Physical threat?

In the last few days of trial we have heard Mr. Tuck repeatedly say that Winnie was "physically threatened" by the stranger. From this testimony can you infer then that Mae Tuck was justified in her assault on the stranger? Why or why not? Be sure to include supporting evidence from the trial and story.

What can you infer?

During the trial on 1/13/10 the question was asked of Mae Tuck; "did you tell the stranger that you were teaching Winnie Foster to ride a horse?" Mae Tuck responded "no." Winnie Foster stated in her testimony that she was " not kidnapped, but that the Tuck's were teaching her to ride a horse." Besides the obvious that someone is lying; what can you infer from the difference in the testimony to the same question?

Legal contracts

During the trial on Thursday 1/7/10, the issue of legal contracts came up. A verbal contract is legally binding between two adults, however a verbal contract is not legally binding if a "minor" is involved in that verbal contract. How important do you believe this information is to the trial? Be sure to explain how and why it is important as well as include information from the story and the trial to support your answer.

The power of interpretation

During the trial today 1/8/10, the defendant Mae Tuck was asked a question of whether or not Winnie Foster was scared when you "took" her? Mae's response was "no". How do you interpret the meaning of that word "took"? Do you believe that Winnie was taken against her own free will or do you believe that she went willingly? Be sure to include support and evidence from the trial to support your answer.

Protecting the Family?

Winnie Foster admitted today in court that she saw Mae tuck hit the stranger with the gun. Winnie then stated that she believes Mae did it to protect the secret, Winnie then went on to reveal the secret. Now that the secret has been revealed after Winnie admitted to witnessing the crime, how do you think this information is going to help the lawyers prove their case? How has this information affected your decision of the case?

Is the land the key?

The testimony was given that the stranger wanted the Tuck's land in exchange for the whereabouts of Winnie. How does this testimony help or hurt the prosecutions side? What does it prove about the stranger use information from the testimony given in court and facts to support your answer.

Did Winnie go on her own free will?

On Monday Winnie testified that she had gone with the Tuck's on her own free will. When the defense asked Winnie if she had gone on with the Tuck's she had said yes, then the prosecution stated that had she not gone on her own free will, Winnie could have yelled for help when she saw the stranger. Does this theory prove that Winnie went on her own with the Tuck's? Support your answer with facts and information from the trial.