”

      This exchange highlights the cultural differences in courtroom formalities and adds a moment of levity while underscoring the seriousness of jury perception in the upcoming trial.

      2. “‘They were good together; they obviously loved each other. They touched each other a lot, and always with affection.’”

      Jim Forrester’s testimony about Paul and Allison Manning’s relationship is crucial to establishing their happy marriage, which becomes a key point in the trial’s narrative about Allison’s character.

      3. “‘Very much so. They were holding hands.’ ‘Great!’ Stone said. ‘I like that as a memory to leave the jury with.’”

      This moment captures Stone’s strategic thinking as a lawyer, emphasizing how he carefully crafts witness testimony to create lasting, favorable impressions on the jury.

      4. “She couldn’t be a murderer, he thought; she just couldn’t be.”

      Stone’s internal conflict about Allison’s innocence reveals his growing personal involvement in the case and sets up the dramatic tension before he reads the fax.

      5. “‘Stone,’ Allison said, concern in her voice, ‘what’s wrong? You look awful.’ He felt more numb than awful. He handed her the fax.”

      This cliffhanger ending leaves readers wondering about the fax’s contents, creating suspense and anticipation for the next chapter’s revelations.

    Quotes

    1. “‘Wig? You have to wear a wig?’ ‘I’m afraid so. You’ll have to try not to laugh; it wouldn’t look good for me in front of the jury.’”

    This exchange highlights the cultural differences in courtroom formalities and adds a moment of levity while underscoring the seriousness of jury perception in the upcoming trial.

    2. “‘They were good together; they obviously loved each other. They touched each other a lot, and always with affection.’”

    Jim Forrester’s testimony about Paul and Allison Manning’s relationship is crucial to establishing their happy marriage, which becomes a key point in the trial’s narrative about Allison’s character.

    3. “‘Very much so. They were holding hands.’ ‘Great!’ Stone said. ‘I like that as a memory to leave the jury with.’”

    This moment captures Stone’s strategic thinking as a lawyer, emphasizing how he carefully crafts witness testimony to create lasting, favorable impressions on the jury.

    4. “She couldn’t be a murderer, he thought; she just couldn’t be.”

    Stone’s internal conflict about Allison’s innocence reveals his growing personal involvement in the case and sets up the dramatic tension before he reads the fax.

    5. “‘Stone,’ Allison said, concern in her voice, ‘what’s wrong? You look awful.’ He felt more numb than awful. He handed her the fax.”

    This cliffhanger ending leaves readers wondering about the fax’s contents, creating suspense and anticipation for the next chapter’s revelations.

    FAQs

    1. What is the purpose of Stone’s meeting with Jim Forrester, and what key details do they review about Paul Manning?

    Answer:
    Stone meets with Jim Forrester to prepare him for his courtroom testimony, ensuring their accounts align. They rehearse questions Stone will ask during the trial, refining Forrester’s responses for clarity and impact. Key details reviewed include Forrester’s past acquaintance with Paul Manning (their college basketball connection), their reunion in the Canary Islands, and observations about Manning’s marriage. Forrester emphasizes Manning’s friendly personality, his affection for his wife, and their seemingly happy relationship—highlighting moments like their physical touch and cheerful departure from Puerto Rico. Stone stresses the importance of these details to counter potential cross-examination about the depth of Forrester’s knowledge of the couple.

    2. How does Stone guide Forrester in tailoring his testimony for the jury, and why are these adjustments significant?

    Answer:
    Stone advises Forrester to simplify jargon (e.g., replacing “Sigma Alpha Epsilon” with “club”) and omit unnecessary details (e.g., “we weren’t close”) to make his testimony more accessible to the St. Marks jury, who may lack familiarity with American college culture. He also encourages Forrester to emphasize vivid, emotional details (e.g., the Mannings’ affectionate touching) to leave a lasting impression. These adjustments are crucial because they ensure the jury focuses on the couple’s harmonious relationship, which supports Stone’s case. By avoiding ambiguity and reinforcing positive imagery, Stone aims to preempt skepticism during cross-examination.

    3. Analyze the significance of the fax Stone receives and Allison’s reaction to it. What might this imply for the story’s progression?

    Answer:
    The fax, unexpectedly delivered in an envelope by Thomas, visibly shocks Stone, leaving him “numb.” Allison’s alarmed response (“You look awful”) suggests the document contains distressing information, possibly related to the trial or her own credibility. Given the context—Stone is about to review Allison’s testimony—the fax may reveal incriminating evidence about her involvement in the case or contradict her account. This moment creates suspense, foreshadowing a potential turning point in the trial or Stone’s perception of Allison’s innocence, complicating their preparation and the narrative’s direction.

    4. How does the chapter use dialogue to reveal Stone’s professionalism and Forrester’s reliability as a witness?

    Answer:
    The dialogue showcases Stone’s meticulous approach as he drills Forrester on precise wording (“Just say club”) and anticipates courtroom tactics (“Sir Winston may worm that out of you”). His interruptions to correct inconsistencies (e.g., the yacht club vs. marina detail) highlight his attention to detail. Forrester’s willingness to adapt—admitting mistakes (“the booze must be going to my head”) and incorporating feedback—demonstrates his cooperation and honesty, traits that bolster his credibility. Their exchange underscores Stone’s role as a strategic lawyer and Forrester’s value as a witness whose testimony, though imperfect, can be polished for impact.

    5. Evaluate the symbolic contrast between Allison’s appearance and the fax’s revelation. How might this deepen the story’s tension?

    Answer:
    Allison is described in carefree attire (“tight shorts and shirt tied under her breasts”), which Stone associates with innocence (“She couldn’t be a murderer”). This image sharply contrasts with the fax’s ominous content, which shatters his confidence in her. The juxtaposition creates dramatic irony: the audience senses impending betrayal, while Stone grapples with cognitive dissonance. This tension escalates as the chapter ends, leaving readers to question Allison’s true nature and whether Stone’s emotional bias has clouded his judgment—a pivotal moment that could redefine the trial’s stakes and their relationship.

    Note