Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: mware
I would think BOR could get him for defamation of character with the sign.

Do you know the details of the suit Andrea Makris filed against O'Reilly? Go to thesmokinggun.com and find the complaint she filed against him, and you will understand why O'Reilly settled out of court and why the last thing he would ever want is to take to a witness stand.
16 posted on 07/31/2007 12:29:08 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: drjimmy; mware

DrJ, I watch Bill O’Reilly (”BOR”), but don’t especially like him as a person (based on how he behaves on air). Thus, I have no inclination to defend him.

That said, I don’t believe the Makris’ complaint after reading it in detail. Either the alleged “facts” are made up or, at best for Makris, are put into false contexts. Maybe, she taped him, but selectively edited what was released about the conversations after she started talking about sex?

Settlement does not imply that a suit is based on a valid claim. BOR and Fox, like most parties to suits, have numerous reasons to settle that have little to do with the validity of the claim.

For one thing, Makris recounts conversation over a dinner with BOR and Makris’ college friend. Suppose that dinner was totally innocent, what will the college friend say? The college friend would almost certainly back Makris’ lies under this possible scenario.

If the college friend wasn’t willing to back Makris’ version, the story of that dinner would NOT even be in the complaint.

Now, if you were an innocent BOR and the plaintiff’s college friend is lined up to back her version, would you a) settle because there is no way to prove your innocence or b) endure years of litigation for an uncertain result with your life turned upside down?

Unfortunately, we can’t know for certain who is telling the truth as there is no stained dress here. It was just conversations with only biased witnesses (Plaintiff, her college friend on one night, and BOR) without any physical transaction.

As for a libel or other defamation claim against Starke, BOR has the same problem as in defending against the initial charges. How can you disprove the content of a conversation or series of conversations? You can’t and thus BOR could not prevail.

As a public figure pressing a libel complaint, BOR would have to prove that 1) he was not a pervert (i.e., the conversations never happened as claimed) and 2) Starke knew that BOR was not a pervert.

If Starke indeed went on BOR’s property, criminal and civil complaints for trespassing are possible. Such complaints are unlikely to yield significant money damages (civil) or any jail time (criminal), but might get BOR a court order to keep Starke from further harassing him.


18 posted on 07/31/2007 3:20:35 PM PDT by BillF (Fight terrorists in Iraq & elsewhere, instead of waiting for them to come to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson