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

[GoofMaul]

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.

Yeah, but according to our great American system Disney is responsible for everything their employees do on the job. And of course, Disney in a way is on trial because after the Criminal trial I am going to just take a wild guess that all these people are going to be coming after Disney for money if this employee is found guilty. Personally, I am sick of the sue happy nature of this country. Especially, when I see parents allowing their children to do dangerous things and I know that those people will be the first to sue if thier child gets hurt.

 

[Disneygrl36]

As much as I personally would hate to see "Tigger" in the courtroom, I think as long as they keep cameras etc out so that they can't show it on the news that it should be fine to let the costume appear as is..I think it can only help people to see how padded the hands are so that not much of anything can be felt & how difficult it is to even see out of the costumes in the first place.

 

[bgraham34]

Now this is all messed up. I cant even comment on it. Well not really messed up but I dont really want to comment on it. Free Tigger

 

[PeeplMoovr]

Companies are given special priviledges in court all the time to protect their "trade secrets." I don't think Disney should be any different.

Absolutely. But trade secrets are already recognized special rights and for specific reasons. I don't see how the viewing of a tigger costume that may have been involved in this case equates to trade secrets, though. Trade secret protection is a good idea, as it encourages ingenuity, progress, and investment. Other recognized special protections are also necessary at times (like rape victims, co-defendants being tried together). I guess I meant that I don't see why rules that should be uniform for everyone should allow for a special "Magic" protection for Disney. And, especially if there are other ways to prevent people from viewing it (like closing the courtroom to visual media).
I could be wrong, though. It definitely wouldn't be the first time. :lol:

 

[Wckd Queen]

I can understand why Disney would not want an actual "Tigger" costume shown in court, but I think that by letting it be shown would only help their case. Obstructed vision, cumbersome gloves, etc can only help them to prove the grope was unintentional (I'm not saying it was or wasn't, that's up to the court) Granted, this could be shown using any costume of the same kind, be it Tigger or otherwise, but the court might look less favorably on an altered costume (have they something to hide?) than on an unaltered one.

 

[Jekyll Baker]

I would agree to having the actual entire costume in question submitted to the court in its unaltered form. But also allow for the "protection" of Disney's branding or "magic". Either prohibit any media from the courtroom, or have a court appointed third party discolor the costume to gray or beige (anything but white or black or a true color). This way, there should be no alteration of any other kind made on the costume (i.e. reworking the gloves, eyeholes, etc) that the court may be wary of. Also maybe allow the court to also pick a random costume (not Tigger, but at least similar in make) from the WDW prop closet to be able to compare construction, etc - just in the slim chance that Disney would alter the construction of all of its Tigger costumes before the trial.

and BTW, I thinks it's a ridiculous, sue-happy case anyway. I just want to have as level a playing field as possible, and leave no room for mistakes.

 

[Wckd Queen]

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?

 

[mrtoad]

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.

Thank-you for the response. Is there anywhere I can read more about the case?

As for the costume being in the court room, I think it is ok as long is there are no cameras in the court room. The images will wind up on TV for little kids to see. Even if using the costume helps prove that it was a mistake, kids will not see the outcome, only the images.

 

[phlydude]

If there is physical evidence associated with the suit, it should not be altered. If it is merely there for someone to test it to see whether they can see properly or feel anything, then why not dye it?

A couple if's and the rules change a little.

 

[Michael C]

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.

Obviously, the point of "innocent until proven guilty" is very valid, and it's something that we often forget about. However, in these sorts of cases, the deatils of when the person reports the incident has no relationship to whether or not it is true. It's very normal for someone to wait a couple of days or even longer. People are embarassed, confused, and all sorts of other things.

Plus, when we're talking about some sort of molestation that doesn't involve rape, it's even more confusing for the victim. It's very normal to try to shrug it off, but then you realize that it's really bothering you.

Again, I have no idea who is right or wrong here, but the fact that she waited a couple of days says nothing to me except that if she is telling the truth, her reaction is very normal. For everyone's sake, I hope it is not the truth. That would be very sad, but I suppose it's sad no matter what the truth is.

 

[barnum42]

Thank-you for the response. Is there anywhere I can read more about the case?

There were a few threads on here a while back: I've done a search and come up with this:

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=36883&page=1
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=37157

 

[comeoneileen999]

ya the whole tigger thing i guess in some ways it surprises me but in some ways it doesnt but no matter what disney isnt above the law and they cant tamper with evidence. I think they have a better fighting chance if they DON'T change the costume... that would be sad if "tigger" was accused of this and they had to change tigger or even get rid of him... do you think they would do that??? i hope not

 

[1disneydood]

I honestly believe Disney should give the media the big FU and settle out of court. Unless they thing they have a case in which case I sincerely hope they make the accusors look like fools.

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. If the accusors win, that will open up all kinds of copy cats s__________g society for all it's worth.

And what if he did happen to accidently graze her breast? Is that so bad if it was accidental? My nephews and nieces always accidently "crush" me but I don't hold them at fault.

 

[mkt]

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?

Have you NOT read my interview in the sentinel

"I could turn pages in a book pretty well, but I still couldn't feel them"

 

[barnum42]

that would be sad if "tigger" was accused of this and they had to change tigger or even get rid of him... do you think they would do that??? i hope not

If some fool succeeds in their suit on this case (and given the dumb decisions made in many a court where common sense appears to have been banned it's not impossible) then it is inevitable that meet and greets will be cancelled due to the high risk of further legal action. Alternatively you will have to book a meet and greet in advance (for a "small fee") plus read and sign a multi-page legal waiver . And once again a couple of money grabbers manipulate the system for their own selfish gain and everyone else loses out.

 

[Dr Albert Falls]

I cannot believe how ignorant many of you are (especially if you read the newspaper article on this)

This is a CRIMINAL case brought forward by a SHERIFF's investigation and the STATE ATTORNEY's prosecution. The STATE OF FLORIDA is "going after" an alleged molester. The victim NOT "going after" Disney. She is NOT suing the company in CIVIL court, so this is NOT about money.

(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?)

Also, on what grounds would the judge have to ban the media from the courtroom? Courtrooms are public facilities (unlike in the former Iraq and other dictatorship nations). The public, which includes the media, has the RIGHT to listen to young victims talk about rape, abused wives talk about their messy divorces, and bankruptcy parties discussing their personal finances. If THESE types of cases are open to the public, why would fabric and rubber in the shape of a well-known tiger make a case closed to the public?

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. I do work associated with the Orange County court system, and I have NEVER seen a camera banned.

 

[donsullivan]

Fundamentally I don't think I have a problem with Disney wanting to protect the integrity of the character while cooperating with the courts. I suspect there could be some reasonable compromise where an independent third party can confirm that the characteristics of the black costume Disney has proposed, can be compared to the actual in a closed space to confirm that it is indeed identical in every way including visibility and tactile feedback in the hands. Clearly they can't just be allowed to produce an alternate costume without verification.

But I do see their point in trying to do everything they can to prevent Tigger from being put in trial on television. The reality is that many of the TV stations in Orlando have a very, very tabloid like approach to news and will inappropriately plaster this everywhere they can with tag lines like 'Tigger On Trial' which will be bad enough but if they have pictures to go with it, it really won't be fair. And the reality is, it is not necessary to prove guilt or innocence in this case.

After all Tigger is not on trial, one man is accused of this act and even he is 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[patelaine1953]

You're right. The media does have a right to be in the courtroom. That said, the court can confiscate all cameras and camera phones to keep them out of the courtroom. In doing that, no pictures could circulate showing the costume in court. I know some courthouses don't allow you to bring camera phones in but others are a little lax in that respect.

 

[ThumpersThought]

While I don't know if modifying the costume is right, I certainly see Disney's point. Worse than seeing Tigger in court, there would be pictures of Tigger molesting someone.

Even assuming innocense (which is what we should be doing), her side of the story will also be played out in court. Those pictures on the internet could do damage to Tigger... As a parent, would you want your child walking up to a character right after seeing that exact same character in a not so kid-friendly act?

From that standpoint, I think Disney is doing the right thing. (Remember also that lawyers typically start by asking for the moon -- Disney's first motion was probably to have the case thrown out)

 

[Dr Albert Falls]

Again... Disney is NOT a party to this case. If you're accused of shooting someone in a McDonald's parking lot, McDonald's has NO legal standing in your criminal case. It's the state prosecutor versus you, the defendant. That's it. No judge is going to prevent the jury from hearing all the facts in the case simply because McDonald's wants the crime scene to be referred to a "fast food restaurant." The crime scene was McDonald's and that's an essential fact in your case. Likewise, Walt Disney World was the alleged crime scene in this case.