Regarding Ted Gunderson's claim (2000) that Art Bell is a child molestor:
I've heard both sides of the story. I've read all the radio transcripts, listened to Gunderson's speech about the trial, learned about the court proceeding and the the eventual settlement. I'm really confused though. According to Bell, the whole claim was a massive misunderstanding and his son, of the same name, was a victim of rape. That fact isn't disputed. All court documents are sealed obviously for the protection of his son. WHAT I don't understand is Gunderson's EVIDENCE against him. I can't find any information on that anywhere. Anyone have any sources? Info?
I've heard both sides of the story. I've read all the radio transcripts, listened to Gunderson's speech about the trial, learned about the court proceeding and the the eventual settlement. I'm really confused though. According to Bell, the whole claim was a massive misunderstanding and his son, of the same name, was a victim of rape. That fact isn't disputed. All court documents are sealed obviously for the protection of his son. WHAT I don't understand is Gunderson's EVIDENCE against him. I can't find any information on that anywhere. Anyone have any sources? Info?