Chapter 13 - I Take the Stand
The prosecutor began:
“Why did Blake Harbor hire Vance Property Services?”
“My sister asked me to consider Logan’s business. My father also asked. We evaluated and awarded small contracts.”
“Did you oppose because family?”
“Initially I worried conflict.”
“Did you allow?”
“Yes.”
“Did you personally support Simone household?”
“Yes.”
“How much?”
“About one hundred twenty six thousand dollars over roughly three years.”
The jury shifted.
“Loans?”
“No. Gifts.”
“Did Simone owe repayment?”
“No.”
“Could you stop future gifts?”
“Yes.”
“Did you?”
“After my birthday dinner.”
“Why?”
“Because I realized the arrangement was unhealthy.”
The judge had ruled we could say family incident generally.
Then:
“Did you stop trust distributions?”
“No.”
“Did you seize Simone money?”
“No.”
“Did you freeze Logan’s personal bank?”
“No.”
“Did you have ability?”
“No.”
Then company suspension.
“I had authority to emergency suspend vendor payments, subject board review.”
“Did board review?”
“Yes.”
“Outcome?”
“Approved suspension and audit.”
Then credential.
“Did you authorize changing recovery number?”
“No.”
“Did you approve seven invoices?”
“No.”
“Any of them?”
“No.”
“Even legitimate?”
“No. Staff should have used normal workflow.”
Then cross.
Logan’s attorney, William Hart, approached.
“Ms. Blake, you like control.”
“Sometimes.”
He paused.
“Sometimes?”
“I am managing trustee and CEO. Control is part of job. I’ve also learned I can overfunction personally.”
Maybe too therapy.
But honest.
“You controlled sister mortgage.”
“I paid part voluntarily.”
“You could stop anytime.”
“Yes.”
“You controlled her son’s program.”
“I paid it. I did not choose program.”
“You controlled her vehicle.”
“I covered lease payments.”
“Again, could stop.”
“Yes.”
“So when family displeased you, you could financially punish.”
“I could stop gifts. That is not the same as taking their property.”
He smiled.
“On your birthday, you got angry.”
“Yes.”
“Your nephew threw purse.”
“Yes.”
“Logan grabbed you.”
“Yes.”
The judge allowed limited because defense opened.
“You filed police report.”
“Yes.”
“You canceled cards that night.”
“Yes.”
“You told company freeze his vendor.”
“Yes.”
“Then suddenly fraud appears.”
“No. Duplicate alert appeared before I knew invoice details.”
“But same night.”
“Yes.”
“Convenient.”
“I did not design alert.”
Then:
“You had old laptop in parents’ home with saved credentials.”
“Yes. Poor security.”
“Anyone could access.”
“Anyone with house access and enough knowledge, potentially.”
“Your parents?”
“Potentially.”
“Simone?”
“Yes.”
“You?”
“Yes.”
“So no direct video of Logan typing.”
“No.”
Then IP.
“You knew Logan office WiFi password?”
“No.”
“Could someone else use his office?”
“Yes.”
“Simone?”
“Yes.”
“Employees?”
“Yes.”
Then company card.
“Did you ever tell Logan ‘use it for whatever keeps project moving’?”
“Yes.”
There.
He smiled.
“Whatever.”
“In business context.”
“Did you define?”
“Contract and card policy did.”
“Did you personally police?”
“No.”
“So Carter’s tuition might be family support?”
“Not from company.”
“But you were paying tuition personally anyway.”
“Yes.”
“So confusion.”
“No. One was my bank. One was corporate card.”
Strong.
Then false invoices.
“Did you personally inspect seawall project?”
“Yes, after audit.”
“Was work performed?”
“Some.”
“So invoice not entirely false.”
“Correct.”
“Could cost overruns explain?”
“Not duplicate billing and fake supplier returns.”
“You are not accountant.”
“No.”
Then trust.
“You control voting shares.”
“Yes.”
“You earn salary.”
“Yes.”
“Simone does not.”
“She is not employee.”
“Yet equal granddaughter.”
“Equal beneficiary, not equal employee.”
That was core resentment.
Then:
“Do you believe you deserve more because you work?”
“I believe employees deserve compensation for work.”
He did not like.
Then personal anger.
“Did you say ‘Let’s see how loud you laugh when you’re bankrupt’?”
This came from video prompt but not prose. Did Ariana actually say? We haven't included. Could have said in car maybe not. Need preserve key dialogue maybe. Let's say she texted herself? No. Better user supplied video line perhaps story can include she whispered it in anger. We can admit:
I had said in car quietly to myself and Riley heard? She did not report. Could be captured dashcam? Maybe no. Defense found from Riley? Better not.
Let's integrate now: “Did you tell Riley ‘Let’s see how loud he laughs when he’s bankrupt’?” Could be defense deposition from Riley? We don't want involve. Maybe Ariana posted voice memo? Not.
We can say I sent text to Claire: "Let's see how loud he laughs when the free money stops." But not bankrup. Maybe user wanted line. We'll avoid literal if no evidence. The story can diverge for realism.
He asked:
“Did you want Logan’s business to fail?”
“That night, I wanted him to face consequences. I did not control whether business was solvent.”
“Were you satisfied when bankruptcy filed?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Employees lost jobs.”
Then:
“You expect jury to believe after years of loose family support you suddenly became compliance expert?”
“I run a company. I was lax because family. That was a mistake.”
No hiding.
Then final:
“Could Logan reasonably believe you would have approved his invoices because you always fixed things?”
“No.”
“How can you know his belief?”
“I can’t. But he never asked.”
There.
He sat.
Prosecutor redirect:
“If Logan asked for $184,000 unsupported payment, what would you say?”
“No.”
“So avoiding asking mattered.”
“Yes.”
Then:
“Did your generosity constitute permission to impersonate you?”
“No.”
Done.
I left stand.
Logan looked at me.
Not rage.
Something like betrayal.
As though my truth had broken contract he thought existed between us.
Family protects family.
Meaning:
Ariana absorbs.
I walked past.
Outside, Simone waited.
She said:
“You were good.”
“I wasn’t performing.”
“I know.”
Then:
“I think that’s why.”
Trial continued.
Logan would testify.
Against counsel advice maybe.
May you like
He believed he could explain because he still thought his logic was reasonable.
That had been true from beginning.
