As of its online pre-release (September, 2006), this Appendix/adjunct to my book is still under construction; some of the links are not yet active. There’s a lot more to come.This site is a massive undertaking; I underestimated how long it would take to do it. If you’re subscribed to my DSP newsletter I’ll inform you when the site is finished. To subscribe use the thingee at the bottom of the right side nav area.

First: One of my fears is that as a result of this massive Appendix you’ll change your view of my book; maybe go from having liked it to some sort of negativity. This could occur by reading too much of this, get swamped with details, which could in turn result in your subconsciously “combining” the book with the website and saying to yourself, “Christ, it was endless.” So please be on the lookout for that, and only read enough to satisfy yourself that my book is true and accurate, at least about the important stuff. The main goal here is to put everything I have on the record. To sum up: Keep in mind that this Appendix is just that, an Appendix. It’s not the book itself.

In the book I describe how I attempted to include a “Note on Veracity” in my (first) memoir, In Search of Captain Zero, and how my (demented) editor thwarted that. Consider this website a (very, very) long Note on Veracity.

Again: my goal is to prove that I didn’t lie about anything – anything of importance, anyway.

What I mean by anything of importance will be explained in Part Seven. Plus I’ll tell you what I did lie about, and why. If you paid attention while reading my book you should be suspicious about it, its veracity (as you should be about anything billing itself as nonfiction); you should be suspicious that I made up stuff.

In fact, one of my goals in writing the book was to make you more skeptical about all things you read, or even see. (In the long run — as I continue to work on and update this site — my section on World Affairs will emerge as the most important.)

You should be especially skeptical about any nonfiction book wherein the ending turns out so well, so symmetrically – in the narrative sense. Here’s a little excerpt from the Cut Chapters and Passages section of this website, which you’ll come across if your hang in:

You might remember that my theory of endings is that they’re really important, everything even, and that I’m sweating and winging it until I find the ending to whatever I’m writing. Okay. According to me, here’s what’s needed for an ending to be good, let alone perfect:

You didn’t see it coming.

It was inevitable.

It moved you.

(By It moved you I don’t necessarily mean it made you sob or get outraged or break out in a sweat and so forth, although these reactions would be nice [especially all three at once]. By It moved you I mean it, the ending, resulted in a rush of insight about how the world works, not just the world of the story but about your world as well.)

Although I’m by no means saying that the ending to my book – let alone the book itself – is perfect, my point here is that the ending is as good as it could be, given all that had preceded it. Virtually everything worked out well, in the narrative sense, especially the Esteban Mora revelation, and its repercussions. That my Max Dalton investigation from 1998 would come back to haunt me the way it did seems too good to be true – to me-as-a-writer, of course, not to me-as-a-person. This in itself should get your antennae up.

This sort of symmetry is usually limited to well-wrought fiction. And that I caught Lisa and Kim together in San Jose just prior to bolting from the country I called my home was likewise wonderful, as a tag and a summation of my point about why the world is so fucked-up. Ditto for the Fowlie treachery, his collusion with Lisa. Close to perfect, no?

I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe that these events happened as I describe, but you should be suspicious. So please doubt me, and read enough of this website – please pay attention while doing so – to satisfy yourself that I’ve written a nonfiction book that is as true and accurate as nonfiction can be.

I’ve hired a researcher to vet my comments on “world affairs” (there is nothing “political” about my views; I only make observations about lies, the law, and simple moral principles) – a through-line that may have gotten your attention and possibly aggravated you and made you suspicious of my motives, and even of my mental stability. (I mean: Bill Clinton is a mass murderer?) My researcher is working on obtaining the original source materials that will make what I write inarguable. A huge job, which, as of this writing, is far from finished. My apologies that this section of the site is not complete. There is enough stuff there now to get you thinking, which I really hope comes to pass.

A matter closely related to veracity: I suspect that in the reading of my book at some point the following question occurred to you: Isn’t Weisbecker going to get fucking sued?

A good question, no?

Apart from a couple people from the Dalton investigation, I change no names (one minor exception to this, which I’ll get to). And although I don’t generally use last names (Logan the Nutcase being one exception), I even offer up photographs of many of the people I lambaste. Am I going to get sued? This question has been on my mind also. So although this site is primarily geared toward you, my reader, my intention is also to nip in the bud any thoughts any shitball motherfuckers might have about suing me. Understand that I don’t fear losing lawsuits. I just have better things to do than deal with them. It’s time I moved on from this shit. Christ, is it ever.

This is another reason for the massive amount of information I’ve archived here. Click here to go to the next page, about lawsuits. If you’re not interested in whether or not I get sued, but only in whether I’m telling the truth in my book, Click here to skip this legal bullshit. Or if you’re here solely to see the Photographic Adjunct to my book, Click here.

But before you go anywhere:

To quote Doc Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door: “Nothing sounds believable, so we think there must be a misunderstanding, or maybe we have greatly exaggerated something in our observations.”

To put it another way, and this was me, even sometimes toward the end: No one could be that way. A statistic, according to Doc Stout and others: One in 25 people in the general population is a sociopath (by our definition, someone with whom there are no limits to behavior and lying). This means that in your life you have undoubtedly crossed close paths with someone like this. (Doc Stout advises that anyone who has lied to you three times is probably a sociopath.) Think about it. Anyone stand out?

I welcome feedback on my book and on this site. Use the Shout Back link on the right side nav bar.

And if you haven't visited my other website, you should! (And subscribe to my lunatic [and free] newsletter.)

http: www.aweisbecker.com . There's a whole shitload of stuff. Put it in Favorites!

A note on text formatting: due to a glitch in the software I'm using, when I make changes to the text my paragraph breaks often disappear, plus the font changes. So until we work this out, please bear with occasional run on passages. It's tiresome to keep correcting this problem.