The na appeared buried in financial docunts I'd been reviewing for three days. Correspondence between Hessington Oil and "S. Huntley, Consultant." Dozens of communications, hundreds of thousands in consulting fees, all during the period when foreign officials were allegedly murdered.
I pulled up my research on Pearson Darby's partnership structure. Stephen Huntley—Edward Darby's senior partner, based in London, known for "handling sensitive international matters" for clients.
That was careful phrasing for "fixing problems through thods clients don't want to know about."
I called my private investigator. Thomas Reynolds, forr FBI, now freelance, the kind of professional who found information others missed.
"Tom. I need deep background on Stephen Huntley. British national, senior partner at Darby International, works international consulting."
"What am I looking for?"
"Connections to Hessington Oil, travel to Ecuador and Africa during 2011-2012, financial flows that don't quite make sense."
"That's vague."
"That's intentional. I don't want to bias your investigation. Find what's there and report objectively."
"Give a week."
The report ca back in five days. Tom was thorough when motivated, and I'd motivated him with premium rates and interesting puzzle.
[ **Blackmail Archive: Stephen Huntley Profile** ]
Stephen Huntley - Darby International Senior Partner Age: 54 Background: British military intelligence, private sector "consulting" Specialty: Problem resolution for international clients Travel Records: 3 visits to Ecuador (2011-2012), 4 visits to affected African nations Financial Pattern: Paynts from Hessington to Darby accounts during relevant periods Assessnt: Sophisticated operator, likely handles wet work through interdiaries
Tom's investigation had found pattern. Huntley traveled to Ecuador three tis during the period when Hessington Oil needed permits from local officials. Those officials later died under circumstances attributed to local violence but conveniently solved Hessington's problems.
Financial paynts from Hessington Oil to Darby International accounts increased during those periods. Not direct paynts to Huntley—that would be too obvious—but elevated "consulting fees" that coincided with his travel.
Not proof of murder. But suspicious as hell.
I scheduled eting with Zane, brought the full report, laid out the implications.
"Huntley might be the one who actually ordered the murders," I explained. "Ava Hessington probably hired him to 'solve problems' without asking specifics about thods. Classic deniability structure."
Zane reviewed the docunts carefully. "This is circumstantial. No direct evidence connecting Huntley to the murders."
"No. But it creates reasonable doubt about Ava's direct involvent. If Huntley did it as Darby International service without explicit client approval, she's less culpable criminally."
"Does that help your civil case?"
I thought about that. "Maybe. If she's acquitted of murder charges because Huntley actually did it, she's more sympathetic defendant in wrongful death case. Jury might feel she's being piled on."
"Or they might separate the cases appropriately—murder conspiracy versus negligent managent. Different standards, different evidence." Zane leaned back. "Do you plan to share this with Caron Dennis?"
"That's the ethical question. I found this through civil discovery, but it's relevant to his criminal prosecution. Do I have obligation to disclose?"
"Not legally. You're not his attorney. Your duty is to your civil clients." He paused. "But there's ethical consideration beyond legal obligation. If Huntley actually committed murders and Ava gets convicted instead, that's injustice."
"But it's not my injustice. I'm civil attorney, not criminal prosecutor."
"True. But you're also human. Can you live with knowing truth and staying silent while wrong person gets convicted?"
That was the hard question. I'd found evidence suggesting Ava Hessington might be innocent of murder charges. Sitting on that evidence served my civil case by keeping her sympathetic. But it also ant potential wrongful conviction.
Professional interest versus moral obligation.
"I'll docunt everything thoroughly," I decided. "But I won't imdiately share with Dennis. If the information cos out through other channels—Harvey's investigation, Dennis's own discovery—then it'll serve justice without violating case independence. If it doesn't co out naturally, I'll reconsider disclosure closer to trial."
"That's reasonable approach. Maintains your civil case focus while not actively suppressing evidence that could prevent wrongful conviction."
Back in my office, I compiled all the Huntley information into comprehensive file. Travel records, financial patterns, circumstantial connections to the murders. Everything docunted, cross-referenced, ready for disclosure if needed.
[ **Win Rate Calculator: Updated Assessnt** ]
Civil Case Success Probability: 71% (decreased from 73%) Contributing Factor: Ava Hessington more sympathetic if innocent of murders Criminal Case Impact: Huntley's involvent shifts dynamics entirely Strategic Assessnt: Maintain case independence, monitor developnts
The probability decreased slightly because sympathetic defendants were harder to beat in civil cases. But 71% was still strong odds. The negligence evidence stood regardless of who ordered what murders.
That evening, I told Donna about the Huntley discovery.
"So she's probably innocent of murder but guilty of negligence?" Donna asked.
"That's my assessnt. Huntley likely did the murders as Darby service. She likely knew her company's problems were being 'solved' but didn't ask how. anwhile, she definitely approved budget cuts that killed six workers."
"Moral complexity."
"Exactly. No clean villains. Just people making progressively worse choices that led to deaths."
"Are you going to tell Dennis about Huntley?"
"Not imdiately. I'm maintaining case independence. If the information erges through other channels, great. If not, I'll reconsider before trial."
"That's complicated ethical position."
We sat in comfortable silence, both processing the complexity.
This was growth, probably. Learning to navigate gray areas instead of seeking black and white answers.
But it was exhausting.
My phone buzzed. Text from Louis: Heard depositions went well. How's Harvey handling it?
Professionally. He knows Ava's more complicated than villain narrative suggests.
That's growth for him. He usually sees things in absolutes.
We're all growing. So of us faster than others.
I set down the phone and pulled Donna close. Tomorrow would bring new complications. The Huntley information would eventually surface. The civil case would continue regardless. The moral complexity would persist.
But tonight, I'd just appreciate this—dostic normalcy, strategic victories, the particular satisfaction of work that mattered even when morally complicated.
But it was probably more accurate about how the world actually worked.
I'd keep navigating it as best I could.
Everything else would sort itself out eventually.
Or it wouldn't.
Either way, I'd made the choices I could live with.
That had to be enough.
A LOT More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.
• Normal | $8 — 15 chapters ahead
• Advanced | $11 — 20 chapters ahead
• Overlord | $19 — 25 chapters ahead, plus request a refinent (plot, character, system) on any of my novels
patreon/TheFinex5
▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰
― DECREE ―
More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.
The throne acknowledges.
▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰
User Comments
0 comments from readers