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 47

    by Stuart, Woods,

    Stone returns down­stairs to find Sten­dahl at the bar and joins jour­nal­ists Hilary Kramer and Jim For­rester at their table. Curi­ous about Stendahl’s iden­ti­ty, Stone asks For­rester to engage him in con­ver­sa­tion, sus­pect­ing he might be con­nect­ed to the tri­al. For­rester oblig­es and lat­er reveals Sten­dahl is a life insur­ance sales­man from Boston, dis­pelling Stone’s ini­tial sus­pi­cions. Mean­while, Stone and Kramer dis­cuss Forrester’s report­ing style, with Kramer not­ing his excep­tion­al mem­o­ry and curios­i­ty, though she jokes about his ret­i­cence in shar­ing per­son­al details.

    The con­ver­sa­tion shifts to Stone’s per­son­al life when Kramer probes his involve­ment in the Alli­son Man­ning case. Stone con­fides that his girl­friend, Arring­ton Carter, left him for actor Vance Calder, mar­ry­ing him abrupt­ly. Kramer rec­og­nizes Arrington’s name but agrees to keep the sto­ry con­fi­den­tial, despite its poten­tial as a gos­sip col­umn scoop. Stone empha­sizes the need for pri­va­cy, urg­ing Kramer not to pub­lish the news, as the Calders wish to con­trol its release. This rev­e­la­tion adds a per­son­al lay­er to Stone’s pres­ence in St. Marks.

    For­rester returns from his inter­ac­tion with Sten­dahl, pro­vid­ing a detailed account of the man’s back­ground, includ­ing his divorce and career. Stone, still skep­ti­cal, won­ders if Sten­dahl could be Paul Man­ning, Allison’s pre­sumed-dead hus­band, giv­en their sim­i­lar build. For­rester dis­miss­es the idea, cit­ing dif­fer­ences in man­ner­isms and appear­ance. Stone mus­es how Manning’s reap­pear­ance would sim­pli­fy the tri­al, but For­rester reas­sures him Sten­dahl is not Man­ning. Kramer humor­ous­ly imag­ines the court­room chaos if Man­ning were to reveal him­self, light­en­ing the mood.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with the group laugh­ing at the absur­di­ty of the hypo­thet­i­cal sce­nario. Stone’s lin­ger­ing doubts about Sten­dahl high­light his des­per­a­tion for a res­o­lu­tion to the Man­ning case, while the ban­ter among the char­ac­ters under­scores the ten­sion between pro­fes­sion­al curios­i­ty and per­son­al bound­aries. The inter­play of inves­tiga­tive intrigue and per­son­al dra­ma keeps the nar­ra­tive engag­ing, blend­ing humor with under­ly­ing stakes.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What is Stone’s motivation for asking Jim Forrester to speak with Stendahl at the bar, and what does this reveal about Stone’s concerns regarding the trial?

      Answer:
      Stone asks Jim Forrester to speak with Stendahl because he suspects the man might be connected to the trial in some significant way, possibly as a “camp follower” (someone following the trial with vested interest). His deeper concern is revealed when he later asks if Stendahl reminds Forrester of Paul Manning—suggesting Stone entertains the wild possibility that Manning might still be alive. This shows Stone is grappling with the trial’s complications and secretly hopes for a resolution that would exonerate Allison Manning by proving her husband faked his death.

      2. How does the conversation between Stone and Hilary Kramer about Arrington Carter contribute to character development and thematic elements in the chapter?

      Answer:
      The personal revelation about Arrington Carter’s marriage to Vance Calder serves multiple purposes: it deepens Stone’s character by showing his personal vulnerabilities amid professional challenges, contrasts with the trial’s tension through a parallel betrayal theme, and establishes trust dynamics between Stone and Kramer. Kramer’s journalistic instincts (“I wonder if I can still make tomorrow’s paper”) clash with her promise to Stone, illustrating the tension between personal ethics and professional ambition—a theme mirroring Stone’s own conflicts between legal duty and personal desires.

      3. Analyze the significance of Jim Forrester’s assessment that Stendahl is “very different” from Paul Manning. How does this moment function structurally in the narrative?

      Answer:
      Forrester’s definitive rejection of the Stendahl-Manning theory acts as a narrative pivot, dashing Stone’s fleeting hope for an easy resolution to the trial. Structurally, it shifts the focus back to the inevitability of the legal proceedings while heightening dramatic irony—readers now know Stone’s desperation, even as other characters laugh off the hypothetical scenario (“It would be funny…”). This reinforces the chapter’s exploration of wishful thinking versus reality, a tension that persists through Stone’s later sigh: “It certainly would [solve problems].”

      4. What does Hilary Kramer’s reaction to the Arrington Carter news reveal about her journalistic priorities and her relationship with Stone?

      Answer:
      Kramer’s immediate instinct to publish the scoop (“I wonder if I can still make tomorrow’s paper”) underscores her identity as a competitive reporter, while her subsequent resignation (“Oh, shit, I promised”) shows grudging respect for personal boundaries with Stone. Their banter about Forrester’s potential homosexuality and her “charms” being wasted on him establishes a rapport that makes her restraint meaningful—she values Stone’s trust more than the career boost. This dynamic previews future collaborations where professional and personal lines may blur.

      5. Evaluate the chapter’s use of humor in the final scene. How does it contrast with the underlying seriousness of the trial’s stakes?

      Answer:
      The group’s laughter at the imagined scenario of Stendahl revealing himself as Manning (“I am the deceased!”) uses dark humor to momentarily relieve tension, but the joke’s premise—a man potentially faking his death—mirrors the trial’s life-or-death gravity. This contrast emphasizes how characters use wit to cope with stress. Forrester’s quip about Stendahl being “a life insurance salesman” who nearly sold him coverage adds irony, as insurance fraud could theoretically relate to Manning’s disappearance, layering the humor with thematic resonance.

    Quotes

    • 1. “‘Well, Jim will worm it out of him; he’s endlessly curious, a typical reporter—asks hundreds of questions, answers few.’”

      This quote highlights the nature of investigative journalism and Jim Forrester’s character as a persistent reporter. It sets up the dynamic between the characters and foreshadows Forrester’s later interaction with Stendahl.

      2. “‘Stone, while I’m in my Hildy mode, did you really just stumble into the Allison Manning mess, or is there something more to it?’”

      This moment reveals Hilary Kramer’s journalistic instincts and skepticism, probing Stone’s involvement in the case. It underscores the theme of hidden motives and the complexity of the trial’s backstory.

      3. “‘It would get Allison off, but Stendahl would sure be in a lot of trouble.’”

      This quote captures the moral and legal dilemma at the heart of the chapter—the tension between freeing Allison Manning and implicating Stendahl. It reflects the ethical questions surrounding the trial’s outcome.

      4. “‘It would be funny, wouldn’t it? Stendahl/Manning stands up in court and says, “I am the deceased; let my wife go!” I can just see Sir Winston’s face.’”

      This humorous yet insightful remark by Forrester encapsulates the absurdity and irony of the situation. It also serves as a turning point, lightening the mood while still addressing the serious implications of the case.

      5. “‘My life would certainly be a lot simpler if Paul Manning walked in here and sat down at the bar.’”

      Stone’s wistful comment reveals his personal stakes in the trial and his desire for a straightforward resolution. It underscores the chapter’s exploration of identity, deception, and justice.

    Quotes

    1. “‘Well, Jim will worm it out of him; he’s endlessly curious, a typical reporter—asks hundreds of questions, answers few.’”

    This quote highlights the nature of investigative journalism and Jim Forrester’s character as a persistent reporter. It sets up the dynamic between the characters and foreshadows Forrester’s later interaction with Stendahl.

    2. “‘Stone, while I’m in my Hildy mode, did you really just stumble into the Allison Manning mess, or is there something more to it?’”

    This moment reveals Hilary Kramer’s journalistic instincts and skepticism, probing Stone’s involvement in the case. It underscores the theme of hidden motives and the complexity of the trial’s backstory.

    3. “‘It would get Allison off, but Stendahl would sure be in a lot of trouble.’”

    This quote captures the moral and legal dilemma at the heart of the chapter—the tension between freeing Allison Manning and implicating Stendahl. It reflects the ethical questions surrounding the trial’s outcome.

    4. “‘It would be funny, wouldn’t it? Stendahl/Manning stands up in court and says, “I am the deceased; let my wife go!” I can just see Sir Winston’s face.’”

    This humorous yet insightful remark by Forrester encapsulates the absurdity and irony of the situation. It also serves as a turning point, lightening the mood while still addressing the serious implications of the case.

    5. “‘My life would certainly be a lot simpler if Paul Manning walked in here and sat down at the bar.’”

    Stone’s wistful comment reveals his personal stakes in the trial and his desire for a straightforward resolution. It underscores the chapter’s exploration of identity, deception, and justice.

    FAQs

    1. What is Stone’s motivation for asking Jim Forrester to speak with Stendahl at the bar, and what does this reveal about Stone’s concerns regarding the trial?

    Answer:
    Stone asks Jim Forrester to speak with Stendahl because he suspects the man might be connected to the trial in some significant way, possibly as a “camp follower” (someone following the trial with vested interest). His deeper concern is revealed when he later asks if Stendahl reminds Forrester of Paul Manning—suggesting Stone entertains the wild possibility that Manning might still be alive. This shows Stone is grappling with the trial’s complications and secretly hopes for a resolution that would exonerate Allison Manning by proving her husband faked his death.

    2. How does the conversation between Stone and Hilary Kramer about Arrington Carter contribute to character development and thematic elements in the chapter?

    Answer:
    The personal revelation about Arrington Carter’s marriage to Vance Calder serves multiple purposes: it deepens Stone’s character by showing his personal vulnerabilities amid professional challenges, contrasts with the trial’s tension through a parallel betrayal theme, and establishes trust dynamics between Stone and Kramer. Kramer’s journalistic instincts (“I wonder if I can still make tomorrow’s paper”) clash with her promise to Stone, illustrating the tension between personal ethics and professional ambition—a theme mirroring Stone’s own conflicts between legal duty and personal desires.

    3. Analyze the significance of Jim Forrester’s assessment that Stendahl is “very different” from Paul Manning. How does this moment function structurally in the narrative?

    Answer:
    Forrester’s definitive rejection of the Stendahl-Manning theory acts as a narrative pivot, dashing Stone’s fleeting hope for an easy resolution to the trial. Structurally, it shifts the focus back to the inevitability of the legal proceedings while heightening dramatic irony—readers now know Stone’s desperation, even as other characters laugh off the hypothetical scenario (“It would be funny…”). This reinforces the chapter’s exploration of wishful thinking versus reality, a tension that persists through Stone’s later sigh: “It certainly would [solve problems].”

    4. What does Hilary Kramer’s reaction to the Arrington Carter news reveal about her journalistic priorities and her relationship with Stone?

    Answer:
    Kramer’s immediate instinct to publish the scoop (“I wonder if I can still make tomorrow’s paper”) underscores her identity as a competitive reporter, while her subsequent resignation (“Oh, shit, I promised”) shows grudging respect for personal boundaries with Stone. Their banter about Forrester’s potential homosexuality and her “charms” being wasted on him establishes a rapport that makes her restraint meaningful—she values Stone’s trust more than the career boost. This dynamic previews future collaborations where professional and personal lines may blur.

    5. Evaluate the chapter’s use of humor in the final scene. How does it contrast with the underlying seriousness of the trial’s stakes?

    Answer:
    The group’s laughter at the imagined scenario of Stendahl revealing himself as Manning (“I am the deceased!”) uses dark humor to momentarily relieve tension, but the joke’s premise—a man potentially faking his death—mirrors the trial’s life-or-death gravity. This contrast emphasizes how characters use wit to cope with stress. Forrester’s quip about Stendahl being “a life insurance salesman” who nearly sold him coverage adds irony, as insurance fraud could theoretically relate to Manning’s disappearance, layering the humor with thematic resonance.

    Note