keynote CFMAEC speaker believe's rape victims "enjoyed it"
A lot of what egomaniac Bill O'Reilly does is funny. Some of it is disturbing. every once in a while, he hits the proverbial nail on the head. And, in this case, Bill has stepped way over the line.
On January 15th of this year, Mr O'Reilly had this to say concerning the abducted and sexually abused 14 year old, Shawn Hornbeck:
O’REILLY: 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 do what he wanted.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.
O‘REILLY: I don't believe this kid today. I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstance.
Normally, we could just write this off as typical "O'Reilly ranting." Bill always thinks he "knows" what everyone is thinking even tho he is just as far away from the scene as everyone else. But unfortunately, Bill's attempt to read the 14 year olds remarks were miles off the mark. Shawn Hornbeck's abductor, Michael Devlin, has been charged with 69 counts of forcable sodomy against the minor child. The rapes occurred when he was between the ages of 11 and 14 years old when he couldn't legally "consent" to anything, despite Mr O'reilly's fantasies that the boy wanted and enjoyed it.
even more shameful than Billy's attitude over this, is that Bill, in all his sensitivity and awareness on the subject, has been selected to be the keynote speaker at the "Center For Missing and Exploited Children's" big 500 dollar a plate fund raiser in Naples, Florida this March 9th. And so far, they have not demanded an apology from Mr O'Reilly or recinded his invitation. For Shame! Is Bill's fee nonreundable? Why would an organization founded to educate the public and help the poor children who are the victims of sexual exploitation doing having a man who blames the victim, in this case, a child too young to even consent.
Prosecutors say Mr. Devlin raped the boy repeatedly for the first month of his captivity and at least once a month thereafter. Yeah Bill, bet he loved it too.
But before we "rush to judgement"....is what Bill said actually possible? Could the rest of us be missing the boat? Bill does write extensively about NAMBLA in his book, "Culture Warrior." Is it possible that maybe Bill has some "hands-on experience in this area? Even if not with the boys in the "man-boy-love" group, maybe in his younger days.
According to someone who does spend a good deal of time around the legal and personal aspects of these horriffic crimes, Court TV anchor and attorney Catherine Crier had this to say last night on MSNBC when talking with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Let me take some of the heat out of this. For the purposes of this discussion it‘s John Doe. He‘s not a commentator. He‘s a former athlete. If he repeatedly blames the victim in the highest profile child molestation case of the year, should he be the one speaking at a 500 dollar a ticket fund raiser for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children?
CRIER: Naive ignorance on the part of someone making statements like that is one thing, malicious ignorance is another. I‘m afraid if I was the chapter, I would say thank you very much, but no thanks.
OLBERMANN: Bill O‘Reilly, in that same January 15th broadcast, also asked why Shawn Hornbeck did not escape when he could have. He said he didn‘t buy the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing. Now authorities said that this fellow, Devlin, used a gun to threaten Hornbeck when he was abducted, repeated threats throughout his capture and his abduction. But you don‘t need to have known that either, do you, to comprehend the concept of a kidnapper‘s power and control over an abductee who‘s 11 years old, 12 years old, 13 years old, do you?
CRIER: Not at all. We‘ve seen these stories with adults and we know how quickly adults can succumb to psychological manipulation. When you talk about an 11 year old boy who was repeatedly sodomized, and even before those charges came out, we all knew what the circumstances were there. We‘ve read things like 45 minutes of sleep and then awakened time and time again during that first 30 days. The shame, the humiliation, the feelings of rejection and alienation from the entire world that he knew and grew up in would overwhelm a child like that.
Of course, he is going to identify, to an extent, if you will, with the abductor, because that is his only place to go psychologically, given the circumstances around him. It‘s an absolutely horrific nightmare, and for anyone, that athlete you mentioned, to suggest that he could somehow divine that this child wanted to be there is ludicrous.
OLBERMANN: Of course, with the man we‘re talking about, this stuff doesn‘t stop. He asked a guest last night, “What do you expect from the defense attorneys here? Because the defense attorneys, the only way, the only way they could possibly introduce any kind of reasonable doubt in this case would be to say the boys went along willingly.”
Apart from the peek into his own soul that that quote provides, Catherine, is that legally even true? I mean, you‘re talking boys that are 11, 12, 13. Does the word willingly even exist in that situation?
CRIER: No it doesn‘t exist, and the law provides for that. These children were underage. There was no way to consent. Even had they said yes, which we know is certainly not the case, and I don‘t think any defense attorney worth his or her salt would make that approach in front of a judge or jury.
Either the Center needs to excuse Mr O'Reilly from his speaking obligations with them in Naples, and/or Mr O'Reilly owes the victims of this case, the kids, and all kids , a very straightforward "no spin" apology. At the very least.
"