The Student Press Law Center has picked up the story, and while they largely repeat what was reported by a Lexington TV station, they do have a couple new quotes from the high school principal:
"The boy's version was that he was writing a story about zombies and it was for a portfolio entry that was going to be turned in at school," Atkins said. "The teachers aren't aware of any kind of project like that. The word 'zombies' was not mentioned in the writings."
Atkins said investigators and school officials were concerned because they perceived "a direct threat" to Clark High School in the writings, although the school was never mentioned.
"It did not mention [Clark High School or school officials] specifically but it did mention 'the high school,' and how many teachers were there and how long it would take the police to arrive once they received an emergency call," Atkins said. "It implied very strongly that it was referring to this school."
Atkins said law enforcement agents showed him the writings, which resembled "notes and a plan. ... It sounded to be kind of an advertisement or recruiting to meet a goal, and a goal was stated which was very negative about the school."
On the one hand, this does call Poole's claims into question, and without any actual reference to reanimated corpses or other fantastic creatures, then perhaps it is not so clear how fictional or reality-based Poole's writings are.
However... it strikes me as odd the degree of weasely language Atkins uses. "It sounded to be kind of an advertisement or recruiting ..." That's awful equivocal for someone who presumably helped convince the police and D.A. that Poole should be locked up as a terrorist, isn't it? Even though he can categorically state that there are no zombies mentioned, and no school projects that he was writing fiction for, he hems and haws on the point of what, exactly, these writings are, and definitely seems to be keeping open the possibility that his interpretations isn't necessarily correct. In some circles, this is called "reasonable doubt," and ideally should prevent trumped up charges from being filed.
And this: "[A] goal was stated which was very negative about the school"? Huh? That could mean anything from setting the building on fire, to TP'ing the school grounds, to wishing his teachers would have their brains eaten by unidentified undead individuals. Again, if this kid is such a danger, if his writing is such strong evidence of the danger he posed, why give himself all this wiggle room instead of saying, "This is what he wrote"?
And for those who do not follow Neil Gaiman's blog, a) why not? and b) you may wish to look at this case he involved himself in, of a California teen in a similar situation. Unfortunately, idiocy is not confined to any one state, red or blue...
