I find myself rather appalled by the Tuesday commentary that does not recognize any position between splitting the deceased brother's estate evenly and keeping the entire inheritance. While it is highly possible that the deceased might not particularly have objected to the sharing out of the estate and just couldn't bring himself to leave money directly to the non-inheriting sibling, an even split doesn't feel quite right, although it does have rather a Biblical flavour to it. Perhaps therein lies the source of my objection. But I'd want to cross-examine the LW about the source of the estrangement. One could have serious moral objections to a sibling's conduct. And, while the Prudecutor actually managed to come across as more moderate than most of the commentariat, I suspect she'd have given an entirely different answer had it been revealed that the unlegacied sister had been left out because of racism on her part.
L4: Had this letter been the only example on which I based my assessment, I'd probably have put the Prudecutor in Tokyo. Yes, there may be some appeal in using the abuser and then turning her in. But what horrid conduct, sacrificing the class to LW4's ambition. Mainly, though, this does not change the fact that LW4 has observed abusive behaviour for a considerable period of time and done nothing about it other than write to the Prudecutor whining about how (s)he needs the abuser's approval. This is even worse than the scene from Heathers with inefficient intervention to stop an incident of bullying, as this is hierarchical, systemic, ongoing and gratuitous.
Someone more concerned with her/his own career prospects than the well-being of children does not belong in the education field at the elementary level, likely not at any level. Thank the abuser, LW4, for showing you that you do not (at least not yet) belong in this field, and report her immediately afterwards. But at least I can see why LW4 consulted the Prudecutor. They share the same sickeningly skewed moral priorities.
L3: No need to draw this out. The Prudecutor at least managed to get onto the same continent on this one, although I'm not sure why she would expect someone who would perpetrate a risky prank to have the financial risk to his family uppermost in mind.
The short answer, LW3, is to follow your husband's example. He retained a lawyer; do likewise, though counsel of rather a different sort. The long answer is that there is room for various degrees of vengeance. You might go to visit Frank and return home to tell your husband in detail about how Frank seduced you. You might emulate Witness for the Prosecution the other way round and contrive to insure that Frank wins a huge legal settlement from your husband. Or you might take your husband to the cleaners in the divorce and remarry Frank; the last sounds like a superb prank indeed.
L1: What a shame this letter didn't come up during Homocentric August! There does appear to be considerable fodder for cross-examination into exactly what occurred. Clearly GF1 considered her conduct to be more serious than a game of Spin the Bottle. (I shall earn considerable Brownie Points by refraining from venturing into wondering what sort of desperate young person would be sufficiently so to play Spin the Bottle in such company, but I will wonder, given the Prduecutor's response to the pregnant LW on Monday, if her advice would have been different had GF1 and BM1 produced a terminated pregnancy.) But the most interesting line would be to discover where the Carried Torch originated. Is it LW1 baking from scratch? Is it an invention of GF1's to make her lot seem more sympathetic?
I am unclear about exactly why BM1 walking GF1 down the aisle should be such a najor concern for LW1. What the Prudecutor misses completely is the GF1's request that LW1 consider how she feels having to participate in a wedding along with these guys. And, worse (or better, depending on perspective), LW1 actually sees sense in this. GF1 is clearly the sort of woman who views sex as something women give to men, an appalling attitude that makes the two of them a perfect couple. On that basis, I advise LW1 to upstage the entire wedding party by proposing to GF1 during the ceremony and asking to make it a double wedding.
L2: This one is too easy. Combine Julius King from A Fairly Honourable Defeat with Stephen Norton from Curtain and get the IL2s to murder each other. Although Julius only expanded on his philosophy to Morgan because he was actually using her as one of his pawns and not really trying to separate Simon from Axel, she did act almost exactly as he told her Simon would. And Norton was quite safe from any sort of accountability for his actions.
Simultaneous murder ought not to be too difficult for LW2 to achieve, given the material with which there is to work. A good example is what appears at one point to be the solution to One, Two, Buckle My Shoe. Mr Morley, Hercule Poirot's dentist, is found shot, an apparent suicide. His last patient, Mr Amberiotis, confirms details of his first-time visit to Mr Morley and dies that afternoon from an overdose of anaesthaetic. After Mr Morley's assistant, who had been called away for the day by a faked telegram, rules out the possibility of an accidental overdose on the dentist's part, and Mr Amberiotis' shady past is revealed, for a breif time, it appears plausible that it was simultaneous murder - that Mr Morley murdered Mr Amberiotis by giving him a deliberate overdose and then Mr Amberiotis shot Mr Morley after the dentistry had been completed. And in a way that was the right answer. Mr Amberiotis was murdered by a "dentist" who just didn't happen to be Mr Morley, and Mr Morley was shot by a "patient" other than Mr Amberiotis - the shooting just occurred before the overdose instead of after.
It should give LW2 little difficulty to acquire some deadly poison and give each IL2 the opportunity to steal some on the same day after being worked up into a frenzy by LW2's subtle psychological tactics. I like the idea of FIL2 making MIL2 a poisoned cup of coffee in the kitchen just as MIL2 finishes poisoning FIL's glass of wine in the dining room. Even if the plan backfires and only one in-law dies, at least it will be half the problem solved for LW2 and H2.
Moral: "All human beings have staggeringly great faults which can easily be exploited by a clever observer... Play sufficiently on a person's vanity, sow a little mistrust, hint at the contempt which every human being deeply, secretly feels for every other one."