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

[ThumpersThought]

Again... Disney is NOT a party to this case.

You're probably right, my bad. And I don't know enough about the law to be considered giving any type of expert opinion. I don't know how much standing Disney would have (heck, I don't even really have proof they're trying outside of what I've heard on the board), but I do know that if I were in their shoes, I would be talking to the court.

 

[donsullivan]

Again... Disney is NOT a party to this case. .......

Of course Disney is not a direct party in this case. However, they are being requested to provide one if their assets as evidence in the trial. This makes them a part of the trial in the eyes of the media.

The important distinction here is that Disney is not attempting to thwart or influence in any way the legal aspects of the trial. What they are trying to do is keep the image of 'Tigger' from being tainted by such charges. The last thing they want, and I do not believe this is unreasonable, is to see the image of Tigger plastered all over the news regarding a molestation charge case. Granted people will use stock footage in many newscasts, but that is a far different thing than footage of Tigger in the courtroom which it seems to me is what people are trying to push for.

All they have asked to do is dye the costume one solid color and remove the ears. If indeed the objectives of the plaintiff in the case are as stated, how can this possibly in any way shape or form, compromise the case. If there is a problem, I'm sorry but I know longer believe that the motivation is as described, but must be something more.

 

[no2apprentice]

Have you NOT read my interview in the sentinel

I've always admired the dexterity of characters and their ability to handle those small autograph books and make a legible signature.

However, a book is not a woman's bosum (only word I could think of that may not be censored). When this whole issue came up, I tried an experiment with oven mitts and my wife. There was no doubt in my mind what I was touching on my wife's upper torso with the oven mitts on and my eyes closed.

It was a difficult experiment, but I repeated it several times until I was satisfied with my findings. Nothing like good science. :lookaroun

 

[mkt]

wear a pair of large oven mitts... that are considerably larger than your own hands. Now put your hand around another person, and see where the tip of the mitt falls on. Your hand will be nowhere near there, but the oven mitt will.

Character Costumes are not that exaggerated, but the point has been made

 

[barnum42]

wear a pair of large oven mitts... that are considerably larger than your own hands. Now put your hand around another person, and see where the tip of the mitt falls on. Your hand will be nowhere near there, but the oven mitt will.

Character Costumes are not that exaggerated, but the point has been made

An other way to put this fact across is to wrap a good dose of common sense around a two by four then use it to dope-slap some sense into someone who still thinks it's possible to get a pervy thrill through the thickness of character gloves.

:lol:

 

[KilleriMac17]

If the corporation bothered to screen their employees this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.

talk about innocent until proven guilty eh?

 

[Kadee]

Does anyone on these boards KNOW this accused person and can vouch for their character (NOT Tigger, but their true person)? I don't, therefore I cannot say whether I think he is innocent, guilty or whatever. Even if someone does know him, if you were not there, then you have no idea. Do I think it could have been an honest accident? Yes. It is very possible. Do I also think that it could have been intentional? Yes, It is very possible. Anyway, the poll is "Should Disney be allowed to alter the costume?" I say "NO" because that IS tampering with evidence. I do, however, think that they should be allowed to close the courtroom to cameras of all types. I don't think we, as citizens have the right to see it all. If you want to know what happened, read the court transcript. I DO think we have the right to that. But we are talking about lasting damage to Disney whether they are part of the trial or not. From what I understand, no matter what the outcome of this trial, the accuser can bring a civil suit on Disney after this first criminal trial is over.


Who knows what is going to happen???? All I know is that I LOVE Disney and will not stop going because of THIS case.

 

[no2apprentice]

wear a pair of large oven mitts... that are considerably larger than your own hands. Now put your hand around another person, and see where the tip of the mitt falls on. Your hand will be nowhere near there, but the oven mitt will.

Character Costumes are not that exaggerated, but the point has been made

I agree with that, no problem. One thing I discovered was that by standing next to my wife, and draping my arm over her shoulder, my hand did not hang low enough to touch her bosum without some very obvious reaching. Same thing with reaching around her back. However, when I stood behind her, as if two people were standing together with me standing behind them, I was able to reach the goal. I'm 6 feet tall, my wife is 5' 4".

An other way to put this fact across is to wrap a good dose of common sense around a two by four then use it to dope-slap some sense into someone who still thinks it's possible to get a pervy thrill through the thickness of character gloves.

That's the problem with severe deviant behavior...it has nothing to do with "common sense" or the non-deviant's perception of perverted behavior. If you think it's not possible for someone to get a thrill touching something they shouldn't with thick gloves on, then why do people get a thrill when they go through a drive-thru and expose their genitals to the person at the window? There's no touching at all being done, yet this type of behavior is a perverted thrill. Why do men touch children over their clothing on certain areas, when the child is not even developed sexually? It's not about what we perceive or even what the victim perceives, it's what is in the mind of the perpetrator. It is entirely possible that someone would get a thrill with the gloves on, because the thrill is not so much how the touching is being done, but that the person is doing it and getting away with it.

What really happened? I don't know, I wasn't there. Is it possible it could have happened? Yes, I believe it's possible. I've worked even more bizarre cases than this one. Is it sad for Disney and their image? Yes. Could Disney have done more to prevent it? I don't see how. The severe deviant mind can be very manipulative and clever.

It will interesting to see how both sides are presented and how the jury votes.

 

[Sir Hiss527]

Does anybody know when the court date is set?

I dont wanna see the images of a Tigger Costume used in a trial. The courtroom needs to be closed to cameras, and public view. To tell you the truth I dont feel that this guy is guilty, but I will be the judge of that. We'll see what happens.

 

[Timekeeper]

The Reason

How can the accusors even have a case? Do they have any evidence? A vidoe or pic, or is it just some womans word.
No evidence = no case. Period.

Guess what? A person's testimony IS evidence. Thus, is subject to the rules of evidence (i.e. hearsay, exceptions, etc.)

Someone said a conviction would make it "easier" for the victim to sue later. But an acquittal would certainly make it harder! If this was about money, why didn't the victim take this directly to civil court?

I think you have it backwards. An acquittal would only mean that the state could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a civil case is simply by a preponderance of the evidence, or "more likely than not." An acquittal would not make it harder to determine liability. On the other hand, winning a criminal case usually means there's more than enough evidence to determine liability. If you're 99% sure in a criminal case, it's easy to be 51% sure in a civil case.

As for not taking the case to criminal court and going directly to civil, do you think the defense in civil (Disney) would ever let the plaintiff live down the fact that they went directly for money? Tell a jury that the plaintiff was the victim of criminal activity and ignored persuing criminal charges and their mind will be made up. (Also, lest we not forget that the schedule of a criminal charge/trial is up to the state, not the alleged victim. Having leanred of alleged criminal activity, it's in the state's hands, not the victim's.)

Sure, a judge can ban a TV camera. But in Florida, that is EXTREMELY rare, and usually occurs only when the judge has strong legal reasons for doing so.[/QUOTE]

The amount of money that Disney brings into the state of Florida may be considere by some to be "strong reason" enough.

Timekeeper

 

[Atta83]

I just had a thought. Maybe Rob or anyone who's worked as a costumed character can answer this. Can Tigger, or any other costume similar in nature, actually FEEL anything thru the costume hands?

For me it depends on who I am friends with that day. Some days yes others its hard to hold a pen.

 

[Bagheera]

Does anybody know when the court date is set?

I believe the trial starts tomorrow.

 

[Figment1986]

I think the Tigger costume should not be modified when used in court. However i do think this case should ahve restrictions. such as no cameras, if any must be used, do not film the tigger suit portion. Disney has a right to keep the magic alive with it's company. This would be a fair compensation instead of changing the suit in anyway....

 

[donsullivan]

I believe the trial starts tomorrow.

The jury selection stage of the trial was today and as expected, many of the local media outlets are making Disney the accused in their headlines. While the text of the articles is often a bit more balanced the headlines are not. Here are a few examples:

-- Plea Deal Rejected in Tigger Molestation Trial (WKMG TV website/CBS Affiliate)
-- Jury Selection in Tigger case (Orlando Sentinel newspaper)
-- Tigger Case Heads to Trial (WESH TV website/NBC affiliate)

This is exactly what Disney was concerned about in their request to modify the color of the costume to protect the trademark. Many of the local media outlets are continuing their typical tabloid-like journalism for their own benefit. The story certainly is newsworthy, but sensationalizing by calling it the 'Tigger Case' is grossly inappropriate.

 

[Sir Hiss527]

I am watching the news now..I am gonna see what they say.

First this, now Jack Givens?

 

[MKCP 1985]

I believe the trial was scheduled to start today. Did it? Our local paper had a news story on this, and made reference to some 200 Tigger photographs the prosecution expects to introduce into evidence. 200 grabbies! Naughty Tigger!

The twist is the accused's lawyer is a WDW Tigger veteran, a unique qualification for defending the suit. BTW, has anybody seen Rob today? Was he last seen wearing a suit?

If 'Roo doesn't testify as a character witness, Tigger may be on his way to expulsion from the 100 acre wood, especially if the 200 grabby photos come in. Woo-hoo-hoo-HOO!

 

[Sir Hiss527]

I don't think it's 200 pictures..they said something that the court can only show 20 pictures.

Now what's this I hear about Rob? last wearing a suit?

BTW..what time is the trial?.so I know what time to turn on the news to find out the details

 

[thedisneyfan]

I don't think that changing the color of the costume to all black really destroys or alters the evidence in any material way (unless the accuser claims that the black and orange stripes were part of her assault?)
The color of the costume holds no relevance to whether or not the assault actually occurred.

 

[Timekeeper]

So Far

So far news cameras have been allowed inside the courtroom for this first phase of the case. The guy has cleaned up a lot, and doesn't look that "creepy" in his suit and tie.

He did not accept a plea bargain to a lesser charge, because doing so would still imply guilt. If convicted, he could face up to 15 years. (I don't know about you, but as a Florida taxpayer I do NOT think that 15 years is an approrpriate amount of time for a "touching" crime that caused no physical harm or damage. That is EXTREMELY overboard. Let's calculate how much money keeping someone in prison for that long costs...)

I think the "dangerous" images that we are all talking about are images that may show the defendant (or anyone else for that matter) wearing the Tigger suit without the head on, and this we all know as the unforgivable sin as far as Disney is concerned. For now, the only thing the news media can show to accompany their news reports is the defendant and an actual Tigger performing in the parks. But images of the suit in pieces and exposing any part of a "person" could definitely "kill the magic" for children watching the news.

"Mommy, why is that man holding Tiggers head? "

Timekeeper

 

[mkt]

alright... time for Rob's opinion.

It was an accident. I've been in the costume, I know what can and can't happen. I know of Michaels less than pefect reputation within the WDW Character Department before this incident, and I also know of what lengths a person will go to get money. I also know how much people like to get a buck from Disney, often exaggerating what happened.

The photographic evidence IS there. But remember, in a photograph, EVERYTHING IS 2D. Several inches over looks like firmly placed in a photograph, especially with bright orange paws that don't have near the depth of a human hand.

Yes, Michael is screwed, and I think an innocent person will more than likely end up going to jail over this. But I think that the family suing is at this point, just after money from Disney, and has allowed the criminal case to go as far as it has to solidify a civil case against Disney.

Why? Because Disney has a LOT of money, and people have a LOT of greed.

That being said, Michael, don't drop the soap, and PRAY that you get deported for your sentencing.

You should have been more careful when you got the reputation as the "tickling tigger." cause don't you know? It's definitely come to bite you in the ______.