Chapter 7 - RHEA’S VERSION
Rhea requested an interview through counsel.
Police agreed.
I did not attend.
I received relevant portions later.
Her story:
She found Serena alive after the crash.
Serena was confused.
Terrified.
Did not remember Kiernan consistently.
Rhea arranged treatment.
True.
Rhea claimed Serena begged her not to tell me until she recovered.
Possible.
Was there evidence?
A handwritten note.
I don’t want Kiernan to see me like this.
Serena’s handwriting expert said likely genuine.
That complicated everything.
So Rhea had not necessarily begun with evil intent.
Then:
Why continue hiding Serena once memory returned?
Rhea claimed memory recovery was unstable.
Serena alternated between wanting contact and fearing it.
Medical records partly supported emotional instability after brain injury.
But independent clinicians repeatedly recommended gradual family reconnection.
Rhea opposed it.
Why?
“She believed Kiernan had moved on.”
I had not, initially.
Then eventually I had.
With Rhea.
Convenient.
When did Rhea and I become romantically involved?
Eighteen months after Serena’s presumed death.
When did Serena first ask directly to contact me?
Records showed sixteen months after crash.
Two months before Rhea kissed me for the first time.
That timing sickened me.
Serena’s therapist note:
Patient requests supervised video contact with husband and son.
Rhea’s response as listed family contact:
Not clinically appropriate. Family has accepted death.
She had no medical authority to decide forever.
Yet she influenced access.
Then the foundation.
Rhea argued Serena knew charitable funds supported treatment.
True.
Did the board know patient was Serena?
No.
Rhea used broad grant classifications to protect privacy.
Could privacy explain some concealment?
Yes.
Could it justify deceiving me as acting foundation authority?
Probably not.
Then Perrin.
Why had she taken him to see Serena?
Rhea admitted one visit.
Nine months ago.
“She asked to see her son.”
“Did Kiernan know?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I thought a short visit would help Serena.”
“Then why tell Perrin it was secret?”
“Because Kiernan still believed Serena was dead.”
Exactly.
Rhea exposed a four-year-old to his living mother while demanding he keep it from his father.
Then Serena became distressed.
Perrin began asking questions.
Rhea ended visit.
Why lock him in the hidden room now?
Rhea’s lawyer objected to the characterization.
Rhea said:
“He threatened to tell Kiernan during our engagement dinner.”
There.
Motive.
Not tantrum.
Perrin had announced:
“Dad needs Mommy.”
Rhea panicked.
She put him in the service room to stop him reaching me before the engagement announcement.
Temporary, she claimed.
Then I came home early.
That was the hook.
Not a random cruelty.
A desperate silencing attempt.
Still abusive.
Still confinement.
Still a child.
Rhea’s version made her more understandable.
Not less responsible.
Then investigators asked:
“Why did you tell Perrin his father would never find him?”
Rhea denied it.
Perrin’s statement remained.
No audio.
A credibility issue.
Then came the final question.
“Were you planning to marry Kiernan while knowing Serena was alive?”
Rhea stopped answering.
Because that was no longer only emotional betrayal.
It could create legal consequences.
May you like
You cannot knowingly marry someone who is still legally married to a living spouse.
Our engagement had become evidence.
