Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly intimates that only defense for Devlin would be that victims Hornbeck and Ownby went along willingly

Reported by Chrish - February 5, 2007 -

Bill O'Reilly can't get through his head that kidnap victims who do not escape are not willing captives - they have undergone some sort of psychological transformation that prevents them from behaving normally. Most of us can admit that just because we can't comprehend something doesn't mean it can't be.

O'Reilly's assessment of Shawn Hornbeck has gone from

"The situation here, for this kid, looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his 'old' parents. He didn't have to go to school, he could run around and do whatever he wanted, .... And I think, when it all comes down, what's gonna happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances"."
to
"We all knew this was coming; it's terrible to hear it. These poor boys, subjected to this monster."

I'm glad O'Reilly has acknowledged the reality of what Hornbeck's life with Devlin was like. Now that he's been charged with 71 counts, including multiple counts of forcible sodomy, will O'Reilly admit he "misspoke" and apologize?

He spoke with Greta Van Susteren tonight 2/05/07 on the Factor. "As journalists, we have to say alleged, and this, that and the other thing (dismissively), but this is, we all know what this is."

GVS said that unless there is a plea agreement (that would likely result in a life imprisonment because of the number of charges) the boys will have to testify to supply the facts to back up the sexual charges, and that would be extremely difficult for them. O'Reilly turned the discussion to the defense, saying

"the only way, the only way they could possibly introduce any reasonable doubt into this case, would be to say 'the boys went along willingly.'"
Comment: Isn't that the NAMBLA defense? As minor children there is no consent possible. Why does he continue to infer that as a possibility?

GVS skillfully replied that there might be a defense dealing with state of mind, but she meant Devlin's and said it was unlikely he could plead insanity since he was able to hold down a job the entire time. What she speculates might happen is the defense will be very aggressive in the lead-up to the trial, counting on the boys not wanting to testify and forcing the prosecution to offer a sweeter deal to Devlin.

O'Reilly shows his ignorance? contempt? of the law once more (and again inserts his narcissistic self into an imaginary starring role) by saying that he would find it morally repugnant to defend Devlin by attacking the boys. GVS quickly replied that that's not how they see it; they are not attacking the boys but the evidence, and the Constitution demands that they do so to the best of their ability. O'Reilly countered that they don't have to take the case, and GVS replied that in some ways they do. O'Reilly argued with Attorney Van Susteren, repeating that they could decline the case, and if he was a lawyer he wouldn't do it. She was adamant that no matter how repugnant the case, lawyers find a higher responsibility to the Constitution. O'Reilly asked her (as if this is some moral litmus test - he so doesn't get it) if she would take the case, and she replied that she'd hope to not get selected and would look at the ground and hope to not be picked, but as an officer of the court and a member of the Bar she would, if selected, fulfill her responsibility and her oath.

O'Reilly said something about making any money at it and GVS said the (court-appointed) lawyer loses money in cases like this. O'Reilly muttered "This guy probably paid a retainer, whoever he hired, if he hired somebody." Now there's some investigative reporting.

This is O'Reilly's niche, after all his crusading for Jessica's Law and attacks on lenient rehabilitative judges, but his commentary on this particular case will be forever tainted with his suspicion that Hornbeck stayed of his own free wil and not because he was severely psychologically damaged.

Note: Amended 2/6/07 to correct name to Ownby - the error is regretted.