Chapter 6 - Claire noticed before she died
Claire began reviewing trust statements eleven months before her death.
Why?
She was planning for worsening health.
She wanted records organized.
She noticed a reimbursement for:
Sophie educational lodging — $18,900.
Sophie was three.
She lived with us.
Claire asked Elena.
Elena said:
“It’s coding for the summer nanny apartment.”
We had paid for a temporary nanny apartment near Claire’s treatment center.
Could be.
Claire checked amount.
Actual rent:
$6,200.
Then another:
Adaptive child transport — $21,700.
Actual wheelchair-accessible vehicle was for Claire.
Trust should not have paid Claire’s transport from Sophie’s assets unless directly attributable to Sophie.
Elena said Northbridge had allocated family travel incorrectly and would correct.
Did she?
A partial credit appeared.
Claire became suspicious.
Then Claire’s illness worsened.
She did not have strength to run a full audit.
So she downloaded:
Statements.
Copies.
Screenshots.
Handwriting samples.
She hid the USB inside Sophie’s bear because she believed office files were being replaced.
Why the second note?
Redundancy.
Claire had always been cautious.
She used two separate clues because one could be lost.
No prophecy.
No dramatic certainty.
In the video, she said:
“I may be wrong about who is doing this.”
She named no one.
The note named Elena only in connection with B-41 knowledge.
That was more credible than a perfect posthumous accusation.
Then my failure.
Claire asked me once:
“Do you review Sophie’s trust reimbursements yourself?”
I said:
“Elena handles them.”
Claire answered:
“Maybe you should.”
I kissed her forehead.
Said I would.
May you like
Then forgot.
That memory hurt worse than any forged signature.
