I have made a pretty daring claim on my home page; ‘guaranteed to please’. I can explain my confidence. It's really just something you probably heard in grade school. Two of my teachers (at least) used the building analogy; i.e., 'you can't build the fourth floor before you have built the first' (at least). In thinking about a problem, we almost always start with some assumption(s). It's so hard to recognize it because of the nature of assumption. It can be so ingrained that you don't even know it's working on you. In any inquiry, the only useful assumption, is that you are probably harboring some assumptions. If you know that, you can begin to dismantle whatever structure is already there. Every brick & board must be separated from every other, before you try to combine any of them. The fact that almost no one can do that, is the basis of Sherlock Holmes. He does.
The Borden case is about as interesting as any I have ever been able to untangle, and, although it is divided into several segments, the first explains everything you need to know. The main truth - the cornerstone of the case - was handed to me by a TV news magazine, in the '90s. I consulted a diagram of the second floor, which, in addition to the fact that Lizzie and Emma switched bedrooms, a year or so before the murders, confirms that news mag opinion. Most of the facts, cited, are from one book, but the author failed to interpret any of them. That's amazing if you have so many facts, but many discussions don't supply more than five of those. There is nothing out there, you should listen to, except this. The colossal fail of the show, "Lizzie borden Took an Axe"', is so shocking because two of the participants are not even disguised behind the costume epithet, "Expert". They are openly career detectives; 'out 'n' proud'! Well, at least, unabashed at their own density. (What does homicide investigation consist of, that these yumkins can thrive, professionally?! I guess it's all lab work, anymore.)
Before you get into the site, I'd like to share this odd little personal ad I came across a couple of years ago. It could be forty years old.
Bi-coastal, bisexual bypass veteran seeks petulant parasite with the combined ambience of an early '70s militant feminist and an early '60s Borscht Belt comedian, to accompany me on transcontinental flights and kvetch about the food, turbulence — nearly everything! For example, "Steak? You call this a steak?! This is not a steak!" Then, disdainfully dangling the offending entry over the aisle twixt thumb and forefinger, "This — is a hockey puck"! Also, occassionally don Teddy Roosevelt mask and spank my grandfather with a spatula. No eccentrics.
Sorry I can’t offer refunds, but anyone might say they were disappointed, just to get their money back. On the “Shop Now” page & Home Page, you will find free essays. One offers children a way to protect themselves from abuse. (The Lizzie Borden essay, for sale on this site, is relevant to this type of crime. Another free essay is designed to reduce the flight of nurses from their profession. Starting in the ‘80s, more than 130 hospital emergency rooms closed, almost exclusively for lack of nurses. The system I describe for paying nurses, should 1} improve their lot, while 2} reducing the cost to patients, and 3} subtracting the cost from the cost of insurance.
See FREE Lizzie Borden Headings for all remaining Darkened Major Headings & Underlined Sub-headings.)
You notice that some essays are labelled “Part 1”. The Lizzie Borden piece is thirty-one pages long. If I were to offer the whole piece I couldn’t ask what I think it’s worth, and if it’s worth any less, I’ve spent too much time and effort on it. The first segment really is a solution, in itself, explaining motives and the bearing of physical facts. The one motive was handed to me by a TV news ‘magazine’, about 25 years ago. Combined with one fact, a diagram of the second floor, confirms that motive.
Available, Now, in the Store Descriptions Are On home Page.
Pt. 3 - How Lizzie Could Have Won By Killing One.
Pt. 2 - The Parents’ Complacency
Physical proof that neither victim had the slightest misgiving about their security.
Pt. 1 - Facts & Motives
1) Lizzie’s father intended to make a will or change an existing one, to leave his daughters, out.
2) His ex-brother-in-law, the sisters’ uncle, John, intended to help him do so, and they meant to do it, the day of the murders.
3) John stayed overnight, the night before the murders.
4) Neighbors said that even in the hottest weather, the doors and windows of the Borden house were shut tight.
5) The main door to the parents’ room was blocked with furniture, from inside.
6) The attack on the father, was exclusively focused on his face.
7) There was a maid in or near the house, when the murders occurred.
8) Witnesses saw her outside, at about the time of the first murder.
9) Society women supported Lizzie until she was acquitted. Then, they ostracized her.
10) Emma was out of town, for several days before the murders.
11) Lizzie rented a room in a boarding house, a few days before the murders.
12) The parents and maid had experienced bouts of nausea over the weeks, before.
Some of the segments, not yet available, will have these titles:
(Major Headings are emboldened - Subtitles are underlined.)
The First Murder
Architecture as Adversary
Architecture as Accessory
The Victim as Accessory
Accessories as Accessory
(Doesn’t everyone still know that first meaning of “Accessories” - drapes, carpets, bed clothes, small furniture?)
Managing the Maid
Nearly eliminates some and definitely implicates others. This is not merely a dry list of ‘people in the area’.
Uncle John- Where he was that morning is known. I know why he was there, but it’s not discussed in this segment, which is devoted to validating possibilities. Toward the end, there is gripping segment involving him [Pt. 9] which is critical to the case.
Why Lizzie Rented A Room
Lizzie skews her movements to Uncle John’s expected arrival.
Lizzie has an accomplice who may have been unwitting. In the preceding segment, the possibility of that person’s complicity, in advance, is found to be not in anyone’s interest. The discussion in this segment, elevates the likelihood that the accomplice had foreknowledge, by virtue of her own reasoning; simply by being a sentient being.
The Conspiracy on Lizzie’s behalf, is manifest.
Accomplices Identified As A Group, Though Not Individually Except for Dewey, the Other Judges and Lizzie’s Attorney, Robinson.
Squelching of Evidence
Why Lizzie Could Not Lose
The Father As Wild Card
If He’s Home During the First Murder
If He Was Not Home
I said “gripping”, above. Something happened, which no one has ever thought of. If anyone had, you would have heard of it, because it’s crucial to the case. I know exactly where it happened within three sq ft.. (The margin of error is the diameter of those huge hoop-skirts which women wore.) When you hear it, you’ll get it. It’s just that simple and vital to Lizzie’s plan. It's the most dramatic moment in the whole story, except for the long 'moment' between the two murders.
Recently, I realized that the ‘O.J.’ case could honestly be seen as separate subjects, although they are so closely related. Pt.2 describes realistic scenarios (described on the Home Page & in the store.) The ice cream was still frozen. That means something, but, not as much as its mere presence. Because Pt.2 offers a legit difference of subject matter, the reader can spend next to nothing for the solution in Pt.1 (which is thorough in its own way) and opt not to buy the second part.
I saw through the Trojan Horse story, instantly, as I first heard it, in third or fourth grade. That means the Trojans could not have fallen for it. The only mystery in some of these solutions, is why it took me so long to get it, after I had first noticed that the established view was wrong. I started How the Pyramids Were Built as a single work, nine years before I realized the answers. I started writing with only the hope of quashing the picture of the close-fitting ‘square-spiral’ ramp and those long lines of men pulling the blocks on pallets with ropes over their shoulders. In the meantime, I thought of some possibilities which are not right, but plausible. I have left them for you to see in three separate discussions: The Shape & Surface of the Pathway from Quarry to Pyramid, How the Blocks Were Moved and How The Blocks Were Lifted. (The last, though complete, is not available, yet.)
Why and How I Write
Before I was ten, I became interested in history as a riddle and a problem. I don’t know whether that morsel will whet your whistle or sour your palate. It is off-beat for most people at any age. In my early teens, I decided that I would write in this form, and, although I read things because they interest me, I have never read anything without also studying the writing, itself. Everyone knows the adage, “Form follows function”. Every creative work has some sort of style, but I have always been able to see style as a means to an end; a tool, rather than a product. I think I have a style which is rich, but never cloying, piquant, but seldom acidic, … (I guess that’s enough — unless you’re going to eat it!).
1} One standard I try to maintain, is that anything which isn’t needed is wrong. I’m constantly being re-convinced of it, because, the meaning always becomes more clear and complete, as the phrases grow more concise. Making everything tighter is such an important part of the practice of writing, that it’s almost a synonym of the whole exercise.
2} Well worn pat phrases almost never survive my exam for meaning. There is no cookie cutter in my kitchen.
3} Humor never indicates a lower degree of importance, and it does not require or justify slack syntax.
4} Alliteration and other ‘sound packing’ happen, naturally. I just don’t try to break it up. Oh, alright; maybe I’ve tweaked a coupla’ times. (Jsheesh! What a bunch ‘a sticklers!) There are only twenty-six letters in the alphabet. Many have more than one sound, and many sounds are conveyed by more than one letter. Sound packing / alliteration and word play often occur where a cadence also develops, accidentally. (It’s mysterious that they so often occur in the solutions to very difficult passages, requiring many sessions over a long time, to resolve. They don’t occur as often in the essays for sale, on this site, as they do in the important social issue pieces. (That's mysterious. Some portion of an effort like this, is not active or voluntary.)
5} Vocabulary is only useful when it’s understood, but words are always being stretched to mean more than they once did, and shrunken to mean less (like discriminate). Some words acquire an entirely different meaning than they ever had a few years earlier (like incredible). They may always mean something positive (like incredible) or negative (like discriminate). I must estimate how familiar a very new or somewhat dated meaning might be to most readers. Whenever it’s just as good, I choose the best known word which leaves the least room for doubt, as far as I can tell, but I might really need to use a word in a neutral way, closer to its root. I often use a word in a way which I know is still known to some people, in spite of a better known meaning, knowing that it won’t be understood by some readers. That's why there are a few footnotes. I sometimes try to re-instate a traditional meaning, because no other word quite works, as long as it has been used in the last mm-forty years (according to Oxford, when in doubt). I only string two words together with dashes like that, to indicate a new combined word, for that one purpose; not because I can’t marshal words into a phrase.
6) There is no such thing as a fancy or upscale word; just words which are understood, or not. Remember, a dictionary cannot hurt you. That’s just an old wives tale. ‘But “old wive’s tale” is one of those “cookie cutter” phrases with no meaning, which you promised not to use!’. (You notice that the single mark, ‘paraphrase quotation marks’ are outside the double, exact quotes. It’s sometimes the very thing, but I think someone once declared a rule against it.) Try to get a dictionary predating 1980. An abridged Oxford is great.
7) I have borrowed this “carrot” symbol (>) from math, where it means, “Greater Than”, to separate the numbered segment of the paragraph, from the rest. A paragraph shouldn’t have to end just because the numbered segment ends. The carrot is an arbitrary choice. I don't think it has ever been used, except in math. Applied to written language, this way, it won't be mistaken for anything else. Think of it as an arrow, pointing in the direction you read.
Why Not buy Something?
I can't think of one reason! They're brief and cheap and right. Look — right there! Isn’t that a credit card in your hand — or lying there, in arm’s reach? (I can wait while you check your pockets.)
Please don’t begrudge me one last fling of anonymity. If you give me a little lift, here, I’ll be happy to profit from the fame, but small scale noteriety can make you vulnerable, without being able to afford security. It doesn't matter whether you are liked or not. You can't be famous and live on an regular housing block.