![Cover of [Stone Barrington 03] • Dead in the Water](https://static.beescdn.com/summaryer.com/2025/07/20250723073745562.jpg)
[Stone Barrington 03] • Dead in the Water
Chapter 56
by Stuart, Woods,The chapter opens with Sir Winston Sutherland delivering a dramatic closing argument, portraying Allison Manning as a manipulative murderer who killed her husband, Paul Manning, for financial gain. He paints a vivid picture of her alleged crimes, emphasizing the absence of physical evidence while appealing to the jury’s sense of justice. Sir Winston urges the jury to convict Allison, framing their decision as a moral duty to uphold St. Marks’ zero-tolerance stance toward murder. His argument relies heavily on emotional rhetoric, suggesting Allison exploited her husband’s trust and disposed of evidence in the vast Atlantic Ocean.
Sir Leslie Hewitt, the defense counsel, counters with a sharp critique of the prosecution’s lack of evidence and the biased nature of the trial. He dismisses the diary presented as proof of Allison’s guilt, arguing it was merely notes for Paul’s novel. Hewitt highlights the absurdity of condemning Allison for commonplace items like kitchen knives and harpoons, stressing that opportunity does not equate to guilt. He appeals to the jury’s conscience, reminding them of Allison’s credible testimony and the absence of witnesses supporting the prosecution’s claims. Hewitt’s closing emphasizes the jury’s responsibility to acquit an innocent woman.
The judge’s charge to the jury is notably brief, instructing them to deliberate based on the evidence and reach a majority verdict. Stone Barrington, Allison’s co-counsel, expresses disbelief at the judge’s lack of guidance, while Sir Leslie remains pragmatic about the jury’s dynamics. The chapter ends with the jury retiring to deliberate, leaving Allison and her legal team anxious about the outcome. Sir Leslie’s assessment of the jury’s potential biases—particularly their ties to Sir Winston—underscores the political undercurrents influencing the trial.
The tension builds as Allison joins her lawyers to await the verdict. Sir Leslie’s cautious optimism hinges on the foreman, his former tailor, and the younger juror’s susceptibility to peer pressure. Stone’s frustration with the judicial process reflects the high stakes of the case. The chapter leaves readers questioning whether justice will prevail or if the trial’s outcome will be swayed by Sir Winston’s influence and the jury’s vulnerabilities. The unresolved verdict sets the stage for the next chapter’s climax.
FAQs
1. What are the key arguments presented by Sir Winston Sutherland in his closing statement, and how do they attempt to portray Allison Manning?
Answer:
Sir Winston Sutherland’s closing argument frames Allison Manning as a calculating murderer motivated by greed. He emphasizes Paul Manning’s generosity (providing a lavish lifestyle) and contrasts it with Allison’s alleged betrayal. Sir Winston paints a vivid picture of the yacht as a “utensil of death,” suggesting weapons were disposed of at sea, though no evidence is provided. He appeals to the jury’s sense of justice by invoking St. Marks’ zero-tolerance for murder and frames the verdict as a civic duty. Notably, he relies on emotional rhetoric (e.g., “evil incarnate in the form of a pretty woman”) and Paul’s diary—claimed to show suspicion—to imply premeditation, despite the diary’s disputed authenticity.2. How does Sir Leslie Hewitt counter the prosecution’s case in his closing argument, and what strategies does he use to persuade the jury?
Answer:
Sir Leslie Hewitt dismantles the prosecution’s case by highlighting its lack of evidence. He critiques the diary as novel notes, normalizes the presence of knives on a yacht, and points out the absence of witnesses or physical proof. He humanizes Allison by describing her happy marriage and truthful testimony, appealing to the jury’s empathy. Strategically, he contrasts the prosecution’s “bluster” with Allison’s credibility and frames acquittal as a moral imperative: jurors must live with their decision. He also subtly critiques the justice system’s bias (“power in too few hands”), though this draws judicial rebuke. His concise, impassioned plea focuses on reasonable doubt and the jury’s conscience.3. Analyze the judge’s role in this chapter. How does his conduct influence the trial’s fairness, and what might this suggest about St. Marks’ legal system?
Answer:
The judge demonstrates clear bias, interrupting Sir Leslie’s criticism of the prosecution while allowing Sir Winston’s inflammatory rhetoric. His minimal jury charge—omitting standard instructions on reasonable doubt—suggests haste or disinterest in due process. He threatens Sir Leslie for challenging the system, implying intolerance for dissent. This conduct reflects a justice system prioritizing expediency and authority over fairness, where verdicts may hinge on political influence (“vulnerability to [Sir Winston’s] whim”). The judge’s failure to ensure balanced proceedings underscores a theme of institutional power overshadowing justice, aligning with Sir Leslie’s warning about “power in too few hands.”4. How does the chapter use contrasting rhetorical styles in the closing arguments to shape the reader’s perception of the trial’s outcome?
Answer:
Sir Winston employs dramatic, accusatory language (“evil incarnate,” “devil”) to evoke fear and moral outrage, relying on hypotheticals (“the Atlantic Ocean is a very large rubbish bin”) to compensate for absent evidence. In contrast, Sir Leslie uses logic and understatement (“not one whit of evidence”), appealing to reason and personal integrity. The prosecution’s theatricality contrasts with the defense’s restrained urgency, mirroring the tension between emotion and facts in the trial. This duality leaves the outcome ambiguous—while Sir Winston’s narrative is gripping, Sir Leslie’s emphasis on accountability may resonate more with jurors (and readers) valuing truth over spectacle.5. What broader themes about justice and power are explored through the trial dynamics in this chapter?
Answer:
The chapter critiques corruptible justice systems where power trumps truth. Sir Winston’s unchecked authority (he both prosecutes and influences jurors) exemplifies tyranny, while the judge’s complicity highlights institutional decay. Sir Leslie’s struggle to defend Allison—despite evidence—reveals how legal systems can weaponize procedure against the innocent. The jury’s potential vulnerability to “whim” underscores the fragility of fairness in autocratic settings. Themes of gendered bias also emerge, as Allison is demonized as a “pretty woman” capable of deceit. Ultimately, the trial becomes a microcosm of societal power imbalances, questioning whether justice is possible when systems prioritize control over equity.
Quotes
1. “Today you have seen evil incarnate in the form of a pretty woman, not the first time the devil has used this form.”
This dramatic opening line from Sir Winston’s closing argument frames the prosecution’s entire case, portraying Allison Manning as a deceptive femme fatale who weaponized her appearance to commit murder. It establishes the chapter’s central conflict and the prosecution’s misogynistic undertones.
2. “In St. Marks we do not placidly accept the murder of human beings. We have constructed a system of justice which has no tolerance for murderers and which rids us of them with dispatch.”
This quote reveals the authoritarian nature of St. Marks’ legal system, emphasizing swift punishment over careful deliberation. It highlights the political subtext of the trial and the high stakes for the defense.
3. “Today you have been treated to a demonstration of what happens when too much power collects in too few hands.”
Sir Leslie’s bold opening counterargument directly challenges the island’s power structure. This politically charged statement nearly earns him a contempt citation, representing the defense’s strategy to frame the trial as an abuse of power rather than a search for truth.
4. “The very last person to see Paul Manning alive other than Mrs. Manning, Mr. Forrester, someone who knew Mr. Manning well, has testified that he witnessed a happy marriage in the days before the couple sailed from the Canaries.”
This key evidentiary argument from the defense dismantles the prosecution’s motive theory. It represents the factual core of the defense case, contrasting sharply with Sir Winston’s emotional appeals and lack of concrete evidence.
5. “Do you wish to spend the rest of your days in the knowledge that you convicted an honest woman on no evidence? Of course not!”
Sir Leslie’s closing appeal to the jurors’ conscience serves as the emotional climax of the chapter. This rhetorical question encapsulates the defense’s moral argument and the fundamental question of justice versus power that underlies the entire trial.