“Do you think it possible that Mr. Manning might have lost weight and watched his consumption of fats prior to your examination, so that he would have been insurable, then reverted to his old ways after the exam?”

Sir Winston was on his feet. “I object, Your Lordship. This calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness.”

“Sustained,” the judge said.

“Let me put it another way, Mr. Stendahl,” Stone said. “Would you think that the man described in this later exam was, and I quote, ‘a heart attack waiting to happen’?”

Sir Winston was up again.

“I withdraw the question, Your Lordship,” Stone said, cutting him off. “We would like the medical examination report to be Exhibit Number One for the defense.” Now he had to wade further into shallow water, violating the rule of every trial attorney: He was going to ask a question he didn’t know the answer to. “Mr. Stendahl,” he said, “was there a provision in Mr. Manning’s insurance policy covering double indemnity?”

Stendahl hesitated a moment, then answered, “Yes, there was.”

Thank God, Stone thought. “Would you explain to the court the meaning of the term ‘double indemnity’?”

“It means that if the insured suffers accidental death, then the death benefit is doubled.”

“So if Paul Manning had died accidentally, the death benefit would have been twenty-four million dollars?”

“That is correct.”

“Now, Mr. Stendahl, I ask you to imagine the circumstances surrounding Paul Manning’s death: he is alone with his wife in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Let us say, merely for the purposes of argument, that Mrs. Manning has decided to kill her husband. Having done so, would it not then be very profitable for her to claim that he had died as a result of an accident at sea?”

“Yes, I suppose it would.”

“Profitable to the extent of an additional twelve million dollars?”

“Yes.”

“But instead, she has asserted that he died as the result of a heart attack, has she not?”

Sir Winston was up. “Objection; no testimony to that effect thus far.”

“Sustained,” the judge said.

“Let me put it this way, Mr. Stendahl. In your experience as an insurance investigator, would a person who had decided to murder an insured do so under conditions of maximum profitability?”

“Yes.”

“Not under conditions which would pay only half the available money?”

“No.”

“Then, as an experienced investigator, when determining the facts of this case, would you say that Mrs. Manning is more likely or less likely to have murdered her husband?”

Stendahl sighed. “Less likely.”

“One final question, Mr. Stendahl,” Stone said. “As a witness in this trial, you are not entirely objective, are you?”

“I beg your pardon?”

“What I mean is, you have an ax to grind in this case, do you not?”

“I don’t know what you mean.” But he looked as though he knew exactly what was meant.