Sergio De La Pava - A Naked Singularity

“Bail on the project? You nuts? You actually think I would dick Toomberg in that manner? No way, Toom’s the only friend I have hence I’m not dicking him. I’m going, I leave Friday and don’t return until Monday so it’s not happening, sorry.”

“Fine I’ll go with you and we can keep planning and practicing there. I can always say I’m joining the project.”

“I see and I guess we’ll just have to contact Escalera and ask him to move the whole drop to Alabama so we can rip him off right?”

“The exact date of the delivery is three o’clock Wednesday morning. The Wednesday after you get back.”

“I see. This you know how?”

“It’s all in this packet. Here.”

“What the hell is this?”

“Information. All the information relevant to the heist. The exact date, time, and place, along with a blueprint of the place and other relevant documents. I anticipated questions of the sort you just asked, so every piece of information has a cited source.”

“This thing’s like…”

“358 pages.”

“When did you?”

“What do you think I’ve been doing the last five days? Research, what else?”

“Where does your research tell you DeLeon is?”

“Not sure.”

“Why not?”

“Well I know he got his $50,000. Where he went with it I don’t know definitively but my guess is Santo Domingo.”

“How do you know he got his money?”

“It’s in the packet. Read it later.”

“So you’ve been busy.”

“Beaverlike, aside from acquiring the necessary facts—”

“Facts? What facts? You mean this?”

“Right. Aside from that, I’ve taken some time to ponder the moral objections you raised earlier.”

“Forget all that will you. I don’t want to talk about that anymore. So your painstaking analysis leads you to think it would be a good idea to come to Alabama with me?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Because we need all the time we can get. Time for us to formulate the plan together and time to practice its execution.”

“You mean there’s no plan in this packet?”

“No. I can acquire info of the sort in that packet on my own, but the actual plan has to be a cooperative effort between the two of us in order to be perfect and in order to maximize its chances of success.”

“Why did you set about acquiring all this info since I had said no? Some of this was acquired before I said yes on Saturday right?”

“A lot of it but we don’t have unlimited time here so I had to take the chance. Besides I knew you’d come around.”

“Were you going to do it alone otherwise?”

“No, it can’t be done alone.”

“Were you going to go with someone else?”

“No, it was the two of us or not at all.”

“Look at me.”

“What?”

“Were you going to go with someone else?”

“No.”

“So who else have you told?”

“No one.”

“I can’t imagine you did all this work on the off chance I would change my mind.”

“I sleep like three hours a day. What else would I do? Besides I put a lot of stock in my ability to read people. That said, your concern is understandable and only serves to bolster my belief that you are the only person I could do this with.”

“My belief in you, on the other hand, is taking a hit.”

“How so?”

“You propose that you and I, like two members of the Legion of Doom, join forces to engage in a lucrative heist. By way of convincing me to participate you’ve continually pointed to your thoroughness as a primary factor that all but ensures our success. Well I like thoroughness and precision, I really do, but I also recognize that there’s a potential downside to their pursuit. It seems to me that success in a heist involves two major components. One is getting the good, in this case money, the other is not getting caught. Of these two the second is by far the more important. Meaning if we try to do this and for whatever reason are thwarted and never get the money but ultimately nobody is ever the wiser then I can live with that. On the other hand, if we go in there and walk out with tens of millions of dollars, but a year later I’m in jail getting a head start on twenty to life guess what? I won’t consider that a success.

Here’s why I mention this: The way I see it, any thorough effort expended towards the goal of getting the money has the potential for increasing the chance we get caught. You say you should come to Alabama with me because that will enhance our preparation. I say it will also increase the chances of us getting caught by creating a hard record, a paper trail of airplane tickets, hotel reservations and the like that will tie the two of us together and at the very least increase the chance that if one of us gets caught the other will get caught. You see what I’m getting at? I see this blueprint to the building and I think that’s great and certainly useful. But immediately I also think, how did you get it? And how could you later explain getting a blueprint to the very building where a crime occurred days later? You see every action you take in support of a crime, and that can theoretically be proven later, has to have a compelling innocent explanation.”

“Are you done?”

“You want more examples? You say DeLeon got his money. How do you know that? To learn that you probably tied yourself to this group of people in at least some form and moreover in a manner that was likely unique for them and therefore likely to be recalled by them. Just as I’m tied to the whole thing, for better or worse, by virtue of the fact that I am DeLeon’s attorney and attended that meeting. So this pamphlet is not an unqualified good in my view. For example, how was it generated? This thing would be People’s Exhibit 1 in any, God forbid, trial. Is there a record of it anywhere? On a disk? A hard drive? I need to know that all of this has been part of your focus.”

“May I respond?”

“Please. But first a warning. Don’t respond by saying that I’m giving law enforcement too much credit and that the things I point out would never conceivably become relevant. If you said something like that I concede you would probably be right, at least under the usual definition of right, but I don’t care for that kind of right because in this situation I’m not interested in probabilities. I want the thoroughness to cut both ways and be at least as concerned with the contrapuntal aim of avoiding detection. Of course someone honestly claiming to pursue perfection would never resort to such an argument anyway, right?”

“Is it possible to be proud and chagrined simultaneously? What an astounding lack of faith in me you continually display. If you’ll look closely at the print on the pamphlet that has generated such controversy, you will see that it was generated via a typewriter, with no computer involved in any aspect of the process. Also if you’ll read the last paragraph on the last page you will learn that the typewriter used to create the pamphlet has been destroyed and no longer exists. In fact, when you read the pamphlet closely you will see that every single nugget of information included therein, in addition to identifying its source, is followed by a little section describing the precautions taken during its acquisition. So you’ll see that the thoroughness absolutely does cut both ways and consequently your fears are unfounded.

As for my suggestion that I accompany you to Alabama, you have a legitimate point; although it is not one that should cause you to lose even the slightest amount of faith in me. It has always been my contention, from the very beginning of our discussions, that in order to achieve the perfect crime the input and insight of both of us would be required. This is different from my previous pursuit of perfection which essentially required only my action. The other interesting difference is the one you’ve now pointed out where there is this byplay and tension between learning as much as we possibly can about this transaction while being careful not to needlessly tie ourselves to this upcoming event that is likely to gain some measure of notoriety at least in its limited community. That’s why you and I are ideally suited to teaming on this. Because you are right to detect a possible slight recklessness on my part as it relates to the possibility of getting caught. Just as I was correct in detecting personality traits in you that would serve to counteract this undesirable element. So rather than shake your confidence in me the preceding should only serve to heighten your confidence in my abilities as evidenced by my choice of you as a partner. In other words, the system I’ve created worked beautifully. I proposed something that was less-than-ideal and you vetoed it. If this is indicative of the skill we will cumulatively bring to this endeavor then you can start reserving those Concorde tickets. I’ll bring the Hydrogen, you bring the Oxygen and we’ll never thirst again.”