Chapter 19 - A DISAGREEMENT PERMITS TWO ANSWERS
Preston gave a sworn deposition from the correctional reentry facility where he was completing the final part of his sentence.
I watched through a secure video connection from Rebecca’s office.
He could not see me.
That was my choice.
The prosecutor began.
“Did Colin Vance instruct you to restrain Emily?”
“No.”
“Did he instruct you to cut her hair?”
“No.”
“Did he know Lorraine intended to do that?”
“Not that I know.”
“Then what did he do?”
“He explained how a disputed-capacity petition could delay the trustee long enough for his company to seek an emergency lien.”
“Did he know Emily refused the transaction?”
“Yes.”
“How?”
“I told him.”
“What did he say?”
“He said refusal inside a marriage can become more complicated when medical judgment is uncertain.”
“Was Emily’s medical judgment uncertain when you first discussed this?”
“No.”
“Then why did you schedule the evaluator?”
“To create uncertainty.”
The answer sat in the room without decoration.
Preston continued.
“Vance said a private disagreement would not stop a lender. We needed third-party documentation.”
“So you created a medical narrative?”
“Yes.”
“Why film Emily?”
“To show her appearing confused.”
“Was she confused?”
“She had a high fever.”
“That was not my question.”
Preston looked down.
“She understood that she did not want to sign.”
“Did she say no?”
“Yes.”
“Did you accept the answer?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I believed being her husband allowed me to decide whether her refusal was reasonable.”
The prosecutor paused.
“A disagreement permits how many answers?”
Preston knew the sentence.
He had heard it at sentencing.
“Two.”
“How many did you permit?”
“One.”
His attorney asked whether imprisonment and treatment had changed him.
Preston said yes.
That question belonged to his rehabilitation.
It did not change the evidence.
Then Rebecca asked about Dad.
“Why did Vance contact you regarding Thomas’s access to Emily’s home?”
“He said an emergency key could support an argument that Emily and Thomas had an unhealthy dependency.”
“Did you believe that?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because Thomas asked permission before keeping it.”
The sentence hurt in an unexpected way.
Preston understood the difference now.
He had once been incapable of accepting it when the distinction mattered most.
At the end of the deposition, he asked whether he could say something to me.
Rebecca looked toward the camera I had disabled.
I shook my head.
“No,” she said.
The deposition ended.
My refusal was not recorded as emotional instability.
May you like
No one converted it into confusion.
The system accepted the answer.
