Home » Tuck Talk » Chapter by Chapter » That pager
That pager [message #5995] Mon, 08 September 2008 01:42 Go to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Rereading the attack and subsequent chapters and a horrid evil thought occured to me.

All those "net" messages Bill Tucker was sending out. We *know* they went to Sarah's pager. It seems logical that the "general broadcast" stuff would have been set up to go to Tuck's pager as well.

So, if Bill didn't think to remove that from the "address" list, whoever got Tuck's pager got some *very* incriminating messages.

Several subsequent messages sent by others (Susan, Sarah) during the first day might also have gone to Tuck's pager.

That could easily blow up in Bill's face at trial.

*If* Bill thinks of it now, coming up with a cover story is going to be difficult.

My first thought was to claim it was something from the gaming. But the most likely person to be sending that sort of thing is Mike. Who was otherwise occupied at the time in question. And the phone number won't match anyway.

On the other hand, if one of the cheerleaders who was in on setting up Tuck for the second attack got the pager, she probably just thought it was geeky stuff and deleted it.

Even so, if my initial conjecture is correct, Bill is going to be worried when he realizes the screw-up.
Re: That pager [message #5999] Mon, 08 September 2008 08:52 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 Mon, 08 September 2008 02:42


So, if Bill didn't think to remove that from the "address" list, whoever got Tuck's pager got some *very* incriminating messages.

Several subsequent messages sent by others (Susan, Sarah) during the first day might also have gone to Tuck's pager.

That could easily blow up in Bill's face at trial.



Are they that incriminating? I just rechecked all messages from the period. They mostly concern news about Tuck's health, and the whereabouts of various family members. Yes, there are a few things that could make one wonder, like the military-style lingo and the "weapons locked" thing. On the other hand, well... it's not like it's a secret that Bill has a number of guns; they are almost certainly all legally purchased and registered. Bill is not stupid, being both ex-military AND a TI expert he knows pagers are not a secure channel. He could easily explain that he was taking *defensive* measures until such a time as more information about the attack was known. Nobody could even prove that any of the mentioned weapons left the house, for instance.

And then, there were NO incidents since the attack that could be interpreted as the Tuckers taking revenge. All the attackers were duly arrested by law enforcement officers. So, what
I mean, if one of the defendants' lawyer brought the pager messages issue into the trial, he would be leaving himself wide open as to HOW did his client get the pager.

Let's not forget who is suing who here: it's the *state* against the jocks. Bill's at most a witness here -- and not even about the attack itself: he was nowhere near there. He could be called to testify on the issue of the stolen laptop, to explain how he traced it to the purchaser -- but the D.A. may not even feel it is necessary: the testimony of the purchaser would be enough to identify the seller. The defense attorney would have a hard time to convince the judge that the content of the pager messages sent by *relative* of the *victim* *after* the attack was even relevant to the trial.

[Updated on: Mon, 08 September 2008 09:01]


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: That pager [message #6001] Mon, 08 September 2008 18:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 74
Registered: August 2007
Member
Here's another horrid thought: it's possible that both groups may get off, or at most get a slap on the wrist. The jocks can claim "gay panic" and say they just knocked him out, the cheerleaders were the ones that did the real damage. The cheerleaders claim the jocks hurt him, they were only trying to get him out of their locker room. In this case, the only one to get a felony conviction is the one who sold the laptop. Everyone else gets maybe misdemeanor assault, and suspended sentences.

LuLou

Re: That pager [message #6002] Mon, 08 September 2008 20:14 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
Well, there's the issue of forcibly dressing Tuck in a (stolen) cheerleader's outfit. Hard to claim THAT came out of "panic." And THEN, they stuffed him in a CLOSET, where he was found half-conscious TWO HOURS later...

From what I read, the "gay panic" defense is rare, and hinges at the aggressor having been sexually propositioned by the victim. That is, they would have to claim that Tuck had propositioned one or more of them. Since Tuck had no known gay relationships (unless they find out about Travis, that is), and a number of known heterosexual relationships, it's a bit risky.

The cheerleaders *might* have a somewhat credible defense, the way you describe it. But then, there's another factor... Jody. Jody is so guilt-ridden that she will probably turn State's Witness. She can testify that they in fact were HITTING Tuck, and not just trying to push him out of the locker room. AND that when they found him, he looked SICK -- that is, no threat...

However, trials are unpredictable. That's why there's a lot of cases that never go to trial -- the D.A. might offer a plea bargain, they might accept.

[Updated on: Mon, 08 September 2008 20:25]


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: That pager [message #6003] Mon, 08 September 2008 23:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 74
Registered: August 2007
Member
Kyle: "We didn't put him in there, Your Honor. The little fag tried to grab my dick, so I punched him and knocked him out, then we took off. I don't know what happened after that."

If they stick to that story, they may walk. The DA would have to put Tuck on the stand, and any halfway decent defense attorney could break Tuck's version of things, plus he'd have to perjure himself something fierce unless he's going to out himself in court.

If they hadn't taken the laptop, this would work, maybe.

LuLou

Re: That pager [message #6005] Mon, 08 September 2008 23:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stanman  is currently offline stanman
Messages: 292
Registered: May 2008
Senior Member
I think that this is a case where the Tuck's need an attorney the equal of Perry Mason or Ben Matlock. But the fact that the pager and laptop was stolen during the attack on Tuck will surely counter any defense about GAY PANIC. No, the jocks and cheerleaders both deliberately attacked Tuck and no doubt Bill knows a few people from his Army days that could help out a buddy in need.
Defenses [message #6006] Tue, 09 September 2008 03:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
A defense assertion that Tuck was making a sexual play for Kyle in the presence of three of Kyle's friends, with a fourth one standing by outside the bathroom as a lookout, would seem to be a tough sell to a jury.

Perhaps more to the point, the Tuckers' attorney, Saul Groton, told Bill that the probable prosecution strategy would be to indict them for the theft and sale of Tuck's computer, because they had a clear felony case leading back to one of the perps on that, and could demonstrate the others' complicity. Gay panic may be a defense to mayhem, but it isn't a defense to robbery.

As Groton noted, most likely the perps will plead guilty to lesser charges -- minor felonies or major misdemeanors -- rather than take this to trial at all.

And as far as the cheerleaders are concerned, with Jody willing to testify for the prosecution, I think both sides there will welcome a plea bargain.

However, I do have the suspicion that Tuck's (or Valerie's) situation is going to be very different by the time the case is scheduled for trial or settlement, and that the publicity or notoriety that develops over Tuck/Val in the meantime will turn out to be a major factor in both sides' decisions as to handling the case.

Eric
Objection, Your Honor... [message #6007] Tue, 09 September 2008 03:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
stanman wrote on Mon, 08 September 2008 20:54

I think that this is a case where the Tuck's need an attorney the equal of Perry Mason or Ben Matlock.

Not really. Tuck (or Bill) may want someone in court to object to improper questions to them if for some weird reason the prosecutor doesn't. But Tuck and Bill aren't on trial, and they aren't going to be calling or cross-examining witnesses -- that's the prosecutor's job. So they don't need a trial attorney at all, and certainly not a criminal defense attorney.

Eric
Re: That pager [message #6009] Tue, 09 September 2008 11:32 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 Mon, 08 September 2008 17:14

Well, there's the issue of forcibly dressing Tuck in a (stolen) cheerleader's outfit. Hard to claim THAT came out of "panic." And THEN, they stuffed him in a CLOSET, where he was found half-conscious TWO HOURS later...

From what I read, the "gay panic" defense is rare, and hinges at the aggressor having been sexually propositioned by the victim. That is, they would have to claim that Tuck had propositioned one or more of them. Since Tuck had no known gay relationships (unless they find out about Travis, that is), and a number of known heterosexual relationships, it's a bit risky.


Alas, "trans panic" is way too common.

Perhaps you recall the trans kid who got shot in the head at school in California? Look into how the attacker is pleading and what he's claiming.



[Updated on: Tue, 09 September 2008 11:33]

Re: That pager [message #6011] Wed, 17 September 2008 18:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Erik  is currently offline Erik
Messages: 18
Registered: December 2006
Location: Golden, Colorado
Junior Member
Hmmmm.

I think that a little intimidation is in order.

PLEAD GUILTY OR ELSE! messages sent out.

A certain amount of haunting (not hazing) is in order.

This might actually work on some of the people with guilty consciouses. Also they could all fall like dominoes. Give one a lesser plea in return for testimony and then it's "You hit him too!" and "I didn't really mean to fracture his skull." Once someone breaks down under questioning all the police have to do is tell the other defendents and see who scrambles to be a witness for the prosecution.

Omerta doesn't really work with this group.

Erik with a K in Golden Colorado


You are not paranoid. We really are out to get you.
Re: That pager [message #6012] Wed, 17 September 2008 22:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
LuLou wrote on Mon, 08 September 2008 15:58

Here's another horrid thought: it's possible that both groups may get off, or at most get a slap on the wrist. The jocks can claim "gay panic" and say they just knocked him out, the cheerleaders were the ones that did the real damage. The cheerleaders claim the jocks hurt him, they were only trying to get him out of their locker room. In this case, the only one to get a felony conviction is the one who sold the laptop. Everyone else gets maybe misdemeanor assault, and suspended sentences.


Nope. Ginger(?) overhead those two girls *before* the attack. That makes it conspiracy to commit a felony and *totally* kills any chance of a gay panic defense.

Likewise, the timeline and Tuck's testimony (when he goes on the stand, which will likely be unavoidable) makes it impossible for the cheerleaders to have done the major damage.

Jody's testimony will help as well.

Regarding that timeline, consider that the bruising seen on Tuck when Mike started treating him, and at the hospital takes *time* to appear. Which indicates that he got beaten a lot before the cheerleaders got to him.

Oh yeah,, hiding Tuck in that closet, as well as dressing him also kills the gay panic defense. They'd have had to leave him in the bathroom or stuff him in a closet in the *boys* locker room to have a chance on that.

Re: That pager [message #6013] Wed, 17 September 2008 22:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
LuLou wrote on Mon, 08 September 2008 20:14

Kyle: "We didn't put him in there, Your Honor. The little fag tried to grab my dick, so I punched him and knocked him out, then we took off. I don't know what happened after that."

If they stick to that story, they may walk. The DA would have to put Tuck on the stand, and any halfway decent defense attorney could break Tuck's version of things, plus he'd have to perjure himself something fierce unless he's going to out himself in court.


How exactly is a defense attorney going to break Tuck's version of things?

Tuck's story (quite true!) is:

"I went to the bathroom. They grabbed me when I was coming out of the stall. I tried to fight back. Then I woke up in the closets."

If the defense tries bringing in stuff that Da Boyz did to the perps, that would be a problem because it kills the gay panic bit. If he brings it up, it makes what the perps did *premeditated*.

And there's no way to prove that Tuck and friends did anything. So it's kinda hard to prove perjury.

Hell, Tuck could *admit* to some of the stuff on the stand and while it'd get him in trouble, it wouldn't help the defense at all, because it'd be "geeks prank jocks. Jocks beat geek half to death *months later*".

That ain't apt to fly with a jury.
Re: That pager [message #6014] Wed, 17 September 2008 22:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Erik wrote on Wed, 17 September 2008 15:00

Hmmmm.

I think that a little intimidation is in order.

PLEAD GUILTY OR ELSE! messages sent out.

A certain amount of haunting (not hazing) is in order.


Nope. That would *immediately* get the defense filing witness tampering charges and other things I can't recall the names of.

That's *why* Bill Tucker told Da Boyz not do *anything* to the perps (for now).
Re: That pager [message #6015] Thu, 18 September 2008 00:25 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 Wed, 17 September 2008 23:36

Nope. Ginger(?) overhead those two girls *before* the attack. That makes it conspiracy to commit a felony and *totally* kills any chance of a gay panic defense.


I don't think Ginger's testimony will be even brought up on the trial. I mean, it's just hearsay, and worse, she can't even be *sure* of whoever said it. It's right there in the beginning of chapter 104:
- She overheard a conversation between two girls without seeing her faces;
- One girl claimed Kyle was planning to beat up Tuck;
- When she left the stall, she saw one of the girls and *deduced* who probably was the other one, but she never saw the second girl. Also, from the passage she didn't seem to recognize them by voice, so she couldn't even swear *who* mentioned Kyle's plans. This is not the kind of testimony the D.A. will want to bring to the stand.

Now, I'm not saying that her overheard conversation would be useless; it would certainly be a good tip to the investigators in the case. Considering both girls are cheerleaders, they almost certainly are named as defendants regarding the secondary attack. Jordan certainly was in the scene; Carol is not mentioned by name during the beating, but it's highly probable she was there too. If the D.A. were to become aware of the little exchange in the bathroom, he might be able to entice the one who knew about Kyle's plans firsthand to turn State's Witness in exchange for leniency. I mean, having Jordan (or would it be Carol? I'm not sure) sitting there in the witness' stand and telling the jurors how Kyle had premeditated the whole thing would be pretty damning -- and sink any "panic" thesis of the defense.


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
OK, The Panic Defense Won't Fly... [message #6016] Thu, 18 September 2008 04:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
But Tuck did make the first aggressive move of the day by spitting on Shannon's friend, and that qualifies legally as battery. The defense would point that out if/when Tuck took the stand, and would probably be able to prove it in the unlikely event Tuck denied it, since it happened in public. (Legally, a verbal attack doesn't normally justify a physical response.)

That doesn't make Kyle's attack legitimate; it's still an illegal escalation of force. But it takes the heat off the original premeditation aspect (the one Ginger overheard); the perps had reason to physically retaliate against Tuck, if not to the extent that they did that afternoon.

(And inciting the cheerleaders by dressing and moving Tuck is a whole other crime, though only a couple of them seem to have been involved in that and there's no evidence that the three others were co-conspirators. Still, by rendering Tuck unconscious they might be accessories to that crime.)

Anyway, it's one more reason to go after the perps for the stolen laptop rather than (or more so than) the mayhem.

Eric
Re: That pager [message #6017] Thu, 18 September 2008 15:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 74
Registered: August 2007
Member
Brooke wrote on Wed, 17 September 2008 19:45

LuLou wrote on Mon, 08 September 2008 20:14

Kyle: "We didn't put him in there, Your Honor. The little fag tried to grab my dick, so I punched him and knocked him out, then we took off. I don't know what happened after that."

If they stick to that story, they may walk. The DA would have to put Tuck on the stand, and any halfway decent defense attorney could break Tuck's version of things, plus he'd have to perjure himself something fierce unless he's going to out himself in court.


How exactly is a defense attorney going to break Tuck's version of things?

Tuck's story (quite true!) is:

"I went to the bathroom. They grabbed me when I was coming out of the stall. I tried to fight back. Then I woke up in the closets."

If the defense tries bringing in stuff that Da Boyz did to the perps, that would be a problem because it kills the gay panic bit. If he brings it up, it makes what the perps did *premeditated*.

And there's no way to prove that Tuck and friends did anything. So it's kinda hard to prove perjury.

Hell, Tuck could *admit* to some of the stuff on the stand and while it'd get him in trouble, it wouldn't help the defense at all, because it'd be "geeks prank jocks. Jocks beat geek half to death *months later*".

That ain't apt to fly with a jury.



Remember we're in 1997 Ohio. A defense attorney that's done even a little research on Tuck could hang the jury with one question:

"Mr. Tucker, who is Valerie?"

I'm not saying it's right, but painting Tuck as a teenage crossdresser would allow at least one of the jurors to justify voting for acquittal, on the theory that "one of those things" deserved whatever they got.

LuLou

Re: That pager [message #6018] Thu, 18 September 2008 20:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Amy!  is currently offline Amy!
Messages: 76
Registered: May 2005
Location: RTP NC
Member
LuLou wrote on Thu, 18 September 2008 15:39

Remember we're in 1997 Ohio. A defense attorney that's done even a little research on Tuck could hang the jury with one question:

"Mr. Tucker, who is Valerie?"



"I believe that that's the name of a girl that a friend of my son was going out with."

Ummm ... even if you assume that the Tuckers wouldn't cheerfully commit perjury (I wouldn't ... and I'd bet on them pre-planning, as well, for what's *worth* perjury), playing dumb and misdirecting ("I think a girl of that name ... Fasheeshevsky? ... had an unpleasant experience at a party at our house, but I have no information that indicates she was involved in so unpleasant a retribution, or that she thought retribution was needed at all." "Some ... other Valerie? No, I can't think of one ....").

"A little research"? I don't think so. The folks who know are da boyz, the pack, Julia, Rachel, Travis, Sheila, and the Tuckers. Others may *suspect*, but I can't think why an attorney would think it worthwhile to bring them to the stand. In fact, I can't think why a defense attorney would risk calling any of the Tuckers, much less any of the rest of that list.

A defense attorney *might* try the "she was asking for it!" rape defense, but that's a gamble at the best of times. I don't think this assault qualifies.

Amy!
Re: That pager [message #6019] Fri, 19 September 2008 04:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Having recently re-read the attack, I'm reminded of one of those unanswered questions. Part of the cheerleader uniform Tuck was stuffed into was wet with *something*. That's stated in the text.

The question is, with *what*?

We can be fairly sure it wasn't blood. It's damn sure not *Tuck's* semen. And it's unlikely to be his urine.

Given that they *did* check to see if he'd been raped, the clothes he was wearing would have been examined as well. So whatever it was, the lab *will* have checked it out.

If it's any sort of bodily fluid from the male attackers, that blows their defense right out of the water.
Re: That pager [message #6020] Fri, 19 September 2008 04:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 74
Registered: August 2007
Member
Amy! wrote on Thu, 18 September 2008 17:49

LuLou wrote on Thu, 18 September 2008 15:39

Remember we're in 1997 Ohio. A defense attorney that's done even a little research on Tuck could hang the jury with one question:

"Mr. Tucker, who is Valerie?"



"I believe that that's the name of a girl that a friend of my son was going out with."

Ummm ... even if you assume that the Tuckers wouldn't cheerfully commit perjury (I wouldn't ... and I'd bet on them pre-planning, as well, for what's *worth* perjury), playing dumb and misdirecting ("I think a girl of that name ... Fasheeshevsky? ... had an unpleasant experience at a party at our house, but I have no information that indicates she was involved in so unpleasant a retribution, or that she thought retribution was needed at all." "Some ... other Valerie? No, I can't think of one ....").


Sorry, I was unclear on that. It wouldn't be Bill on the stand but Tuck.

"Eugene - I can call you Eugene, can't I? - who is Valerie?"

This would simultaneously piss Tuck off and cause enough stress that it might trigger an asthma attack. That sort of thing doesn't look good in front of a jury.

Quote:

"A little research"? I don't think so. The folks who know are da boyz, the pack, Julia, Rachel, Travis, Sheila, and the Tuckers. Others may *suspect*, but I can't think why an attorney would think it worthwhile to bring them to the stand. In fact, I can't think why a defense attorney would risk calling any of the Tuckers, much less any of the rest of that list.




If Tuck takes the stand to tell about the attacks, he'll be cross-examined. At least a few of the accused's parents have enough money to hire somewhat decent attorneys, and I'm sure one of them will hire an investigator to look into Tuck, maybe follow him around for a couple days, get shots of him driving to Rachel's and coming out as Val or carrying the baby. Just the sort of thing neither Tuck nor the DA would want to try to explain.

I can also think of plenty of people to add to your list of people who know: Amy, Dobson, John the hairdresser, Dave the gay roommate, Lisa's boyfriend Gary, and Cindy Upshaw. This might need its own thread.

LuLou


Re: That pager [message #6021] Sat, 20 September 2008 06:18 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 Fri, 19 September 2008 01:07

Having recently re-read the attack, I'm reminded of one of those unanswered questions. Part of the cheerleader uniform Tuck was stuffed into was wet with *something*. That's stated in the text.

The question is, with *what*?

Water, I'd think. Or cleaning fluid. He was in a janitor's closet, so there should have been plenty of liquids around.

Eric
Eugene on the Stand [message #6022] Sat, 20 September 2008 06:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Quote:

[Defense attorney:]"Eugene - I can call you Eugene, can't I? - who is Valerie?"
Prosecutor: "That's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, your honor."

This is cross-examination. Since Valerie wasn't mentioned in Tuck's direct examination, it can't be brought up in cross unless the defense attorney can tie it in either to his qualifications as a witness or his direct testimony.

That doesn't necessarily mean the defense can't bring their investigators, et al., to the stand later as part of their case, or call Tuck as a hostile witness after a foundation has been laid. (I doubt that they'd call him, if they can prove Valerie without him.) My guess is that they could probably get Valerie's existence into evidence in support of either the "subduing a dangerous pervert by force" or "trans panic" justifications, and yes, it's possible in that time and place that they could hang the jury on that theory even without evidence in its favor.

But none of it can justify the theft and sale of the laptop.

Eric
Re: Eugene on the Stand [message #6023] Sat, 20 September 2008 10:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
I can't find the chapter where it was discussed but ISTR reading that the perps are being charged with something like aggravated robbery, a more serious charge than assault.

That Tuck got beaten up and his laptop stolen and subsequently recovered after being sold by one of the perps can be defintively proven. INAL but any 'gay panic' or any variation on it won't wash as a defense. It doesn't matter why they beat him up; that they did beat him up is the reason for the 'aggravated' part.

As an aside, if the perps get sent to jail a couple of cartons of cigarettes can arrange for some quite unpleasant social interactions.
Re: That pager [message #6024] Sat, 20 September 2008 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stanman  is currently offline stanman
Messages: 292
Registered: May 2008
Senior Member
Well, even IF the defense brings up Valerie, IT WON"T MATTER!! The jocks and cheerleaders that assaulted Eugene and stole his pager and laptop knew nothing about Valerie, and the defense can be sued for causing undue stress on the Tuckers because of anti- gay people.
Re: That pager [message #6025] Sat, 20 September 2008 12:12 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
Stanman, the existence of Valerie isn't relevant information in any rational context -- after all, as you pointed out, the jocks and cheerleaders weren't aware of Tuck's double life. Unfortunately, a trial by jury is hardly a rational context. A lot of trial lawyers' tactics (in both sides) are designed to appeal more to the emotion than to the reason -- and pushing the right prejudice buttons is right on top of the bag of dirty tricks.

The idea here is as follows: the defense lawyer manages to bring up the fact that Eugene spends part of his life as Valerie. The prosecution protests. The judge accepts the protest, reprimands the defense lawyer and instructs the jury to ignore the whole "Valerie" issue. But the damage is done: any homophobic tendencies in any of the jurors have been activated, and those jurors now are unable to look at Tuck as anything but "that pervert who shouldn't be allowed near decent kids."


Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
Re: That pager [message #6026] Sat, 20 September 2008 16:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LuLou  is currently offline LuLou
Messages: 74
Registered: August 2007
Member
Exactly, Sir Lee. A defense attorney bringing up Valerie would do so to impeach his credibility and prejudice the jury. A judge should correctly sustain a DA's objection, but a jury can't un-hear something like that. The last time I had jury duty one of the jurors fixed on something the judge to us to disregard and we spent 3 weeks deliberating on a malpractice suit.

LuLou



Re: That pager [message #6028] Sat, 20 September 2008 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
I don't remember the cop's or purchaser's names but Bill can establish:
-The laptop is Tuck's with the purchase paperwork,
-It 'called for help' when it was activated by a non-Tuck user,
-How it was tracked to the purchaser after it was stolen.
The cop can establish that the laptop was recovered from the purchaser and the purchaser can point the finger at Kyle.
Unfortunately, I think it'll take Tuck's testimony to tie all the perps together. If Tuck does take the stand I don't doubt he'll have a generic young boy's haircut, possibly with a carefully-engineered cowlick, and be dressed in a slightly-too-large "boy's first suit," probably blue serge. Remember, Tuck looks like a skinny 13 or 14 without makeup - highly unlikely to be successfully painted as across-dressing pervert.
Re: That pager [message #6030] Sat, 20 September 2008 23:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
stanman  is currently offline stanman
Messages: 292
Registered: May 2008
Senior Member
Mkemp said [If Tuck does take the stand I don't doubt he'll have a generic young boy's haircut, possibly with a carefully-engineered cowlick, and be dressed in a slightly-too-large "boy's first suit," probably blue serge. Remember, Tuck looks like a skinny 13 or 14 without makeup - highly unlikely to be successfully painted as across-dressing pervert.]
Yes, he'd need a trim and hide his assets so as not to reveal his unique attributes. No doubt, he has training from Bill that'll help him on te stand, but if need be, he can have asthma attack.







Re: That pager [message #6031] Mon, 22 September 2008 09:59 Go to previous message
mkemp  is currently offline mkemp
Messages: 421
Registered: April 2006
Senior Member
Tuck's response to any crossdressing questions he's required to answer is "My girlfriend dressed me up for the school costume contest one Halloween. Oh, and she used me for makeup demonstrations. If she could make me look good then she could make anybody look good. Valerie's somebody that one of my friends used to date."

I wonder if the jock that Debbie made up at his mom's urging was part of the assault.

This is getting rather far afield, though. The charge is the theft of the laptop. Unless the defense tries to maintain that 'crossdressing homosexual transgendered perverts' have no property rights then Tuck-as-Valerie and all the rest is immaterial. Tuck needs to practice suppressing any reaction to questions about his life as Valerie because I think it'd be highly unlikely he'd be required to answer any.
Previous Topic:Sarah's tests
Next Topic:Tuck 140
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Dec 12 00:06:35 EST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02469 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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