Take back control of my organization.
Protect my family.
He's at home, taking a walk on the lawn when it hits him. He's looking down at Dana Strands, he's thinking about Great Sunsets, and the idea comes to him.
The perfect symmetry of it.
The beautiful balance.
Perfectly structured poetry, like the finest furniture.
Everything, all, in a master stroke.
He watches the sun set over Dana Strands.
73
More likely than not.
Is the phrase that's running through Jack's head as he sits in his cubicle.
More likely than not.
"More likely than not" is the phrase that applies to the standard of proof in civil cases. In criminal cases the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the distinction is important to Jack's consideration of the Vale file.
If I deny the claim, Jack thinks, we will – far more likely than not – get sued. At the end of the trial the judge will instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, and he'll tell the jury that the critical question is, "Is it more likely than not that Mr. Vale either set the fire or caused the fire to be set?"
That's the way the law reads.
In reality it's far more complicated.
The civil burden of proof is "more likely than not," so technically, if it's even 51 percent to 49 percent that your guy did it, the jury should come back and find for the insurance company. That's the way it's supposed to work, but Jack knows that's not the way it does work.
How it does work is that the jury is perfectly aware that arson is a crime. No matter what the judge instructs them, they are not going to apply the civil standard, "more likely than not," as the burden of proof. They're going to apply the criminal standard – "beyond a reasonable doubt."
So Jack knows that if you're going to deny a claim based on arson you had better be damn sure that you can persuade a jury that your insured set the fire or caused it to be set… beyond a reasonable doubt.
So Jack asks himself, Is it more likely than not that Vale set the fire or caused it to be set?
Yes, it is more likely than not.
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Jack takes out a piece of legal paper and a ruler and draws two straight lines down the paper, creating three columns. At the top of the columns he writes: INCENDIARY ORIGIN, MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY.
Nicky's up to his ears in debt. He's about to lose the house. He has a balloon payment coming up and no apparent resources to pay it. He owes money to the feds and to the state. His companies are in trouble, too. He sells his beloved boat at a loss to try to get some cash. He has a bundle sunk into antique furniture, and, according to Vince Marlowe, he can't sell the furniture he wants to sell. But he doesn't even try to sell the pieces he's attached to. His wife is about to divorce him and that would split his meager resources at least in half.
Motive, Jack thinks, is a dead solid lock.
So motive is a win, opportunity is a push, incendiary origin is a comer.
Unless Accidentally Bentley hangs in with his cig-in-the-vodka theory.
Jack draws a dotted line down the center of each column, then alternates plus and minus signs so that each category of proof is divided into pros and cons.
When he finishes the chart, it looks like this:
INCENDIARY
+
–
+
–
+
– accelerant
Bentley mortgage doors locked alibi pour pattern cig/vodka balloon windows locked points of origin fuel load taxes distance to house
divorce reconcile seen at 4:45 a.m. lied in statement hole in roof pebbled glass red flame contents?
Jack thinks about the chart for a few minutes, then draws a horizontal line across the bottom, subtitles the new section MURDER and starts again.
+
–
+
–
+
– all above plus: no smoke in Lungs carboxyhemo-globin pugilistic cig/vodka alcohol + CO location of body all above plus hatred? all above alibi no witness
Okay, Jack tells himself. Take the arson first. Start with incendiary origin. What are your three strongest points? ("The Rule of Three," Billy says. "Always try to present your evidence in sets of three. It's the way juries like to hear it. It's always a minister, a priest, and a rabbi in the rowboat")
So what are my three strongest points? Well, the positive char samples make bullshit of Bentley's cigarette-in-the-vodka hypothesis. So that would be number one. Number two? The pour pattern – there's no way to reconcile that with an accidental fire. Number three? Multiple points of origin. Again, inconsistent with an accidental fire.
Now, what are the points against?
The counterargument is that certain contents in the room might have burned "hot," leaving an erroneous implication of multiple points of origin. And Bentley's point about the fuel load is correct as far as it goes. There was a lot of stuff in the bedroom, and it's possible that the heavy fuel load burn could explain away the other indicators of an accelerated fire.
It could provide reasonable doubt, anyway.
But not with the positive samples.
With a positive sample, Jack thinks, everything falls together.
Motive.
Dead-solid lock. The three strongest points? The balloon payment, the lack of income, the missed payments. It's an embarrassment of riches – no reverse pun intended – and there'll be no problem proving that Nicky had a motive to torch the house. The arguments against? There really aren't any.
Opportunity.
Three strongest points? Locked doors and windows with no sign of forced entry, Leo the pooch outside, and Derochik's statement having Nicky coming in at 4:45.
And now Nicky has lied. You have him on tape saying he never went out, that the phone call woke him up. And I guess that just fucks you.
Arguments against? No witness to put Nicky on or near the actual fire scene. No snitch to connect him directly to the fire.
Two: Mother Russia's alibi – but Derochik's statement is going to shoot that down.
So, opportunity?
A tougher call, but when you put it together with incendiary origin and motive, it plays.
Move down to the murder, because it's all connected. A jury will never believe the coincidence of a murder with an accidental fire. Conversely, they'll never buy an accidental death with an intentional fire.
We have a combo plate here, Jack thinks.
Strongest points that Pamela Vale was murdered?
One: She was dead in time proximity to an arson.
Two: Her bloodstream showed alcohol and barbiturates, but witnesses will say that she wasn't drinking, and someone else – probably an associate of her husband's – picked up her Valium prescription.
Arguments against?
Primarily, there's the ME's conclusion of death by overdose.
Second is Bentley's call of CO asphyxiation accelerated by acute inebriation. The alcohol reduces the amount of oxygen in the lungs, making CO poisoning rapid and deadly.
It's possible, Jack thinks.
If she was drinking.
And if there was no accelerant.
And if Jack thinks, you hadn't looked into Nicky's eyes and just known that he killed his wife.