The 5 year old daughter of soft rock star, Tristan “Trist” Jones, and his separated wife, Kate Sinclair-Jones, has been kidnapped. She was with her father on a beach at the time of the abduction. He briefly fell asleep.
After court proceedings Trist has had full custody with Kate limited to supervised access. Such a parenting decision meant that the Court had concerns over the safety of Tess with her mother.
Truitt considers herself unready to return to work. Advice around her is plentiful. About half the people she knows say she needs to stay home longer with Claire while the other half state she should return to work.
She gets a call from Senior Crown Prosecutor, Cy Vance. The police want to interview Kate but she is “hysterical” and the police want a lawyer present to protect her rights.
Every defence counsel knows the police and prosecutor believe she has committed crimes by wanting Truitt present.
Truitt resists until Vance says the police cannot waste hours. They need answers as Tess’s life may be in danger.
Truitt cannot resist the lure of a life and death situation and goes to the police station.
Credible evidence exists of Kate being at and near the abduction.
How long do you search for a missing child on a small island when you do not know if the child is on the island?
Subsequently, Truitt wrestles between disclosing new evidence discovered by the defence to the Crown that could assist in renewing a search for Tess against keeping the evidence a secret until trial when it could be sprung upon the Crown prosecutor. The dilemna is very real.
Truitt commits to a perilous course of defending based upon the truth. Unless the whole truth is discovered she risks Kate’s conviction in a trial where not all the facts are revealed. There are strong reasons for defence counsel to focus on reasonable doubt rather than attempting to prove innocence.
Truitt, very adept at perceiving what is missing from Crown disclosure and client disclosure, is convinced both sources are keeping information from her. The greater difficulty is getting what her client is holding back.
There is far more defence investigation than usual in a Canadian criminal case. The story is more like an American case.
Truitt is floundering as she struggles to assemble a realistic defence to what I consider a strong case except for the absence of a body.
While I do not need the action there is enough Hollywood to get a reader’s heart pumping though, in true Canadian fashion, not a person is killed.
It gets bizarre at the ending, in and out of court.
McLachlin has a great feel for the complexities of being a litigator with a 7 month old child. As a single mother the issues for Truitt, related to balancing law and baby, increase dramatically. She could not do it without the aid of her always available friend, Edith, and daycare.
I feel McLachlin, former Chief Justice of Canada, who spent time as a lawyer in private practice and lost her first husband when her son was 12 are reflected in the depths of Truitt’s traumas.
McLachlin has become an accomplished writer. Her plots move briskly. Her characters are credible. I enjoy reading them while I am occasionally frustrated with how she deals with legal principles and procedure. Details of my frustration for Proof are in my next post. (Nov. 11/24)
****
I do like a novel that offers a realistic portrait of life, Bill. It sounds as though McLachlin does that here as she depicts Jillian Truitt's life. And the case itself sounds like an interesting one; it shows that an engaging mystery doesn't require a high body count. I look forward to your discussion of the legal principles in the novel.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Margot. It feels real though I have no knowledge of the life of even a minor rock star. I do appreciate the body count has not been increasing in the series.
Delete