Posted on 10/13/2004 1:31:31 PM PDT by scottybk
O'Reilly in trouble!
You know, when I was a young veterinary practitioner I had this client who would always bring his mares to me to be palpated for pregnancy. This procedure involves inserting one's entire arm into the rectum of the mare and feeling through the rectal lining, picking up the uterus and determining whether the mare is pregnant or not. There were three other doctors in this practice - all male - that could have performed this procedure for this guy. He always asked for me. What makes it vile is that while I was up to my armpit in the mare, he'd proceed to lean into me and whisper dirty stories in my ear. Where could I go? Nowhere. What could I do about it? Not one d*mn thing - I was an employee of the practice, not a partner. Oh, by the way, I'm female.
I had to put up with that crap from that dirty old man. The short of it is, women sometimes have to put up with a lot of sexual harrassment in the workplace.
I have no clue whether this woman is telling the truth or not. But I'm sure not going to accuse her of every name in the book at this point. If she doesn't have tapes, she's a fool to have brought the suit and I don't blame O'Reilly one bit for going after her (assuming he's innocent).
My point isn't to defend her. I just don't think its smart to immediately assume she's an extortionist.
"Thanks for your comment about men. How pleasant. How thoughtful. How unthinking and ugly"
Any time sweety. ;) ....Truth hurts don't it.
I can't believe O'Reilly uses a vibrator!
You are right in that regard - it will reflect upon all Fox people including the viewers.
Rush Limbaugh is now dating a CNN info-babe.
Although not for this kind of junk, I have been sued several times and thank God, I have never been on the losing end.
Allegations are easy to make and any good trial lawyer can, and will, make you sound and look like the Devil himself.
Look, I can't stand Blowhard, but one should be very careful about letting the allegations, in and of themselves, cause anybody to believe anything.
Having said that, if this lady has tapes of Bill saying all this stuff, solid witnesses and other evidence.......Bill could find himself hanging out with the likes of Pewee Herman.
So Bill.........when it comes down to a jury, remember, they're "just looking out for the folks".
She worked for him from April 2000 to January 2004. She then went to work for CNN. In July 2004, she went back to Fox. Again I ask, why did she go back to work for him if he had made unprovoked sexual advances toward her during her first period of employment with Fox?
She had a job with CNN. Surely she had enough opportunity for advancement with them that she didn't have to compromise herself by going back to work for the man that did the horrible things that she claims he did.
My question concerns the lack of quotes. Is this legally relevant to it being considered a direct quote?
For example, they will sometimes say that O'Reilly stated something and then put it in quotes. Other times they will not use quotes and put it in the indented paragraph format. I don't know.
Okay, when I got to that part of her complaint, I started coughing & choking so hard my hubby thought he'd have to do the Heimlich on me. Nope, I assured him, I was just laughing.
It is possible, isn't it, that the conversation you're referring to could be something that was copied from a ... diary she kept as opposed to an audio tape? Which could be why it's being quoted as it is.
It will be obvious if such tape recordings are produced and vetted.
If O'Reilly thought the woman could back up her claims, why didn't he pay her off instead of filing the extortion suit? Do you think that he was guilty, and just assumed she wouldn't have evidence?
I believe that he has earned the right to the American tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
He deserves to be defended in this medium because we are hear standing for truth, standing for the intent of our constitution - and the intent was always to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I do not see him throwing away the lives of his daughters and wife and his career for some phone sex. He cannot be this stupid. If it's proven, then I will be the first to unload on him, but until then, I will defend O'Reilly because I would want to be given the same benefit of the doubt.
Let's all remember why we're here and let's Freep the accuser. We all know BOR, what do we know about her.
I can believe he said everything he is accused of. But that doesn't mean the woman has a valid claim for sexual harassment.
At the VERY LEAST, I would have stuffed my used glove somewhere on his person--with a smile, of course.
The lawyer in the complaint against O'Reilly used block quotes. They're indented and single-spaced, as opposed to the body of the complaint, which is out to the margin and double-spaced. This style of block-quoting is also used when quoting from a case in a brief.
Trouble is, he probably would've enjoyed it. ;)
I simply do not think that her attorney would structure the complaint as it is a format the quotes as they are unless there was a tape.
Therefore, either O'Reilly is done or the plaintiff AND her Attorney are crackpots.
Would FNC have a Crackpot as a Producer and would an Attorney Throw Away his Bar Card for scheme like this?
Fish taco!
This just in.
Sirius signs Bill O'Reilly to a satellite talk radio show...!
"Read page 17 of the Complaint. His telephone conversation about his fantasy of going down to the Caribbean with this woman is quoted word for word. If it were hearsay it would not be quoted as it is."
But if the DNC hired one of liberal TV's Daytime soap opera writers to create this scenario.... It's a set up. I could write a *A wild lustful night in the Caribbean*. Ugh liberal writers are so transparent....bwa hahahahaha
I have seen nothing yet where it is indicated that she was not a willing accomplice to the alleged conversations. I think it was a setup but IF he said those things to a willing 'partner' and she can show no harm then she has no case. She knows that, her lawyer knows that, O'Reilly knows that. So what is the motive? Extortion or something bigger. The timing is suspicious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.