Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harrassment suit.

[Feisty Mouse]

lets face it, whether you are an o'reilly fan or not, you know who he is. he is indeed a power player in the world of reporting. he takes great pride in his "no-spin" reporting and ethics on life. contrary to what most dems and libs will have you to believe, he doesnt take sides, he could care less who you are; if you are on his show, prepare to be grilled.

HHJH already posted links about O'Reilly's attitudes - he enjoys shouting down liberals and others he disagrees with - the "no-spin reporting" is a farce. Yelling down guests has no place in true journalism.

I'm guessing that the huge sum of money is probably out of rage - if my boss had treated me to repeated inappropriate calls and situations, and I was fearful of losing my job, I'd be pissed.

 

[raedyn]

How do you forget such things? O'Reilly allegedly describing--in detail--how he'd have sex with the woman in a shower is something one doesn't exactly forget.

good point.

Women also talk problems through with their friends, which tends to groove details into the brain.

I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?

 

[MisterMike]

I heard some talk the othernight on the radio. I'll try to summarize. Basically he said that people die and their spouses recieve money from companies for wrongful death etc.(maybe a few million??) This woman is still alive and is suing for 60-some-odd million. Shows you something wrong from the get-go.

 

[Sapper6]

whether he is guilty or not has yet to be decided. i do hope this doesnt end in a "behind closed doors" settlement. im quite sure we'll all know what happens soon enough. i hope that he gets a fair trial. one thing is for certain; it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case. he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started :supcool:

 

[michaeledward]

whether he is guilty or not has yet to be decided. i do hope this doesnt end in a "behind closed doors" settlement. im quite sure we'll all know what happens soon enough. i hope that he gets a fair trial. one thing is for certain; it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case. he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started :supcool:

Well, as I am not a citizen of New York, I am quite certain that I am not going to be called for jury duty.

I guess I have to ask, have you ever listened to his radio program? Some of the comments he makes to 'Eddie Hill' are offensive to me, but he claims he is 'only kidding', you know, kind like he is using satire ...

As for the amount on the lawsuit, to compare it to a wrongful death case is a non-sequitur. And, as most lawsuits are negotiations, I remind everyone that you can not 'negotiate up'. Yes, 60 million is ridiculous, but to Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch that is chump change. (according to the affidavit - O'Reilly reports to Ailes, Ailes reports to Murdoch).

 

[Feisty Mouse]

good point.


I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?

Eyewitness accounts are very malleable - in children as well as adults. Leading questions or suggestive questions made in any way can alter the memory someone has of an event.

I'm assuming that this woman recorded some of the phone conversations, if there was a transcript.

it's a good thing that most of the posters in this thread arent sitting on the jury in this case. he'd be deemed guilty before the trial even started

Just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean I necessarily think he's guilty. I would like to see, however, his side of this story, and if the plaintiff has recorded tapes... well, that's some pretty heavy evidence. Can't really say at this point. What I think people have been saying is that if these allegations *are* true, O'Reilly's in some serious doo-doo.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm not so sure about this... I'm at work, so I don't have my psychology texts handy but it seems to me there are some problems with human memory and telling and re-telling. You know how police try and get eyewitnesses to give their accounts separately and ASAP after an incident. I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't know the details off the top of my head. Anyone else know more on this that I do?

You're quite right in pointing out that a story grows with the telling. Eyewitness accounts of accidents, murders, robberies often provide conflicting details. We tend to fill in blanks.

Please understand I do not think O'Reilly necessarily did this...but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. He is aggressive and arrogant. Given his documented lies, I don't think he has any set moral compass that he follows...inspite of his rants over issues of morality.

But even a jackass like him deserves a day in court. I suspect it will be settled through attorneys and will never appear before a judge. I look forward to seeing how it plays out.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Settled out of Court.

From which we can draw no conclusions of guilt or innocence. But, wow, that must be some sort of record. No doubt, Ms. Makris won't be working anytime soon, by choice, I think.

 

[loki09789]

Settled out of Court.

From which we can draw no conclusions of guilt or innocence. But, wow, that must be some sort of record. No doubt, Ms. Makris won't be working anytime soon, by choice, I think.

I don't think that it would have been a guilt/innocences presentation in civil court as much as assigning degrees of responsibility/damages....

How interesting (read not surprising) that (though I agree with your 'innocent/guilty' language personally) responsibility will never be taken nor recorded but simply 'paid off'

 

[Tgace]

I guess that keeping him from doing this to other women wasnt as important as the $$$$ huh?

 

[michaeledward]

Let's see ....

Humiliating a CAD ... or ... $2,000,000.00

Hmmm.... Sign here please.

Numbers reported here, I believe, were the first settlement amount discussed as reported in the O'Reilly suit against Makris. We may never know what the final number is.

 

[Tgace]

Let's see ....

Humiliating a CAD ... or ... $2,000,000.00

Hmmm.... Sign here please.

Numbers reported here, I believe, were the first settlement amount discussed as reported in the O'Reilly suit against Makris. We may never know what the final number is.

Instead of going for the whole $60Mil? Theres more to this story.

Looks like we'll never hear it though.

 

[raedyn]

So is paying her off kind of an admission of guilt? Not officially of course. But guys, tell me... If it was you, and you didn't do it, wouldn't you want to see her in court and publicly show her accusations as false and take her down for defmation of charcter or something?

 

[loki09789]

So is paying her off kind of an admission of guilt? Not officially of course. But guys, tell me... If it was you, and you didn't do it, wouldn't you want to see her in court and publicly show her accusations as false and take her down for defmation of charcter or something?

Well, the problem there is that we don't live in a world where the idea the 'the right will out' and believe that God or Fate is on the side of the righteous regardless of how weak a case you have (either defense or prosecution). We live in a legal philosophy that evidence wins cases. So, if O'man's lawyer doesn't see the risk/reward as worth it or O'man himself decided that he didn't want to drag his name, past, family through the media/legal jungle of having every little bone and skeleton dragged out of the closet, paying it out of court would be the quickest way.

Nice point about it not automatically meaning guilt.

 

[Flatlander]

We live in a legal philosophy that evidence wins cases.

If he was innocent, don't you suppose this principle would rule the day?

 

[michaeledward]

In fairness ... we can draw NO Conclusions concerning guilt or innocence.

This does not change the fact that I think Bill O'Reilly is political hack, a liar, a disingenous commentator and just all around unpleasant guy. Rumor has it that he is worth 20 million dollars a year to FOX, which means somebody is selling a lot of toothpaste from his radio & television shows.

Concerning Mr. O'Reilly, I have no desire to be 'fair'. 'Culture Wars' indeed.

 

[Tgace]

If she really was so offended dont you think she would have said "keep your hush money Im going to court!" ?

Just to throw another angle on it....

 

[Flatlander]

In fairness ... we can draw NO Conclusions concerning guilt or innocence.

No LOGICAL conclusions. But we can assume, can't we?

 

[Rich Parsons]

No LOGICAL conclusions. But we can assume, can't we?

What I think people are saying is that, the Big companies may have decided it is best to pay the women off.

If he was guilty then this makes it go away and she gets something out of it.

If he was innocent, yet with his reputation, this would make it hard and lots of bad press. Hence, if Bill wantd to keep his job he may have been facing the choice of settling or going to court.

Like I said before, it is bad when it happens. In this case we cannot tell if he was guilty, or if his reputation caught up with him and the corporations errored on the side of caution, to avoid losses of money.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

If he was innocent, don't you suppose this principle would rule the day?

I think it has been touched on already but:

He may be innocent, but in the process of undermining his case/evidence/credibility, lawyers for the woman will be airing dirty laundry, bringing up ancient history, digging into his family background, work/arrest records, college days.... just take a look at the election mud slinging as an example and it might help.

He might 'win the battle' of proving his innocence (if he is) but 'loose the war' because his market/journalistic reputation could be damaged beyond repair.

Tom makes a good point too, if it is so cut and dry why wouldn't the woman simply turn down the money to make sure that 'he is outed and doesn't do this to anyone else...?'