Should Disney Be Allowed to Alter "Tigger" Costume Evidence for Court Trial?

[Timekeeper]

Disney wants the Tigger costume to be dyed completely black or white, with its ears removed, before it's used in the court room as demonstrative evidence in the "Tigger-touched-me" case.

Disney claims that failing to do so would "ruin the magic."

The altercation of legal evidence to be used in court, for any reason, is highly unheard of.

Do you think Disney should get "special treatment" in this case?

Personally, I don't see the harm in leaving the costume as is - and possibly ban media coverage (camera). If the media does release visuals, I could see a problem. Because the accusations are only "allegations" at this time, I don't think it's fare to allow such prejudiced visuals to appear in news media. (Imagine all the harm done if the allegations are false.)

On the other hand, should anyone (including Disney) really be allowed special privileges to the point of altering evidence? Disney wants to completely neutralize the appearance of the Tigger costume, disconnecting it from the Disney cast of characters. The result would be a costume that looks like it could be purchased at the local costume store (or a Six Flags character :lol: )

Thoughts?

Timekeeper

 

[Ringo8n24]

Why would the whole suit have to be presented instead of a partial suit consisting of the hands? Isn't that what is important that you cannot truly feel anything through those things? Ok I understand that the vision thing comes into play as well with the head. The whole situation against Disney is ridiculous to me.

 

[General Grizz]

TIGGER IN COURT?!!?!

ROB! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE! :lookaroun

Kidding. Honestly, Disney does have a somewhat arguable case.

I don't think they should air it/make it public. . . and if this would be ensured, then go ahead and bring in Tigger.

 

[xfkirsten]

As much as I'd hate to see a breach of character integrity, I think in this case Disney needs to give in. This isn't a fairy tale, this is real lfe, and just because they're Disney doesn't mean that they can mess wth court rules. The law s the law, and no one is above it, no matter how magical.

-Kirsten

 

[Timekeeper]

Why would the whole suit have to be presented instead of a partial suit consisting of the hands?

Plenty of reasons. For example, maybe to illustrate how difficult it is to see out of the head of that costume.

Tk

 

[mrtoad]

Can someone tell me about the case?

 

[Ringo8n24]

Plenty of reasons. For example, maybe to illustrate how difficult it is to see out of the head of that costume.

Tk

You are absolutely right. I did not think of that. I just see lots of "holes" in the entire story.

 

[brisem]

The best thing for all parties would be allow the custom in it's entity and have a closed court, so no media can see the custom.

 

[StevenT]

I say make the trial closed to cameras, but they should not tamper with evidence.

 

[tigger248]

I say make the trial closed to cameras, but they should not tamper with evidence.

I agree. Altering the costume would be like tampering with evidence which is highly illegal. I don't think Disney should have that privillege (?sp) I agree it should be a closed court with no media allowed so pictures can't surface and everything should be okay.

 

[Bairstow]

This is ridiculous. Disney has a legal, if not moral obligation to provide the court with all pertinent evidence in the case unaltered and undoctored. Anything else is an obstruction of justice. After all, the fact that the defendant was representing a Disney character both physically and conceptually is a major factor in the alleged psychological trauma that he caused. If the corporation bothered to screen their employees this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[mkt]

*awaits subpoena to appear in court as an expert witness*

:lol:

 

[MrNonacho]

Do they have the actual Tigger costume that was involved in the alleged incident or is it just a random one pulled out for demonstration purposes? If it's just a demo, then I think an argument can be made that it wouldn't be tampering with evidence.

Altering the exterior appearance really wouldn't be an issue since that's not one of the factors being investigated.

 

[Timekeeper]

I See Your True Colors (Shining Through)

Let's not forget that the visual appearance of something, even as basic as color, has a psychological effect on people. Ask any artist or graphic designer and they can tell you about books on color theory and the psychology of color. Watch a DVD film with commentary and the director may mention how subtle color changes effect the viewer's mood and perception.

In this case, placing a defendant (who already looks like a criminal) inside of a character suit dyed completely black (as Disney proposes) may have a subconscious prejudicial effect on jurors. We associate criminals as people "wearing black."

Placing someone in the original suit, however, presents a "friendly" context because we (prospective jurors) are all familiar with Tigger and associate positive thoughts with the cartoon character. If I were the defense, I would definitely fight against have the suit dyed black. Dying it white (or any other color) would be more neutral, but it still wouldn't be as familiar or positive as the original.

People are easy to influence. How many of us really think about or care what the person inside of a character suit looks like? If we see a familiar character, we associate positive thoughts with it. Even if we assume that a person is capable of comitting a crime, if we saw "Tigger" we nearly deny the possibility of "Tigger" doing anything wrong. Tigger is still in the parks, and no one is being "extra careful" around the characters because the feelings with which we are wired are so strong.

The prosecution will definitely attempt to destroy "Disney magic" in the courtroom, and the defense will do their best to maintain it.

Timekeeper

 

[brisem]

This is ridiculous. Disney has a legal, if not moral obligation to provide the court with all pertinent evidence in the case unaltered and undoctored. Anything else is an obstruction of justice. After all, the fact that the defendant was representing a Disney character both physically and conceptually is a major factor in the alleged psychological trauma that he caused. If the corporation bothered to screen their employees this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.

Disney hasn't been found guilty yet. Remember, the defendant didn't report or tell her husband about the incident until a couple of days later.

 

[barnum42]

Can someone tell me about the case?

A woman has spotted a get rich quick scheme of taking a costume performer to court to sue them / Disney on molestation charges. As soon as she annouced her intention lost of other cases suddenly appeared - the really amusing thing is that they all cited Tigger as the culprit.

 

[PeeplMoovr]

Please stay tuned for my $.02:

While I don't know much about this particular case, I do know a something about court rules. Regardless of why Disney wants special privileges (and I definitely see merit in their reasons), nobody should be allowed to circumvent the rules of our courts. It may be difficult to see the extent of the prejudice caused by them changing the suit, but that doesn't mean there isn't any harm done. There are reasons why evidence presented must conform to certain standards. Exceptions will be made from time to time, but it's probably in all of our best interests to keep those exceptions to very limited circumstances.

Closing the court to visual media would be appropriate, and there's nothing stopping the judge from doing that if he or she thinks that's appropriate. But under no circumstances should Disney be allowed to have special privileges under the court rules. As much as I love the Magic, I think the principles of fairness and justice are just a bit more pressing.

Thanks for the thread. It should be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[peter11435]

This is ridiculous. Disney has a legal, if not moral obligation to provide the court with all pertinent evidence in the case unaltered and undoctored. Anything else is an obstruction of justice. After all, the fact that the defendant was representing a Disney character both physically and conceptually is a major factor in the alleged psychological trauma that he caused. If the corporation bothered to screen their employees this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place

Screening emloyees would not have prevented this, for one thing with the evidence we know of it would appear that there was actually nothing to prevent and that the event is entirely a hoax, secondly look at teachers, they screen them but there are still some bad apples in the bunch. And just to clairfy Disney is not on trial, the man in the tigger suit is.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I hate to say it...but Disney has no right to do this...if it happens, it's not just "protecting the magic" it's destroying the integrity of our court systems as a whole.

 

[GoofMaul]

Please stay tuned for my $.02:

While I don't know much about this particular case, I do know a something about court rules. Regardless of why Disney wants special privileges (and I definitely see merit in their reasons), nobody should be allowed to circumvent the rules of our courts. It may be difficult to see the extent of the prejudice caused by them changing the suit, but that doesn't mean there isn't any harm done. There are reasons why evidence presented must conform to certain standards. Exceptions will be made from time to time, but it's probably in all of our best interests to keep those exceptions to very limited circumstances.

Closing the court to visual media would be appropriate, and there's nothing stopping the judge from doing that if he or she thinks that's appropriate. But under no circumstances should Disney be allowed to have special privileges under the court rules. As much as I love the Magic, I think the principles of fairness and justice are just a bit more pressing.

Thanks for the thread. It should be interesting to see what comes of this.

Companies are given special priviledges in court all the time to protect their "trade secrets." I don't think Disney should be any different. I do think the altering of the suit is ridiculous, but surely some common ground can be found to protect Disney's rights as well. Having a closed court sounds like a good idea.