Justice Prevails: Disney Tigger Costume Employee aquitted of Fondling a 13 yr old during photo with her mother

[dmcowen674]

It's very obvious the Mother was looking for quick easy money by suing the Costume Employee and Disney....the biatch. :|

8-4-2004 Jury Acquits Disney Worker of Fondling

ORLANDO, Fla. - A Walt Disney World worker who portrayed the character Tigger was acquitted Wednesday of charges he fondled a 13-year-old girl while posing for a photo with the teen and her mother.

Chartrand hugged his attorneys when he heard the verdict. Earlier this week, he rejected a plea offer that would have given him probation.

During closing arguments earlier Wednesday, a defense attorney donned a Tigger costume in the courtroom in an effort to show jurors how difficult it is to maneuver and see in the outfit.

Defense attorney Jeffrey Kaufman first strapped on Tigger's tail and then put on a neck cloth, the enormous orange-and-black striped head, and two large orange mitts to show jurors how the costume limits peripheral vision and arm movements.

Under questioning from Kaufman, the mother conceded that she had met with a lawyer about the case.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

The picture linked in that article is hilarious.

 

[Dissipate]

If I were that guy I would file a countersuit. That woman is nothing but a no good gold digger. Hopefully Disney will ban her and her wicked daughter from all their theme parks.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hopefully Disney will ban her and her wicked daughter from all their theme parks.

Haha.

"Sorry but there's profit to be had."

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
The picture linked in that article is hilarious.

Reminds me of a short stint I had as "Clifford, the big red dog"...

The suit was in a box at a grade school in the principal's office, no lid.

A kid came in and started petting Clifford's head. Then tried to wake him up. Then the kid starts crying.

Principal asked what was wrong.

"Clifford's DEAD! WAAAAAAhhhhhh!"

----

Felt terrible, but damn if it didn't make me laugh. Too cute.

For the record, they cleared it up. The kid thought he was the coolest because he knew that I wasn't the -real- Clifford and this suit was just a fake one.

 

[Riprorin]

The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

For once we agree on something :shocked:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Look, I know that none of us would ever want to have the job as Tigger. However, it must suck to live in a world where you almost can't take a job like this for fear of the kind of crap that people will try to pull. It's especially sad in a case like this where it is obvious that most people automatically side with the *AHEM* victim.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

Agreed. She should also be prosecuted for corruption of a minor or some similar charge, for having her 13-yo daughter give false testimony.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

I disagree, social justice demands that we allow the poor to file cases even if they can't pay for opposing fees. If a truly warrant less suit is filed then a counter suite for harassment and costs can always be started, making an instant counter-suit law would only disenfranchise the people who truly need protection, leaving the true problem lawyers with just another business expense.

should also be prosecuted for corruption of a minor or some similar charge, for having her 13-yo daughter give false testimony.

that might work.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

Agreed. She should also be prosecuted for corruption of a minor or some similar charge, for having her 13-yo daughter give false testimony.

Where does it say the girl gave false testimoney?

 

[DeeKnow]

so what's he doing to that Tigger? and in court ??????

 

[Zedtom]

The days are over for people in costumes playfully patting a childs rear end or hugging a little girl. Their parents are so paranoid of innocent touching that they go ballistic if they see anything that they think is sexual in nature.

I sometimes think that kids are coached to expect this behavior, and to blow the whistle in hopes of a monetary reward.

 

[Thump553]

This case has nothing to do with poor people's access to the courthouse. This was a criminal matter-filed by the government, not the victim. If the fault lies anywhere, it is with the overzealous prosecutor filing and pursuing such a weak case. It's tough for prosecutors to reject cases, however, as they are then cast as being soft on crime and too meek.

This is a classic case of justice prevailing through the court system. Hopefully Disney will do the right thing and pay for their employee's legal costs-he was on the job, doing his job. Hopefully the defendant consults one of his (apparently fine) lawyers about what remedies are available to him.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Look, I know that none of us would ever want to have the job as Tigger. However, it must suck to live in a world where you almost can't take a job like this for fear of the kind of crap that people will try to pull. It's especially sad in a case like this where it is obvious that most people automatically side with the *AHEM* victim.

yeah. as if working for disney were so wonderful now you have to constantly consider all your jobs in light of
"potential lawsuits." especially a case like this, at least it still got press when it came time to give the verdict. i feel like more often than not, these cases just get heat when starting and then people assume the guy is guilty or dont hear the outcome. even if he wasnt convicted, it just looks hideous to be accused of such a thing on your record.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Look, I know that none of us would ever want to have the job as Tigger. However, it must suck to live in a world where you almost can't take a job like this for fear of the kind of crap that people will try to pull. It's especially sad in a case like this where it is obvious that most people automatically side with the *AHEM* victim.

yeah. as if working for disney were so wonderful now you have to constantly consider all your jobs in light of
"potential lawsuits." especially a case like this, at least it still got press when it came time to give the verdict. i feel like more often than not, these cases just get heat when starting and then people assume the guy is guilty or dont hear the outcome. even if he wasnt convicted, it just looks hideous to be accused of such a thing on your record.

He should have no record, period.

His arrest and everything should be completly expunged.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The days are over for people in costumes playfully patting a childs rear end or hugging a little girl. Their parents are so paranoid of innocent touching that they go ballistic if they see anything that they think is sexual in nature.

I sometimes think that kids are coached to expect this behavior, and to blow the whistle in hopes of a monetary reward.

They showed the pictures that were taken last night on the News, absolutetly nothing wrong with them.

Where is the Costumer supposed to put his arms and hands???

Are we to see armless Costumes now???

I bet that is exactly what will happen now. They will make Costumes that the Costume wearers arms are completely inside the Costume while there would be a dummy set of arms and hands just for appearance only and would not be able to move. So sad

 

[JHutch]

This was a criminal suit, not a civil suit.

This means that the local district attorney was responsible for bringing this case to court. The frivilous lawsuit charge would be against the state, not the girl's mother.

JHutch

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

For once we agree on something :shocked:

Echo that. She should also be sued for slander and malicious prosecution.

Originally posted by: JHutch
This was a criminal suit, not a civil suit.

This means that the local district attorney was responsible for bringing this case to court. The frivilous lawsuit charge would be against the state, not the girl's mother.

If the mother filed a fraudulant complaint against Michael Chartrand (the defendant), she is most definitely liable for damages. If the prosecutor did not show due diligence in investigating the charges before filing the criminal complaint, the charge would be more than "frivolous." He and the prosecutor's office may also be guilty of abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

For once we agree on something :shocked:

Echo that. She should also be sued for slander and malicious prosecution.

Originally posted by: JHutch
This was a criminal suit, not a civil suit.

This means that the local district attorney was responsible for bringing this case to court. The frivilous lawsuit charge would be against the state, not the girl's mother.

If the mother filed a fraudulant complaint against Michael Chartrand (the defendant), she is most definitely liable for damages. If the prosecutor did not show due diligence in investigating the charges before filing the criminal complaint, the charge would be more than "frivolous." He and the prosecutor's office may also be guilty of abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

This is what people say should've been done in my case. The problem is finding a Lawyer that would want to go after the Prosecutor without taking a ton of money up front. I'm sure this Tigger guy is not made of money, however in his case maybe he could have Disney on his side???

Also in my case I was told that the State cannot be held liable, which is a crime in itself. They can ruin lives by not doing due diligence at will.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman should have to pay the defendants legal fees and and pay for court costs for making this fraudulent allegation.

For once we agree on something :shocked:

Echo that. She should also be sued for slander and malicious prosecution.

Originally posted by: JHutch
This was a criminal suit, not a civil suit.

This means that the local district attorney was responsible for bringing this case to court. The frivilous lawsuit charge would be against the state, not the girl's mother.

If the mother filed a fraudulant complaint against Michael Chartrand (the defendant), she is most definitely liable for damages. If the prosecutor did not show due diligence in investigating the charges before filing the criminal complaint, the charge would be more than "frivolous." He and the prosecutor's office may also be guilty of abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

This does not rise to the level of malicious prosecution. My understanding is there were photos of him that allegedly showed improper touching, and assuming there was a willing "victim," the DA presumably felt the case was worth taking to trial.

The mother may well have been pursuing money, but it was the DA's office that took this case to trial, so I think you'd have a tough time going after her.