Chapter 14 - The Money Before Mourning
The financial case was cleaner than the homicide case.
Bank experts traced three disputed transfers from Sarah’s accounts to Vanessa.
Device:
Vanessa’s laptop.
Authentication:
Sarah’s phone.
Sarah’s phone location:
Our home.
Vanessa present.
Sarah’s calendar:
V moved money? Bank alert weird. Ask Mike.
Date after first transfer.
I had never seen alert.
Where did it go?
Deleted email found in trash:
Bank security notice.
Accessed at 9:12 p.m.
Deleted at 9:14.
Who used Sarah’s device?
Unknown.
But Vanessa’s laptop initiated.
That was enough for fraud allegation.
One transfer memo:
care debt
Sarah had written Jennifer:
I never agreed to pay Vanessa beyond gas/groceries.
Receipts showed some legitimate reimbursements around $4,600.
Not $31,000.
Prosecutors alleged Vanessa stole approximately $26,000 net.
Then cash deposits after death traced partially to sale of Sarah’s jewelry.
I froze.
What jewelry?
My grandmother's diamond? No, Sarah’s grandmother’s bracelet, two rings.
I thought Sarah’s sister took them.
Jennifer thought I did.
Vanessa sold them at estate jewelry shop two months after death.
Shop records included her ID.
Proceeds:
$17,400.
She had no authority.
That pushed total theft higher.
Why did she keep Sarah’s clothes and devices?
Possibly to control what remained.
Possibly sentimental.
Evidence suggested both.
Grant told me:
“Financial motive exists. But we still should not tell jury she killed for money unless charging theory supports.”
“What is charging theory?”
“Recklessly administering discontinued medication despite warnings, contributing to death. Financial theft and personal obsession may explain behavior, but we’re not required to prove one motive.”
I nodded.
Lily’s case prepared too.
Dr. Brooks would testify about dehydration and bruises.
Toxicologist about low level sedative exposure.
Dr. Morgan? Therapists often limited due privilege. Better forensic interviewer and medical team, not therapist. Lily might testify via protected methods depending age. Prosecutors tried to avoid if other evidence sufficient but defendant has confrontation rights. The court later allowed recorded forensic interview for some purposes? Complex. Better say Lily testified in a child-friendly courtroom setup with accommodations, brief, not graphic. We'll get there.
Vanessa rejected plea offer.
What offer?
Guilty to involuntary manslaughter, child abuse, financial fraud, with significant prison recommendation and dismissal of some overlapping counts.
She refused.
Why?
According to lawyer, she insisted Sarah self medicated and Lily lied.
Trial.
I dreaded.
Lily said:
“Do I have to see her?”
“No direct contact if court can arrange protections.”
“Do I have to talk?”
“Maybe.”
She cried.
I hated system.
But Dr. Morgan prepared her around process, not content.
Tell truth.
Say “I don’t know” when you don’t.
Correct adults.
Ask for break.
No rehearsing answers.
One afternoon Lily said:
“What if I remember wrong?”
“Then say what you remember and what you don’t.”
“What if Vanessa says I lied?”
“She can say things.”
“Will jury believe?”
“I don’t know.”
She looked annoyed.
“Dad, you say I don’t know a lot.”
“Yes.”
“Adults should know more.”
“I agree.”
She almost smiled.
Then:
“Mom knew Vanessa was bad.”
I corrected gently.
“Mom knew she was scared.”
“What’s difference?”
“Bad is a whole person. Scared is what Mom felt.”
She thought.
“You still love Mom?”
“Yes.”
“Even though she died?”
“Yes.”
“Do you love Vanessa?”
“No.”
May you like
Direct.
That was easy.
