KFC 'Kick Out' Little Girl, Victoria Wilcher, Disfigured In Savage Pit Bull Attack

sphinx wrote:She is being taught that she is shocking to people (which she is not and should be taught the opposite) and to use that shock value to scam.

Yes, I know. The family put all that on Facebook though. Now they appear to be inventing some story to reinforce that. She's too young to understand any of it at the moment.

The staff at KFC are probably teenagers. If it's a hoax, that woman has a lot to answer for, as well as the rest of them. Also, KFC should be really nice to the staff - take them out for dinner or something, and not at KFC!

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:She is being taught that she is shocking to people (which she is not and should be taught the opposite) and to use that shock value to scam.

Yes, I know. The family put all that on Facebook though. Now they appear to be inventing some story to reinforce that. She's too young to understand any of it at the moment.

The staff at KFC are probably teenagers. If it's a hoax, that woman has a lot to answer for, as well as the rest of them. Also, KFC should be really nice to the staff - take them out for dinner or something, and not at KFC!

...see what I mean...let's blame the victim, but you do revel in writing stuff like this for a reaction anyway, Raggamuffin - the not very good Christian   

Being unfaithful to our spouses is a sin, but that's ok if you say sorry right?  

What the hell has that got to do with this discussion?

sphinx wrote:What the hell has that got to do with this discussion?

Nothing - he's just gone into twat mode again.   

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know. The family put all that on Facebook though. Now they appear to be inventing some story to reinforce that. She's too young to understand any of it at the moment.

The staff at KFC are probably teenagers. If it's a hoax, that woman has a lot to answer for, as well as the rest of them. Also, KFC should be really nice to the staff - take them out for dinner or something, and not at KFC!

...see what I mean...let's blame the victim, but you do revel in writing stuff like this for a reaction anyway, Raggamuffin - the not very good Christian   

If it's a hoax, the staff at the KFC are the victims, but I don't suppose you care about that. I suppose you look down on them anyway.

Oh, and apparently the staff have received death threats and have been harassed. I hope they receive compensation.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and apparently the staff have received death threats and have been harassed. I hope they receive compensation.

Oh ,its all a hoax and the staff have been receiving death threats?, even though the joke was on them?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and apparently the staff have received death threats and have been harassed. I hope they receive compensation.

Oh ,its all a hoax and the staff have been receiving death threats?, even though the joke was on them?

Joke? You think it's a joke?

Definitely a hoax - but with some unexpected good news:

"... a look into Mullins claims of what actually happened at the Woodrow Wilson Drive KFC location on May 15 are peppered with inconsistencies, an investigation by KFC found, the Leader-Call reported. In fact, the woman and the little girl did not even visit that location, or another Jackson location, a review of surveillance tape found....

Incredibly, KFC said that despite the grandmother's story being bogus, the $30,000 they pledged to help the little girl will still be given. I guess they suffered enough bad press because of the incident and didn't need to be seen yanking the pledge from a needy little girl.

An interesting exercise in the power of social media and a reminder that Americans will usually fall for a sob story."

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/story_about_a_disfigured_girl_kicked_out_of_kfc_because_of_her_looks_a_hoax.html

Tesstacious wrote:Definitely a hoax - but with some unexpected good news:

"... a look into Mullins claims of what actually happened at the Woodrow Wilson Drive KFC location on May 15 are peppered with inconsistencies, an investigation by KFC found, the Leader-Call reported.  In fact, the woman and the little girl did not even visit that location, or another Jackson location, a review of surveillance tape found....

Incredibly, KFC said that despite the grandmother's story being bogus, the $30,000 they pledged to help the little girl will still be given. I guess they suffered enough bad press because of the incident and didn't need to be seen yanking the pledge from a needy little girl.

An interesting exercise in the power of social media and a reminder that Americans will usually fall for a sob story."

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/story_about_a_disfigured_girl_kicked_out_of_kfc_because_of_her_looks_a_hoax.html

They're going to give money to a family who tried to blacken their name and get an employee sacked?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:Definitely a hoax - but with some unexpected good news:

"... a look into Mullins claims of what actually happened at the Woodrow Wilson Drive KFC location on May 15 are peppered with inconsistencies, an investigation by KFC found, the Leader-Call reported.  In fact, the woman and the little girl did not even visit that location, or another Jackson location, a review of surveillance tape found....

Incredibly, KFC said that despite the grandmother's story being bogus, the $30,000 they pledged to help the little girl will still be given. I guess they suffered enough bad press because of the incident and didn't need to be seen yanking the pledge from a needy little girl.

An interesting exercise in the power of social media and a reminder that Americans will usually fall for a sob story."

http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/story_about_a_disfigured_girl_kicked_out_of_kfc_because_of_her_looks_a_hoax.html

They're going to give money to a family who tried to blacken their name and get an employee sacked?

If I were the employee, i'd be rather angry.

Thank god the do-gooders don't have all the power - just look at the ones on here and what they were saying!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're going to give money to a family who tried to blacken their name and get an employee sacked?

If I were the employee, i'd be rather angry.

Thank god the do-gooders don't have all the power - just look at the ones on here and what they were saying!

Well yes, and I'd have more loyalty to my staff. What a kick in the teeth for them - working for peanuts and some family gets a load of dosh as a reward for libelling them. I'd be looking for another job if I was an employee there.

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666653/Hoax-Story-3-year-old-victim-pit-bull-attack-kicked-KFC-restaurant-facial-injuries-scared-diners-untrue-claims-party-investigation.html

All a hoax apparently

Look closely at the story. Nothing proves it is a hoax. It's hard to prove a negative. Reasonable minds can differ about videotape evidence. And obviously the order wouldn't be on a receipt--they were kicked out, fcs.

As a lawyer, I say this is not a case of proof...but one of the evidence. No, they are not the same.

Even if they are kicked out their food would still be on receipt - it is essential for stock taking and preperation.

It is not a case of their names not being on the receipt but of that combination of dishes showing up as ordered together.

Obviously it would be conclusive if they had witnesses - kind of seems slightly strange that there have not been people coming forward to back up their story of being kicked out.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666653/Hoax-Story-3-year-old-victim-pit-bull-attack-kicked-KFC-restaurant-facial-injuries-scared-diners-untrue-claims-party-investigation.html

All a hoax apparently

Look closely at the story.  Nothing proves it is a hoax.  It's hard to prove a negative.  Reasonable minds can differ about videotape evidence.  And obviously the order wouldn't be on a receipt--they were kicked out, fcs.

As a lawyer, I say this is not a case of proof...but one of the evidence.  No, they are not the same.

So they were invisible to cctv in the area too?

" In fact, the woman and the little girl did not even visit that location, or another Jackson location, a review of surveillance tape found..."

Yes, Tess...you make the point well. The only thing they have is a review of the tape.

A conclusion made by someone after-the-fact, is not evidence.

The point is that KFC offered this family money before they even investigated, thereby implying that a member of staff was guilty. I think that's shocking. People in those sort of jobs are often treated like they don't exist, or like they're second class citizens. KFC should be ashamed.

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that KFC offered this family money before they even investigated, thereby implying that a member of staff was guilty. I think that's shocking. People in those sort of jobs are often treated like they don't exist, or like they're second class citizens. KFC should be ashamed.

Well, you are making my point in inverse fashion. Had I been the lawyer, I would have argued strongly to KFC not to make the offer. Not because the little girl didn't deserve the help, but because it would be taken as an tacit admission of guilt.

It's only a small step to make the same argument on behalf of the employees.

sphinx wrote:Even if they are kicked out their food would still be on receipt - it is essential for stock taking and preperation.

It is not a case of their names not being on the receipt but of that combination of dishes showing up as ordered together.

Obviously it would be conclusive if they had witnesses - kind of seems slightly strange that there have not been people coming forward to back up their story of being kicked out.

There would be no receipt if they were asked to leave and not permitted to order.

Yes, witnesses are essential evidence...even physical evidence, such as the videotape. They call that foundation evidence, at a minimum. That is why videotape evidence is not a witness, per se.

Except the grandmother described what they ordered - so if she ordered there would be a receipt.

I mean the video tape showing them not there is pretty damning.
It is of course highly unlikely to be actual tape but far more likely to be digital recording - and fiddling with those successfully is far far harder than most people realize (a major source of evidence for the police has to be files people think they have deleted but which still exist)

sphinx wrote:Except the grandmother described what they ordered - so if she ordered there would be a receipt.

But if they were asked to leave, the order wouldn't be put in. No inventory, no preparation, no need for the order.

sphinx wrote:I mean the video tape showing them not there is pretty damning.  
It is of course highly unlikely to be actual tape but far more likely to be digital recording - and fiddling with those successfully is far far harder than most people realize (a major source of evidence for the police has to be files people think they have deleted but which still exist)

But you see...you are already making excuses for the videotape. These are cross-examination questions, not conclusions. It shows why evidence must have foundation. Videotapes are highly questionable...location...timing...perspective...lighting...obstructions.

Nothing is conclusive. That's why they have juries.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:Except the grandmother described what they ordered - so if she ordered there would be a receipt.

But if they were asked to leave, the order wouldn't be put in.  No inventory, no preparation, no need for the order.

sphinx wrote:I mean the video tape showing them not there is pretty damning.  
It is of course highly unlikely to be actual tape but far more likely to be digital recording - and fiddling with those successfully is far far harder than most people realize (a major source of evidence for the police has to be files people think they have deleted but which still exist)

But you see...you are already making excuses for the videotape.  These are cross-examination questions, not conclusions.  It shows why evidence must have foundation.  Videotapes are highly questionable...location...timing...perspective...lighting...obstructions.  

Nothing is conclusive.  That's why they have juries.

Well this has not got anywhere near court yet.

I take it KFC works completely differently in the States from how it does here. Here you go up to the counter and put your order first thing - the order is put in as you say it. You could not make it then be asked to leave and have it not go in because it goes in immediately. If you were asked to leave without an order being put in you would never think you had put it in if that makes sense.

Didge wrote:An adorable three-year-old girl left scarred by a savage pit bull attack was asked to leave a branch KFC because she was "scaring customers".
Victoria Wilcher and her family claim staff at the Jackson, Missouri diner approached them after receiving complaints from other customers.
A Facebook page set up to highlight the story says:



Victoria was attacked by a dog while staying at her grandmother's house in April. She was lucky to survive but was left with extensive scarring.
She was still being fed by a tube when the family visited the chicken retailer.
KFC have apologised for the incident.
Writing on the post mentioned above, they said: "Please accept our sincere apologies while we try to investigate this incident.
"We have zero tolerance for any kind of disrespectful behavior by our team members.
"Once we have further details, we will immediately investigate this and take action, and we wish nothing but the best for Victoria in her recovery."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/15/kfc-girl-disfigured-pibtbull-attack_n_5496547.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I bet her face wasn't half as manky as their vile "food"

sphinx wrote:There is speculation the grand mother may be in breach of the law.

Quite besides all that though has anyone stopped to think about what t his is doing to that poor little girl?

Its wicked what they are putting that child through. they treat her like a sideshow attraction or a cash cow

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But if they were asked to leave, the order wouldn't be put in.  No inventory, no preparation, no need for the order.



But you see...you are already making excuses for the videotape.  These are cross-examination questions, not conclusions.  It shows why evidence must have foundation.  Videotapes are highly questionable...location...timing...perspective...lighting...obstructions.  

Nothing is conclusive.  That's why they have juries.

Well this has not got anywhere near court yet.

I take it KFC works completely differently in the States from how it does here.  Here you go up to the counter and put your order first thing - the order is put in as you say it.  You could not make it then be asked to leave and have it not go in because it goes in immediately.  If you were asked to leave without an order being put in you would never think you had put it in if that makes sense.

Not necessarily. I've seen the system you describe. KFC also owns A&W and they occasionally share a common site...where they use that system. If the incident happened during the ordering, you simply touch a button on the cash register and it voids the whole order...order, inventory and cooking.

Only if the request that the family leave happened after the actual preparation of the meal would the order be non-voidable. Only in that situation would there an expectation of a record. Still not conclusive.

Nems wrote:

sphinx wrote:There is speculation the grand mother may be in breach of the law.

Quite besides all that though has anyone stopped to think about what t his is doing to that poor little girl?

Its wicked what they  are putting that child through. they treat her like a sideshow attraction or a cash cow

The family? Yes, they seem to be after the money. Meh, it's Mississippi, home of Duck Dynasty.

Sphinx, it is indeed different here in the U.S., I have seen a black family treated like utter shit at a restaurant AFTER they placed their order. To a racist it does not matter, and to a person who would treat a scarred little girl like this it doesn't matter.

In fact, it often takes cowards a spell to work up their "courage" ...

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well this has not got anywhere near court yet.

I take it KFC works completely differently in the States from how it does here.  Here you go up to the counter and put your order first thing - the order is put in as you say it.  You could not make it then be asked to leave and have it not go in because it goes in immediately.  If you were asked to leave without an order being put in you would never think you had put it in if that makes sense.

Not necessarily.  I've seen the system you describe.  KFC also owns A&W and they occasionally share a common site...where they use that system.  If the incident happened during the ordering, you simply touch a button on the cash register and it voids the whole order...order, inventory and cooking.

Only if the request that the family leave happened after the actual preparation of the meal would the order be non-voidable.  Only in that situation would there an expectation of a record.  Still not conclusive.

If an order is voided it would probably still show up. I doubt that KFC trust their staff, so they would make sure that voided orders are registered.

Anyway, the woman made it clear that the child had been eating when they were asked to leave.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not necessarily.  I've seen the system you describe.  KFC also owns A&W and they occasionally share a common site...where they use that system.  If the incident happened during the ordering, you simply touch a button on the cash register and it voids the whole order...order, inventory and cooking.

Only if the request that the family leave happened after the actual preparation of the meal would the order be non-voidable.  Only in that situation would there an expectation of a record.  Still not conclusive.

If an order is voided it would probably still show up. I doubt that KFC trust their staff, so they would make sure that voided orders are registered.

Anyway, the woman made it clear that the child had been eating when they were asked to leave.

So you see, Sphinx?  And they say there is no videotape of them eating.  It's not at all conclusive.  It's still a jury question with so many conflicting storys.  Until the trial (if there is a trial) we will never know.

I've read that this alleged incident took place on 15 May, and yet the woman didn't put it on Facebook until June.

How did the press get hold of the story in the first place? I don't get why KFC has reacted to it in the way they have. The sensible thing would be to just say that it will be investigated and then shut up.

Giving them money is sending out the wrong message - it's disloyal to the staff, and it's encouraging dishonesty. I hope that the staff don't stay there and that customers will boycott KFC (which they should do anyway IMO). That money would have been better spent on behalf of the staff in a libel case, or compensating them for the threats they've received.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've read that this alleged incident took place on 15 May, and yet the woman didn't put it on Facebook until June.

How did the press get hold of the story in the first place? I don't get why KFC has reacted to it in the way they have. The sensible thing would be to just say that it will be investigated and then shut up.

Giving them money is sending out the wrong message - it's disloyal to the staff, and it's encouraging dishonesty. I hope that the staff don't stay there and that customers will boycott KFC (which they should do anyway IMO). That money would have been better spent on behalf of the staff in a libel case, or compensating them for the threats they've received.

The latter is my argument, above, from the standpoint of an attorney's advice. There is no basis for alleging liable (in paying the money), but there is a common sense basis for not creating a tacit admission.

However, what certain is that we don't know what happened...and we won't know until a trial occurs and all the evidence is in. The threats and accusations that employees have received are unwarranted at this point in time. No conclusions can be made at this point.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've read that this alleged incident took place on 15 May, and yet the woman didn't put it on Facebook until June.

How did the press get hold of the story in the first place? I don't get why KFC has reacted to it in the way they have. The sensible thing would be to just say that it will be investigated and then shut up.

Giving them money is sending out the wrong message - it's disloyal to the staff, and it's encouraging dishonesty. I hope that the staff don't stay there and that customers will boycott KFC (which they should do anyway IMO). That money would have been better spent on behalf of the staff in a libel case, or compensating them for the threats they've received.

The latter is my argument, above, from the standpoint of an attorney's advice.  There is no basis for alleging liable (in paying the money), but there is a common sense basis for not creating a tacit admission.

However, what certain is that we don't know what happened...and we won't know until a trial occurs and all the evidence is in.  The threats and accusations that employees have received are unwarranted at this point in time.  No conclusions can be made at this point.

I don't think there will be a trial. Who will want to prosecute a family whose little girl has been injured?

This has annoyed me somewhat. I know people who work in such jobs - or in retail, and they have to put up with bolshy customers anyway for very little pay. The idea that they are being threatened because of this is just awful. I hope that the police are looking into those incidents too.

$30,000 to KFC is peanuts, if they thought it was genuine they would be aware that in the land of litigation they would be sued for squillions.

Nems wrote:$30,000 to KFC is peanuts, if they thought it was genuine they would be aware that in the land of litigation they would be sued for squillions.

You raise an interesting point, Nems. No doubt KFC got a release for their money...I mean, that is the minimum I would accept for the money.

Raggs, I don't know if a trial is warranted. I only say we won't know the facts until there is a trial. In all likelihood we'll never know what happened.

[ltr]I promise its not a hoax. ... The article circling the web calling this a hoax is untrue. The article it self say the investigation is not complete. It is not over until KFC releases a statement. The media outlet running this story is not connected with KFC. The family has not asked for anything, a attorney is handling all the media publicity for the family pro bono [all sic].
[/ltr]

[ltr]KFC spokesman Rick Maynard told The Huffington Post in an email the company is still committed to its donation to Victoria, regardless of whether the story turns out to be a hoax. Wrote Maynard:[/ltr]

[ltr]We have taken this report very seriously from the beginning. Since our franchisee was unable to verify the incident in their internal investigation, they hired a third-party consultant to conduct an independent investigation to help resolve the matter. Along with our franchisee, we remain determined to get to the truth and address the situation appropriately.

We expect to have the findings of that investigation soon, and we are committed to the $30,000 donation to assist with Victoria’s medical bills no matter the outcome.[/ltr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/kfc-girl-hoax-pitbul_n_5525682.html



So it seems they are still investigating.

It seems like an awful lot of work and money just to investigate one alleged incident.

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems like an awful lot of work and money just to investigate one alleged incident.

A company will go to great lengths to clear its name, as image is a major selling factor.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems like an awful lot of work and money just to investigate one alleged incident.

A company will go to great lengths to clear its name, as image is a major selling factor.

Well if they treat their employees with such disdain, that will damage their image too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


A company will go to great lengths to clear its name, as image is a major selling factor.

Well if they treat their employees with such disdain, that will damage their image too.

Agreed, but again it will be a view here to clear any wrong doing, but as seen the Jury is still out on this.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


A company will go to great lengths to clear its name, as image is a major selling factor.

Well if they treat their employees with such disdain, that will damage their image too.

their image is already damaged. they treat their employees like crap. KFC workers are usually the first to sign up for strike action. but sometimes its the only job people can get so good luck to them but I honestly cannot stand their food - it really is gross and its not just my hometown branch.

perhaps why they offered the money so quickly was to do damage control. Whatever truly happened somebody else such as a court appointee had better have control over the money to make sure it does help that little girl with medical bills and nothing else.

Cass wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they treat their employees with such disdain, that will damage their image too.

their image is already damaged. they treat their employees like crap. KFC workers are usually the first to sign up for strike action. but sometimes its the only job people can get so good luck to them but I honestly cannot stand their food - it really is gross and its not just my hometown branch.

perhaps why they offered the money so quickly was to do damage control. Whatever truly happened somebody else such as a court appointee had better have control over the money to make sure it does help that little girl with medical bills and nothing else.

A court has no jurisdiction until and unless someone files some sort of legal action. That will probably not happen since, as Nems suggested, the $30,000 will have bought a release of all claims.

I thin in one of Didge's posts it was mentioned that KFC hired a media consultant. If true, that explains a lot. A company that is more concerned about its image than its legal rights (ie, money) will go for a media consultant. Which supports Nems thesis all the more...the $30,000 is probable what settles this, and all that the girl's family will get.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

their image is already damaged. they treat their employees like crap. KFC workers are usually the first to sign up for strike action. but sometimes its the only job people can get so good luck to them but I honestly cannot stand their food - it really is gross and its not just my hometown branch.

perhaps why they offered the money so quickly was to do damage control. Whatever truly happened somebody else such as a court appointee had better have control over the money to make sure it does help that little girl with medical bills and nothing else.

A court has no jurisdiction until and unless someone files some sort of legal action.  That will probably not happen since, as Nems suggested, the $30,000 will have bought a release of all claims.

I thin in one of Didge's posts it was mentioned that KFC hired a media consultant.  If true, that explains a lot.  A company that is more concerned about its image than its legal rights (ie, money) will go for a media consultant.  Which supports Nems thesis all the more...the $30,000 is probable what settles this, and all that the girl's family will get.

Why should they get anything if it didn't happen? Why should the staff be abused for something they didn't do? The family are lucky they're getting money rather than having to pay it out.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A court has no jurisdiction until and unless someone files some sort of legal action.  That will probably not happen since, as Nems suggested, the $30,000 will have bought a release of all claims.

I think in one of Didge's posts it was mentioned that KFC hired a media consultant.  If true, that explains a lot.  A company that is more concerned about its image than its legal rights (ie, money) will go for a media consultant.  Which supports Nems thesis all the more...the $30,000 is probable what settles this, and all that the girl's family will get.

Why should they get anything if it didn't happen? Why should the staff be abused for something they didn't do? The family are lucky they're getting money rather than having to pay it out.

For practical reasons.  They are trading the risk for the money, not any actual wrongdoing.  A jury could award in the $-millions, whereas here they get it out of the way for $30,000.  A bargain, really...with the added benefit that they come off appearing generous and compassionate.

Consider that these companies spend $-billions for advertising...why wouldn't they spend $30,000 to make this go away--with themselves coming off like roses?

Legal rights are traded away every day.  Consider an hypothetical guy who is accused of a crime--but didn't do it--however he faces a pretty good chance of conviction because of the issue, a sympathetic victim or the zeitgeist of the times.  Say, Martha Stewart--what did she go to prison for?  It's just good ol' horse trading, 'cept its trading rights for a conviction.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A court has no jurisdiction until and unless someone files some sort of legal action.  That will probably not happen since, as Nems suggested, the $30,000 will have bought a release of all claims.

I thin in one of Didge's posts it was mentioned that KFC hired a media consultant.  If true, that explains a lot.  A company that is more concerned about its image than its legal rights (ie, money) will go for a media consultant.  Which supports Nems thesis all the more...the $30,000 is probable what settles this, and all that the girl's family will get.

Why should they get anything if it didn't happen? Why should the staff be abused for something they didn't do? The family are lucky they're getting money rather than having to pay it out.

...but just how do you know for sure it didn't happen?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why should they get anything if it didn't happen? Why should the staff be abused for something they didn't do? The family are lucky they're getting money rather than having to pay it out.

...but just how do you know for sure it didn't happen?

That too.

Original Quill wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

...but just how do you know for sure it didn't happen?

That too.

Well that's it Quill, we don't know for sure if anything happened and just what did if anything did happen!

It's my opinion that it didn't happen on the grounds that nobody would find the girl bad to look at, and even if they did, they wouldn't make a complaint. I don't believe an employee would say such a thing either.

Factually, there appears to be no evidence that it happens. The grandmother might change her story of course - in which case, watch this space.

Joy Division wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That too.

Well that's it Quill, we don't know for sure if anything happened and just what did if anything did  happen!

I agree...with the added proviso that the parties don't want us to know. That's what has been bought and paid for.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's my opinion that it didn't happen on the grounds that nobody would find the girl bad to look at, and even if they did, they wouldn't make a complaint. I don't believe an employee would say such a thing either.

Factually, there appears to be no evidence that it happens. The grandmother might change her story of course - in which case, watch this space.

That's a great jury argument, Raggs. Unfortunately, there will never be a trial, so we will never know if you are right.