Chapter 15 - The River Trial
I testified first among family.
“Who was driving?”
“Garrett.”
“Did you grab steering wheel?”
“No.”
“Were you restrained?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know restraint existed?”
“No.”
“Did Garrett leave vehicle?”
“Yes.”
“What did you say?”
“Garrett, Tobias is still in here.”
“What did he do?”
“Swam away.”
Then Penelope on shore.
“What did you see?”
“My husband hold my pregnant half-sister while they watched us sink.”
Defense objected to emotional phrasing? It's observation.
Then cross.
“Mrs. Hayes, your marriage was troubled?”
“I did not know it was.”
“You and Garrett argued about business.”
“Yes.”
“You opposed his proposals.”
“Yes.”
“You had discussed divorce?”
“No.”
“Never?”
“No.”
Then:
“You were angry seeing Penelope.”
“After he abandoned us in sinking car, yes.”
Then Tobias.
Defense:
“You lied to Rosalind for four years.”
“Yes.”
“You lied to public about ability to walk.”
“I allowed people to assume less function than I had.”
“Why?”
“Private investigation.”
“Convenient.”
“Yes.”
Then benefit fraud insinuation.
Records showed none.
Defense moved on.
Then:
“You carried rescue equipment because you expected attack?”
“I expected risk.”
“So you entered vehicle prepared to stage survival?”
“No.”
“You wanted Garrett caught.”
“I wanted my sister alive.”
Then Penelope.
She admitted everything.
Defense attacked deal.
“You hope for reduced sentence.”
“Yes.”
“You murdered no one because they survived.”
“I agreed they should die.”
That was powerful.
Then:
“Garrett forced you?”
“No.”
“Threatened?”
“Later.”
“But you wanted shares.”
“Yes.”
“Resented siblings.”
“Yes.”
“Could you have planned without Garrett?”
“No.”
“Could Garrett have planned without you?”
“Yes.”
Her answer hurt him.
Then messages.
Be at Savannah overlook.
Bring umbrella.
No other version.
Then forensic experts.
Vehicle preparation.
Event data.
Escape path.
No need to repeat technical detail.
Then 911 call.
Garrett:
“My wife grabbed wheel.”
Lie.
Then detectives told him we survived.
“How?”
Audio.
Jury heard.
One word.
Then Garrett testified.
He said affair with Penelope true.
Pregnancy true.
Inheritance discussions true.
But river was accident.
Messages about “no other version” referred to leaving marriage and business transition.
“Bring umbrella” because weather.
“Be at overlook” because Penelope was supposed to meet after he told me affair.
He claimed he planned to confess that night.
Why donor dinner route?
Coincidence.
Then restraint.
Someone else.
Who?
Possibly Tobias.
Defense suggested Tobias set up vehicle to frame Garrett.
Absurd? They needed theory.
Tobias had access to SUV during event? Vehicle valet area maybe. But he would trap himself too. Defense said he planned escape because rescue gear and secret mobility.
Prosecutor asked:
“So Tobias tied his own wheelchair down, trapped his sister, and trusted Garrett would drive through barrier?”
Garrett said:
“I don't know what he did.”
Weak.
Then Penelope.
He called her unstable and resentful.
“She wanted company more than I did.”
Messages contradicted.
Then AFTER WATER.
He said estate planning.
“People with complicated family trusts plan contingencies.”
True generally.
But why before deaths?
“Risk management.”
Then prosecutor:
“Did you research what happens if Penelope dies after childbirth?”
“I researched guardianship.”
“Without telling her?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Because she was emotional.”
The word hurt him.
Then one final document.
Garrett’s note:
No half measures.
“What did you mean?”
He said:
“Business.”
Prosecutor:
“Written beneath ‘Father tried fear. It got two people killed and still didn’t get yard.’”
Silence.
Then:
“Mr. Hayes, what half measure were you rejecting?”
Garrett looked toward me.
For first time, no answer.
Jury deliberated three days.
Verdict:
Guilty attempted murder of Rosalind.
Guilty attempted murder of Tobias.
Guilty conspiracy with Penelope.
Guilty evidence tampering and false emergency statement-related counts.
Not guilty on one more serious count alleging a specific aggravating financial motive beyond reasonable doubt? But financial motive well proven. Maybe not guilty one count of attempted murder for financial gain enhancement if jurisdiction requires. Fine.
He was remanded.
No smile.
May you like
No final threat.
Just man in suit standing while law finally refused his version.
