Cindy Spengler was head of marketing at "Rosie" magazine. Spengler stated the following in sworn testimony: "You know what happens to people who lie," the tearful witness quoted O'Donnell. "They get sick and they get cancer. If they keep lying, they get it again." Spengler testified that she told O'Donnell, "Your mother died of breast cancer. Was she lying?" "Yes," Spengler quoted the entertainer as replying. In furthur testimony, Spengler admitted sending an e-mail to O'Donnell 's editor in chief, suggesting that "we do our own little 'ding dong the witch is dead' song and dance" to celebrate G+J finally relieving themselves of O'Donnell. ************** Everybody sing! ************** Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead... She's gone where the goblins go, Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out. Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low. Let them know The Wicked Witch is dead!
if she testified about rosie reprimanding her for lying, how are we to know she's not making the whole thing up? and if that part is true, how can we believe anything else she says?
the hole story Cindy Spengler was not only head of marketing at "Rosie" magazine, she was also a cancer survivor. Therefore Rosie's comments were especially repellant... Wasn't going anywhere in particular with this thread other than, gee if this is true (which I think is highly likely based on the excerpts from the trial that I have seen) - I understand why the company wanted her out of their organization. In any company I have worked for, this type of comment would be considered harassment of the tallest order and your ass would be fired, no questions asked. In any event, an executive operating like this in the business world would be finding a new career path... very quickly. You'd survive about ten minutes. I think her childish arrogance will prove her downfall in this lawsuit, just as it did in her business venture.
without a witness to these comments, it's simply hearsay and inadmissable. i'm glad you're not on the jury.
the court record; jury trial? disgust? First of all, the comments ARE admissable, they are already part of the trial proceedings. They are in the court record. I have presented them standalone (as did CNN); of course we would need to review them in the context of the whole trial to get a better picture. Actually from what I have read about the trial and about O'Donnell's behavior as a businesswoman, I think we'd be even more shocked by her outrageous behavior if we had the big picture. Of course if you have information to suggest otherwise, bring it on! Secondly, do you think that O'Donnell would have opted for a jury trial, considering the nature of the testimony? Of course her defense team in this countersuit had access to the depositions of all the witnesses... there's no way in the world she would have gone forward with a jury trial - to air her dirty laundry more publicly than it has already been aired? Not a chance. She may be mean, but she is not stupid. As this conflict is essentially a contract dispute, neither side would benefit from a jury trial, anyway. Actually, from what I have read about the deal, the two parties in the dispute, Gruner & Jahr, the publisher, and Rosie O'Donnell - deserved one another. It's funny how birds of a feather flock together. It's a nasty bitter piece of business and it completely disgusts me. I would not be a juror on that case for any amount of money. Spengler's side: http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/05/news/companies/rosie/index.htm O'Donnell's side: http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news/companies/rosie/index.htm
