Anonymous Tip: Donna Gets a Lawyer (and Her Boyfriend Back)

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 299-306

Several readers of this series have mentioned that Farris head hops quite a bit, writing from the perspective of a wide variety of characters and giving little warning when switching between them. There are also scenes that are ambiguous, like the one we’re about to cover today. In this section, we spend most of the time not in any one’s head at all—instead, it’s straight dialogue—but this does mean we don’t actually know the ambitions, thoughts, or feelings of the characters involved, Donna in particular. Let’s take a look.

Donna Corliss called Conner Stockton’s secretary around ten-thirty on Monday morning, not to ask her to fax Stephen the article—which she had already done on her own—but to ask for an appointment with Stephen’s father.

I’m wondering why Donna faxed Stephen the article, after how he treated her on the phone the night before, but then little about her relationship with Stephen actually makes sense anymore. Anyway, Donna goes to Conner’s office . . . wait, let me give you today’s Spokane guidebook installment before we get into her reasons for going:

At 1:20, Corliss entered the elevator for the ride to the twenty-first story of the Washington Trust Bank Building. Conner Stockton had the prime corner office on the top floor with a view to the northeast—all of downtown was visible, including most of Riverfront Park and Mount Spokane, about twenty-five miles away.

Anyway, the secretary shows Donna in, and after a ten minute wait Conner calls her to his “massive suite” which is “tastefully decorated in a modern style.” Farris tells us that Conner “welcomed the young lady he assumed would sooner or later be his daughter-in-law”—another example of Farris’s tell, don’t show, approach—and then the dialogue begins, and continues, unbroken, for five pages. We learn early on that Donna is “trying to appear as normal as possible” and that at one point she almost began to cry but “regained control almost immediately,” but that’s about it.

Donna says she needs a lawyer. Conner is surprised but agrees to be her lawyer. Donna asks him not to give the details she’s about to divulge to Stephen. Again Conner is surprised, but again he agrees. And then he listens.

“Please, Donna. Tell me the whole story. I’m sure I can help,” Stockton says soothingly.

Is the “soothingly” there supposed to be genuine, or is he attempting to get Donna to let her guard down? This is what I meant when I said we lack information about the characters’ motivations or thoughts.

“I got a call from the police investigating the murder of Gerald Blackburn this morning. I have talked to him at least twice in the past and answered a lot of questions. It seems the article in the newspaper yesterday makes him believe there may be a connection between Mr. Blackburn’s death and this civil rights case involving the Landis woman. He wanted to come over this afternoon and ask me some more questions. I made excuses and asked to talk with him tomorrow. I didn’t want to talk with him until I came to see you.”

Donna assures Conner that she had nothing to do with Blackburn’s death, but says that “there were other things I was involved in—or at least knowledgeable of—that Mr. Blackburn was doing wrong.” She says she was asked about this in a deposition but held some things back, but that she’s worried they may come out in a murder investigation. She also says this:

“I didn’t have any choice. Blackburn forced me to be involved. He threatened me. At one point, he even threatened to kill me.”

Conner asks her to slow down, and then starts asking a series of questions. She admits to making the computer changes but says that she was “acting under the direct orders of Gerald Blackburn” and that “he threatened to kill me if I didn’t.” Conner points out that proving that may be challenging, but Donna says she thinks she has proof, and explains that Blackburn blackmailed both her and Rita, and that Rita could testify to the same and that their bank records would back it up. When Conner asks, she says that only the three of them knew about the document falsification, but then she remembers McGuire, the psychologist.

Donna explains that “Blackburn hated to lose any child custody case” and that he would use McGuire as their witness whenever winning was especially important. I’m confused, does CPS do child custody specifically? The term brings up divorce suits, not child abuse suits. Anyway. Donna says she doesn’t know the arrangement exactly, but that his testimony always went their way and supported their case and that she “would guess that McGuire got paid something extra for doing that.”

And now, for the first time in this book, two characters muse over whether McGuire could have played a role in Blackburn’s death.

“Do you think McGuire could have anything to do with Blackburn’s death?”

“It would only be a wild guess on my part. But the guy has been playing fast and loose with the truth to convict people of child abuse.”

“In a way, Donna, so have you,” Stockton said.

There was no holding back the tears now. “You’re right. But I was scared. It was my first job after college, and he threatened me so many times. I was really scared of him. Stephen can tell you that.”

“I’m sure he can,” Stockton said. “I’m sure he can.”

Corliss hung her head and softly cried. Stockton came over to the couch, sat next to her, put his arm around her shoulder and spoke soft words of comfort.

Is Donna completely putting all of this on? Is this more act to get Conner’s sympathy so that he’ll serve as her legal protection? Or does Donna mean every word she’s saying? It’s true that she was scared of Blackburn and it’s true that he threatened her and ordered her to change the records. What she’s leaving out, of course, is that she suggested initiating Plan B to begin with and she lied and said there had been bruises when there hadn’t been. Is she hiding all of that, or has she created a story, as we humans do, in which all of that is part of Blackburn’s push to never lose a CPS case?

And did Blackburn have a long habit of threatening her, or making her feel unsafe? She is definitely suggesting that is the case here, but Farris doesn’t give us any clues to determine whether or not she’s lying.

As for Conner, does he believe Donna completely, or is he being calculating too, and stashing stuff away in the back of his mind to check later? Again, we’re not told. This whole not being told thing might not be a problem in another novel, but in this one we’re frequently let into a variety of characters’ minds and thoughts, so when we’re not, it feels off. What makes Donna tick, exactly? I’m not sure I actually know.

Anyway, Conner says he’ll call the detective and tell him she won’t be doing interviews, and that

“if he asks why, I am going to tell him we believe that the Attorney General’s Office, who is representing you in the civil case, has a conflict of interest. They are trying to get the state off the hook, while my job is to defend just you.”

Donna is extremely grateful. Conner says he doesn’t think anyone will be able to learn the things she just told him, but that “if they start to get close, I think we can get them to make some kind of deal.” Again Donna is grateful.

She just sat still, relishing the comfort of the senior Stockton’s fatherly embrace, and even more, the security of his words.

Are there any lawyers in Spokane that aren’t handsy, I wonder?

Donna asks Conner if he can tell Stephen that he talked to her, and that he (Conner) believes that anything Donna did she did because she was scared of Blackburn. She says she doesn’t think Stephen understands the whole story and that it would help things between them if Conner would talk to him.

We next learn that police lieutenant Dan Greeves wasn’t happy to get Conner’s call later that day, but that his explanation for Donna’s unwillingness to talk “seemed completely plausible.” Dan asks whether Donna could have had a motive to kill Blackburn, but Conner responds by noting that the murder happened before the computer tampering was discovered. That actually doesn’t seem to answer the question, though, and if I were Conner I’d be very worried about the possibility that Donna could end up a murder suspect.

And then we get this:

Conner Stockton truly believed that Donna Corliss had nothing to do with the murder of Gerald Blackburn.

That reads as weird to me. Donna did have nothing to do with Blackburn’s murder, but the way this sentence is written seems to suggest that he’s wrong in his belief that she didn’t. Or maybe I’ve just read too many mystery novels.

Either way, I suppose we do now have at least some indication of what the characters in today’s long conversation thought and felt?

But wait! We’re not done! Stephen calls Donna first thing Monday morning!

“Stephen! It’s really you.”

“Yeah. I’m sorry I was abrupt with you on the phone Sunday night. I just didn’t want to discus my private life in front of my co-workers. Nothing was going on—you’ve got to believe me.”

Stockton’s statement was true enough. Although he had made some suggestions to the young lady who was in his apartment, she had not responded in the way he had hoped.

“I don’t know what to say. It just seemed so strange.”

Oh good god. Is this book an exercise how terrible men are? Because it’s starting to read like that! Are there any lawyers in this book who aren’t terrible people?! Gail appears to be the only professional, non-abusive one in the bunch. I mean seriously.

I also feel like Farris doesn’t have a good grasp on his characters. When I took a creative writing class, once, we were told to write backstories for each character, to write about who they are, what makes them tick, their likes, dislikes, etc., to bring them to life as real people in front of us, and all before we started writing. But here we have Donna who started out tough as nails and is now not only in full meltdown mode. I don’t feel like the Donna we were first introduced to would be so easily gaslit by someone like Stephen. And then there’s Stephen himself. Who is this person?

Anyway, Stephen says he talked to his dad and he believes what he said and that “whatever you were involved with was not all that serious” and that his dad said “things are going to work out fine.” He then tells Donna that he’s still not sure about “rushing into marriage” (which is funny, because he was the one pushing it) or “having you move out here” (which makes are sense, because, as he notes, his dad thinks it “might raise more suspicion” if she moved out there right then).

“Let’s get this Landis case behind you, and then we can make some decisions, OK?”

“This certainly sounds better than our last conversation.”

Oh god Donna. RUN.

Stephen says he’s realized that what with his studying for the bar and all, she probably had “a lonely summer.” He promises to call and write more often. He says he’ll do better and she thanks him and says she loves him and he says he loves her too and they’re all sweet on the phone and all I can think is run. Donna, for god’s sake, run.

Stockton decided he would do his best to keep Corliss on the hook in case things worked out. But he would also discreetly date other women in D.C., just in case they didn’t.

WTF. This book really is turning into a long exercise in torturing Donna. I get that she messed up—and she did. She should not have lied about seeing bruises on Casey. Period. She should be punished for that, absolutely, but she should be punished under the law, not through this slow emotional torture Farris is bringing down on her. What exactly is the moral here? Don’t fabricate evidence or your boyfriend will cheat on you while gaslighting you like heck?