Home » Tuck Talk » Future Tuck » Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers)
Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2915] Tue, 14 December 2004 11:08 Go to next message
Janet  is currently offline Janet
Messages: 74
Registered: December 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Member

With people getting tracked down (and in some cases arrested) what happens now?

Yes, the Tuckers will want (and surely get) their pound of flesh. The hows and whens are yet to be determined. Needless to say, whatever happens will be very covert.

OTOH, there is also the likelihood that there will be punishments handed out by the school and by the state. There may be court proceedings where information might get out that the Tuckers would much prefer be kept quiet. This would probably NOT be a good time for the Valerie to become public knowledge. Surely Tuck doesn't want his personal life put under the public microscope.

So, how does this all play out?


Janet

All that glitters is not Iron Pyrite
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2917] Tue, 14 December 2004 15:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
OtherEric  is currently offline OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003
Senior Member
Janet wrote on Tue, 14 December 2004 08:08

This would probably NOT be a good time for the Valerie to become public knowledge. Surely Tuck doesn't want his personal life put under the public microscope.

So, how does this all play out?

Well, we wait and see how it plays out. Only Ellen might know, and she's not telling yet.
I'm less certain that this is not a good time for Valerie to become public knowledge. The only way I can see Valerie becoming widely known being good is if Tuck decides to stay Val full time. I'm very not sure that's going to happen, though. The family might then be able to parlay the otherwise unwanted attention into sympathy and protection for Tuck. I don't know if the Tuckers are capable of playing the PR game like that, though. It seems to be a big blind spot with them.

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2918] Tue, 14 December 2004 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
OtherEric wrote on Tue, 14 December 2004 20:46


I don't know if the Tuckers are capable of playing the PR game like that, though. It seems to be a big blind spot with them.


First off, why do you think it's a blind spot with them?

Second, to play the PR game like you're describing, would require Tucker to be in front of the cameras, so to speak. Tuck himself doesn't seem like that kind of person to me... he seems the shy type.


Ellen
nosig

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2920] Tue, 14 December 2004 19:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
OtherEric  is currently offline OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003
Senior Member
Ellen Hayes wrote on Tue, 14 December 2004 13:26


First off, why do you think it's a blind spot with them?

Second, to play the PR game like you're describing, would require Tucker to be in front of the cameras, so to speak. Tuck himself doesn't seem like that kind of person to me... he seems the shy type.

Your second question is at least half the answer to the first one. Tuck wouldn't want to be an object of public attention, and I seriously doubt the rest of the family would care for it. (Susan, mayby. But even then she wouldn't want her family matters up for scrutiny.) The initial policy with the press is FUD. They will avoid outside interference as long as they can.
So, I suspect the Tuckers will keep trying to minimize attention, even when it passes the the threshold of being too much to keep quiet. I don't know that it would occur to them to try for positive spin rather than stonewalling & avoiding.
Then again, Susan did work for a radio station. We don't know what exactly she did. She might think "If we can't avoid it, let's use it." But I don't think the rest of them would. Paticulary Tuck, who, as you said, is shy. (Valerie isn't quite as shy as Tuck is, though...)
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2924] Wed, 15 December 2004 10:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
It seems to me that the potential problem's the same one that Tuck has had to deal with for some time and had more luck than success: someone "mistakes" Tuck for Valerie.

I don't see either side wanting to bring up Valerie's existence in court unless she actually transitioned before the trial. It'd be a complication that wouldn't support either side's case. Besides, the perps could still avoid a court trial by pleading guilty.)

The Parkers and Helen Carstairs would be the primary concerns and it'd be tough to keep them out of the loop if television or the newspapers showed pictures of the victim. I think Debbie would have to confront them both, as much for her own complicity as for Valerie's safety.

I'd agree with others here who don't think Helen would care much at this point, except for the potential for the situation to put Debbie in civil trouble, or possibly to implicate her as an accessory if someone sees fit to prosecute Tuck. Helen presumably wouldn't want to bring it up under those conditions.

Debbie wouldn't have much choice but to give the Parkers the medical defense we've talked about before and hope it worked. (Either that or get them to skip town until everything blows over -- and I can't see even her making that happen.)

As for the others who've seen Valerie at a party or Kings Island or the mall or the park or Rachel's pool or Chuck E. Cheese and never made the connection if they've had the opportunity, I think the Tuckers would take their chances with them. There are too many of them, there's no reason that making the connection would make them do anything (except persecute him at school, or hassle Travis about it: the one isn't anything new and Travis has several ways that he can head off the other).

Eric
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2928] Wed, 15 December 2004 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vicki  is currently offline Vicki
Messages: 159
Registered: October 2002
Location: North Texas
Senior Member

Eric wrote on Wed, 15 December 2004 09:12

It seems to me that the potential problem's the same one that Tuck has had to deal with for some time and had more luck than success: someone "mistakes" Tuck for Valerie.


Condidering the two personas are merging more and more I can see that easily happening reguardless how Tuck/Valarie is dressed. Especially if it is someone that has never met Tuck/Valarie before. WIth the physical appearance and natural female presentation how could one not make a person go hmmmm. Odds are they would say female every time. In Tuck mode she would be taken for a tomboy.

Quote:

I don't see either side wanting to bring up Valerie's existence in court unless she actually transitioned before the trial. It'd be a complication that wouldn't support either side's case. Besides, the perps could still avoid a court trial by pleading guilty.)


If it comes down to court the Tuckers have legal documentation that Valarie is IS. It has never been said what the birth certificate says one way or the other. Sometimes the birth certificate's will clearly state "sex unknown" or they will issue both a male and female certificate. I have heard some states do not put sex on the birth certificates. Which makes one wonder where Tuck was born, was it on a military base or a civilian hospital?

Quote:

The Parkers and Helen Carstairs would be the primary concerns and it'd be tough to keep them out of the loop if television or the newspapers showed pictures of the victim. I think Debbie would have to confront them both, as much for her own complicity as for Valerie's safety.

I'd agree with others here who don't think Helen would care much at this point, except for the potential for the situation to put Debbie in civil trouble, or possibly to implicate her as an accessory if someone sees fit to prosecute Tuck. Helen presumably wouldn't want to bring it up under those conditions.

Debbie wouldn't have much choice but to give the Parkers the medical defense we've talked about before and hope it worked. (Either that or get them to skip town until everything blows over -- and I can't see even her making that happen.)


The only problem with the Parkers I could see is possible religious repercussions. Some religions consider intersexed individuals to either not exist or to be damned from birth. Hearing that Valarie lived a double life as a boy at school might be a shock to the system and perhaps they might have the chldren interviewed by a child psychologist but who is to say how another person may act or react to the news.

As to Debbie being brought up on charges would depend on the Parkers and the current laws in effect.



Quote:

As for the others who've seen Valerie at a party or Kings Island or the mall or the park or Rachel's pool or Chuck E. Cheese and never made the connection if they've had the opportunity, I think the Tuckers would take their chances with them. There are too many of them, there's no reason that making the connection would make them do anything (except persecute him at school, or hassle Travis about it: the one isn't anything new and Travis has several ways that he can head off the other).

Eric



As to people that did not know Valarie personally but people she met on the street or in a business they could care less unless there were legal charges being brought against them in one way or another. Most people are more concerned with personal matters like what they are having for dinner, did they get that bill paid etc..


Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --

-Vicki
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2929] Wed, 15 December 2004 18:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Vicki wrote on Wed, 15 December 2004 17:35

As to people that did not know Valarie personally but people she met on the street or in a business they could care less unless there were legal charges being brought against them in one way or another. Most people are more concerned with personal matters like what they are having for dinner, did they get that bill paid etc..


...unless some third party (such as the notorious Fred Phelps) made it their business to stir people against Tuck.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2941] Sat, 18 December 2004 05:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vicki  is currently offline Vicki
Messages: 159
Registered: October 2002
Location: North Texas
Senior Member

Sir Lee wrote on Wed, 15 December 2004 17:07

Vicki wrote on Wed, 15 December 2004 17:35

As to people that did not know Valarie personally but people she met on the street or in a business they could care less unless there were legal charges being brought against them in one way or another. Most people are more concerned with personal matters like what they are having for dinner, did they get that bill paid etc..


...unless some third party (such as the notorious Fred Phelps) made it their business to stir people against Tuck.


That would depend on the news media in how they portrayed Tucker

Is Tucker a victim of a birth defect or was Tuck leading on the gang that caused the assult (like a female wearing a mini skirt is asking for it). . the news can twist the same story to be either good or bad all depending on the writer.


Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --

-Vicki
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2943] Sat, 18 December 2004 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Janet  is currently offline Janet
Messages: 74
Registered: December 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Member

Vicki wrote on Sat, 18 December 2004 03:11


That would depend on the news media in how they portrayed Tucker

Is Tucker a victim of a birth defect or was Tuck leading on the gang that caused the assult (like a female wearing a mini skirt is asking for it). . the news can twist the same story to be either good or bad all depending on the writer.

That's the problem with the press, they are unpredictable and usually can be counted on to slant things toward the most outrageous.

Remember that over the past ten or fifteen years the press has moved from a mission of keeping people informed to one of selling advertising. So, as well intentioned as any of the individual members of the press might be, the editorial objective will often override them.

It isn't that the press can't be useful to the Tuckers, just that it is not something that can be controlled or contained. So, being risk averse, they will try to stay away from the press as much as possible.

Consider for a moment which headline would sell more papers:

'Youth attacked for birth defect'
'Cross-dresser beaten in locker room'
'Pervert survives purge attampt'

Extreme cases? Perhaps, but all are POSSIBLE.

Yes, that third one is over the top, but it COULD happen. These days one never knows who will publish what.

So, the Tuckers are going to try to control information as much as they can. If things go to trial and people start testifying in open court, it could get really awkward for Tuck.


Janet

All that glitters is not Iron Pyrite
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2945] Sat, 18 December 2004 13:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
Well due to the age of the Tuck (him being a minor and all) there is a good chance that the court will close the court and not release his name to the press becuase while there is the freedom of press there are also laws to protect victims. While the attackers would normally be prosocuted as adults their names could be released. In a closed court testimony, witnesses, and even medical records can be sealed for these procedings if Im not mistaken so while certain people may learn of the exsistance of Val the general populace would not in that light.

Im not entirly sure about the law so I could be wrong it will definitly be a media circus outside they may learn of Tuck's name from students but everyone who knows Val is Tuck will keep their mouth closed about it. Someone should inform the Parkers before hand and guage their reaction because if they see a picture the press could get its hands on then they might discover that val is the boy on TV and they might not be so forgiving then.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2956] Fri, 24 December 2004 19:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Janet  is currently offline Janet
Messages: 74
Registered: December 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Member

Whitewolf wrote on Sat, 18 December 2004 11:12

Well due to the age of the Tuck (him being a minor and all) there is a good chance that the court will close the court and not release his name to the press becuase while there is the freedom of press there are also laws to protect victims. While the attackers would normally be prosocuted as adults their names could be released. In a closed court testimony, witnesses, and even medical records can be sealed for these procedings if Im not mistaken so while certain people may learn of the exsistance of Val the general populace would not in that light.

If it were seen to be an advantage, the defense attorney for any adult would petition for an open hearing in front of a jury. That would make things a lot more difficult for Tuck.
Quote:


Im not entirly sure about the law so I could be wrong it will definitly be a media circus outside they may learn of Tuck's name from students but everyone who knows Val is Tuck will keep their mouth closed about it.

Are you REALLY SURE about that? Twisted Evil


Janet

All that glitters is not Iron Pyrite
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2957] Sat, 25 December 2004 00:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
Yes the defense would want the trial to be open but by open they refer to outside media and the ability of both the defense and prosecution to discuss the trial to outside people example the media. This is a criminal case so it will be tried before a jury but the victim has rights refer to the Kobe Bryant case earlier this year the defense wanted to make the woman a public fiqure but the court wouldnt allow it so that there wouldnt be a backlash against the victim thats how the law works in favor of those who have been wronged.

Even if Tucks attackers are tried as adults his status as a minor and the victim will protect him from the media. The media will not be able to know his indentity the defendents and their attorneys will have a gag order that prohibits them from talking about the victims identity because if they do they will be barred from practicing law in the U.S again. They will not want to jeopordize their career for this. At least according to what law I do know which I admit isnt a whole lot but I do know some of it.

And you are correct there are people who would reveal that Tuck and Val are the same person. What I meant is that those who we know that go to McAllen all seem to be Tucks friends and I dont believe that they would tell at this point. There are some outside that circle who may or would given the opportunity to do so. Since it hasnt been revealed that any one outside the Boyz and the Pack except Kelly that goes to McAllen if anyone else does know they could tell. Any one else would have to contact the media themselves because its doubtful that they would interview any student from another school unless they ( the media ) knew of a relationship to Tuck because it doesnt have that personal level that the media seems to look for in a story.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2960] Sat, 25 December 2004 08:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Janet  is currently offline Janet
Messages: 74
Registered: December 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Member

Whitewolf wrote on Fri, 24 December 2004 22:55

Yes the defense would want the trial to be open but by open they refer to outside media and the ability of both the defense and prosecution to discuss the trial to outside people example the media. This is a criminal case so it will be tried before a jury but the victim has rights refer to the Kobe Bryant case earlier this year the defense wanted to make the woman a public fiqure but the court wouldnt allow it so that there wouldnt be a backlash against the victim thats how the law works in favor of those who have been wronged.

Excellent point... I had overlooked that. Embarassed

Quote:

Even if Tucks attackers are tried as adults his status as a minor and the victim will protect him from the media. The media will not be able to know his indentity the defendents and their attorneys will have a gag order that prohibits them from talking about the victims identity because if they do they will be barred from practicing law in the U.S again. They will not want to jeopordize their career for this. At least according to what law I do know which I admit isnt a whole lot but I do know some of it.

You are bringing up some good points.

My Dad (a retired Judge) has always disliked the term 'gag order'. It is, after all, quite pejorative. But since the press conjured up that particular term to show their opinion of the court's wanting to protect the rights of others, it shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Quote:

And you are correct there are people who would reveal that Tuck and Val are the same person. What I meant is that those who we know that go to McAllen all seem to be Tucks friends and I dont believe that they would tell at this point. There are some outside that circle who may or would given the opportunity to do so. Since it hasnt been revealed that any one outside the Boyz and the Pack except Kelly that goes to McAllen if anyone else does know they could tell. Any one else would have to contact the media themselves because its doubtful that they would interview any student from another school unless they ( the media ) knew of a relationship to Tuck because it doesnt have that personal level that the media seems to look for in a story.

The risk as I see it is that in a rush to protect their individual asses the perps will try to find and dish as much dirt as possible about Tucker. Granted, little, if any, of this would be of any value in a court of law, but making Tucker's situation public would not be in Tucker's best interests.

These would be people who would not necessarily be aware of the Tuckers' ability to extract their own brand of revenge, and thus not understand the risks. Though, I think at least a couple of cheerleaders have gotten the message. =)


Janet

All that glitters is not Iron Pyrite
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2962] Sat, 25 December 2004 09:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ellen Hayes  is currently offline Ellen Hayes
Messages: 684
Registered: September 2002
Senior Member
Janet wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 13:23

Though, I think at least a couple of cheerleaders have gotten the message. =)

One wonders... One also wonders if the other cheerleaders would 'take the hint' from those two, or ignore them. Things I've seen suggest that either course is possible...


Ellen
nosig

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2963] Sat, 25 December 2004 09:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
I never knew where the term gag order originated but I can see why the courts may find that to be a rather unliked term. Unfortunatly the press believes, at least now anyways, that the first amendment gives them the right to just tell the story straight out without regard to whom it may hurt because "the public has a right to Know" as they say.

So yes it should not be a surprise if or I really guess when Tucker's life as Val is revealed to more people but hopefully the surprise will come from who reveals it, because you are right some one will reveal it its only a matter of time.

I am glad you did question my original posts thats the way a good discussion goes. You pointed out the weaknesses in my original arguement plus letting me know that there are others who may wish to hurt Val by revealing her identity.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2964] Sat, 25 December 2004 09:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
Ellen Hayes wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 09:30

Janet wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 13:23

Though, I think at least a couple of cheerleaders have gotten the message. =)

One wonders... One also wonders if the other cheerleaders would 'take the hint' from those two, or ignore them. Things I've seen suggest that either course is possible...


Ellen
nosig




Of course one does wonder which will be applied in this instance but I do believe that question will be answered soon. What I've seen is that sometimes that unless the 'hint' ,as it were, is applied to them then then that person does not understand said 'hint'. The other cheerleaders already feel that they are not really responsible for any part in Tucker's condition and they dont seem to show any remorse for their part. If they dont feel any guilt which it does seem that Jody and Hooly do at least a little then they may not care about the "hint"
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2967] Sat, 25 December 2004 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Janet  is currently offline Janet
Messages: 74
Registered: December 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Member

Whitewolf wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 07:43

Ellen Hayes wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 09:30

Janet wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 13:23

Though, I think at least a couple of cheerleaders have gotten the message. =)

One wonders... One also wonders if the other cheerleaders would 'take the hint' from those two, or ignore them. Things I've seen suggest that either course is possible...

Ellen
nosig

Of course one does wonder which will be applied in this instance but I do believe that question will be answered soon. What I've seen is that sometimes that unless the 'hint' ,as it were, is applied to them then then that person does not understand said 'hint'. The other cheerleaders already feel that they are not really responsible for any part in Tucker's condition and they dont seem to show any remorse for their part. If they dont feel any guilt which it does seem that Jody and Hooly do at least a little then they may not care about the "hint"


Well, any of this is possible, but that's not how I see it coming down.

There are a couple of 'likely' scenarios. One is that through their grapevine the story of meeting Sarah in the hospital will get around. Some will choose to believe it, some will discount it, some will dismiss it out of hand.

Then, there is the question of what they do with that information. If they were smart, they would try to get on the good side of the Tuckers and the cops. But then, they probably aren't that smart. They haven't impressed much of anyone with their mental prowess yet.

For the short term, whether they get the message or not is really a moot point. It probably won't take too long for the cops to take an interest in the cheerleaders as possible participants in the assault. At that point the cheerleaders' focus will be less on the cheerleading corps and more on covering their individual asses.

If anything, the reaction/response to the encounter will have a longer range effect. If/when Tuck eventually returns to school, the more people on his side, the safer (relatively) he will be. Being able to co-opt the cheerleaders then (even if under implied threat) could be useful.

But, since Ellen usually doesn't persue the 'likely' situations, this entire discussion may be moot. =)

Hopefully, this will be additional grist for her creative mill.


Janet

All that glitters is not Iron Pyrite
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2968] Sun, 26 December 2004 05:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Whitewolf wrote on Fri, 24 December 2004 21:55

Yes the defense would want the trial to be open but by open they refer to outside media and the ability of both the defense and prosecution to discuss the trial to outside people example the media. This is a criminal case so it will be tried before a jury but the victim has rights refer to the Kobe Bryant case earlier this year the defense wanted to make the woman a public fiqure but the court wouldnt allow it so that there wouldnt be a backlash against the victim thats how the law works in favor of those who have been wronged.

Even if Tucks attackers are tried as adults his status as a minor and the victim will protect him from the media. The media will not be able to know his identity the defendents and their attorneys will have a gag order that prohibits them from talking about the victims identity because if they do they will be barred from practicing law in the U.S again. They will not want to jeopardize their career for this. At least according to what law I do know which I admit isnt a whole lot but I do know some of it.


True, but the name of the accuser/victim in Kobe's case became public quickly enough via the Internet. Information off the 'Net didn't have quite the credibility in 1997 that it did in 2003, but I don't think that would have made much of a difference; if people wanted to know Tuck's name and were determined to look for it, they'd find it. (With their computer expertise, Bill and Tuck could probably assure that it wasn't up there for long, but then its disappearance would become a story in itself and work against Tuck.)

Still, posting the name by itself wouldn't cause much trouble; the concern would be somebody posting a yearbook photo or something along with the name, where someone who not only knows Valerie (and not Tuck) but also knows about the Parker kids sees it, blows a figurative whistle on the situation, and makes it public enough for the defense to find out.

That's the one situation I can see where the whole Tuck/Valerie story reaches the public, since I think the prosecution would have to present the rest of the story or lose the case; a jury's not likely to convict anyone of assaulting a child molester, no matter how violent the attack was, and it's unlikely that jurors would come up with any equally logical reason that a boy would be spending months as a female baby-sitter.

On the other hand, there's no reason except coincidence that such a person would be looking at Tuck's picture in the first place, since it'd only be found on an alternative local or high school news site. I don't really see many of the Parkers' friends and relatives as regular online readers of some local equivalent of the Drudge Report.

Without the babysitting information, I don't think the defense would want to bring up Valerie. If they're using the "disabling-a-dangerous pervert" explanation, then they'd be better off, I think, with the jury visualizing the grotesquely made-up guy in a damp cheer uniform that the cheerleaders attacked, rather than someone capable of looking as normal and feminine as Val does.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2970] Sun, 26 December 2004 08:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
Your right those are some of the ways Val could end up being exposed but what we were refereing to with this line was that the court or the defense would release this material to the media.

We know that it is only a matter of time before that happens we were just eliminating those possibilites based on the law.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2971] Sun, 26 December 2004 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18


True, but the name of the accuser/victim in Kobe's case became public quickly enough via the Internet. Information off the 'Net didn't have quite the credibility in 1997 that it did in 2003, but I don't think that would have made much of a difference; if people wanted to know Tuck's name and were determined to look for it, they'd find it. (With their computer expertise, Bill and Tuck could probably assure that it wasn't up there for long, but then its disappearance would become a story in itself and work against Tuck.)


On the other hand, if Tuck doesn't know it, his dad *will* know that it's far more effective to *bury* such true data amongst a horde of *fake* data.

Just create a bunch of equally anonymous sites claiming different IDs, giving different stories, etc.

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

Still, posting the name by itself wouldn't cause much trouble; the concern would be somebody posting a yearbook photo or something along with the name, where someone who not only knows Valerie (and not Tuck) but also knows about the Parker kids sees it, blows a figurative whistle on the situation, and makes it public enough for the defense to find out.


Still coverable by the swarm of bogus sites.

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

That's the one situation I can see where the whole Tuck/Valerie story reaches the public, since I think the prosecution would have to present the rest of the story or lose the case; a jury's not likely to convict anyone of assaulting a child molester, no matter how violent the attack was, and it's unlikely that jurors would come up with any equally logical reason that a boy would be spending months as a female baby-sitter.


I have trouble seeing how one gets from cross-dresser to child-molester...

But this does bring up a well buried time-bomb. The one thing that could get Tuck in a *world* of trouble is the times he helped Ricky cross-dress.

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

Without the babysitting information, I don't think the defense would want to bring up Valerie. If they're using the "disabling-a-dangerous pervert" explanation, then they'd be better off, I think, with the jury visualizing the grotesquely made-up guy in a damp cheer uniform that the cheerleaders attacked, rather than someone capable of looking as normal and feminine as Val does.


Which could backfire in a *major* way, since the jury will be *seeing* Tuck in court. And given the way folks think he's a girl even when he's *trying* to be Tuck, I can't see them getting the "grotesque" image.

I also suspect that at some point someone is going to take the info that Ginger overheard in the bathroom (#104) and stuff gotten from qauestioning the cheerleaders dand possibly info that Mike & co get from their taps and get the info that we readers know, about someone else knowing Ashlee's locker combo.

And *that* will put the cat in among the canaries. Because that'll give the police an idea of where to search. And when they find that Ashlee's lock (and locker) has X's prints on it, but *not* Tucks, the prosecution will be able to file felony charges (conspiracy, and *attempted murder*)

Yes, given what *did* happen (regardless of what they may have *thought* would happen) I can't see any prosecutor not making attempted murder one of the charges, if only for plea bargaining.

The *intent* was to put Tuck in a situation where the cheerleadewrs would be really pissed at him. And *several* felonies (breaking and entering the locker, theft of the uniform, kidnapping Tuck) were committed to put him in that situation.

That means that in pretty much every state, the perps are liable for what *did* happen, regardless of their intent. Just the same as a perp is liable for murdedr/attempted murder if someone gets killed or seriously injured when he pulls a hold-up.

So unless Ellen has the DA wanting to soft-pedal things for some reason, I expect some *very* scared people when they find out the list of charges.

Just off the top of my head:

kidnapping (they moved him without his consent from the bathroom to that closet, that's enough in most jurisdictions)
Assault
possibly aggravated assault
maybe "depraved indifference" for leaving him in such bad shape without getting him assistance, even indirectly
Attempted murder (see my logic above)
Conspiracy to commit multiple felonies
Breaking & entering or the like for Ashlee's locker
theft of her uniform
Grand theft (the laptop)
Theft or vandalism (Tuck's clothes)
probably more assault charges if Tuck will talk about the previous attacks.

Normally "school bullies" don't get hit with this sort of laundry list because they are "juveniles" and because the school doesn't want the bad press (asnd the bother).

But this time, the principal is going to be *pushing* for throwing the book at the perps. And he'll have reasons that may convince the school board (pointing out what the Tuckers are likely to do if the board *doesn't* go along just for starters.

BTW, I find it a bit odd that there doesn't seem to have been *anything* in the local news about this. Not even "A student at a local high school was TraumaFlighted to a hospital and is in critical condition after a beating at school".
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2972] Sun, 26 December 2004 19:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Whitewolf  is currently offline Whitewolf
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2004
Junior Member
Brooke wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 12:24



BTW, I find it a bit odd that there doesn't seem to have been *anything* in the local news about this. Not even "A student at a local high school was TraumaFlighted to a hospital and is in critical condition after a beating at school".




There was something in the paper because that was how Jody found out where Tuck was so she could go to the hospital and try to, well I dont know if she really was sorry or she was just tring to save her own skin. I dont know how much was revealed in the paper but I doubt identities were revealed then.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2973] Sun, 26 December 2004 20:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 15:24

I also suspect that at some point someone is going to take the info that Ginger overheard in the bathroom (#104) and stuff gotten from qauestioning the cheerleaders dand possibly info that Mike & co get from their taps and get the info that we readers know, about someone else knowing Ashlee's locker combo.

And *that* will put the cat in among the canaries. Because that'll give the police an idea of where to search. And when they find that Ashlee's lock (and locker) has X's prints on it, but *not* Tucks, the prosecution will be able to file felony charges (conspiracy, and *attempted murder*)


I think you have been watching too much CSI. Most police cases never get nearly the attention to detail those TV series depict.

Also (OK, I admit, I'm a CSI fan myself), there is the matter of the evidence being contaminated. For instance, Ashlee certainly has handled her own lock since the perps opened it. OK, maybe they touched the locker elsewhere... but then, there is the matter of the police techs getting there before the janitor. There was no evidence inside the story of the locker room being investigated, dusted for prints etc. If Ellen wanted to show that, she could, either through the students' grapevine or in one of the Dobson scenes. So, either she's keeping this as a surprise, or the police just dropped the ball.

If the scene wasn't protected from the janitors, the best chance now would be dusting for prints inside Ashlee's locker -- the guy who took her uniform probably touched the inside of the door while doing that.

Sir Lee


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2974] Sun, 26 December 2004 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 09:24

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

...a jury's not likely to convict anyone of assaulting a child molester, no matter how violent the attack was, and it's unlikely that jurors would come up with any equally logical reason that a boy would be spending months as a female baby-sitter.

I have trouble seeing how one gets from cross-dresser to child-molester...

I hope I'm wrong, but my thought was that most Americans with a "Moral Majority" mindset probably assume that all sex deviants are out to molest children or at least corrupt them, until proven otherwise, and that a jury in the suburban Midwest won't lack for such people.
Brooke, continued:

But this does bring up a well buried time-bomb. The one thing that could get Tuck in a *world* of trouble is the times he helped Ricky cross-dress.

Just read the scene again. That's not as unlikely as I first thought; there's something ominous about this line, at the mall after Ricky wanted to see photos and Val bought the camera:
15:25 19 Jun

I took the packet of pictures from the guy, who was smiling at me like hed done me a favor or something.

Film developers are notorious for making duplicate prints of items they find interesting, and our merchant here seems to have come up with something worth smiling about. So even if Val had been smart enough to shred the photos and negatives at the first opportunity, there may well be another set of prints out of Tuck's control. (Despite the suggestion in the narrative that they'd be kept safely in Tuck's room, I'd think at that point, two weeks after the breakup with Debbie, even the idea of incriminating photos existing would trigger a better-safe-than-sorry reaction. In Tuck's mind, only the Pack's intervention would prevent Debbie's photos of Val and Travis kissing from turning up on a McAllen bulletin board or something once school started.)

Brooke, continued:

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

Without the babysitting information, I don't think the defense would want to bring up Valerie. If they're using the "disabling-a-dangerous pervert" explanation, then they'd be better off, I think, with the jury visualizing the grotesquely made-up guy in a damp cheer uniform that the cheerleaders attacked, rather than someone capable of looking as normal and feminine as Val does.

Which could backfire in a *major* way, since the jury will be *seeing* Tuck in court. And given the way folks think he's a girl even when he's *trying* to be Tuck, I can't see them getting the "grotesque" image.

Good point. Is there any way the prosecution would try the case without the victim testifying if Tuck and his family expressed the urgent desire not to be identified in court? (At the extreme, the Tuckers could force the issue by leaving the state.) And is there anything beyond the family's basic distrust of authority that might lead them to do so here at the risk of undermining the case?
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2979] Mon, 27 December 2004 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 19:16

Brooke wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 09:24

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

...a jury's not likely to convict anyone of assaulting a child molester, no matter how violent the attack was, and it's unlikely that jurors would come up with any equally logical reason that a boy would be spending months as a female baby-sitter.

I have trouble seeing how one gets from cross-dresser to child-molester...

I hope I'm wrong, but my thought was that most Americans with a "Moral Majority" mindset probably assume that all sex deviants are out to molest children or at least corrupt them, until proven otherwise, and that a jury in the suburban Midwest won't lack for such people.



The "Moral Majority" was never more than a very vocal *minority*.

And even back when the story is set, most folks aren't quite *that* apt to have that reflex, nor to go with it if presented with any sort of evidence in court.

Gay bashers have a long record of *not* getting away with it even in the midwest. At least if it comes to court and they can't play the "gay panic" defense (ie "he came on to me and I was afraid he'd rape me or something")

Given the severity of Tuck's injuries, and that he essentially got *ambushed*, even in the midwest, I don't see a jury being terribly sympathetic to any "he's a dangerous pervert" type defense.

But Ellen will write what she writes.

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 19:16

Brooke, continued:

But this does bring up a well buried time-bomb. The one thing that could get Tuck in a *world* of trouble is the times he helped Ricky cross-dress.

Just read the scene again. That's not as unlikely as I first thought; there's something ominous about this line, at the mall after Ricky wanted to see photos and Val bought the camera:
15:25 19 Jun

I took the packet of pictures from the guy, who was smiling at me like he�d done me a favor or something.

Film developers are notorious for making duplicate prints of items they find interesting, and our merchant here seems to have come up with something worth smiling about. So even if Val had been smart enough to shred the photos and negatives at the first opportunity, there may well be another set of prints out of Tuck's control.


Well, I think you are reading too much into it. The "smiling like he'd done me a favor" brings to mind the far too common mindset of some "customer service" types who seem to consider it an imposition to be asked to do their jobs in the manner they are supposed to.

Even if the guy made an extra set of prints, the pics are of *Ricky*. That makes it hard to tie them to anything.

Brooke, continued:

Eric wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 02:18

Without the babysitting information, I don't think the defense would want to bring up Valerie. If they're using the "disabling-a-dangerous pervert" explanation, then they'd be better off, I think, with the jury visualizing the grotesquely made-up guy in a damp cheer uniform that the cheerleaders attacked, rather than someone capable of looking as normal and feminine as Val does.

Which could backfire in a *major* way, since the jury will be *seeing* Tuck in court. And given the way folks think he's a girl even when he's *trying* to be Tuck, I can't see them getting the "grotesque" image.

Good point. Is there any way the prosecution would try the case without the victim testifying if Tuck and his family expressed the urgent desire not to be identified in court? (At the extreme, the Tuckers could force the issue by leaving the state.) And is there anything beyond the family's basic distrust of authority that might lead them to do so here at the risk of undermining the case?[/quote]

The *defense* can call Tuck to the stand. And might think it'd help their case.

Tuck being a minor changes the rules some.

I'm not sure that moving out of state is all that practical. The family would have to abandon a *lot*. Including a lot of contracts, which Bill seems to consider almosdt sacred.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #2980] Fri, 31 December 2004 05:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Mon, 27 December 2004 14:12

Even if the guy made an extra set of prints, the pics are of *Ricky*. That makes it hard to tie them to anything.

There's at least one of Val, Ricky and Stella together:
14:09 19 Jun

That had been a fast twelve shots. And it had a timer on the shutter, so I could get all three of us in the picture without having to ask someone to help.

I have a vague memory that even at the time I first read it I wondered why Val would want to do that. In the context of the story, it might be nothing more than Val wanting to test the camera's timing feature before they left the mall. But it does leave a potentially incriminating picture unaccounted for, if the developer saw fit to keep a copy.

Brooke, continued

The *defense* can call Tuck to the stand. And might think it'd help their case.

I couldn't think of any reason they'd want to, assuming Valerie wasn't an issue. If the prosecution called Tuck and tried to use his identification of the perps as evidence, they'd eagerly cross-examine -- between his condition at the time of the assault, his condition in the hospital when he identified people out of the yearbook, the fact that he'd been chased through a window earlier that day by a different group, and could easily be confusing some of those people with the actual attackers, and the whole question of his mental state, the defense could do a pretty good job of minimizing the damage of his testimony.

But if the whole question never came up, it'd save them some trouble. As you noted in your 12/26 note, they'd have a lot to overcome trying to convince a jury that someone who looked like Tuck/Val could have been a serious physical threat to the attackers even in a berserk rage.

Eric
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3671] Sat, 11 June 2005 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Sir Lee wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 17:37

Brooke wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 15:24

I also suspect that at some point someone is going to take the info that Ginger overheard in the bathroom (#104) and stuff gotten from qauestioning the cheerleaders dand possibly info that Mike & co get from their taps and get the info that we readers know, about someone else knowing Ashlee's locker combo.

And *that* will put the cat in among the canaries. Because that'll give the police an idea of where to search. And when they find that Ashlee's lock (and locker) has X's prints on it, but *not* Tucks, the prosecution will be able to file felony charges (conspiracy, and *attempted murder*)


I think you have been watching too much CSI. Most police cases never get nearly the attention to detail those TV series depict.

Also (OK, I admit, I'm a CSI fan myself), there is the matter of the evidence being contaminated. For instance, Ashlee certainly has handled her own lock since the perps opened it. OK, maybe they touched the locker elsewhere... but then, there is the matter of the police techs getting there before the janitor. There was no evidence inside the story of the locker room being investigated, dusted for prints etc. If Ellen wanted to show that, she could, either through the students' grapevine or in one of the Dobson scenes. So, either she's keeping this as a surprise, or the police just dropped the ball.


I was re-reading this thread and have to note that *now* the story has Ashlee's locker getting dusted. Inside as well as out. And since the cheerleaders were suspended, nobody has touched their lockers since the attack anyway.

Sir Lee wrote on Sun, 26 December 2004 17:37

If the scene wasn't protected from the janitors, the best chance now would be dusting for prints inside Ashlee's locker -- the guy who took her uniform probably touched the inside of the door while doing that.


I seriously doubt that the janitors ever *touch* the lockers except during the summer break when they'd get cleaned out, or if there's been an incident of graffitti or the like.

They sweep and mop the floors in the locker rooms and clean up obvious "messes". Scrub the walls in the showers and maybe a few other places *occasionally*.

So evidence on the floors is gone. Prints on the door of the janitor's closet were compromised from the word go.

On the other hand, after a few re-reads, if the cops can manage to extract a reasonably accurate account of what went on in the girl's locker room (I'm not hopeful of this, but it could happen)
there are going to be some interesting questions asked.

You see, after going over the attack in the girls locker room carefully, several things stand out. And they all add up to at least one of the cheerleaders being in on it and setting up the attack.

Tuck 104 Goodbye Cruel World

"Oh my GOD you little FREAK! What the hell were you DOING?!"
Ashlee screamed in rage as she pulled someone-
*Well, that's where her uniform w-*
"TUCKER?!" Shannon gasped in shock. Beneath the really badly done
makeup, she could just barely recognize the fag that was in her
cosmetology class, as Ashlee yanked him to his feet and out of the
janitor's closet. "What the fuck are you-"
Ashlee, apparently beyond words at this point, yanked him forward
and pushed him violently around in a circle until he ran into a locker,
just getting an arm up over his face before impact. Shannon got a
glimpse of both a stuffed bra and a wet black nylon-covered buttock as
she did.
"OhmyGODhewasJERKINGOFFwhileWEARINGherCLOTHES?!" Jordan shrieked,
and Shannon gagged.


Now Jordan *could* be jumping to conclusions. Or she could be deliberately triggering things. Shannon would appear to be innocent given her thoughts. Ashlee is also probably innocent of the setup as if she was in on it, the whole bit about the combination of her lock is unnecessary.

[Updated on: Sat, 11 June 2005 20:18]

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3699] Mon, 13 June 2005 00:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Josea  is currently offline Josea
Messages: 56
Registered: December 2004
Location: Between Venus and Mars
Member
I don't think any of the cheerleaders were in on the attack by the jocks. I doubt these bullies ever thought they would catch Tuck in the gym since he's no longer taking PE. From some of the conversation after they beat him, it looks like dressing him up in Ashlee's uniform was a spur of the moment kind of thing. I seem to recall that somebody said, "hey I got an idea." Or something like that.

-Josea


Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3701] Mon, 13 June 2005 00:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Thing is the attack in the bathroom was at least *partially* planned or Ginger wouldn't have overheard the other two girls talking about it.

Hmm. Come to think of it, if Ginger tells the cops that then those two girls are accessories before the fact.

And one of the cheerleaders (probably Jordan) had to be in on placing Tuck there even if it wasn't though of until after the first attack. That makes her an accesory to both the first *and* second beatings *and* to kidnapping, criminal negligence and probably other things. Oh yeah, the DA can drop various "conspiracy to" charges in there as well, both on the guys who did the first beating and all the folks who were involved in getting tuck into that closet.

And if it was Jordan who did it, if anybody remembers that comment of hers that I quoted previously, then she can be held to have *incited* the second beating.

Depending on how much of this comes out, she could be put away for a lot longer than any of the rest.

On the other side of things, I suspect that poor Jody is about ready to snap. Hope she doesn't commit suicide. Sad


Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3704] Mon, 13 June 2005 01:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Josea  is currently offline Josea
Messages: 56
Registered: December 2004
Location: Between Venus and Mars
Member
You made me go looking for this scene.
Quote:

***

"No, wait, I know what to do..."

***

"That little faggot Tuck and his little girlfriend," Ginger heard, and she clamped down and stopped pissing so she could hear.
"What, Debbie?"
"No!" complained the first voice. "The fish brat, the one that hangs with them in Geekville during lunch, you know-"
"Oh yeah, the dykeling," the second commented scornfully.
"Yeah, aren't those two made for each other? I think they're gonna start switching clothes soon, I mean, JEEZUS have you seen what the little fag looks like lately? I swear, I saw him wearing makeup the other day?"
"No shit? GOD what a queer!"
"For real!"
Ginger doubted that Tuck had been wearing makeup at school; he wasn't that stupid, for one thing. But she had noticed that he was starting to look more effeminate, ever since that party where the girls had put makeup on him...
*Maybe I ought to tell George?* she wondered, chewing on her lip.
"I wish somebody would beat the shit out of the little faggot, show him what-"
"Oh, he's gonna get it. Kyle said that he was gonna kick the fag's ass for what he did..."
The first thing any of them would do is ask her who had been talking, which is why she pulled her underwear and jeans up and flushed and got out of the stall as quickly as possible.
She could see the face of one girl at the sink, Carol Daley, which allowed Ginger to deduce that the other one was Jordan Tessier; the two of them ran around a lot together, being that both were cheerleaders and Jordan couldn't wipe her own ass without an audience to show off for.
She found a sink as far away from them as she could to wash her own hands, and she heard them leaving.

***

"How do you know the locker combination?"
"She got the lock from me, after she lost hers, a couple-"
"How do you LOSE a locker lock?"

***

Jordan knew that Kyle was planning to beat up Tuck but did she know that they had just done that? Or that they were planing to put him in Ashlee's uniform? Her conversation in the restroom takes place just after somebody got the idea of dressing him as a cheerleader and just before they take him to the girl's locker room. I don't think anybody had time to tell Jordan (or anyone else). They were probably in a rush to avoid getting caught.

-Josea

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3706] Mon, 13 June 2005 05:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
I'm more inclined to think that the "no wait, I know what to do" goes with Dobson at his computer, which was the scene immediately before if I recall correctly.

It doesn't feel right for the guys who beat up Tuck.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3708] Mon, 13 June 2005 11:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Josea  is currently offline Josea
Messages: 56
Registered: December 2004
Location: Between Venus and Mars
Member
Quote:

***

Paul settled back into his seat, and as he turned to his computer and saw an overly familiar and very unwelcome blue screen staring back at him, his mind went to Eugene and Valerie.

***

"No, wait, I know what to do..."

***


I'm less inclined to think it was Dobson at his computer who said that because it was separated by the ***. I could be wrong, however. I just don't think that the guys had planned on dressing Tuck as a cheerleader. They were chasing him much earlier just to beat him up, but I don't think they ever expected to catch him at the gym. Also I doubt that if they had caught him earlier that they would have taken him to the girls locker room. Too much change of getting caught.

However, I'm starting to think you may be right about Jordan knowing what the guys did. Perhaps one told her between classed Just before the girls entered their locker room. But there is still the problem of timing.

[Updated on: Mon, 13 June 2005 11:23]

Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3712] Mon, 13 June 2005 19:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Josea wrote on Mon, 13 June 2005 08:18

I'm less inclined to think it was Dobson at his computer who said that because it was separated by the ***.


True, that's a problem. But the wording just doesn't seem right for the jocks involved in the beating either.

It may be an unknown party, just like the "this can't be right" comment from whoever was looking at Tuck's charts at the hospital.

Current best guess on *that* one is Miz Parker's sister Cindy, btw.

Josea wrote on Mon, 13 June 2005 08:18

I could be wrong, however. I just don't think that the guys had planned on dressing Tuck as a cheerleader. They were chasing him much earlier just to beat him up, but I don't think they ever expected to catch him at the gym. Also I doubt that if they had caught him earlier that they would have taken him to the girls locker room. Too much change of getting caught.


I never said they'd planned to dump him in the girls locker room. But they had planned to do a beat down on him. That's conspiracy to commit a felony. And Jordan rather obviously knew about it. Which, as I noted, makes her an accesory before the fact.

If she helped them move tuck and get the uniform (once they decided to do *that*) then that makes her an accessory to kidnapping, endangerment, etc. As well as making her an accessory *after* the fact to the beating.

Josea wrote on Mon, 13 June 2005 08:18

However, I'm starting to think you may be right about Jordan knowing what the guys did. Perhaps one told her between classed Just before the girls entered their locker room. But there is still the problem of timing.


She knew that they planned to beat Tucker. No timing problem there. *After* the beating they could have approached her for help with getting him to the girl's locker room. And she could have opened Ashlee's locker (assuming that she was the one who gave Ashlee the lock).

They'd *need* a girl to check to make sure that the girl's locker room was empty and act as lookout.

That seems to involve few assumptions and not have any timing problems. And not contradict any known facts.


Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3718] Tue, 14 June 2005 03:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
It seems to me the timing's not right. That would make all three of these, which come consecutively in the story, Carol and Jordan. There's no reason they'd take a bathroom break between #1 and #3. And #2 would say, "oh, he got it."

Quote:

***
"No, wait, I know what to do..."
***
"That little faggot Tuck and his little girlfriend," Ginger heard, and she clamped down and stopped pissing so she could hear. [...]"I wish somebody would beat the shit out of the little faggot, show him what-" "Oh, hes gonna get it. Kyle said that he was gonna kick the fags ass for what he did..." The first thing any of them would do is ask her who had been talking [...] She could see the face of one girl at the sink, Carol Daley, which allowed Ginger to deduce that the other one was Jordan Tessier; the two of them ran around a lot together, being that both were cheerleaders and Jordan couldnt wipe her own ass without an audience to show off for[...]
***
"How do you know the locker combination?" "She got the lock from me, after she lost hers, a couple-" "How do you LOSE a locker lock?"
***

#1 can't be Dobson -- it's being said to someone, and he's alone. (An internal statement would be in asterisks, not quotes.) Doesn't sound to me like the guy who got the laptop out of the trash, either; that would add a co-conspirator there (the person he or she is speaking to) that we wouldn't otherwise need.

And it DOES sound to me like #3 is implementing an idea that someone suggested, and #1's the obvious place that suggestion came from.

Further, the person being queried in #3 is probably a guy -- it'd certainly be odd for him to know a locker combination in the girls' locker room; much less so for one of the other cheerleaders.

Also, we know that the girls' locker room was Kyle's idea, because of the broken nose:
Quote:

***
"Jesus, I cant believe that little shit... I think he broke my fucking nose!" "Shut the hell up, it was your idea to use the locker room-" "You fucking thought it was a good idea-"

We don't KNOW that the mysterious Fifth Restraining Order is a guy, though.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3721] Tue, 14 June 2005 05:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Eric wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 00:54

It seems to me the timing's not right. That would make all three of these, which come consecutively in the story, Carol and Jordan. There's no reason they'd take a bathroom break between #1 and #3. And #2 would say, "oh, he got it."


No, no one has suggested that #1 is Carol or Jordan. It could be one of the *guys* that beat up Tuck, or it could be something totally unrelated.

Eric wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 00:54

Quote:

***
"No, wait, I know what to do..."
***
"That little faggot Tuck and his little girlfriend," Ginger heard, and she clamped down and stopped pissing so she could hear. [...]"I wish somebody would beat the shit out of the little faggot, show him what-" "Oh, he�s gonna get it. Kyle said that he was gonna kick the fag�s ass for what he did..." The first thing any of them would do is ask her who had been talking [...] She could see the face of one girl at the sink, Carol Daley, which allowed Ginger to deduce that the other one was Jordan Tessier; the two of them ran around a lot together, being that both were cheerleaders and Jordan couldn�t wipe her own ass without an audience to show off for[...]
***
"How do you know the locker combination?" "She got the lock from me, after she lost hers, a couple-" "How do you LOSE a locker lock?"
***

#1 can't be Dobson -- it's being said to someone, and he's alone. (An internal statement would be in asterisks, not quotes.) Doesn't sound to me like the guy who got the laptop out of the trash, either; that would add a co-conspirator there (the person he or she is speaking to) that we wouldn't otherwise need.


#1 could be Dobson talking *aloud* to himself. I know a lot of people who do that sort of thing when they get an "aha!" moment.

Eric wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 00:54

And it DOES sound to me like #3 is implementing an idea that someone suggested, and #1's the obvious place that suggestion came from.

Further, the person being queried in #3 is probably a guy -- it'd certainly be odd for him to know a locker combination in the girls' locker room; much less so for one of the other cheerleaders.


It's generally odd for you to know *anyone* else's combo. Too easy for pranks or worse to occur.

Eric wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 00:54

Also, we know that the girls' locker room was Kyle's idea, because of the broken nose:
Quote:

***
"Jesus, I can�t believe that little shit... I think he broke my fucking nose!" "Shut the hell up, it was your idea to use the locker room-" "You fucking thought it was a good idea-"

We don't KNOW that the mysterious Fifth Restraining Order is a guy, though.


No we don't "know that the girls' locker room was Kyle's idea".

Tuck was ambushed in the bathroom of the *boys* locker room. That's the locker room being referred to. After all, that's where Kyle got his nose mashed by Tuck.

See below.

tuck103 The Tuck Stops Here

***
12:33 9 Oct

"Man, this is gonna be one of those days," I complained to Mike as
I hoisted my pack up.
"I think it's already been one of those days," Mike countered.
"Maybe two or three," I escalated. "Anyway, you gonna be home
after school? I think I can still call you from the Parkers' place."
"Yeah, I was planning to anyway."
"Yeah, okay, I'll call." I had to piss. "See ya," I said, and we
waved as he left the locker room and I went to the toilets.


Tuck is still inside the locker room.


tuck103 The Tuck Stops Here

***
12:36 9 Oct

I had just zipped up my pants when someone announced, "FAGGOT!" and
grabbed me.
While he shoved my head into the toilet bowl, I curled my legs and
kicked back, and then I was free and scrambling up the stall walls
because I could hear his friends yelling in protest.
I made it out of the bathroom and shed the pack, which tripped at
least one of them, and ran like hell for the nearest exit.
There were two more of them there, waiting.
I turned, and the first two were just coming into view.
And I was trapped, with no way out.
"LEAVE ME ALONE!" I screamed, as loud as I could, as I got some
room to move.
"You are gonna DIE, faggot," Kyle announced, so he's the one I hit
first. I missed his throat but did some major damage to his face;
something crunched. I dived past him as he fell away and almost made it
but someone grabbed my leg and pulled backwards. I rewarded that one
with a stomp with the other leg, but then I was in the middle of them,
and one of them grabbed me by the head and slammed me into a locker.
I lost consciousness on the fourth impact.

***


All the above action happens *inside* the boys locker room.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3722] Tue, 14 June 2005 09:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Tue, 14 June 2005 02:25

#1 could be Dobson talking *aloud* to himself. I know a lot of people who do that sort of thing when they get an "aha!" moment.

But not, I don't think, in a story section where a distinction is so clearly being drawn between dialogue and internal monologue.

Also, if that's an "aha!" moment for Dobson, you're reading something there that I'm not. Nothing happens in the brief period between Dobson staring at the "unwelcome" blue screen and Ortega's report that Tuck didn't make it to calculus class that suggests anything positive (or otherwise) having happened to Dobson in the meantime. And after that, any solution he had would have become a moot point.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3727] Tue, 14 June 2005 14:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sir Lee  is currently offline Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Senior Member
Not to mention that Dobson (and just about anybody but the Rat Boyz and Bill, for that matter) has been portrayed as almost clueless with computers. This "I know what to do" would be highly out of character.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: Retribution vs Privacy (possible spoilers) [message #3761] Tue, 21 June 2005 00:01 Go to previous message
mthead  is currently offline mthead
Messages: 28
Registered: May 2005
Location: Baton Rouge
Junior Member
IMO the "Wait, I know what to do." smells like a roach with a trojan.

The roach(s) have been woven in and around the story in that same mysterious way.
Previous Topic:Who would you like to see Tuck/Val end up with?
Next Topic:Posters
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jun 21 16:19:25 EDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02796 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.7.
Copyright ©2001-2007 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software