05-10-12, 01:04 AM
Should those around at the time have spoken out? I think it depends. To me there is a difference between acting on rumours (very dodgy - rumours may not be true) and acting on evidence.
Speaking out on a rumour alone would be a very stupid thing for anyone to have done - he was a well known star, it would have killed your career, and potentially ruined an innocent man.
The real issue is those that were closer and had actual evidence of dodgy stuff. They should have acted and it is the identities of these people that will the interesting piece of this story. This develops into the question of whether management had evidence presented to them, how damning that was, and what action was taken because of it.
Speaking out on a rumour alone would be a very stupid thing for anyone to have done - he was a well known star, it would have killed your career, and potentially ruined an innocent man.
The real issue is those that were closer and had actual evidence of dodgy stuff. They should have acted and it is the identities of these people that will the interesting piece of this story. This develops into the question of whether management had evidence presented to them, how damning that was, and what action was taken because of it.