Page 92 of Sleeping with the Enemy

“That’s correct. I recused myself in June.”

Gerald nodded, letting that sit for a moment. “Ms. Scott, I’d like to direct your attention to a meeting that took place on July twenty-fifth of this year. Were you present at a strategy session in the Hartwell and Associates conference room?”

“I was. Rachel asked me to sit in as a consultant to offer a fresh perspective.”

“And who else was present at that meeting?”

“Rachel Hartwell and Valerie Shepry-Dane.”

“Can you describe what was discussed?”

Miller took a breath. This was it. “The meeting was to review the strategy ahead of the trial. Ms. Shepry-Dane expressed frustration that the case wasn't going the way she'd hoped. She proposed a new approach: introducing claims about Astoria Shepry's mental state and personal conduct during the marriage.”

“What kind of claims?”

“Allegations of instability and erratic behavior. Episodes that she characterized as dangerous.” Miller kept her voice steady and devoid of judgment. “She described incidents where Ms. Shepry allegedly threw objects, isolated herself for days, and refused to eat or sleep. She wanted these claims presented to the court to undermine Ms. Shepry's credibility.”

“And what was your response to the proposed claims?”

“I asked if they could be verified. Whether there were any witnesses, documentation, medical records—anything beyond Ms. Shepry-Dane’s own account.”

“What did she say?”

“She said she had witnessed these events herself. When I pointed out that made her a party to the case rather than an objective source, she became defensive. She eventually admitted the claims were her interpretation of events.” Miller paused. “Her exact words were ‘my truth.’”

A murmur rippled through the gallery. Judge Whitcombe’s eyes sharpened.

“And what was your professional assessment of these claims?” Gerald asked.

“That they were unsubstantiated and presenting them as fact in court would be potentially defamatory at best and ethically untenable at worst. I strongly advised against using them.”

“What happened next?”

“Rachel agreed with my assessment and told Ms. Shepry-Dane that the firm wouldn’t present claims they couldn’t verify.Ms. Shepry-Dane was…” Miller hesitated, wanting to choose her words carefully and without bias. “She was unhappy with that decision.”

“Objection.” Rachel rose, her voice calm, but firm. “This calls for speculation about my client’s emotional state.”

“I’ll rephrase,” Gerald said smoothly. “Ms. Scott, what did Ms. Shepry-Dane do after being told the claims wouldn’t be used?”

“She left the meeting abruptly.”

Gerald let the silence hang a moment then nodded. “No further questions, Your Honor.”

Judge Whitcombe turned to Rachel. “Cross-examination?”

Rachel stood slowly. Miller could see the calculation behind her eyes—how hard to push, what angles to take. They'd worked together for years. Rachel knew Miller's strengths and weaknesses and knew how to rattle a witness. But she also knew Miller was telling the truth.

“Ms. Scott,” Rachel began, “you testified that my client described certain incidents from her marriage. Isn't it possible that she genuinely experienced these events, even if documentation doesn't exist?"

“It’s possible she believes she experienced them,” Miller said tactfully. “But belief isn't evidence. And the way she described them—the framing, the timing of when she wanted to introduce them—suggested more strategy rather than truth-telling.”

“That’s your interpretation.”

“Yes. It’s my professional opinion based on six years of practicing family law and recognizing when a client is trying to manipulate a narrative rather than present facts.”

Another murmur stirred through the gallery. The muscles in Rachel’s jaw tightened slightly.

“Nothing further,” she said and sat down.