Analysis Of Paul Haven's 'The Curse Of The Poisoned Pretzel'

The initial description of Skidmore incriminates him for the murder of his older brother, Boddlebrooks. Boddlebrooks is described as a successful, lovable man; everything that contradicts the description of Skidmore. Skidmore is described as, "Thin and wiry... he gave everyone the creeps," (Paragraph 5). His shady existence gives a foreshadowing to a presumed personality of untrustworthiness and perhaps the ability to carry out actions that a more upstanding person would be less expected to accomplish. This is the first inclination that Skidmore could be capable or susceptible of murdering his brother. A human misconception is that the outward appearance of a person is what dictates what the

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

“Hamlet” and “Twelfth Night” are two Shakespeare plays of complete opposites. Due to one being written as a tragedy, and the other as a comedy, many comparisons can be drawn between the two plays, on themes and motifs that develop throughout the plays. One of the themes that is easily recognisable in the early stages of both plays, is that of deceit and disguise. In “Hamlet”, we learn early on that Hamlet decides to act as a madman in order to try and weed out a confession from his uncle about the murder of his father. Although he does not actually reveal to any other characters his plan until Act 1 Scene 5, when he tells Horatio that he plans to “put an antic disposition on”, the audience can recognise very early that Hamlet is going to show some kind of deceptive characteristics in order to execute his plan.

To begin, the first significant example for proving that Skidmore is guilty is that he was the only person that didn't like Manchester. Skidmore has a burning hatred for his brother, some people could say he is jealous due to everyone's love for him. In the excerpt, 'The Curse of the Poisoned Pretzel', it states, "Everyone loved Boddlebrooks. Everyone, that is, except his younger brother, Skidmore" by this statement it simply proves that he is the only person that could possibly hate his brother enough to commit such an action to poison such a loving and caring guy. No one else could have possibly done the crime except Skidmore, this is a prime example on why people believe he is guilty. Everyone

In the story "The Curse of the Poisoned Pretzel" by Paul Haven, the author encourages the reader that Skidmore Boddlebrooks is guilty of poisoning his brother, Manchester Boddlebrooks by convincing him to be the first to try "his" new invention called the "pretzel." In this story, the author, Paul Haven does not actually state that Skidmore was guilty of killing his brother. Unlike his older brother, Manchester Boddlebrooks who was very friendly, generous, and had a kind smile, Skidmore Boddlebrooks was very creepy, frightening, had shadowing eyes and sinister looks. While Manchester Boddlebrooks was admired by many fans and players, for he often offered sweets and candies to his players and fans after baseball games, and often invited his players to visit his mansion for weekend parties, Skidmore Boddlebrooks was not popular and well-liked.

Hamlet is as much a story of emotional conflict, paranoia, and self-doubt as it is one of revenge and tragedy. The protagonist, Prince Hamlet of Denmark, is instructed by his slain father’s ghost to enact vengeance upon his uncle Claudius, whose treacherous murder of Hamlet’s father gave way to his rise to power. Overcome by anguish and obligation to avenge his father’s death, Hamlet ultimately commits a number of killings throughout the story. However, we are not to view the character Hamlet as a sick individual, but rather one who has been victimized by his own circumstances.

Paul Haven was the author of the story above and it never provides any actual words saying that Skidmore did the crime of murdering his brother by poisoning the pretzel he ate, but it does provide many facts of how it most likely was him and that is what made me think it was Skidmore. I will explain what in the story of "The Curse of The Poisoned Pretzel," made me believe that SKidmore killed Manchester to get the money. A case of a man murdered by his brother was never brought to justice, it was said to have ended by a simple choking hazard when really it was an incident of an insane twisted family member. In the excerpt from the story, "The Curse of the Poisoned Pretzel," the author Paul Haven indirectly expresses his thoughts about the killing of the character named Manchester.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

To begin, as one is reading the play they start to see that everything Father Flynn was accused of he has a reasonable explanation for. The primary accusation of Father Flynn molesting Donald Muller was supported by the fact that he was alone with him in the rectory. However, Father Flynn quickly denied this because the reason he was alone was for a meeting with Donald about a rule he had broken. Donald had drank church wine on a Tuesday morning while he was serving as an altar boy and Mr. McGinn had caught him, which is why Father Flynn had to have a private meeting with Donald. As Father Flynn is explaining why he was alone with Donald he states, “Donald Muller served as an altar boy last Tuesday morning. After Mass, Mr. McGinn caught him in the sacristy drinking altar wine. When I found out, I sent for him” (Shanley 33). As one reads this quote it is clear that Father Flynn has nothing to hide because he tells the boy’s secret that could possibly get him in trouble and kicked off the altar boys. If Father Flynn was trying to hide something he would most likely not throw the boy under the bus for a crime. Also, the tone of the statement is relaxed and

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

Everyone is allowed to their own opinion as to how to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. However, there are those people that were essentially created into the monsters that they became, and no one ever considered their past history as to why they did the things they did. The psychological debate of nature versus nurture can still be debated on this point because it was them that did it, ergo their psyche belonging solely to themselves. The knowledge they have of the things they did and not feeling any sympathy to what they did can still be concluded that they did it for no other logical explanation. Yet, if one includes the past of the criminal, the actions of the criminal, and the actions afterwards, it can be pieced together to create an overall opinion.

not of any said crime, but the true measure of guilt or innocence is only as

The concept of innocent until one is proven guilty was introduced in the ancient Roman society. This concept was adopted in the western civilization and one is usually assumed to be innocent until the court declare him or her otherwise. Therefore, the Roman influenced the modern society in the area of law by introducing a concept of innocent until proven guilty by a court of

Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known tragedies. At first glance, it holds all of the common occurrences in a revenge tragedy which include plotting, ghosts, and madness, but its complexity as a story far transcends its functionality as a revenge tragedy. Revenge tragedies are often closely tied to the real or feigned madness in the play. Hamlet is such a complex revenge tragedy because there truly is a question about the sanity of the main character Prince Hamlet. Interestingly enough, this deepens the psychology of his character and affects the way that the revenge tragedy takes place. An evaluation of Hamlet’s actions and words over the course of the play can be determined to see that his ‘outsider’ outlook on society,