# Bill Cosby and the justice system



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 6, 2014)

The justice system in this country was established to give a person a fair trial by a jury of their peers- not the media.  I certainly don't have a clue about what he did or didn't do with regards to the media claims of various woman.  I don't know if the stories are true or not. I don't know if some of the claims are true and some of the claims are false as portrayed in the media. Rape is a serious matter.  Rape claims should be taken seriously.  However, we have a system for dealing with such claims.  If some of those making claims feel they could not come forward earlier because they were afraid, I understand that.  That doesn't make their claims, however, true - or false for that matter.  I do know that we have another "media circus".

I do know that attempting to defend yourself of any charges of civil or criminal behavior can be very difficult if not impossible to do thirty years after the alleged incident.  Cosby is one of the best known entertainers in the country if not the world. His activities have been publicized for probably over 40 years as a comedian and sitcom star.  That means that an accuser  is likely to know much more about a famous celebrity  like him than the celebrity is likely to know about them.  In fact, time muddles the memory and more of even a common person.  That is one of the reasons lawsuits must be filed in a timely manner.  

Moving away from Cosby.  How  well would anyone on this TUG Board be able to defend an accusation of rape 30 years after the alleged incident.  Memories fade, records, physical evidence and witnesses disappear or die.  All you have is "he says-she says".  That is why such suits are generally barred.  But the media doesn't care about any of that.  They just want a good story and to inflame their readers or viewers.  Too bad.  It will never stop.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Nonsense.

Complete and total nonsense.

Bill Cosby is a rapist.  When this many women come forward that much is clear.  As to why they haven't come forward before or gone to the police, please.  Just please.  Cosby was one of the richest and most influential entertainers of the last 30 years - and beloved at that.  It's completely understandable why they didn't think they would be believed.  And study after study has shown MOST rapes go unreported.

And in at least one instance, a victim did go to the prosecutor, who declined to prosecute because he didn't feel he could prove the case.  He's spoken extensively since and said he wish he could have, but it was a he-said/she-said case.  THAT is why more victims don't come forward, too - because often it's their word against the rapist and that's a tough case to prove.

I find your post shameful.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 6, 2014)

All I am saying is the world 40+ years ago is vastly different than NOW.

30-40 years ago - no internet.

30 years ago & way earlier - opportunities and industry connections, were greatly tied to the men in those fields. You wanted a job or an interview - expect some Political Incorrect questions or requests. Dress for Success did NOT mean Evan or Ralph clothing lines - it meant "looking good" .

I dealt with the police, judges and lawyers involving sexual terror and domestic violence. Even your own parents (mom & dad) felt the "you got what you asked for" or "if you want to keep the job, keep quiet" or "this is the price you paid for wanting to do a man's job in a man's world".

I wish I had a magic wand and could make things different from the past - for everyone. And I bet most TUGGERS also would want that wand to changes things they did 30+ years in the past.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Amen, Linda.


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Complete and total nonsense......I find your post shameful.



Not nonsense, not shameful.  Just a point of view.  Maybe OP is dead wrong, maybe not, but we are all entitled to our opinions without being slammed for what we think.  

George


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

bogey21 said:


> Not nonsense, not shameful.  Just a point of view.  Maybe OP is dead wrong, maybe not, but we are all entitled to our opinions without being slammed for what we think.
> 
> 
> 
> George




+1

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially in a situation where there are very few, if any, substantiated facts. That at least one post is critical of the OP speaks more to the mob mentality on decision making than an objective viewpoint which the justice system requires, which I believe is a point the OP was attempting to make. 

I'm concerned that Cosby may be guilty of these crimes. But in the absence of evidence to support such accusations, it is possible (however unlikely it may be) that he is not guilty. Yet his career and personal life have already been damaged, probably beyond repair. And this is likely the most his accusers will gain, other than any personal benefits some may acquire from media or other sources (ie would your opinion change of these accusers if it became public knowledge that they personally gained by this?).


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

And my point of view is that it is shameful and nonsense.  It is exactly opinions like those expressed in the OP's post that contribute to a culture where women are hesitant to report sexual assaults.  To suggest that a report of sexual assault is illegitimate because the victim didn't go to the police is to show a basic misunderstanding of sexual assault and to throw blame on the victim.

And, no, we don't get to express all opinions without being criticized for them.  There are topics - racism comes to mind - that will result in an immediate avalanche of criticism on any message board.  And justly so.  If you want to take the time to post a controversial opinion, you have to expect pushback.

Heck, there's stronger disagreement than this on the Mexico board over safety issues.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 6, 2014)

There's an awful lot of 'smoke' to not be some fire in there somewhere. It DOES raise the question of just how one extracts 'justice' over long ago wrongdoings that leave no evidence? and were alleged to have occurred looonnng before the statutes of limitations ran out. 

If the alleged sexual improprieties occurred as accused, just because the evidence is gone and the statutes say the perp is beyond prosecution, it doesn't  provide a feeling of justice.

None of us were there (I hope), and the societal mores were far different 40 years ago. It's high time, too.

I am neither pillorying Mr. Cosby, nor chastising the women who have come forward, essentially 'piling on' with more accusations. Too bad this didn't see the light of day at a time that the legal system could have done it's job. 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Jim


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

Sadly, it's not just adult women that he is accused of sexually assaulting - one of the alleged victims was only 15 when it happened.  

It is unfortunate that this wasn't brought to light many years ago, but that's no reason not to investigate it now.  

The LAPD is investigating:



> LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles police opened an investigation into a woman's claims that Bill Cosby molested her when she was 15 years old, a department spokeswoman said.
> 
> The investigation was opened Friday after Judy Huth, who is suing Cosby for sexual battery, met with detectives for 90 minutes, Officer Jane Kim said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 6, 2014)

As a detective I've investigated my fair share of rape allegations, both current and historical. It has been my experience that many of the current allegations have been false, many a result of women cheating on their partners and having regrets in the morning or women who have simply drunk far too much, cannot recall the events of the previous evening and refuse to accept that they would have consented to sex in the cold light of day. I've investigated a case of alleged gang rape where a young woman alleged that she was raped by three men she'd met the previous night. Fortunately one of them had the presence of mind to record the nights events on his phone (although his intention was no doubt far from ensuring evidential consent!) and it was very clear from the footage that she was a very willing participant.

Conversely many of the historical allegations, mainly familial rape, have proceeded to successful prosecution despite an often complete lack of physical evidence and relying solely on the testimony of the victim. It comes down to who a jury believes and I can assure you, it is very difficult to lie in the witness box and this often comes across to the jury. Time shouldn't and often isn't a barrier to prosecution however the more high profile the accused is the more caution should be applied to the accusations.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> And my point of view is that it is shameful and nonsense.  It is exactly opinions like those expressed in the OP's post that contribute to a culture where women are hesitant to report sexual assaults.  To suggest that a report of sexual assault is illegitimate because the victim didn't go to the police is to show a basic misunderstanding of sexual assault and to throw blame on the victim.
> 
> And, no, we don't get to express all opinions without being criticized for them.  There are topics - racism comes to mind - that will result in an immediate avalanche of criticism on any message board.  And justly so.  If you want to take the time to post a controversial opinion, you have to expect pushback.



So, where are you on the witches in Salem issue?

There is a *VERY WELL* built system of "finding out" what actually happened in the L.A. area and the County Prosecutor can direct it to "find out" what happened.

*EVERYTHING* that comes in before that is speculation - you assume it's true, some assume it's false and some assume the facts are still coming in.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Pompey Family said:


> Time shouldn't and often isn't a barrier to prosecution however the more high profile the accused is the more caution should be applied to the accusations.



Unfortunately, time is often a total barrier because many states have statutes of limitation that bar prosecution of most crimes, even sex crimes, after a certain period of time.

In California, for instance:

1. If the victim was under 18 at the time of commission of the offense, the accused must be charged before the  victim’s 28th birthday;

2. otherwise Prosecution must bring a case against the perpetrator within 10 years after commission of the offense.

https://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-state


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 6, 2014)

To say it is "unfortunate" that there is a Statute of Limitations seems to miss the the point of "procedural protections" afforded by the Justice System. Do you also think the Double Jeopardy" rule is "unfortunate"? How about the "Miranda Warning"?

Ah, heck - let's just lynch the perp ....


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 6, 2014)

Pompey Family said:


> As a detective I've investigated my fair share of rape allegations, both current and historical. It has been my experience that many of the current allegations have been false, many a result of women cheating on their partners and having regrets in the morning or women who have simply drunk far too much, cannot recall the events of the previous evening and refuse to accept that they would have consented to sex in the cold light of day. I've investigated a case of alleged gang rape where a young woman alleged that she was raped by three men she'd met the previous night. Fortunately one of them had the presence of mind to record the nights events on his phone (although his intention was no doubt far from ensuring evidential consent!) and it was very clear from the footage that she was a very willing participant.
> 
> Conversely many of the historical allegations, mainly familial rape, have proceeded to successful prosecution despite an often complete lack of physical evidence and relying solely on the testimony of the victim. It comes down to who a jury believes and I can assure you, it is very difficult to lie in the witness box and this often comes across to the jury. Time shouldn't and often isn't a barrier to prosecution however the more high profile the accused is the more caution should be applied to the accusations.



In your experience what are the percentages of "questionable" accusations vs. most likely accurate accusations?


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

I think it's unfortunate if a child rapist gets away with rape because a significant amount of time has passed.  One can understand the solid reasons and policy behind a statute of limitations and still view such a situation as, at a minimum, unfortunate.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

And this reminds me of the response when the Jerry Sandusky accusations [first] started leaking out:

-the guys 65+ years old
-it was a long time ago
-there's no proof
-he's done so much for the community/college/football team/charities
-the accusers could just be gold diggers

etc, etc, etc


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> And this reminds me of the response when the Jerry Sandusky accusations started leaking out:
> 
> -the guys 65+ years old
> -it was a long time ago
> ...



A university employee saw him in the shower with one of the victims.  Thats very good proof.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

am1 said:


> A university employee saw him in the shower with one of the victims.  Thats very good proof.



Of course we know that *now*.  Early on - just like this case is early on - those are the things that Jerry Sandusky's apologists were saying.

BTW - the 15 year old girl was allegedly assaulted at one of Hugh Heffner's properties - do you really think there is no one who knew what was going on?

An ethical adult would take one look at a 15 year old and say, let's call your parents, you don't belong here.


----------



## am1 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Of course we know that *now*.  Early on - just like this case is early on - those are the things that Jerry Sandusky's apologists were saying.
> 
> BTW - the 15 year old girl was allegedly assaulted at one of Hugh Heffner's properties - do you really think there is no one who knew what was going on?
> 
> An ethical adult would take one look at a 15 year old and say, let's call your parents, you don't belong here.



Are we shocked that ethical and hollywood do not go together?  Lets hope the police can do their investigation uninterrupted. 

If he or anyone else is found guilty then they deserve harsh penalties.  Filing false claims should be just as harsh.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 6, 2014)

Sexual Assault is a horribly under-reported crime, I truly hope that our society is working towards making it less traumatic to *REPORT* while at the same time making it more common to see it thoroughly investigated when it is reported.

I think "cooking" the perp in the press - long before the proper authorities can even begin to investigate fails to support that purpose.

As an example of how the reporting of Sexual Assault can effect the prosecution of it - read this report - it is sobering.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...accusations_infographic_great_intentions.html


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Sexual Assault is a horribly under-reported crime, I truly hope that our society is working towards making it less traumatic to *REPORT* while at the same time making it more common to see it thoroughly investigated when it is reported.



On this, we certainly agree.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 6, 2014)

Cosby must have pissed someone off for all of these allegations to come up this year. In the last few years Cosby has been talking about black culture in a demeaning sort of way. Maybe its the Boule not liking how Cosby was spouting off. Maybe not, but it is odd that everyone is lining up to admit having relations with Cosby after all these years.

Even if they never prove a thing Cosby is done, imo. Even if Oprah and Whoopie come to his defense it would be too little too late. imo.

Bill


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 6, 2014)

Did we all forget that Cosby has been mentioned in this light before?

Tina Fey has called him out at least twice, first on SNL in 2005:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...y_brought_them_up_on_saturday_night_live.html

And again on 30 Rock in 2009:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...t_allegations_five_years_ago_long_before.html

Hmmmm. Maybe the "proper authorities" have been dropping the ball?


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Yeah, this stuff didn't just come up this year.  There were multiple reports long before this year.

But the publicity this year has certainly caused more women to come forward.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

I don't know if Cosby is guilty, and neither does anyone else here, but don't dismiss our, perhaps tenuous, belief in the judicial system. I think we all must agree that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and an impartial jury, where evidence may be submitted and judged. Any trial by media has the potential to cause more damage to those who are otherwise not guilty. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we have. 

There are plenty of allegations against Cosby that something most likely happened. It's up to the DA to prosecute and make a case. And if there isn't sufficient evidence, then Cosby will only have been tried in the court of public opinion. Don't blame the few of us who trust the system we have vs the potential anarchy we might have in future (and which we seem to have already in not so small part).


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

I have to think that some of you who think Bill Cosby is being judged unfairly, haven't read much about this:  

-At last count, there are at least 24 women who have come forward.

-Several of the women, are well-known public figures, who have far more to lose, than to gain, by coming forward. 

-More than one alleged victim was underage when they were assaulted.

-Their stories are remarkably similar.

-A man who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show days, has come forward claiming to be Cosby's "fixer."  He has receipts for thousands of dollars paid to young women on Cosby's behalf.

-*Of course* the media will wring every dollar out of this story, but they have also done a service, by bringing to light situation that has been hidden for years.

-We have freedom of the press in the US - everyone and everything gets tried in the court of public opinion.  If you don't want to read it - don't read it - wait for the verdict to come out.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

It's very difficult for me to understand how some seemingly want to blame this on the vaguely termed "media."  It's even harder to understand how anyone wants me to feel sorry for Bill Cosby having to defend himself against these accusations.  A lot of it seems to have to do more with wanting to sweep an uncomfortable situation under the rug or wish it away more than anything else.

Bill Cosby has more money and power than any of these women, or even all of them combined.  If any of them are lying, he should sue them for defamation and shut them up.  It would cost a fraction of paying them off.

There's obviously a reason he does not.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Bill Cosby has more money and power than any of these women, or even all of them combined.  If any of them are lying, he should sue them for defamation and shut them up.  It would cost a fraction of paying them off.
> 
> There's obviously a reason he does not.



Exactly - he doesn't sue them - he just settles out of court:  

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-settles-lawsuit/


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I have to think that some of you who think Bill Cosby is being judged unfairly, haven't read much about this:
> 
> -At last count, there are at least 24 women who have come forward.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the summary. I haven't read as much as you and others about this particular issue. However, regardless of how many people come forward I still believe someone is not guilty until proven in court. That's what I was taught in school on how a civilized society determines criminal (and certain other) matters, and it's what I believe in.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

All a Court does is determine whether someone is _convicted _of a crime.

There were, for example, hundreds - if not thousands - of Nazi war criminals who worked in concentration camps and were never prosecuted.  They were still murderers.  There are thousands of criminals a year in America who are never caught, let alone convicted.  They are still criminals.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> It's very difficult for me to understand how some seemingly want to blame this on the vaguely termed "media."



Why is it difficult to understand? Our media has been anything but truthful for years. They distort, purchase, and spin stories for dramatic purposes in order to increase their revenue. Ironically, I should question why you have faith in the media...since it should be obvious to all that the media has interests other than truth. We need to remove the profit motive from news in order to get accurate information, and that won't happen.



> It's even harder to understand how anyone wants me to feel sorry for Bill Cosby having to defend himself against these accusations.  A lot of it seems to have to do more with wanting to sweep an uncomfortable situation under the rug or wish it away more than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know you're not quoting my comments yet I suspect you're referring to my posts, and perhaps others. Please don't misconstrue what I write. I'm not defending Bill Cosby. I'm defending the system. And in this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Based on the info presented in this thread, it doesn't seem that it should be all that difficult to prosecute him and win, though the actual evidence as presented at trial would naturally determine whether or not he is guilty.

FWIW, based on the posts you and others have made in this thread, I know we would agree on the merits of punishing those who are responsible for heinous crimes such as rape. I am the last person who would advocate ignoring crime, yet I am also the first who insists on having proof that the accusations were true for any criminal act so that no innocent party become a victim themselves. Our judicial system is not perfect.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> Thanks for the summary. I haven't read as much as you and others about this particular issue. However, regardless of how many people come forward I still believe someone is not guilty until proven in court. That's what I was taught in school on how a civilized society determines criminal (and certain other) matters, and it's what I believe in.



Absolutely, but some of the posters have implied or stated that Bill Cosby is being treated unfairly by the press.  I'm not sure what they are trying to say?  They don't think these atrocities should be made public?  He should get a pass because of "who he is."  We should end freedom of the press in the US?

Then there are the posts that state or imply that the women could be lying - really?  All 24 of them?  Including well-known public figures?  How about the 12 that already filed suit against him? Did they lie too?  That's pretty insulting to women, and it's exactly why sexual assault goes unreported.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 6, 2014)

I wonder how this thread compares to Lance Armstrong doping thread.
IIRC, it seems a similar, "he did it" vs. "its a witchhunt" vs. "wait+see" debate.
.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Ken, if you'd like to point to one specific thing that the press does wrong, I could evaluate your claim.  But you're not doing that.  You're making some sort of vague accusation that they're doing something wrong ... well ... what is that, exactly?

They're reporting that these women have come forward. 

They're reporting what these women are saying, etc.

If you want to point out something "the media" has done wrong, I'm open to hearing that.



Talent312 said:


> I wonder how this thread compares to Lance Armstrong doping thread.
> IIRC, it seems a similar, "he did it" vs. "its a witchhunt" vs. "wait+see" debate.
> .



Yeah, and we all know how that turned out.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Absolutely, but some of the posters have implied or stated that Bill Cosby is being treated unfairly by the press.  I'm not sure what they are trying to say?  They don't think these atrocities should be made public?  He should get a pass because of "who he is."  We should end freedom of the press in the US?



Not at all. However, I think it's apparent to all that when celebrities fall, they fall hard in the press. I haven't read enough to know if that's the case here, but it seems very possible. 





> Then there are the posts that state or imply that the women could be lying - really?  All 24 of them?  Including well-known public figures?  That's pretty insulting to women, and it's exactly why sexual assault goes unreported.




Well, we don't know the accuracy of the 24 reports. That's the whole point. We don't know. However, it does seem unlikely that the accusations against Cosby are without merit.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Ken, if you'd like to point to one specific thing that the press does wrong, I could evaluate your claim.  But you're not doing that.  You're making some sort of vague accusation that they're doing something wrong ... well ... what is that, exactly?
> 
> They're reporting that these women have come forward.
> 
> ...




The fact that you post this indicates that you don't understand what I've tried to convey in my earlier posts. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Yeah, and we all know how that turned out.




So people are guilty until proven innocent?

I am disturbed by your insinuation that reports of crimes are tantamount to being guilty. That's not the way it works. Public opinion does not make someone guilty.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Actually, I think it shows you can't point to anything the press has done wrong here, underscoring my point.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> The fact that you post this indicates that you don't understand what I've tried to convey in my earlier posts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad



I think you saying that you want to hear from a court of law - we all do.  

But if it weren't for the press, this sordid story will still be getting swept under the rug and paid off by Bill Cosby.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> So people are guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> I am disturbed by your insinuation ...



You have to say "insinuation," Ken, because you know that I've never said anything close to that.

You're free to believe Bill Cosby is innocent.  That's fine.  And I'm free to believe he's a rapist.  And we're both free to say that on TUG or anywhere else.  The difference is, the OP and you seem to be bothered by those of us who think he's guilty saying that, or by the media publicizing the multiple women who say he's raped them.  You're both trying to either shut down the conversation or cast aspersions on those of us who believe that, yes, when two dozen or so women independently say they were drugged and raped, that Bill Cosby is a rapist.

Again, let's go back to the Nazi guards who weren't prosecuted - you'd agree they were involved in murder, wouldn't you?

You wouldn't think saying that was wrong, would you?

If so, there's a point where we'd agree.  You just don't agree on Cosby.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> All a Court does is determine whether someone is _convicted _of a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> There were, for example, hundreds - if not thousands - of Nazi war criminals who worked in concentration camps and were never prosecuted.  They were still murderers.  There are thousands of criminals a year in America who are never caught, let alone convicted.  They are still criminals.




http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime



> In ordinary language, the term crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by a state.[1] The term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,[2] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.[3] The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law (i.e. something is a crime if applicable law says that it is).[2] One proposed definition is that a crime, also called an offence or a criminal offence, is an act harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community or the state (a public wrong). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.[1][4]




Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I think you saying that you want to hear from a court of law - we all do.
> 
> 
> 
> But if it weren't for the press, this sordid story will still be getting swept under the rug and paid off by Bill Cosby.




I see the point. You believe that the police wouldn't be investigating the accusations were it not for the press. I don't know, though you're probably correct. Whether or not Cosby settles, or is able to this time, is a related yet different question.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

Cosby settled a civil suit out of court - if criminal charges are filed against him, that won't be an option.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> You have to say "insinuation," Ken, because you know that I've never said anything close to that.



You may think that, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Your posts have a universal theme...that Cosby is guilty. But how can you be certain? 



> You're free to believe Bill Cosby is innocent.  That's fine.  And I'm free to believe he's a rapist.  And we're both free to say that on TUG or anywhere else.



Where have I said that Cosby is innocent? You are NOT reading and understanding my posts if you are left with the belief that I think this guy is innocent.



> The difference is, the OP and you seem to be bothered by those of us who think he's guilty saying that, or by the media publicizing the multiple women who say he's raped them.  You're both trying to either shut down the conversation or cast aspersions on those of us who believe that, yes, when two dozen or so women independently say they were drugged and raped, that Bill Cosby is a rapist.



Not at all. Please don't try to twist my comments into something they're not. You are trying to put me in a no win situation where either I am against public opinion, women, or those individuals who are accusing Cosby of a crime. I want facts, and I want a court to convict criminals. I'm sorry if you can't see that we are all on the same side here. It appears that you simply want to attack those of us who don't agree with you.



> Again, let's go back to the Nazi guards who weren't prosecuted - you'd agree they were involved in murder, wouldn't you?
> 
> You wouldn't think saying that was wrong, would you?



Crimes committed by the Germans (not just Nazi guards) were crimes against humanity. They shouldn't even be compared with the accusations against Cosby, and you insult those of us who lost family in the war by trying to do so.  Please don't do that again.





Sent from my iPad


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> You have to say "insinuation," Ken, because you know that I've never said anything close to that.
> 
> You're free to believe Bill Cosby is innocent.  That's fine.  And I'm free to believe he's a rapist.  And we're both free to say that on TUG or anywhere else.  The difference is, the OP and you seem to be bothered by those of us who think he's guilty saying that, or by the media publicizing the multiple women who say he's raped them.  You're both trying to either shut down the conversation or cast aspersions on those of us who believe that, yes, when two dozen or so women independently say they were drugged and raped, that Bill Cosby is a rapist.
> 
> ...



I suggest you read my original post.  I didn't cast aspersions or try to shut down anyone.  All the aspersion casting was done by you. Furthermore, the "15" year old has filed a lawsuit and Cosby has filed a countersuit alleging a shakedown by her and her attorney.  It will be interesting to see how this turns out in the judicial system.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Cosby settled a civil suit out of court - if criminal charges are filed against him, that won't be an option.




Yes, that was my point of him not being able to settle this time, etc.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Ken, it's very difficult to see how you could find it "insulting" that I'm saying Nazi war criminals should be regarded as murderers whether they are convicted of the crime or not.  The attempt to make it personal aside, your response to the actual point is a complete semantic copout.  

I will cease engaging with you at this point and let my previous comments stand.  It's obvious where we're both coming from.  I don't think anything more would add much to it, and neither of us is winning the other over.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I suggest you read my original post.  I didn't cast aspersions or try to shut down anyone.  All the aspersion casting was done by you. Furthermore, the "15" year old has filed a lawsuit and Cosby has filed a countersuit alleging a shakedown by her and her attorney.  It will be interesting to see how this turns out in the judicial system.



The entire tone of your post was casting aspersions on the victims and seems to somehow blame Cosby's troubles on the media reporting accusations of crimes.  There's no point to it, if not to say, "Poor Cosby, convicted in the court of public opinion," with absolutely no sensitivity to the victims of his crimes despite your attempts to couch your language.

As I said to Ken, please point out anything the media has done wrong, and maybe I'll agree with you (or maybe not).


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Ken, it's very difficult to see how you could find it "insulting" that I'm saying Nazi war criminals should be regarded as murderers whether they are convicted of the crime or not.  The attempt to make it personal aside, your response to the actual point is a complete semantic copout.



Why choose German crimes during a war as proper comparison to the accusations against Cosby? That you do so indicates your own complete misunderstanding on crime in the correct context, as it implies that all crimes are equal. That you continue to post comments shows your complete indifference to how they would be received by some of us. 



> I will cease engaging with you at this point and let my previous comments stand.  It's obvious where we're both coming from.  I don't think anything more would add much to it, and neither of us is winning the other over.




Yes, it is somewhat futile to expect me to believe your perspective when you have no proof on the accusations yet expect me to produce proof that the media is anything but perfect in their goals of providing accurate information when we all (or most of us) acknowledge the multitude of issues surrounding the media for decades. Your attempt to take the high road is somewhat laughable at this stage.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> The entire tone of your post was casting aspersions on the victims and seems to somehow blame Cosby's troubles on the media reporting accusations of crimes.  There's no point to it, if not to say, "Poor Cosby, convicted in the court of public opinion," with absolutely no sensitivity to the victims of his crimes despite your attempts to couch your language.
> 
> As I said to Ken, please point out anything the media has done wrong, and maybe I'll agree with you (or maybe not).



I am not going to let you get away with misrepresenting my post.  The tone of my post didn't cast aspersions on the alleged victims. In fact, I  specifically said I had no opinion as to the merit of their claims. I also said I had no clue whether or not Cosby was or wasn't guilty of the alleged crimes.  Further, I said that rape claims should be taken seriously.    Our judicial system was substantially inherited from Britain and has a record of many hundreds of years. It has been refined many times since its inception.  It is based on the premise that an accused has the right to face their accuser under procedures designed to get to the truth.

I merely pointed out something that you  don't want to hear.  The media is no substitute for a trial.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

I think this is where you went wrong with your original theory:



> All you have is "he says-she says".



Because in this case you have what Cosby says, and what 24+ women say - some of them, very credible witnesses.

Let's face it - if 24 have come forward so far, there are probably a whole lot more.  

My guess is that if this goes to court, Cosby will plead no-contest, or plead guilty to a lesser charge, and plea bargain, to avoid having the victims testify in court, exposing what he really is, and to try to shorten the penalty.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 6, 2014)

Can someone name the police department that served paper on this person and the grand jury that said he was guilty?


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

pedro47 said:


> Can someone name the police department that served paper on this person and the grand jury that said he was guilty?



It will be the LAPD…



> LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles police opened an investigation into a woman's claims that Bill Cosby molested her when she was 15 years old, a department spokeswoman said.
> 
> The investigation was opened Friday after Judy Huth, who is suing Cosby for sexual battery, met with detectives for 90 minutes, Officer Jane Kim said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 6, 2014)

Right.

He said- she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said , and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said.

So far there seem to be a heck of a lot of similar variations on a common theme. One guy, with  drugs and/or coercion forcing himself on young women for his- and his alone- gratification.  It remains to be seen what the investigation uncovers and how many more victims come forward. Then of course what charges can be brought.

In any case, I think it's safe to say Cosby's career and reputation is in ruins.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 6, 2014)

At The University of Virginia a  Greek fraternity was accused of gang rape by Rolling Stone magazine of a female freshman student. Guess what it was a Lie. The fraternity name has been tarnish by this magazine.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

> At The University of Virginia a Greek fraternity was accused of gang rape by Rolling Stone magazine of a female freshman student. Guess what it was a Lie. The fraternity name has been tarnish by this magazine.



You are talking about one person making an accusation - instead of 24+.

Many of the women who have come forward lately are prominent women, and credible witnesses.

Absolutely no comparison.

If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you read the accusations agains Crosby:  
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...lt_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> The media is no substitute for a trial.




Exactly correct.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Many of the women who have come forward lately are prominent women, and credible witnesses.




I hope this is accurate. If so, then there should be little difficulty in gaining a conviction. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I think this is where you went wrong with your original theory:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They may or may not be credible. Cosby may or may not be credible   You find out who is credible  when they testify and are cross-examined and deposed in a court of law.  Until then you have "he says" "she says".  You can make what you want of the number of people making allegations.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> They may or may not be credible. Cosby may or may not be credible   You find out who is credible  when they testify and are cross-examined and deposed in a court of law.  Until then you have "he says" "she says".  You can make what you want of the number of people making allegations.



Have you reviewed the list of women who have come forward, who they are, and their allegations?  If you haven't you should.

It's quite a stretch to imagine that all 24 women are lying...


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 6, 2014)

Cosby won't go to jail unless he's convicted by a jury of his peers.  That's what our criminal justice system ensures and guarantees.

It does not ensure that the world won't view him as a rapist.

Just ask OJ.

The phrase that one is innocent-until-proven-guilty is glib shorthand.  There are innocent people in jail.  There are guilty people who are never prosecuted.  There is a lot in between.

When someone comes to put Bill Cosby in jail without a trial, then the heartfelt protestations in his defense will be merited.  We all know that will never happen, of course.  Until then, spare me the defense of poor Bill Cosby being picked on the media.  It's at best misguided, and at worst victim-bashing.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Have you reviewed the list of women who have come forward, who they are, and their allegations?  If you haven't you should.
> 
> It's quite a stretch to imagine that all 24 women are lying...




For myself, I think the issue is not that there may be validity in the claims being made against Cosby but that we are in no position to conclusively prove that he is guilty of the accusations made against him. 

As an educator, would you teach your students to rush to judgment based on media reports and interviews with individuals who have not been deposed or otherwise questioned in a legal proceeding? What message do we send to others by publicly stating that the women must be right due to the number of women now accusing him, or that some are well known or reputable, and that there are others who confidentially settled claims on similar accusations?

However abhorrent the crime may be and however much we may believe we know what occurred, there is still the presumption of innocence of the accused in our legal system. If Cosby is guilty then the courts will determine that based on the evidence.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> The phrase that one is innocent-until-proven-guilty is glib shorthand.  There are innocent people in jail.  There are guilty people who are never prosecuted.  There is a lot in between.



"Glib shorthand"? I suppose this indicates that you consider our legal system dictates that one is innocent until proven guilty is inaccurate. What would you have in its place?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

The simple fact that you acknowledge that there are innocent individuals convicted of crimes illustrates that you are aware of the potential of false claims and the requirement for providing proof. This was my point earlier when I wrote that our system is not perfect. But I'd rather have a high burden of proof than the alternative.



> spare me the defense of poor Bill Cosby being picked on the media.  It's at best misguided, and at worst victim-bashing.




There you go again. Demeaning others by accusing us of being misguided and/or victim bashing when we are only saying that we have a legal system in this country and it needs to be honored. The guy may be guilty but just because some of us aren't as vociferous as you doesn't mean that we are any less critical of Cosby and also desire him to pay for his crimes. Just prove those crimes first, ok?


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 6, 2014)

> However abhorrent the crime may be and however much we may believe we know what occurred, there is still the presumption of innocence of the accused in our legal system. If Cosby is guilty then the courts will determine that based on the evidence.



1.  It may never go to trial because of the statute of limitations - that doesn't mean he is innocent.

2.  You should read the accusations against him, and who the women are - it is absolutely convincing.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 6, 2014)

I believe that the number of women who have come forward suggests that Cosby likely did commit criminal acts. Also, that he refused to so much as even utter a word, not even "I have been requested my attorney not to comment" or "these accusations are all pathetic attempts at celebrity by washed up actresses", when interviewed on air, but rather just shook his head, also suggests that there is merit.  However, there may be a number of false accusations amid the legitimate ones, and the justice system needs to weed them out so that we can get a better grasp as to the extent of his crimes.

 Whodathunk that a marginally known comic in Hannibal Buress could in take down a legendary icon so quickly and completely overnight. Only in the youtube age has this been possible. Pretty amazing stuff.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 6, 2014)

We must also be careful not to legitimize mere allegation, and not disparage those who request a proper forum for airing of the evidence as victim-bashers. This notion also elevates the accuser to a level of unimpeachability over the accused by the mere fact that they leveled an allegation. The accused should never be considered guilty simply because s/he has been accused of a crime, or because the alleged crime is sexual in nature. That is not happening necessarily in this case, but I see all too often in today's culture that alleged rape victims are assumed to be truthful. I find this to be an overcorrection to the derision that rape victims used to face.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> 1.  It may never go to trial because of the statute of limitations - that doesn't mean he is innocent.
> 
> 2.  You should read the accusations against him, and who the women are - it is absolutely convincing.




I find it interesting that you didn't respond to my question regarding your experience as an educator and how to frame issues like this to impressionable students. So, if the accuser is "absolutely convincing", as per the media reports and/or interviews (I assume), then you are 100% certain that the witness is accurate? Why bother with cross examination or the ability to propose another theory if this is commonplace? 

I don't understand this perspective. Either we support the right of the accused to a fair trial or we don't. End of story.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Patri (Dec 6, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you read the accusations agains Crosby:
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...lt_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html



Truly nauseating to read. His wife Camille has to know something. Even his co-workers on The Cosby Show probably have some insight into all of this. He could not have hidden his true self from them completely.
Maybe someone should give Bill a pill so he will feel better.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> I find it interesting that you didn't respond to my question regarding your experience as an educator and how to frame issues like this to impressionable students.



I wasn't avoiding it - I guess I had to think about it, because I don't talk to adults the same way I teach students.  

In this thread, I'm expressing my opinion and debating the topic with other adults. I am not trying to teach you anything.

But with students, and current events, you look for teachable moments.  I only taught girls, so my approach would be completely different.  With students, my approach would be:  "What is date rape, what are the warning signs, and how can you protect yourself?"  It would be a completely different conversation.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I think this is where you went wrong with your original theory:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There has to be some truth in 24 woman coming forward to tell their Cosby story. They are all brave woman that will make it easier for others to come forward, imo. I thought the same when Clinton went through a similar but different situation. 

Bill


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> It's quite a stretch to imagine that all 24 women are lying...



And how many women were lying during the Salem Witch Trials that resulted in the gruesome death of 20 "witches"?

Admittedly I don't know much about this case or the accusations, but when I see Gloria Allred on TV with the "victims" my natural reaction is to roll my eyes and slightly vomit in my mouth.  I saw on TV that at least one of the "victims" seems to be an habitual rape accuser and has worked with Gloria Allred before.  Gloria Allred is giving these women 100 million reasons to potentially lie.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...users-hold-press-conference-article-1.2032165

Mark Cuban was recently asked about what's the worst thing about being a billionaire and his answer was, "that's easy, it's the lawsuits and all the accusations made against you!"  I think the same applies to celebrities.  Our civil legal system lends itself to many false accusations which turn out to be simple money grabs.

I don't know if Cosby is guilty or not, but I would think that a serial rapist wouldn't just end up deciding to stop one day.  That would suggest that there should at least be some recent victims which fall within the statute of limitations.  Where are they?  How come we only have victims from 30 years ago?  That's an awfully long time and I actually agree with OP that memories fade over time.


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 7, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> Unfortunately, time is often a total barrier because many states have statutes of limitation that bar prosecution of most crimes, even sex crimes, after a certain period of time.
> 
> In California, for instance:
> 
> ...



Fortunately in the UK there is no statute of limitation in respect of rape and most sexual offences.


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 7, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> In your experience what are the percentages of "questionable" accusations vs. most likely accurate accusations?



A wholly unscientific conclusion but I would say that 90% of rape allegations are false however when it comes to historical allegations then a high percentage of those are true.

This of course is based solely on my experience in the UK, the figures are likely to be very different in somewhere such as India, Afghanistan etc.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 7, 2014)

Pompey Family said:


> A wholly unscientific conclusion but I would say that 90% of rape allegations are false however when it comes to historical allegations then a high percentage of those are true.



That seems awfully high to me.  But if you want to go with anything close to that and apply that logic to the Cosby situation, and then add in the fact that he's rich and famous, you'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, I feel the man is guilty.  

Also, I have no idea why the "innocent until proven guilty" theme keeps coming up every time one of these topics is discussed on TUG.  We are stating our opinions only, we are not sending the man to jail or to a death sentence.  The courts have established that threshold - it definitely doesn't apply here on this forum.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 7, 2014)

Certainly everyone has an opinion on a major story like the Cosby story.  This will not change.  My point is that the media is unauthoritative and doesn't conduct meaningful investigations.  Many famous and some not famous people have been "smeared" by the media.  It is a known fact that politicians in particular use the media to smear their opponents. Not only politicians use the media to smear someone else.  We have seen this with celebrities numerous times.  My  celebrity  boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on me hits the press quite often.  Once the smear is out there, the facts (if there are any) don't matter.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 7, 2014)

1.  As I said earlier, make a specific criticism of something the media has done in relation to Bill Cosby and we can then address it.  Until you do that, your general criticisms of the media boil down to casting vague aspersions on the reports of Cosby's behavior.

2. As the Rolling Stone rape story demonstrates, once a "smear" is out there, innocent people are capable of disproving it if it's not true.  Interestingly, do you know who disproved the Rolling Stone rape story?  More than anyone else, the Washington Post, by repeatedly asking questions about the parts of the story that did not add up.

3. The media doesn't conduct meaningful investigations?  Start with Jacob Riis and Upton Sinclair and continue through to today and you'll find that suggestion disproved locally and nationally in every era of America history.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

Folks - read the article I posted above and then come back and tells what you think.  This is not about Gloria Allerd and one victim - it involves many victims over many, many years.  If you don't like this media outlet, choose one that you do - they all have the same reports.

*http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...lt_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html*


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 7, 2014)

With Jerry Sandusky I "knew" without a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty, "knew" that he was protected by a ton of people around him including the most powerful of all of them, Joe Paterno.  Those accusations in that setting/culture meshed perfectly with THE classic child molestation/coverup model, and no one will ever convince me that any of the charges brought against Sandusky or accusations made of Paterno were falsified or embellished.  Even if Sandusky had managed to walk out of court a free man, I still would be opining that he was/is guilty as sin.

With Bill Cosby I'm nowhere near as sure but my opinion is that he's more likely a rapist than not.  I "think" there must be something to the charges, "think" that there are far too many similarities in the accusations for there to NOT be fire with the smoke.  It won't be a surprise if enough of the accusations are proven true to totally discredit him.  And if that happens, I hope he rots in jail.

As for the media trying him, eh, so what?  Their job is to report.  Some outlets do it in a "just the facts, ma'am" style, some make it up as they go, some go for the shock factor, etc.  If you don't like what one media outlet is doing then find another; there are plenty to suit every taste.  If Bill Cosby is found guilty then it won't be the media's fault.  But it's also not the media's fault that accusations have been made against him.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

Pompey Family said:


> A wholly unscientific conclusion but I would say that 90% of rape allegations are false however when it comes to historical allegations then a high percentage of those are true.



So you are saying that if 10 different women, in 10 different cases, reported that they were raped, statistically, 9 of them would be lying.

But if 24, *unrelated women*, came to you and they all said the same guy raped them, would you believe that 21 of them lied?  Obviously not.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> So you are saying that if 10 different women, in 10 different cases, reported that they were raped, statistically, 9 of them would be lying.
> 
> But if 24, *unrelated women*, came to you and they all said the same guy raped them, would you believe that 21 of them lied?  Obviously not.



I think it's possible in this day and age when a rich and famous person is accused of rape that many false accusers would probably be tempted to join the circus.  Especially when that wealthy individual has been extremely sexually active.

I do feel Cosby is guilty of at least some of these allegations though.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> So you are saying that if 10 different women, in 10 different cases, reported that they were raped, statistically, 9 of them would be lying.
> 
> But if 24, *unrelated women*, came to you and they all said the same guy raped them, would you believe that 21 of them lied?  Obviously not.



You might even say that there are very likely more- maybe a LOT more who haven't, and won't come forward. Women who've 'moved on' from the trauma, Women who've never told current spouses that they ever had such an 'encounter'. Maybe even women who themselves have never come to grips with awakening after drinking and/or being given 'date-rape' drugs. 

If someone with police experience can say they have an unsubstantiated feeling that 90% are lying, someone else might say that for every woman who comes forward reporting a decades-old rape, 2-3-? more will choose NOT to point the finger at their perp.

Jim


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 7, 2014)

The idea that 9 out of 10 women who claim to be raped are lying is not supported by any evidence.  Nobody knows what the number is.  It's very difficult to prove such a statistic.

A discussion:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I think it's possible in this day and age when a rich and famous person is accused of rape that many false accusers would probably be tempted to join the circus.  Especially when that wealthy individual has been extremely sexually active.



Have you read this article?  http://www.bloombergview.com/article...orts-are-false


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Have you read this article?  http://www.bloombergview.com/article...orts-are-false



I may have missed something but I don't see anything about a rich famous person being accused of rape.  Obviously there may be more than a little incentive in those cases for some to step forward.  And then when you add Gloria Allred to the mix...


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 7, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> The idea that 9 out of 10 women who claim to be raped are lying is not supported by any evidence. Nobody knows what the number is. It's very difficult to prove such a statistic.
> 
> A discussion:
> 
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false



A very excellent and balanced article. Two issues though:

 1)



> You cannot treat “percentage of reports that were found to be false by investigators” as “percentage of reports that were actually false.”


 
 Instead, is it possible to accurately identify those reports demonstrated to be "not false"? This would mean that the remainder consists of false and unknown/unknowable.

 2)



> Men’s-rights activists would like to make it harder for innocent men to get caught in a web of lies, so they want rape accusations to be interrogated with deep suspicion. But treating rape victims as possible or likely liars may make it harder for them to go forward, leaving rapists free to stalk their next victim.


 
 I have to agree with the position of the men's rights activists cited here. As despicable or insensitive as it may seem that women should be treated as "likely liars" (which is a little hyperbole in my opinion), the justice system must demand that there is no presumption of guilt by the mere presence of an accuser. There should be rigorous skepticism in trying to discover and prosecute truth, with both the accuser and accused. If that discourages true victims from coming forward, that is unfortunate, and we should continue to create a culture of encouragement of true victims to come forward.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I may have missed something but I don't see anything about a rich famous person being accused of rape.  Obviously there may be more than a little incentive in those cases for some to step forward.  And then when you add Gloria Allred to the mix...



Only one of the women is represented by Gloria Allred - are you going to discredit all the others because of that?  

Have you actually reviewed the list of women who are accusing him?  Some of them are attorneys, prominent actresses and models, a university administrator, etc.  They are women who have more to lose, than to gain by coming forward.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Only one of the women is represented by Gloria Allred - are you going to discredit all the others because of that?
> 
> Have you actually reviewed the list of women who are accusing him?  Some of them are attorneys, prominent actresses and models, a university administrator, etc.  They are women who have more to lose, than to gain by coming forward.



Chill a little and please read my posts.  I believe Cosby is guilty.  

We were talking about false accusations in general.  And I was thinking that Allred had three of the ladies with her on the news conference I saw.  Not sure about that though.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 7, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> And I was thinking that Allred had three of the ladies with her on the news conference I saw.  Not sure about that though.



I stand corrected - apparently 2 more came forward on Wednesday.  I don't watch TV news, so I didn't see that.


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> So you are saying that if 10 different women, in 10 different cases, reported that they were raped, statistically, 9 of them would be lying.
> 
> But if 24, *unrelated women*, came to you and they all said the same guy raped them, would you believe that 21 of them lied?  Obviously not.



I'm not saying that at all. I gave my wholly unscientific and uncorroborated personal experience of rape allegations made to the police in the area I police.

It would be unprofessional and inappropriate to discuss individual cases however I stand by my estimation that 90% of the rape allegations reported to the police in the force I work are false. For a population of approximately 1.5 million I can say that the number of 'stranger rapes', have totalled in double figures over the last 20 years with 'domestic rapes' making up the majority of confirmed offences.

From my experience, yes 9 out of 10 rape allegations are false however if the number of allegations against a single accused increase then this strengthens the case and increases the likelihood that the allegations are true. Those allegations that turn out to be false usually have a similar theme, girl returns from night out where an infidelity occurred and feels guilty, girl upset that her ex now has a new girlfriend and girl seeking attention either as a result of a mental illness or crisis. Most false allegations are made by teenage girls and the majority do not seek police involvement but find that friends/relatives have notified the police on their behalf and before they know it they find themselves involved in a rape allegation that they struggle to find a way out of.

For what it's worth I suspect that Cosby is guilty of at least some of the allegations however I question the worth of pursuing a complaint that he squeezed someone's breast in 1973!


----------



## geekette (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Absolutely, but some of the posters have implied or stated that Bill Cosby is being treated unfairly by the press.  I'm not sure what they are trying to say?  They don't think these atrocities should be made public?  He should get a pass because of "who he is."  We should end freedom of the press in the US?
> 
> Then there are the posts that state or imply that the women could be lying - really?  All 24 of them?  Including well-known public figures?  How about the 12 that already filed suit against him? Did they lie too?  That's pretty insulting to women, and it's exactly why sexual assault goes unreported.



+1  

Women are shamed, told it was their fault - what were you wearing, why did you have alcohol, why were you in that place, etc., like it is always their fault because everyone knows that just being female is provocation.

Especially when the perpetrator is famous, women are far less likely to be believed.  Already in this thread, there is the question of "gain" for the accusers.  

Really?  After all these years of no one believing you, there is A Gain for that?  I don't think so.  There may be a financial benefit, probably not, but anyone that has been sexually abused will never be made whole again, regardless of any monies that may come their way.  Money won't fix a damn thing for these ladies.

Further, women that are drugged before being molested are probably terrible witnesses.  Who would believe anything from them?

I think he did it, but I wasn't there.  Too many similarities and his own jokes about Spanish Flies.  Perfect crime:  she can't remember because she was drugged and who would dare accuse Mr Clean?

I find the whole thing horrifying.


----------



## geekette (Dec 8, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I think it's possible in this day and age when a rich and famous person is accused of rape that many false accusers would probably be tempted to join the circus.  Especially when that wealthy individual has been extremely sexually active.
> ...



I completely disagree that a woman would jump on the bandwagon because let's not forget that for sex crimes against women, everything about the victim is 'on trial' - her sexual history, what she was wearing, why was she there, why did she accept a drink, etc etc.  A woman that has had sex with more than one person will probably be portrayed as a slut, invited this somehow.  This is the one crime where the victim has to answer for Her Part of it as if one's outfit "invites" assault.

Not likely many women will put themselves thru this if it isn't true.  This is how we shame women out of coming forward.  Works like a charm.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I completely disagree that a woman would jump on the bandwagon because let's not forget that for sex crimes against women, everything about the victim is 'on trial' - her sexual history, what she was wearing, why was she there, why did she accept a drink, etc etc.  A woman that has had sex with more than one person will probably be portrayed as a slut, invited this somehow.  This is the one crime where the victim has to answer for Her Part of it as if one's outfit "invites" assault.
> 
> Not likely many women will put themselves thru this if it isn't true.  This is how we shame women out of coming forward.  Works like a charm.



Your information is out of date. The vast majority of jurisdictions don't allow information on a woman's sexual history . this has been the case for at least 20 years.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I completely disagree that a woman would jump on the bandwagon because let's not forget that for sex crimes against women, everything about the victim is 'on trial' - her sexual history, what she was wearing, why was she there, why did she accept a drink, etc etc.



For millions of dollars?  Ok, really?  When Gloria Allred is involved they're not exactly going for small claims here.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I completely disagree that a woman would jump on the bandwagon because let's not forget that for sex crimes against women, everything about the victim is 'on trial' - her sexual history, what she was wearing, why was she there, why did she accept a drink, etc etc. A woman that has had sex with more than one person will probably be portrayed as a slut, invited this somehow. This is the one crime where the victim has to answer for Her Part of it as if one's outfit "invites" assault.
> 
> Not likely many women will put themselves thru this if it isn't true. This is how we shame women out of coming forward. Works like a charm.


 
I see both sides.  Completely understand your sentiments, but those comments notwithstanding, I can also believe that some claims could be me-too claims, out of attempts at gaining or reclaiming celebrity, or even revisionist memory of a drunken night 30 years later.  However, there is enough smoke that I would expect most reasonable people believe that in the Cosby case, there is a fire of some size, likely far more than smoldering.  

When we interpolate this to the _individual_ level, this talk of "shaming women out of coming forward" typically suggests that there should somehow be a presumption that the accuser must be telling the truth, and thus that there should be a strong bias against the accused.  But in the underlying philosophy governing our system of justice, when faced with a Sophie's choice, we should rather err on the side of "shaming" a credible victim from coming forward than encouraging a false claim that convicts an innocent person.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 8, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> I see both sides.  Completely understand your sentiments, but those comments notwithstanding, I can also believe that some claims could be me-too claims, out of attempts at gaining or reclaiming celebrity, or even revisionist memory of a drunken night 30 years later.  However, there is enough smoke that I would expect most reasonable people believe that in the Cosby case, there is a fire of some size, likely far more than smoldering.
> 
> When we interpolate this to the _individual_ level, this talk of "shaming women out of coming forward" typically suggests that there should somehow be a presumption that the accuser must be telling the truth, and thus that there should be a strong bias against the accused.  But in the underlying philosophy governing our system of justice, when faced with a Sophie's choice, we should rather err on the side of "shaming" a credible victim from coming forward than encouraging a false claim that convicts an innocent person.



Wow, Beef I don't typically get much out of your posts, but this one is right on.  My thoughts exactly.  

p.s. only joking


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 8, 2014)

*A sobering look at intentionial under-reporting*

More than 1 million rape cases have gone undocumented across the United States during the past two decades, according to research by a University of Kansas law professor. - See more at: http://news.ku.edu/2014/03/03/law-p...cial-us-crime-statistics#sthash.KUF3wTPf.dpuf




> “Society has an obligation to stop rape and prosecute rapists. The current practices are incredibly far from that basic precept. What is worse is that the extent of rape in America has been covered up— rape victims have been denied basic dignity, so that some police could manipulate statistics to simply achieve artificially designated crime benchmarks,” Yung wrote.


----------



## geekette (Dec 8, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Your information is out of date. The vast majority of jurisdictions don't allow information on a woman's sexual history . this has been the case for at least 20 years.



Right, defense never tries to paint woman as at fault these days.  Sure.


----------



## geekette (Dec 8, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> For millions of dollars?  Ok, really?  When Gloria Allred is involved they're not exactly going for small claims here.



I've never heard of her before this all happened so she doesn't mean crap to me and I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her.  Rape is a crime punishable by prison, not a fine, so exactly why would someone assume "oooo, I can get money from Bill!" and that lies would be believed?


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I've never heard of her before this all happened so she doesn't mean crap to me and I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her. Rape is a crime punishable by prison, not a fine, so exactly why would someone assume "oooo, I can get money from Bill!" and that lies would be believed?


 
Wow, I think you may be in the minority. Gloria Allred is the most widely known female attorney, and one of the most widely known attorneys irrespective of gender, in the United States. This type of case  is her bread and butter.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 8, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> Wow, Beef I don't typically get much out of your posts, but this one is right on. My thoughts exactly.
> 
> p.s. only joking


 
Every now and then I will remove enough sarcasm and condescension from my posts to make my analytical reasoning more accessible to the more, shall we say, pedestrian, folks like yourself


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> Right, defense never tries to paint woman as at fault these days.  Sure.



I gave you a fact.  You responded with a sarcastic remark. If you are going to be sarcastic at least know what you are talking about.  As I said, A WOMENS SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN MOST JURISDICTIONS. 

Do you think that every claim of rape by a women must be taken at face value?  What if there is no physical evidence of rape?  What if there are no corroborating witnesses?  Do you believe that consensual sex is even possible or does it turn on the whim of the woman.  How does a defendant prove that sex was consensual?  Must there be a written statement of consent prior to the act?  Do you honestly believe that woman never lie about sex?


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 8, 2014)

pgnewarkboy - have you *read* the detailed accounts of each woman's  experience in the Cosby case?

There is nothing "consensual" about using date rape drugs, and having sex with a 15 year old.

How about if tonight over dinner, your wife reveals that she was sexually assaulted years ago, and never told anyone.  Are you going to say all the things to her, that you just posted here?


----------



## SMHarman (Dec 8, 2014)

And let's not forget all those unprocessed rape kits bouncing around the system due to budget issues.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 8, 2014)

A gentle reminder - if this thread gets nasty, we will close it.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> A gentle reminder - if this thread gets nasty, we will close it.



Actually, I think that anything constructive has already been said, and those with intractable, deeply entrenched positions will not be swayed by further discussion. I vote to close it before it becomes more personal than it already has.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> pgnewarkboy - have you *read* the detailed accounts of each woman's experience in the Cosby case?
> 
> There is nothing "consensual" about using date rape drugs, and having sex with a 15 year old.
> 
> How about if tonight over dinner, your wife reveals that she was sexually assaulted years ago, and never told anyone. Are you going to say all the things to her, that you just posted here?


 
Denise, you're committing logical fallacies. Pgnewarkboy never suggested that using date rape drugs or underage sex should be considered consensual. 

Are you also suggesting that the barometer for the veracity of any claim should be based simply on how a given person would respond if their significant other, whom they know and trust, made such a claim? Which by extension would also mean that all claims should be considered factual at face value.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 8, 2014)

Thanks Beefnot, but I would like to know if Pgnewarkboy has read the accusations of each woman.  

I would also like to know how he would apply the statements he made to someone he cares about.  How would he advise them?


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I've never heard of her before this all happened so she doesn't mean crap to me and I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her.




Wow, indeed. Of course, anything's possible.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

To illustrate how well known Gloria is, simply look to popular culture references:



> On March 28, 2000, Allred was parodied on the animated TV show Family Guy, by a character named Gloria Ironbox voiced by Candice Bergen in an episode titled I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar.
> 
> On May 21, 2001 Allred was parodied on "The Simpsons" Behind The Laughter portraying a lawyer at the family table for Lisa Simpson.
> 
> On June 27, 2001, Allred was parodied on South Park's episode Cripple Fight.




Sent from my iPad


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 8, 2014)

geekette said:


> I've never heard of her before this all happened so she doesn't mean crap to me and I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her.  Rape is a crime punishable by prison, not a fine, so exactly why would someone assume "oooo, I can get money from Bill!" and that lies would be believed?



All of the cases currently being reported are well beyond the statute of limitations.  So, these allegations are in fact NOT punishable by prison.  However, I'm sure some charge in civil court can be bought up against him which is exactly why Gloria Allred is involving herself.  I'm sure she has NO interest in pursuing any criminal charges against Cosby and she is just interested in whatever $$ she can extract from him for the benefit of her victims/clients in addition to the added celebrity she gets from it.

I personally do have doubts in the allegations against Cosby not that anybody should really care what I think.  The reason I have doubts are really twofold.

1. This was 30 years ago and I agree with the OP on the reliability of memories that old.

2. If Cosby is a serial rapist, why would he have all of a sudden stopped?  I wouldn't think that serial rapists would all of a sudden stop what they're doing unless they were in jail or dead.  Based on this premise, then there should surely be some more recent victims of his that would fall within the criminal statute of limitations?  I find it very odd that there aren't any.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 8, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> 2. If Cosby is a serial rapist, why would he have all of a sudden stopped? I wouldn't think that serial rapists would all of a sudden stop what they're doing unless they were in jail or dead. Based on this premise, then there should surely be some more recent victims of his that would fall within the criminal statute of limitations? I find it very odd that there aren't any.


 
Keep in mind that he is currently 77 years old.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 8, 2014)

Clemson Fan - 

Bill Cosby is 77 - that might make rape a bit more challenging than in his younger days.

Have you actually *read* each woman's accusations against Cosby, and reviewed who these women are?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...ult_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.htm

[Are you aware, that there was a previous lawsuit 10 years ago? _ I edited my post to quote the info. about the previous lawsuit - which is more accurate than what I wrote_]



> March 8, 2005:  Andrea Constand, *director of operations for Temple University’s women’s basketball team*…
> 
> Constand files a civil complaint against Cosby. The five-count lawsuit charges Cosby with battery and assault, and asks for at least $150,000 in damages. *Thirteen women* who allege similar experiences as Constand and Green are mentioned in court papers as Jane Doe witnesses…
> 
> Cosby settles with Constand. Terms are not disclosed, and none of the 13 other women testify.



Temple University has since parted ways with Cosby.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 8, 2014)

Clemsonfan, 
I'm not 77 yet, but even now, I'm not likely to, or be capable of a LOT of things I regularly did 30-40 years ago. My wife will verify this fact. 

Jim


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 8, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> Clemsonfan,
> I'm not 77 yet, but even now, I'm not likely to, or be capable of a LOT of things I regularly did 30-40 years ago. My wife will verify this fact.
> 
> Jim



So Jim - you can no longer lure 15 to 25 year olds into your clutches?  

All kidding aside, at 77, Cosby is unlikely to be attractive to young females these days.  Back in the day, he was not hiding in dark alleys and attacking women - these were "date rape" situations.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> So Jim - you can no longer lure 15 to 25 year olds into your clutches?



Now I have to sneak up on the 77 year-old women in the dark and hope they'll be grateful for the attention.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I would also like to know how he would apply the statements he made to someone he cares about.  How would he advise them?



One last post for me... it's been interesting to hear all the points of view.  

Denise, your question is similar to asking someone that is anti-death penalty how they would feel if someone murdered their daughter.  It's an unfair question.

And why do you keep asking everyone if they've read the allegations?  I don't recall anyone on this thread saying that they believed that Bill Cosby did not commit these crimes.  I don't get your point.  What is it in the allegations that you want us to see?

EDIT: Nevermind I just read what you were referring to.  My bad.


----------



## ottawasquaw (Dec 8, 2014)

Gosh, I don't recall folks having such doubts about the priest abuse a few years back. Sure, there are assaults too minor to prosecute. Sure, there are victims who are likely questionable. I recall similar situations from the priest scandal.

And, as a middle-aged career woman, I endured inappropriate behavior early in my career. Sheesh, I endured inappropriate behavior from male relatives. The drugging is clearly crossing the line. Thanks for whoever remembered about Spanish Fly!

Not only similar to Sandusky and OJ, but as I recall Michael Jackson settled out of court for years..

We have plenty of innocent prisoners in this country and many criminals who have never served any time or even been convicted. Time is the friend of truth. Thank you to whoever mentioned Lance Armstrong! Please, please to all the posters who mention the pains of being wealth and having your reputation trashed, please cite an example. Not only have multiple accusers with similar stories come forward, but so have the accomplices.


----------



## Patri (Dec 8, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> Now I have to sneak up on the 77 year-old women in the dark and hope they'll be grateful for the attention.




Brian, are you working on that 'like' button?


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 8, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Clemson Fan -
> 
> Bill Cosby is 77 - that might make rape a bit more challenging than in his younger days.
> 
> ...



Nope, I haven't read each woman's accusations or profiles nor will I.  I've already spent too much time reading this thread.  I actually don't care that much about Cosby or this story.

I don't put too much weight behind a civil lawsuit that was settled out of court.  Who cares.  The burden of proof in a civil case is far less then a criminal case and many civil cases just come down to simple money grabs by attorneys looking for work and for clients looking for a quick buck and a settlement out of court.  Why didn't that lady prosecute?  I would think that if you were raped you would want the bastard thrown in jail.  Also, signing a non-disclosure agreement on a settlement out of court is standard operating procedure which makes it nearly impossible to infer anything from that.

If he's a serial rapist, then find a victim in the last 10 years (he wasn't 77 10 years ago) and charge him.  He's never even been charged.  Sandusky was charged and found guilty and is spending the rest of his life in jail.  OJ was charged and tried.  Granted he was found not guilty, but at least he was charged and went to trial.  Even Michael Jackson was criminally charged and indicted.  With Cosby, nothing, notta, zilch.  

If he was just simply criminally charged With something I'd be more inclined to believe it.  Civil lawsuits IMO are mostly money grabs (especially against celebrities) that don't prove much of anything.

That's all I gotta say in the subject and I'll sign off and move on.

Aloha!


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 9, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> Now I have to sneak up on the 77 year-old women in the dark and hope they'll be grateful for the attention.



Can't help it.  :hysterical:


----------



## ottawasquaw (Dec 9, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> Why didn't that lady prosecute?



Well, because victims don't prosecute. Prosecutors do. If you haven't had direct dealings with our criminal justice system, it's easy to hold onto a lot of false beliefs. Many criminals are repeat offenders because there simply is not enough evidence to charge them. People who have drug dealers for neighbors know this. They watch the problem repeat itself and work with the police, who are just as frustrated. We have a high burden of proof in our legal system.

Interestingly, in the three examples cited, the victims were either children or dead. The perception remains that if it's adults, perhaps it was consensual. Actually, I am of the belief that women do put themselves in risky situations. I've worked with collegians to help them understand this. Still, when a white male is mugged at night in a parking garage, do we suggest that it might have been consensual? That it was the victim's fault? He should not have been there?

Mike Tyson was prosecuted and convicted years ago at a great cost to the city of Indianapolis. The hotel where the jury was staying was set on fire. A firefighter lost his life saving others. It's easy to see why a prosecutor might pass on the cost of a celebrity trial. Keep in mind that prosecutors try cases where they think they can get a conviction. Trials are very, very expensive.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 9, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> pgnewarkboy - have you *read* the detailed accounts of each woman's  experience in the Cosby case?
> 
> There is nothing "consensual" about using date rape drugs, and having sex with a 15 year old.
> 
> How about if tonight over dinner, your wife reveals that she was sexually assaulted years ago, and never told anyone.  Are you going to say all the things to her, that you just posted here?



My comment  had nothing to do with the Cosby case or date rape drugs.  It had to do with,your statement that in general a woman's sexual history is always admitted in a rape case. That statement, was incorrect.  So, the conversation was at that point getting generalized beyond the Cosby case.  As I said in my original post, I don't know if the claims against Cosby are true or not.  That means they might be true.  I don't know.  The public might learn more from two pending lawsuits one filed by an alleged Cosby victim and the other filed by Cosby. To the extent that the LA Prosecutors office is actually investigating some or many of these matters  it may shed actual light on what happened. I have no interest in defending Cosby. I am interested in development of the facts.
 As an experienced litigator I have had read, taken, and tested many statements over a very long career.  Many, means easily over several thousand.   In the legal system, only a fool would take any statement at face value no matter who gives one.        Human beings are complex.  Finding the truth is not always easy.


Women have been and still are often treated in ways that are unfair, unjust, sometimes inhumane.  It is impossible to categorize all the ways that the life of women in our country has been difficult.  All women suffered when they didn't have the vote.  Some or many women suffer from other outrages large and small.  Women were not even permitted on juries at one time. The laws and the courts started to make certain behaviors against women  illegal that should never have been permissible.  Great strides have been made in the area of equal treatment of women.  More needs to be done.   

The concept of equal treatment under the law needs to be applied to all people. If the principle of equal treatment under the law is not applied to all it becomes a hollow mantra.   That includes men and women who have been charged with rape and other crimes.  An individual is free to think as they wish until they sit in the jury box and are then required to render a verdict in accordance with the law.  Every juror should sit on a jury with an open mind.  They should be willing to overcome preconceived notions.  In fact,  the following is    a version of a common question asked of jurors when they sit in a high publicity case.  "Despite what you have read or heard about this case can you keep and open mind and render a fair verdict without prior prejudice'.  That is the GOAL of the legal system.  It is not the goal of the media.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 9, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> My comment  had nothing to do with the Cosby case or date rape drugs.  It had to do with, *your statement* that in general a woman's sexual history is always admitted in a rape case. That statement, was incorrect.



You are mixing me up with another poster.


----------



## Phill12 (Dec 9, 2014)

I can only say as a big fan of his and for many years owning most of his records  and seeing his shows in Lake Tahoe I found off stage he is a jerk!

After eleven months in Vet-N 69-70 and returning in 1970 my wife and I went to Lake Tahoe to see his show and enjoy some down time. The morning we had reservations to his show we ran into him in the lobby of the hotel. He was in his tennis outfit standing off to the side I'm guessing he was waiting for his golf cart ride to the tennis courts and my wife stopped and told him we were big fans and going to his show tonight. 

 Bill looked at her and said I'm on my own time here, enjoy me when I'm on stage doing my job!
 I was still in my navy whites and she was well dressed so we didn't look like bums.
 She was so mad we canceled our reservations and told the hotel why too!

 Phill12:annoyed:


----------



## ottawasquaw (Dec 9, 2014)

Phill12 said:


> "I'm on my own time here, enjoy me when I'm on stage doing my job!"


Whoa! Telling! It would have taken him less time to say a simple "Thank you!"

Well, you can't stop people from talking about you but you can behave in a way that others won't believe it's true...or, in this case, NOT!!


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 9, 2014)

Phill12 said:


> Bill looked at her and said I'm on my own time here, enjoy me when I'm on stage doing my job!
> 
> I was still in my navy whites and she was well dressed so we didn't look like bums.
> 
> She was so mad we canceled our reservations and told the hotel why too!




Many celebrities have huge egos and get tired of being on display to strangers whenever they are in public (and not working). Living in LA (and spending not a small amount of time assisting the entertainment industry) I know from first hand experiences that your story is not uncommon. Many celebrities are nice, even friendly, and many are not. 

However, being a jerk does not mean he is a criminal. This is exactly the type of unrelated and frankly unimportant story which does no good in this conversation other than to reinforce the opinion of those who know for certain (without a trial) that he is a criminal. However, it still has no bearing on the accusations against him.

You should start a new thread about all the celebrities who are really jerks. That would be a fun thread. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## geekette (Dec 9, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I gave you a fact.  You responded with a sarcastic remark. If you are going to be sarcastic at least know what you are talking about.  As I said, A WOMENS SEXUAL HISTORY IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN MOST JURISDICTIONS.
> 
> Do you think that every claim of rape by a women must be taken at face value?  What if there is no physical evidence of rape?  What if there are no corroborating witnesses?  Do you believe that consensual sex is even possible or does it turn on the whim of the woman.  How does a defendant prove that sex was consensual?  Must there be a written statement of consent prior to the act?  Do you honestly believe that woman never lie about sex?



I wasn't talking about Court of Law, I'm talking about before it ever gets to court, as we know that most rape cases never get that far.  Inadmissable in court means nothing to the woman being blamed for her own attack in the police station or hospital.  I do not believe that cops do not grill the women about their sexual history and what they were wearing and why they were there, etc.  

There aren't a lot of women ok with being dragged thru the mud in order to try for a conviction because those convictions are very rare.  

I sure never said anything like your second paragraph but I damned sure think that there should be as many measures in place to protect the victim as there are protect the accused.   Why isn't the victim also presumed innocent before being found guilty?  Why is that reserved only for the accused?  

I would say that most consensual sex does not involve drugging the female.  Very clever way of erasing her memory.


----------



## geekette (Dec 9, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> Wow, indeed. Of course, anything's possible.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred
> 
> To illustrate how well known Gloria is, simply look to popular culture references:



Sorry, I don't watch a lot of tv and don't generally follow justice system all star matches.  Not sure why it's such a big deal that I've never heard of her before.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 9, 2014)

geekette said:


> Sorry, I don't watch a lot of tv and don't generally follow justice system all star matches. Not sure why it's such a big deal that I've never heard of her before.


 
It wasn't a big deal per se, I think we were just responding to the force with which you didn't recognize her and your comment "I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her."



geekette said:


> Why isn't the victim also presumed innocent before being found guilty? Why is that reserved only for the accused?


 
One can only be found guilty if they are charged and prosecuted for a crime.  In order for the victim to presumed to be truthful, that by necessity requires a presumption of guilt for the accused.  Our system of justice is philsophically biased in favor of the notion that a system which presumes the accused is guilty unless they can prove their innocence is not a just system at all.

I have found that in many cases it is only certain crimes for which folks desire to suspend the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the two most common being rape and any crime against one's person or family.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 9, 2014)

geekette said:


> I wasn't talking about Court of Law, I'm talking about before it ever gets to court, as we know that most rape cases never get that far.  Inadmissable in court means nothing to the woman being blamed for her own attack in the police station or hospital.  I do not believe that cops do not grill the women about their sexual history and what they were wearing and why they were there, etc.
> 
> There aren't a lot of women ok with being dragged thru the mud in order to try for a conviction because those convictions are very rare.
> 
> ...



When a "person" is murdered the cops are no longer able to take their witness statement - so they use forensics to find out *who* _might_ have wanted them dead, *What* were they "up to" that brought them into contact with this person, *When* contact was in initiated and *where* the events leading up to the crime occurred - all so they can ferret out the *WHY* - knowing the *WHY* is the best way to find the *WHO*.

When a "person" is assaulted, often times that person is the best witness as to the *Who, What, When, Where,* and *Why* - so of course the cops are going to try and garner that information from the witness - rather than use expensive forensics.

When a cop asks "what were you doing at the time?" it might be an effort to fill in the *What* or the *Why* - they might ask the same question of a murder victim* IF THEY COULD*

Don't say that cops are "dragging the victim through the mud" when they might well just be trying to gather information needed to solve the crime.

As the criminologist saw goes "Forensics don't lie - people do"


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 9, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> One can only be found guilty if they are charged and prosecuted for a crime.  In order for the victim to presumed to be truthful, that by necessity requires a presumption of guilt for the accused.  Our system of justice is philsophically biased in favor of the notion that a system which presumes the accused is guilty unless they can prove their innocence is not a just system at all.
> 
> I have found that in many cases it is only certain crimes for which folks desire to suspend the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the two most common being rape and any crime against one's person or family.



+1 our justice system isn't perfect - but it's sure better than some out there!


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 9, 2014)

geekette said:


> I do not believe that cops do not grill the women about their sexual history and what they were wearing and why they were there, etc.



I can assure you we don't grill rape victims about their sex lives. We may ask them what they were wearing or why they were in a particular location but that isn't asked in a judgemental or accusatory manner but rather to establish the facts and assist in identifying further avenues of investigation. A victim's sexual history bears no relevance to her rape allegation except when the accused is a current or former sexual partner and consequently doesn't come into the equation when investigating the complaint.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Dec 9, 2014)

Last night's episode of HBO's 'The Newsroom' dealt with this topic - discusses much of what has been covered on this subject in a very compelling manner.

Going to miss 'The Newsroom' - one of the most intelligent fictional dramas on TV.


----------



## geekette (Dec 9, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> It wasn't a big deal per se, I think we were just *responding to the force with which you didn't recognize her *and your comment "I would bet most people in the country also had never heard of her."


Force?  Try bewilderment.  I don't follow California lawyers nor any others.  No force from me.  Just not a name I'd ever heard before and then pounded for it which was seriously bewildering.  Probably there are plenty of "famous people" I've never heard of.  

My point was, why would I conjure up a "me too" claim?  Do all these people that know this lawyer think she is a scummy lawyer that will get them money for a fake story?  If they believe her to be ethical, why would they bring a made up story to her?  



> One can only be found guilty if they are charged and prosecuted for a crime.  In order for the victim to presumed to be truthful, that by necessity requires a presumption of guilt for the accused.  ...


I misspoke.  I meant victim "guilty of lying" since there is a lot that flying around this thread.  Slopshod journalism in Rolling Stone also led to many thinking "Jackie" lied based on "inconsistencies."  There's one right here in this thread stating She Lied while I don't believe that has been proven.  

Several posts about 9 out of 10 women lying about rape.  With crap like this stacked against us, why would we come forward in a timely manner?  My mother never did, never even told my father (she unburdened herself to me after he died).  Lead perpetrator was from a prominent family, she would never have been believed.  Obviously a pretty girl with big boobs is promiscuous and trying to "trap" the son ...  and that's where she left it.  Police wanted to protect the wealthy family and the way to do that was shut up the victim and they succeeded.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 9, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Folks - read the article I posted above and then come back and tells what you think.  This is not about Gloria Allerd and one victim - it involves many victims over many, many years.  If you don't like this media outlet, choose one that you do - they all have the same reports.
> 
> *http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...lt_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html*


After finally reading all of the allegations, I think/believe:


Most of the women had consensual relationships with Cosby at the time of the alleged acts

Many of these events as alleged took place almost 40 years ago, with lots of drug and alcohol involved according to the accusers 

Some of the stories are vague, and many don’t have specific recollections of what happened 

Nearly all of the allegations are date-rape scenarios, with the only “evidence” being the recollections/allegations of the two sides, making it very difficult for either side to "prove" they are right

Cosby most likely assaulted a number of women, many more than these accusers

Cosby most likely didn’t assault all of these accusers

Of course, these thoughts stem only from reading the allegations of one side. Reading the details of the allegations, the circumstances, the time frames, and the players, emphasizes the importance of the OP’s original remarks even more.


----------



## Pompey Family (Dec 9, 2014)

geekette said:


> Several posts about 9 out of 10 women lying about rape.  With crap like this stacked against us, why would we come forward in a timely manner?



Rather than question the statistics question why those who have been raped do not come forward, particularly those subjected to domestic rape.

If only I could show you the evidence that has resulted in me concluding the 9 out of 10 statistic, whether that be CCTV, mobile phone, text, conflicting alibi etc. most rape allegations aren't reported to the police by the victim, it's usually to a partner, friend or parent who in turn contact the police. Cue a very reluctant complainant who will usually remain very uncooperative.

Fortunately it's relatively easy to identify a genuine rape victim, it's quite difficult to fake such raw emotion that such a horrific crime elicits.

The problem remains that rape is such an emotive subject with many 'interest groups' with a loud voice that frequently seek to silence those who dare to suggest that false rape allegations make up a substantial number of reported complaints.


----------



## Bill4728 (Dec 9, 2014)

davidvel said:


> After finally reading all of the allegations, I think/believe:
> 
> 
> Most of the women had consensual relationships with Cosby at the time of the alleged acts
> ...


That what I'm thinking also.  


Cosby most likely assaulted a number of women,  Cosby most likely didn’t assault all of these accusers.


----------



## Brett (Dec 9, 2014)

Bill4728 said:


> Cosby most likely assaulted a number of women,  Cosby most likely didn’t assault all of these accusers.



true - but why did he use "date rape" drugs

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/health/when-rapists-weapon-is-a-drug.html?ref=science


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 9, 2014)

Brett said:


> true - but why did he use "date rape" drugs
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/health/when-rapists-weapon-is-a-drug.html?ref=science



Talk about shoddy reporting - your referenced article only accuses Andrew Luster of using "date rape" drugs - since he was convicted. Painting Bill Cosby with Luster's brush is about as yellow as a journalist can get.

While some of Cosby's accusers have mentioned they "thought" he must have used a date rape drug - no one has proven any such thing.

Marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and other "recreational" drugs are also quite capable of causing blackouts - perhaps "party hard" was part of the problem.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 10, 2014)

geekette said:


> I wasn't talking about Court of Law, I'm talking about before it ever gets to court, as we know that most rape cases never get that far.  Inadmissable in court means nothing to the woman being blamed for her own attack in the police station or hospital.  I do not believe that cops do not grill the women about their sexual history and what they were wearing and why they were there, etc.
> 
> There aren't a lot of women ok with being dragged thru the mud in order to try for a conviction because those convictions are very rare.
> 
> ...




 In your view,  what kind of questions should the police be allowed to ask a person claiming rape?     

In your view, What kind of evidence does the prosecution in a rape case need to produce to get a conviction?


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 10, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> In your view,  what kind of questions should the police be allowed to ask a person claiming rape?
> 
> In your view, What kind of evidence does the prosecution in a rape case need to produce to get a conviction?



Great questions pgnewarkboy.  

No reason to limit those questions to geekette though.  I'd love to hear Denise's response (and some of the other vocal individuals on this thread).  I think if you want to make headway on this discussion and actually sway some opinions these need to clarified.  

Much of the discussion has not been about the guilt of Cosby or not, it has been the big picture.  Perhaps one or two thought he was innocent in this thread, but the overwhelming number here feel he probably did at least some of these things he's accused of.


----------



## laura1957 (Dec 10, 2014)

geekette said:


> Sorry, I don't watch a lot of tv and don't generally follow justice system all star matches.  Not sure why it's such a big deal that I've never heard of her before.



You arent the only one - I never heard of her either


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 10, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> Great questions pgnewarkboy.
> 
> No reason to limit those questions to geekette though.  I'd love to hear Denise's response



I did not make any comments on this point at all, and I don't have an opinion on it.

My focus on this thread was people who posted that they hadn't read any of the accusations against Cosby, but doubted their authenticity.

What?  You haven't read it - but you don't believe it?  Seriously?


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 10, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> In your view,  what kind of questions should the police be allowed to ask a person claiming rape?
> 
> In your view, What kind of evidence does the prosecution in a rape case need to produce to get a conviction?



The very notion of "limiting" the questions police can ask in the investigation of a crime is odd - why would you not want the detectives on the case to know the whole story?

As to evidence - wouldn't you say the prosecutor should try to present enough of and the right kind of evidence to get a conviction from a jury?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 10, 2014)

Brett said:


> true - but why did he use "date rape" drugs
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/health/when-rapists-weapon-is-a-drug.html?ref=science





ampaholic said:


> Talk about shoddy reporting - your referenced article only accuses Andrew Luster of using "date rape" drugs - since he was convicted. Painting Bill Cosby with Luster's brush is about as yellow as a journalist can get.
> 
> While some of Cosby's accusers have mentioned they "thought" he must have used a date rape drug - no one has proven any such thing.
> 
> Marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and other "recreational" drugs are also quite capable of causing blackouts - perhaps "party hard" was part of the problem.



Back in the day it was common for people to use barbiturates recreationally. A dose of seconal ( reds) and a couple of drinks would be all that it takes to be zoned out. These were not really date rape drugs but most of the barbs when mixed with alchol would have the same effects. PCP ( angel dust) was also big back then and this drug could immobilize anyone as it is animal tranquilizer.

I would also point out that some people were having sex all the time in the 60's and 70's. Back in those days a playboy bunny would be a sex object likely having sex. If a woman was hanging out in the playboy grotto back then it was to party. Getting a fake ID was pretty easy to do back then as well. The 15 year old would have to have fake id to work at playboy. Because of this her claim will likely fall short even if true, imo.

Bill


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 10, 2014)

The 15 year old didn't work there - according to her claims, she met Cosby somewhere else, and Cosby took her there.

I don't know if it's true or not - but there was no claim that she worked at the club.


----------



## ottawasquaw (Dec 10, 2014)

easyrider said:


> Back in the day it was common for people to use barbiturates recreationally. A dose of seconal ( reds) and a couple of drinks would be all that it takes to be zoned out. These were not really date rape drugs but most of the barbs when mixed with alchol would have the same effects. PCP ( angel dust) was also big back then and this drug could immobilize anyone as it is animal tranquilizer.



Sure, but isn't it odd that the accusations are directed at one individual. I agree with you that "everyone" was doing it, but are we hearing "everyone" making accusations?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 10, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> The very notion of "limiting" the questions police can ask in the investigation of a crime is odd - why would you not want the detectives on the case to know the whole story?
> 
> As to evidence - wouldn't you say the prosecutor should try to present enough of and the right kind of evidence to get a conviction from a jury?



One or more posters have objected to the way they believe the police and  the court system questions alleged rape victims.  My questions were to find out what they thought would be appropriate.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 10, 2014)

easyrider said:


> Back in the day it was common for people to use barbiturates recreationally. A dose of seconal ( reds) and a couple of drinks would be all that it takes to be zoned out. These were not really date rape drugs but most of the barbs when mixed with alchol would have the same effects. PCP ( angel dust) was also big back then and this drug could immobilize anyone as it is animal tranquilizer.
> 
> I would also point out that some people were having sex all the time in the 60's and 70's. Back in those days a playboy bunny would be a sex object likely having sex. If a woman was hanging out in the playboy grotto back then it was to party. Getting a fake ID was pretty easy to do back then as well. The 15 year old would have to have fake id to work at playboy. Because of this her claim will likely fall short even if true, imo.
> 
> Bill



Like I said before, I don't know how much of what's been alleged is true but I think there is enough of a developed pattern to surmise that Cosby is probably guilty of some of the charges.

But about what you say above - there's a difference between someone voluntarily taking drugs, and someone being slipped a drug in his/her drink or some other way.  When it's alleged that "date rape drugs" have been used, the allegation usually means that the person suffering the effects of such drugs had no intent to use them.

Also, regardless of whether a "blackout" is caused by drugs voluntarily taken or unknowingly given, "rape" is considered to fit the legal definition if the victim is not able to give consent for the sexual act.  Victims in a blackout state cannot give consent.  There was a time (which meshes with some of the allegations against Cosby) when the legal definition didn't include this but it's because of what commonly happened during that time that the legal definition was amended.  The amendment wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't widely accepted then and now that an alleged victim's drug use and blackouts caused by it are NOT in and of themselves a defense against a charge of rape.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 10, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> One or more posters have objected to the way they believe the police and  the court system questions alleged rape victims.  My questions were to find out what they thought would be appropriate.



"Did you consent to the sexual acts you're alleging happened?"  If the answer is "no" that's all the police should need in order to file a complaint.  If the AG's office has no reason to disbelieve it at face value, that should be enough for an indictment.  During a trial the defense shouldn't be able to ask anything related to the victim's sexual history, or, submit anything implying that a victim's inherent or perceived sexuality is a factor.  BUT any past false rape claims should be admissible.  That's what I think, even realizing that what I want to take place stretches a bit the normal parameters for delineating "legitimate" Court items.  

(Of course in this specific Cosby-related discussion the alleged victims are all women.  But it's interesting to me that in the overall discussion here most are still assuming that rape victims are women.  In fact, rape is a crime perpetrated against homosexual men by homosexual men in significant numbers, most significantly with date rape incidents.  One reason complaints are not lodged in equal numbers as the incidents is the same as that found with female victims - that promiscuous people are still wrongly seen as "asking for it."  No reason to say this other than, I find it interesting.)


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 10, 2014)

Okay ... 

I am of the generation of most of these ladies. I was single and had some fun. I was NOT a party girl or club dancer or groupie --- but I was around some of the scenes and many of the people the next day.

My take: 3-4 drinks into any person, some weed, some blow, and a few pills .... and then remember, WHAT you did 12-18 hours earlier??? And with whom? Or remember, who your friends were hanging with or who left when?

And 35 or 40 years later .... even my best memories are a bit faded as are most of my worst times .... AND I had some really bad years involving cops (jerks) and judges (bigger jerks) where I was a domestic violence victim ....

I am so thankful cell phones weigh 15+ pounds and did not have cameras. And no pictures could be uploaded to the internet.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 10, 2014)

vacationhopeful said:


> Okay ...
> 
> I am of the generation of most of these ladies. I was single and had some fun. I was NOT a party girl or club dancer or groupie --- but I was around some of the scenes and many of the people the next day.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm.  I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.  Do you mean that we all did things we may have regretted the next day?  Well, sure!  But I never, and don't know anyone who ever, claimed "Rape!" after a simply regrettable escapade.  I do know women who were date-raped (fitting the legal definition, I mean) but have always been afraid to come forward because of the spotlight that would have been shone on their consensual sexual history in order to discredit them.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 10, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Like I said before, I don't know how much of what's been alleged is true but I think there is enough of a developed pattern to surmise that Cosby is probably guilty of some of the charges.
> 
> But about what you say above - there's a difference between someone voluntarily taking drugs, and someone being slipped a drug in his/her drink or some other way.  When it's alleged that "date rape drugs" have been used, the allegation usually means that the person suffering the effects of such drugs had no intent to use them.
> 
> Also, regardless of whether a "blackout" is caused by drugs voluntarily taken or unknowingly given, "rape" is considered to fit the legal definition if the victim is not able to give consent for the sexual act.  Victims in a blackout state cannot give consent.  There was a time (which meshes with some of the allegations against Cosby) when the legal definition didn't include this but it's because of what commonly happened during that time that the legal definition was amended.  The amendment wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't widely accepted then and now that an alleged victim's drug use and blackouts caused by it are NOT in and of themselves a defense against a charge of rape.


This is all true, but many (not all) of the allegations are that the accusers voluntarily drank alcohol and took pills Cosby gave them. Some allege they didn't know the pills were as strong as they turned out to be. Denise's point about reading all the specific allegations of each individual accuser is well taken, as opposed to lumping them all together as one.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 10, 2014)

What I was trying to say is ... who did what and with whom was hard to remember the next day or the following week back in the era. Remembering 35+ years later ... a bit of fiction or hearsay or evolved stories over the years..

PS I was a domestic violence victim of that era. I truly can not recall the dates and times of that crap. I was stalked and hit complete with cops, blood and bruises and court dates never ending. And hiding and moving (4 separate houses) and lost jobs and changing phones number. It went on for YEARS.
And yes, I have had "flashbacks" - one where walking into a recent house when had been broken into -- finding a pile by the door of stuff. Just glancing at the pile, my thought was "Oh crap. So & So did this". And it had been 5+ years since the last time. And the state trooper who responded answer the phone - he also remembered me from 5+ years earlier & where my house was - the only time he dealt with me & he flashback to that one encounter. He did not have to look me up nor did I have to give him my address ... but I did not get unhinged. It was just a random housebreak in ... just must have had the same taste in décor as the ex-bf ... I threw the stuff out.


----------



## davidvel (Dec 10, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> "Did you consent to the sexual acts you're alleging happened?"  If the answer is "no" that's all the police should need in order to file a complaint.  If the AG's office has no reason to disbelieve it at face value, that should be enough for an indictment.  During a trial the defense shouldn't be able to ask anything related to the victim's sexual history, or, submit anything implying that a victim's inherent or perceived sexuality is a factor.  BUT any past false rape claims should be admissible.  That's what I think, even realizing that what I want to take place stretches a bit the normal parameters for delineating "legitimate" Court items.
> 
> (Of course in this specific Cosby-related discussion the alleged victims are all women.  But it's interesting to me that in the overall discussion here most are still assuming that rape victims are women.  In fact, rape is a crime perpetrated against homosexual men by homosexual men in significant numbers, most significantly with date rape incidents.  One reason complaints are not lodged in equal numbers as the incidents is the same as that found with female victims - that promiscuous people are still wrongly seen as "asking for it."  No reason to say this other than, I find it interesting.)


The other complex legal issue involves that 30-40 years have passed in some of these cases. Many of the laws protecting victims, and the underlying consent and rape laws themselves have changed (for the better), but which are applied?

On a related issue, many people think that the age of consent is 18. That is only true in 10 states: Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida. 

It is 17 in Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana. 

In the remaining 31 states the base age of consent is only 16. And these have all changed over the last 40 years.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 10, 2014)

Some of the women had a social relationship with Cosby, but some "thought" they had a professional/mentoring relationship with him.  

If you were meeting with someone professionally, and then woke up in a stupor, with your clothes off, I don't think you'd blow it off as just too much partying.  Completely different scenario.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 10, 2014)

davidvel said:


> This is all true, but many (not all) of the allegations are that the accusers voluntarily drank alcohol and took pills Cosby gave them. Some allege they didn't know the pills were as strong as they turned out to be. Denise's point about reading all the specific allegations of each individual accuser is well taken, as opposed to lumping them all together as one.



Yes, but I also said that a person in a drugged state cannot be held legally responsible for consenting, regardless of whether they're under the influence voluntarily or otherwise.  Each allegation is separate, of course, but the common thread in the cases where date rape is alleged is that they each were incapacitated to the point where they were not able to consent to a sexual act.

Of course you're correct that some of the date-rape and consent laws have changed since, which I also mentioned.  But the reason I responded to Bill was that I interpreted his post to mean that the women who alleged date-rape could have been "asking for it" because they voluntarily took drugs.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 10, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> "Did you consent to the sexual acts you're alleging happened?"  If the answer is "no" that's all the police should need in order to file a complaint. --snip



What a notion - preventing the detective from any "detecting". What if the next question would have been "did you consent to snorting cocaine and playing strip poker?" well, yes. "Did he snort as much cocaine as you did and strip down as much as you did?" Well I don't remember cause I passed out.

can "Sexual consent" only be given verbally - what about on TV shows where the woman shows up at the mans bed and drops her robe - is THAT consent?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 10, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> What a notion - preventing the detective from any "detecting". What if the next question would have been "did you consent to snorting cocaine and playing strip poker?" well, yes. "Did he snort as much cocaine as you did and strip down as much as you did?" Well I don't remember cause I passed out.
> 
> can "Sexual consent" only be given verbally - what about on TV shows where the woman shows up at the mans bed and drops her robe - is THAT consent?



Could be, but not if she says, or is unable to say, "no" at any point after.

I did say that what I would want to happen would result in a different process for the police and court system.  But I still want the benefit of the doubt to be afforded to the accuser as much as to the accused and that's not what has happened historically for alleged rape victims.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 11, 2014)

The 15 year old was interviewed on msnbc and during the interview they showed this girl wearing a bunny outfit. To me, anyway, it looks like she was working at the grotto. 

Then again, maybe it was someone different in the bunny outfit that has an accusation of sexual misbehavior against Cosby.

Another oddity, not related to Cosby, is all of the women school teachers that have had affairs with minors in the last decade. When a guy does this its automatically a bad dealio. When a woman does this it just doesn't seem as bad. Why is that ?

I guess guys cant be raped by women ? or can they ? idk. Don't google this, I already did and the results are nasty. 

Bill


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

easyrider said:


> The 15 year old was interviewed on msnbc and during the interview they showed this girl wearing a bunny outfit. To me, anyway, it looks like she was working at the grotto.



That is incorrect - here are the allegations:



> Huth's lawsuit states that she and a 16-year-old friend* first met Cosby at a Los Angeles-area film shoot *and the comedian gave them drinks a week later at a tennis club.
> 
> *The lawsuit states that Cosby took them to the Playboy Mansion after several drinks.
> 
> According to documents, Cosby had told Huth, then 15, and her friend, who was 16, to lie about their ages if asked at the Playboy Mansion. The two girls told staff that they were 19. In return, Huth and her friend were “served with multiple alcoholic beverages.*


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> Could be, but not if she says, or is unable to say, "no" at any point after.
> 
> I did say that what I would want to happen would result in a different process for the police and court system.  But I still want the benefit of the doubt to be afforded to the accuser as much as to the accused and that's not what has happened historically for alleged rape victims.



My (attempted) point is: there is no "one size fits all" rule of what constitutes "evidence" and what doesn't, just like there is no "Consent CC401 form" that a guy can have a gal fill out, you, know - for later in court. 

Really, you simply can't slap a bunch of restrictions on Detectives evidence gathering capabilities and expect to make the situation "better".


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

Bill Cosby is firing back with a lawsuit of his own.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosbys-lawyer-fires-back-at-judy-huth-lawsuit/

Pay attention to what the cop spokesman says in the video.

Perhaps the cops will eventually get involved - naw, why should the woman have to provide any actual "evidence"? She said is good enough for 1/2 the jury.

I'm going to go look up the word alleged again.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Bill Cosby is firing back with a lawsuit of his own.



Yes - that actually had already happened before this thread was started. 

Cosby is looking bad right now, and this is something he can do to try to defend himself - without speaking to the public:

-If she's lying, and he wins the lawsuit, it will help to discredit the others who have accused him.

-This is one of the most damaging accusations, because Huth claims she was only 15 at the time of the sexual assault.

-If it's ugly, the lawsuit may discourage some of the others from pursuing action - even if they are telling the truth.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Yes - that actually had already happened before this thread was started.
> 
> Cosby is looking bad right now, and this is something he can do to try to defend himself - without speaking to the public:
> 
> ...



Actually I didn't say it just happened today! (see how easy miscommunication is)

I agree there are very few ways he can defend himself - just going on the tonight show and saying "she's imagining things" would only throw gas on the situation.

Personally, I think it's a shame she didn't report it 40 years age - it's pretty stale now. 

I suppose it is a lesson to women - when a man wants you to lie to officials and get drunk, stoned - perhaps, just perhaps "he wants to do bad things to you" as the True Blood theme goes.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 11, 2014)

> Every time rape accusations are discussed in the media, even when liberally peppered with the word “allegedly,” a sea of people wring their hands about how the accused is being deprived of his constitutional right to due process. None of the concerned seem unduly worried about this when it comes to crimes that aren’t rape, an oversight that suggests this concern is less about the integrity of the justice system and more about discouraging rape victims from coming forward.
> 
> Needless to say, discussing the fact that rape allegations exist and even examining the evidence for them publicly does not deprive the accused of his right to a trial and there is zero evidence that feminists wish to end jury trials for accused rapists. But the ugliness of this myth goes deeper than the surface dishonesty evident in the glib invocations of “due process” to scare people into silence outside of the courtroom. After all, those who are sincerely concerned about due process and getting to the truth of the matter would be clamoring for more investigations and more trials, especially since 60 percent of rapes aren’t even reported to the police. A true concern for due process would result in wanting more of those rapes reported. Instead, we see a continuing pressure on rape victims not to speak out about their experiences, but instead to quiver in silence and shame, afraid of being called liars and sluts while their rapists go free. Due process is a great thing. It will happen more often if victims feel free to come forward without the fear of being publicly castigated.



http://www.alternet.org/gender/4-th...ccusations?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Personally, I think it's a shame she didn't report it 40 years age - it's pretty stale now.



At the age of 15, I would NOT have reported it either:

-I would have been afraid to tell my parents.
-I was some place I shouldn't have been.
-I was with someone I shouldn't have been with.
-I was drinking (a lot.)
-All things my parents told me never to do.

I suspect a lot of 15 year olds would hide this assault, because they would be more afraid of getting in trouble, than anything else.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> I suppose it is a lesson to women - when a man wants you to lie to officials and get drunk, stoned - perhaps, just perhaps "he wants to do bad things to you" as the True Blood theme goes.



This is a really, really unfortunate statement.  It's way to close to "she asked for it."  It completely fails to recognize that even if a woman does all those things, she doesn't bear any responsibility in being sexually assaulted.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> This is a really, really unfortunate statement.  It's way to close to "she asked for it."  It completely fails to recognize that even if a woman does all those things, she doesn't bear any responsibility in being sexually assaulted.



Also - It was a 15 year old girl - a child - not a woman.  

This is child molestation - not date rape.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> ... I suppose it is a lesson to women - when a man wants you to lie to officials and get drunk, stoned - perhaps, just perhaps "he wants to do bad things to you" as the True Blood theme goes.





ondeadlin said:


> This is a really, really unfortunate statement.  It's way to close to "she asked for it."  It completely fails to recognize that even if a woman does all those things, she doesn't bear any responsibility in being sexually assaulted.



I completely agree.  But sadly it really isn't a surprise, is it, that the particular bias still exists?  It's not as though the legal changes with regard to consent and date-rape immediately changed the way alleged rape victims are treated when they come forward.  It certainly doesn't help that unsupported theories like "9 out of 10 allegations are false" are still put forward.


----------



## Jestjoan (Dec 11, 2014)

*Beverly Johnson's story (hope this isn't a repeat)*

www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-story


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

Thanks for sharing the article - it's a compelling read...


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> This is a really, really unfortunate statement.  It's way to close to "she asked for it."  It completely fails to recognize that even if a woman does all those things, she doesn't bear any responsibility in being sexually assaulted.



I don't recall when I have ever seen such a bull pucky statement. 

You imply that first he went to her house and tied up her parents (so they could not influence her in a positive way) - then he captured her and put her out on the street where he could pick her up - then he held a gun to her head and forced her to lie to the official at the Playboy Club entrance.

Then he held her throat open and poured booze down it (since she would be breaking the law to do it herself - and yes the *LAW* applies to 15 year olds *TOO*). 

And then she shagged him and he shagged her - constituting statutory rape since she was drunk/stoned stoopid *and* underage - while he was drunk/stoned and just plain stoopid.

*A woman certainly DOES bear responsibility for blatantly ignoring several laws intended to protect her from EXACTLY what happened.*

Your attemt to steal away from her her part in the stoopidness of that night makes her into and *incompetent* - not just a child.

Plenty of 15 year olds have been tried as *ADULTS* in this country (and some 13 and 14 year olds) so there is plenty of case law on the books showing that we (society)* EXPECT* a 15 year old to at minimum *OBEY* the *LAW*.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

Rick - your comments are way off base, because that's not what he has been accused of at all.  Please look it up.

Again - a 15 year old is not a woman.  She was a child, and Cosby "groomed" her so he could molest her, and then he molested her.

Here is the "PG" version (appropriate for TUG.)

Cosby plied them with alcohol, and then took the 15 year old and her 16 year old friend to the Playboy Club.  The 15 year old went to the bathroom.  When she came out of the bathroom, Cosby was in the bed in the attached bedroom, in a state of undress.  He attempted to put his hand down her pants, and also gripped her hand, and forced her to participate in a sex act.

As a woman of the same era, I would have no idea what to do if I was accosted in this same situation, at that age. 

Nor would I have any clue that a man old enough to be my father intended to molest me, especially since I was there with my friend.  

Besides his celebrity, at the time, Cosby was in his prime, and he was a large, and powerful man.

In this country, we do not try 15 year olds for being the victim of molestation.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 11, 2014)

Rick, your post says more about your position than any attempt to rebut it from me could say.  I will simply let my earlier comment and your response stand.



SueDonJ said:


> I completely agree.  But sadly it really isn't a surprise, is it, that the particular bias still exists?  It's not as though the legal changes with regard to consent and date-rape immediately changed the way alleged rape victims are treated when they come forward.  It certainly doesn't help that unsupported theories like "9 out of 10 allegations are false" are still put forward.



No, not surprising, but it's profoundly disappointing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> I don't recall when I have ever seen such a bull pucky statement.
> 
> You imply that first he went to her house and tied up her parents (so they could not influence her in a positive way) - then he captured her and put her out on the street where he could pick her up - then he held a gun to her head and forced her to lie to the official at the Playboy Club entrance.
> 
> ...



Good Lord.  Simply astounding.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Rick - your comments are way off base, because that's not what he has been accused of at all.  Please look it up.
> 
> Again - a 15 year old is not a woman.  She was a child, and Cosby "groomed" her so he could molest her, and then he molested her.



Well see Denise - your post brings up a good point: I wasn't there and neither was anyone else on this board.

A TRIAL would be a nice way for me to understand what happened. Of course a real trial would involve an investigation and give the accused an opportunity to refute and defend the charges.

So naturally that ain't gonna happen 

He said - She said = pure and simple 

I'm out of here - ain't nothing here for me. Cancel - I guess I can't be out of here if the name calling is just starting SueDonJ has just trundled out "despicable"


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Rick - your comments are way off base, because that's not what he has been accused of at all.  Please look it up.
> 
> Again - a 15 year old is not a woman.  She was a child, and Cosby "groomed" her so he could molest her, and then he molested her.



I'm pretty sure all he's trying to say is that she (and her parents) allowed her to be put into a situation where she could be raped, ergo, she is responsible for having been raped.

It's not the details of the attack itself that matter, to him, it's how much responsibility the victim should bear for being in a position where the attacker could attack her.

In other words, first and foremost blame the victim.

Despicable.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

Sue - she wasn't raped - see my info. above.

There is no indication that her parents knew where she was.  He picked the girls up at a tennis club.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Well see Denise - your post brings up a good point: I wasn't there and neither was anyone else on this board.
> 
> A TRIAL would be a nice way for me to understand what happened. Of course a real trial would involve an investigation and give the accused an opportunity to refute and defend the charges.
> 
> ...



There apparently is going to be a trial [maybe] - Huth has filed a lawsuit against Cosby - of course that may be settled out of court, like the last one.

However, I respectfully submit, that if you are going to discredit what the accuser said - you should at least KNOW what she said...


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> There apparently is going to be a trial




Finally! Perhaps now we'll get some facts to consider. 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm pretty sure all he's trying to say is that she (and her parents) allowed her to be put into a situation where she could be raped, ergo, she is responsible for having been raped.
> 
> It's not the details of the attack itself that matter, to him, it's how much responsibility the victim should bear for being in a position where the attacker could attack her.
> 
> ...



What She is trying to say is she need not follow any laws herself - she a girl

deplorable

And I really don't think Mods should be tossing around "Despicable" when talking about other posters.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Sue - she wasn't raped - see my info. above.
> 
> There is no indication that her parents knew where she was.  He picked the girls up at a tennis club.



But that's what I'm saying, Denise, that you know and I know and most of us know what each victim is alleging happened, but Rick obviously hasn't read everything so in his mind, all of the victims are claiming rape and apparently, most if not all of them have no right to do so because they put themselves in harm's way.

That's what I was responding to, that his posts show that the details don't matter to him.  The only thing that appears to matter to him is that, "it's not rape if the alleged victim wasn't smart enough to stay out of the situation in the first place."  Or in other words, "If Cosby hadn't been given the opportunities, there would never have been victims."


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> What She is trying to say is she need not follow any laws herself - she a girl
> 
> deplorable
> 
> And I really don't think Mods should be tossing around "Despicable" when talking about other posters.



"Despicable" relates to the thought process that still allows victims of rapes and other predatory crimes to be blamed for their attackers' actions because they "put themselves into the situations."  And I stand by it.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

Hi Sue - I agree with you.  I just wanted to set the record straight about how the girls arrived at the Club.

I simply can't believe that in 2014, anyone would blame a child, for being the victim of molestation - it's beyond comprehension to me.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 11, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> "Despicable" relates to the thought process that still allows victims of rapes and other predatory crimes to be blamed for their attackers' actions because they "put themselves into the situations."  And I stand by it.



+1.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 11, 2014)

Beaglemom3 said:


> +1.



+2

If one is going to put their views into the public debate, one has to open to how those views will be perceived by others.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> "Despicable" relates to the thought process that still allows victims of rapes and other predatory crimes to be blamed for their attackers' actions because they "put themselves into the situations."  And I stand by it.



I won't use the term I would apply to the thought process that allows the idea that:

 "the FACTS of how the situation happened have NOTHING to do with it"

But it rhymes with BORON.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 11, 2014)

Beverly Johnson, top model, has come forward with her experience.

From Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-story


-


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> There apparently is going to be a trial [maybe] - Huth has filed a lawsuit against Cosby - of course that may be settled out of court, like the last one.
> 
> However, I respectfully submit, that if you are going to discredit what the accuser said - you should at least KNOW what she said...



I read the suit - it says very little in the way of verifiable facts - it is heavy on allegation.

It would never fly in Criminal Court - that's for sure.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

If we are going to blame Cosby's victims, then we should also blame Sandusky's victims for putting themselves in precarious situations with him - like going to the gym, and over night trips, and sleep overs…  They should have known better. 

BTW - Sandusky also gave some of his victims alcohol - so that means that the boys who accepted alcohol from him were to blame for being molested, as well.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> If we are going to blame Cosby's victims, then we should also blame Sandusky's victims for putting themselves in precarious situations with him - like going to the gym, and over night trips, and sleep overs…  They should have known better.
> 
> BTW - Sandusky also gave some of his victims alcohol - so that means that the boys who accepted alcohol from him were to blame for being molested, as well.



Dirty Debate tactics are us?

One has nothing to do with the other - but lets lump all MALES together since they are the problem right?


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> +2
> 
> If one is going to put their views into the public debate, one has to open to how those views will be perceived by others.



Miss-perceived is more like it.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 11, 2014)

It's preposterous to call Denise's comparison dirty debate tactics.  Preposterous.  She's taken some of the exact factors you've used to throw blame on Cosby's alleged victim and shown how they could be applied to Sandusky's victims.  It's baffling how you can't see that.

And, honestly Rick, I know you don't realize it, but you're coming off horribly here.  Just horribly.  It's clear you have no idea that the views you're expressing here are seen as victim blaming by almost any mainstream standard.


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> One has nothing to do with the other - but lets lump all MALES together since they are the problem right?



Sandusky groomed and molested boys - include boys around 15 years of age.

Cosby groomed and molested girls and young women.

What is the difference?


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Rick - your comments are way off base, because that's not what he has been accused of at all.  Please look it up.
> 
> Again - a 15 year old is not a woman.  She was a child, and Cosby "groomed" her so he could molest her, and then he molested her.
> 
> ...



Here the misinformation begins:

The actual lawsuit doesn't state he was in a "state of undress"


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> It's preposterous to call Denise's comparison dirty debate tactics.  Preposterous.  She's taken some of the exact factors you've used to throw blame on Cosby's alleged victim and shown how they could be applied to Sandusky's victims.  It's baffling how you can't see that.
> 
> And, honestly Rick, I know you don't realize it, but you're coming off horribly here.  Just horribly.  It's clear you have no idea that the views you're expressing here are seen as victim blaming by almost any mainstream standard.



Asking for facts = victim blaming ------ a little out there.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Sandusky groomed and molested boys - include boys around 15 years of age.
> 
> Cosby groomed and molested girls and young women.
> 
> What is the difference?



One has been proven in a court of law - the other meh, not so much.

The fact that you would equate them says a lot.


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> It's preposterous to call Denise's comparison dirty debate tactics.  Preposterous.  She's taken some of the exact factors you've used to throw blame on Cosby's *alleged* victim and shown how they could be applied to Sandusky's victims.  It's baffling how you can't see that.
> 
> And, honestly Rick, I know you don't realize it, but you're coming off horribly here.  Just horribly.  It's clear you have no idea that the views you're expressing here are seen as victim blaming by almost any mainstream standard.



At least you are still using the word - even though it has lost all meaning to you AFAIK


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 11, 2014)

ondeadlin said:


> And, honestly Rick, I know you don't realize it, but you're coming off horribly here.  Just horribly.  It's clear you have no idea that the views you're expressing here are seen as victim blaming by almost any mainstream standard.




With respect, how does one question the allegations made against Cosby and not be perceived to fall under your definition of victim blaming? 


Sent from my iPad


----------



## DeniseM (Dec 11, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> One has been proven in a court of law - the other meh, not so much.
> 
> The fact that you would equate them says a lot.



They haven't been proven in a court of law - yet.  Just as at one time, the allegations against Sandusky hadn't been proven in a court of law.

But that was not your point - your point was that the girls broke the law by accepting the alcohol from Cosby, and therefore, they were to blame for what happened to them.



> *A woman certainly DOES bear responsibility for blatantly ignoring several laws intended to protect her from EXACTLY what happened.
> *
> Your attemt to steal away from her *her part in the stoopidness of that night *makes her into and incompetent - not just a child.
> 
> Plenty of 15 year olds have been tried as ADULTS in this country (and some 13 and 14 year olds) so there is plenty of case law on the books showing that we (society) *EXPECT a 15 year old to at minimum OBEY the LAW.*



Were the boys who accepted alcohol from Sandusky, to blame for what happened to them?


----------



## ampaholic (Dec 11, 2014)

[We are done here. DeniseM]


----------

