L4: Look over, not write, Prudecutor. Other than that, the choice facing LW4 is simple. Tell F4 the truth or cover up in perpetuity. This seems like a cross between a technical question and a parallel of the Unbreakable Rule that one must never tell anyone that (s)he looks fat in that outfit.
L1: The Prudecutor misses the boat. F1 has been keeping this fact a secret for years. This couple is not going to wed. If they do, however, I shall give them considerable credit. How many couples wed after the sex dries up? And some heterocentric assumption on the Prudecutor's part that F1 proposed marriage when there is not a scrap of evidence to that effect and only heterosexist and heterocentric assumptions and gender roles to back up that flimsy piece of testimony on the part of counsel for the Prudecution.
L2: Even the Timsons are more competent criminals than this. Why is it that, when in the presence of slightly questionable actions, people want to jump all over the putative perpetrator, but, when faced with obviously criminal activity, so many fall all over themselves to whitewash it, as if even seeing someone wearing a striped jumper and carrying housebreaking implements by night and a bag marked SWAG wouldn't be sufficiently convincing. And the Prudecutor is wrong. O'Brien is far too effective. Remember, she changed the destiny of a dynasty with nothing more than a bar of soap. Thomas is the incompetent one who ought to have been in this analogy.
L3: There is much one coulod say about this letter. But I shan't. Ethan and Marissa????? The only good thing about this letter is that the heterosexism of LW3 is neatly matched by that of the Prudecutor. Accordingly, I refuse to dignify such nasty minds with the lengthy response this letter would warrant otherwise.
I am too disgusted to provide a moral. And this was done in under half an hour!