Chapter 10 - Sophia Says Guilty
Sophia wore navy.
No jewelry.
Her hair pulled back.
She looked twenty again.
The judge asked:
“Did you knowingly agree with Marcus Greene to cause serious harm to your sister Victoria Hale?”
“Yes.”
Her voice shook.
“Did that agreement later include conduct intended to cause Victoria’s death?”
Sophia started crying.
“Yes.”
My body went cold.
No euphemism.
Then:
“Did you assist in obtaining the toxic substance used?”
“Yes.”
No details.
“Did you participate in exposing Victoria on earlier occasions?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Marcus intended to place a potentially lethal amount in her food on November eighteenth?”
“Yes.”
The room narrowed.
Then:
“Did you enter apartment that night because you expected to learn whether plan succeeded?”
“Yes.”
“Did you say, ‘Marcus, what went wrong?’”
Sophia closed eyes.
“Yes.”
Then financial counts.
Southline invoices.
Sovereign Coast documents.
Copied signature.
She admitted.
Then judge:
“Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?”
“Yes.”
No deal speech.
The plea agreement required cooperation.
Sentencing after Marcus trial.
Then she turned when leaving.
Our eyes met.
She mouthed:
I’m sorry.
I did not respond.
Outside, reporters waited.
I used side exit.
Then Marcus’s attorney filed motion to exclude Sophia testimony as unreliable cooperator.
Judge would allow with cross examination.
Then the apartment camera.
His defense challenged legality because I installed in marital home.
A homeowner can place cameras in common areas, but recording audio laws can be complex. In Illinois, eavesdropping law focuses reasonable expectation and surreptitious recordings; current details would need precise legal research, but this is fiction. To avoid legal claim, we can say video had no audio? But prompt uses live security footage showing pouring. Audio from separate? We already used camera audio. Could create issue. However story can say judge admits video portion; audio from common-room camera excluded or limited? We need not do current law. Since creative, but accurate-ish. Let's handle:
The dining camera video is admitted because no reasonable expectation of privacy in shared dining area? Audio separate legal dispute.
Some audio clips excluded; prosecution relies on authenticated texts. The clip "how much longer" maybe could be from device? Hmm.
We can say defense motion resulted in some audio from hidden cameras being excluded, but video retained and certain statements admissible under other grounds? To keep no legal overclaim, yes.
Judge ruled:
Video from owner-occupied common areas admissible for incident because it captured crime and chain verified? In fiction.
Some preincident audio excluded due recording concerns.
Messages and device recordings from Camilla? Here Sophia/Marcus texts replace.
"Marcus what went wrong" heard by officers? Sophia said before police arrived but Victoria and 911 recording could capture. The 911 call was still open on speaker? Great. Dispatcher recording captured. Admissible. Good.
"She looks worse/how much longer" camera audio maybe exclude, but texts also.
Fine.
Then toxicology.
Defense wanted jurors to hear compound name and access. We can omit in story.
My doctor would testify repeated exposure consistent, not exact source every time.
The final soup was strongest.
The empty vial had Marcus’s fingerprints? Could be. Let's say his prints and partial Sophia? Glass vial handled by both. Forensic.
Then his defense centered on bowl switch.
“Victoria caused Marcus to ingest.”
Yes.
He would argue she set trap.
But crime charged attempted murder of Victoria based his act of contaminating her bowl with intent she eat. Attempt complete before switch.
Prosecution theory strong.
His own poisoning not necessary to prove.
Then financial motive.
Life insurance.
Debt.
Sovereign.
Affair.
Then my testimony.
Priya warned:
“Defense will make you defendant.”
“I know.”
“Do not get clever.”
“I won’t.”
Then:
“Do not say you knew it was poison.”
“I didn’t.”
“Say what you saw.”
Good.
Then I asked:
“What if jury thinks I wanted him to eat it?”
She answered:
“They may.”
Honest.
“But the question for his charge is what he intended when he put substance in your bowl.”
Then:
“Your conduct was separately reviewed.”
Yes.
Then I went home.
I stood in hotel suite kitchen.
Two bowls on shelf.
I could not look.
I asked staff to remove.
Then stopped.
No.
I put them back.
Ceramic was not danger.
I made soup myself months later.
One spoon.
Then two.
It tasted ordinary.
May you like
I cried.
Because ordinary had become achievement.
