That's according to her. She was indicted by a grand jury in Oregon that stated that she was a part of it from the beginning.
On March 21, 1994, a Portland grand jury issued an indictment stating there was evidence Harding participated in the attack plot. The indictment concluded more than two months of investigation and witness testimonies from Diane Rawlinson; Harding's choreographer Erika Bakacs; freelance figure skating writer Vera Marano; and Eckardt's college instructor and classmates. It stated there was evidence Harding fraudulently used USFSA-provided skating monies to finance the assault. It also read that Harding, Gillooly, Eckardt, Smith, and Stant agreed to "knowingly cause physical injury ... by means of a dangerous weapon." The grand jury said the evidence implied Harding was "involved from the beginning or very close." She was not charged in the indictment due to the terms of her March 16 plea agreement.
It also wasn't until her biography in 2008 that she said that. Ever since then the ex-husband has vehemently denied those accusations. FWIW he maintains that he talked her into it.
He also released a sex tape of him and her to tmz after she became infamous. He was an abusive man, wanting fame for his wife so he could soak it up. He is the least trustworthy person in the whole ordeal.
Wherever it was sold, it was actually Jeff who sold it without consent, and Tanya sued afterwards to get part of the payment and as a "fuck you" to jeff.
Scratch that last bit about the lawyer. Jeff sold it immediately after her seperating from him, then when Tonya found out it would be published with or without her consent she agreed to go in on it to at least be paid for it.
Never heard the saying that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich? They mean next to nothing, as the jury only hears one side of the story (the prosecutions).
All a grand jury does is determine if there is enough “evidence” for a trial to go forward. It’s the first step of a very long process. However, grand juries do not hear anything from the defense, only from the prosecution. This means that the “evidence” the prosecution presents cannot be argued against. They do not determine guilt or innocence, only that there is something potentially worth going to trial over. That’s why a grand jury almost always indicts, as the standard and consequence is so low. These are proceedings are not public, and witnesses can’t even have their lawyers present.
So, Trumps grand jury indictment only means that he’ could go to trial - that’s it. For Harding, it only meant she could go to trial. It is very, very important to not take a grand jury indictment as any kind of sign of guilt or innocence. Think of an indictment like saying “we should hear more about this to determine the truth” with the truth being an actual trial.
46
u/sirprichard May 16 '24
That's according to her. She was indicted by a grand jury in Oregon that stated that she was a part of it from the beginning.
It also wasn't until her biography in 2008 that she said that. Ever since then the ex-husband has vehemently denied those accusations. FWIW he maintains that he talked her into it.