Bill Cosby in the spotlight looking good!

[xBiffx]

WhatisthisIdon'teven





What? No. Not at all. Cosby refused to answer the question of whether the women knew. I'm saying that I've given people things and can comfortably say they knew about it.

Gotcha. I hadn't seen the actual transcript of questions. I was going off your previous post when indicated they were asking about motive as well as if it actually happened.

His attorney objected. It doesn't say why, conveniently enough. My guess is it was a speculative question, like I said. Would be nice to see the justification for the objection.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Gotcha. I hadn't seen the actual transcript of questions. I was going off your previous post when indicated they were asking about motive as well as if it actually happened.

His attorney objected. It doesn't say why, conveniently enough. My guess is it was a speculative question, like I said. Would be nice to see the justification for the objection.

Deposition questions are intrinsically speculative, because a deposition is itself an investigative exercise. Lawyers taking depositions can, in general, inquire about anything and everything that might possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, whether or not it directly relates to the facts of the underlying case. While attorneys can make objections, there is no judge present to rule on them, so the deponent must answer the question after the objection is put on the record.

In general the only bases for refusing to answer a deposition question are where the question seeks privileged information (like an attorney-client discussion), where the deponent is asserting the Fifth Amendment, or where the entire line of question seeks irrelevant personal information for the purpose of harassment (technically, when this happens, the deponent's lawyer is obligated to bring an immediate motion for a protective order ruling that the deponent is not required to answer the question, but in practice this rule is often abused, and lawyers will simply suspend a deposition because they believe their client is being harassed).

In the 2005 case, Cosby was sued specifically for drugging a woman and having sex with her, so the question of whether he had done that in the past was undeniably relevant. (Even if relevant, this information might have been excluded at trial, but this would not relieve Cosby of the obligation of answering the question.) The question also didn't seek privileged information. That means the refusal to answer was the result of one of two things: either Cosby was pleading the Fifth, or his lawyer (in an abuse of the rules) was blocking him from answering to try to buy time. Given that the case then promptly settled, the latter seems likely, and it also seems likely that the pendency of that question was what motivated Cosby to settle, precisely because he didn't want to answer it.

 

[xBiffx]

I found a more detailed version of the questions.

Troiani: Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?
O’Connor: Object to the question. Restrict it to the Jane Does, would you, please.
Troiani: No, I will not. …
Cosby: I misunderstood. Woman meaning [name redacted], and not women.
Troiani: Okay. So you’re saying you never gave the Quaaludes to anyone other than [name redacted]?
O’Connor: Don’t answer the question. You can ask all the questions you want about the Jane Does. …
Troiani: Earlier I believe you testified that you had given the Quaaludes to other women; is that correct?
O’Connor: Do not answer that question.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/0...ing-woman-newly-released-2005-court-documents

Doesn't appear the objection was for speculation. Looks like he was objecting over vagueness/broadness? Either way, there wasn't a follow up/restated question to clarify or anything. I'm not sure why Jane Does vs. the named woman had to do with anything but the attorney made that a point.

Also, there are a couple of "..." in there indicating there was more to the back and forth. I wonder what else was said.

 

[werepossum]

Deposition questions are intrinsically speculative, because a deposition is itself an investigative exercise. Lawyers taking depositions can, in general, inquire about anything and everything that might possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, whether or not it directly relates to the facts of the underlying case. While attorneys can make objections, there is no judge present to rule on them, so the deponent must answer the question after the objection is put on the record.

In general the only bases for refusing to answer a deposition question are where the question seeks privileged information (like an attorney-client discussion), where the deponent is asserting the Fifth Amendment, or where the entire line of question seeks irrelevant personal information for the purpose of harassment (technically, when this happens, the deponent's lawyer is obligated to bring an immediate motion for a protective order ruling that the deponent is not required to answer the question, but in practice this rule is often abused, and lawyers will simply suspend a deposition because they believe their client is being harassed).

In the 2005 case, Cosby was sued specifically for drugging a woman and having sex with her, so the question of whether he had done that in the past was undeniably relevant. (Even if relevant, this information might have been excluded at trial, but this would not relieve Cosby of the obligation of answering the question.) The question also didn't seek privileged information. That means the refusal to answer was the result of one of two things: either Cosby was pleading the Fifth, or his lawyer (in an abuse of the rules) was blocking him from answering to try to buy time. Given that the case then promptly settled, the latter seems likely, and it also seems likely that the pendency of that question was what motivated Cosby to settle, precisely because he didn't want to answer it.

It's certainly not definitive, but it is certainly enough on which to base a reasonably informed opinion. The question Cosby's lawyer would not allow him to answer under oath is the whole basis for the scandal, so it's hardly coincidence that just after that he settled.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I found a more detailed version of the questions.



http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/0...ing-woman-newly-released-2005-court-documents

Doesn't appear the objection was for speculation. Looks like he was objecting over vagueness/broadness? Either way, there wasn't a follow up/restated question to clarify or anything. I'm not sure why Jane Does vs. the named woman had to do with anything but the attorney made that a point.

Also, there are a couple of "..." in there indicating there was more to the back and forth. I wonder what else was said.

Out of context it's hard to understand what happened here. If there had been a protective order put in place by the Court restricting plaintiff's counsel from asking about any women other than the "Jane Does" (presumably a known group of women - they may all have been plaintiffs but that is not clear to me), the objection and direction not to answer would have been appropriate. Other than that I can see no reason why plaintiff's counsel would agree to refrain from asking about other women, both because the conduct might well be admissible in court, and to add additional pressure on Cosby to resolve the case short of a public trial.

 

[MrPickins]

Prove that none of Cosby's accusers collaborated.

Proving a negative assertion like this is next to impossible even when true, but you knew that.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Prove that none of Cosby's accusers collaborated. It doesn't have to be all. Also, you are wrong about Salem. Almost the entire town was caught up in the witch hunts. Pitchforks and torches and mobs. Sounds familiar. You know what? There were a lot of lynch mobs in more modern times where people spontaneously joined in accusations that were not true or not punishable by death. Emmett Till?

Prove that they did.

 

[CZroe]

Prove that they did.

The burden of proof, as always, is on the accusers. If you want to make a point that it's unlikely because they didn't, then you have to show that they didn't. Simple.

 

[First]

Prove that none of Cosby's accusers collaborated.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The burden of proof, as always, is on the accusers. If you want to make a point that it's unlikely because they didn't, then you have to show that they didn't. Simple.

You're accusing them of collaborating. You're the accuser. You made the accusation, now back it up with evidence or drop it.

 

[CZroe]

Proving a negative assertion like this is next to impossible even when true, but you knew that.

So why do we have people assuming that "none" of the accusers collaborated and then using that to "prove" another point? It has to be proven to be used to prove another point. Simple.

 

[CZroe]

You're accusing them of collaborating. You're the accuser. You made the accusation, now back it up with evidence or drop it.

No I am not. I am simply showing how an invalid point is invalid and you completely misinterpreted and went on a tangent. Have fun out there.

 

[Victorian Gray]

More details coming out from the transcripts of the civil case and they continue to build a picture that appears to be ever more consistent with the growing number of allegations:

"He was not above seducing a young model by showing interest in her father’s cancer. He promised other women his mentorship and career advice before pushing them for sex acts. And he tried to use financial sleight of hand to keep his wife from finding out about his serial philandering.

Bill Cosby admitted to all of this and more over four days of intense questioning 10 years ago at a Philadelphia hotel, where he defended himself in a deposition for a lawsuit filed by a young woman who accused him of drugging and molesting her.

Even as Mr. Cosby denied he was a sexual predator who assaulted many women, he presented himself in the deposition as an unapologetic, cavalier playboy, someone who used a combination of fame, apparent concern and powerful sedatives in a calculated pursuit of young women — a profile at odds with the popular image he so long enjoyed, that of father figure and public moralist."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/a...sing-fame-drugs-and-deceit.html?emc=eta1&_r=1

 

[bradley]

Where there's smoke there's fire.

Like I have previously stated, I was hearing about Cosby's philandering and predilection for drugging and molesting women back in the late eighties... well before he ever started moralizing about young black men. Anyway, this is giving a good deal of credence to my intuitive disdain for him.


I'm surprised that Lisa Bonet hasn't decided to come forward yet, as there were also rumors about her. However Joseph Phillips (the actor who played Cosby's son-in-law) has made some interesting statements....

'Cosby Show' Actor Joseph C. Phillips Says 'Of Course Bill Cosby Is Guilty'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joseph-c-phillips-bill-cosby-guilty_55a66025e4b0c5f0322bcd8a

In Phillips' essay, titled "Of Course Bill Cosby Is Guilty!," the actor begins by writing about how much he admired the comedian in his youth. "He was my boyhood idol. His influence on my life has been profound," Phillips writes. "I owe much of who I am to Bill Cosby, so the idea of love seems to fall short of exactly how I feel." However, the actor writes that it was "common knowledge" that Cosby wasn't faithful to his wife, Camille Cosby. "Bill sleeping around was a 'fact' that, like, the air, seemed to just be. You didn’t have to see it or hear it to know that it existed," Phillips says on his website.

When the the allegations against Cosby began multiplying last year, Phillips says he was inundated with requests to comment on his former co-star and became "increasingly disturbed" by the accusations. At first, the actor was mostly doubtful that Cosby was guilty of the sexual assault crimes. "I was fairly certain that some of the women were lying through their teeth, but certainly not all of them," Phillips writes. But then the actor ran into an old female friend who had also worked with Cosby in the past.

When Phillips brought up the allegations to the unidentified woman, she began to cry. "We spent the next two hours sitting on a bench talking," Phillips writes of the woman recounting her story about Cosby. "Through tears, she told me her story. She cursed him for violating both her trust and her body. She cursed herself for not being smarter, and for degrading herself in pursuit of success." After that, Phillips says his perspective on his former fictional father-in-law had changed. "I was also angry at myself for falling for the okey-doke, of putting Bill on a pedestal," Phillips writes.

The actor also referenced the recent unsealed court documents from a 2005 deposition in which Cosby admitted to obtaining quaaludes with the intent of giving them to women he wanted to have sex with. While Phillips says he can now see what he calls "the dark side to the Cos," he also admits that he can't forget the positive way his idol has influenced him. "I am not prepared to simply dismiss his brilliance, his wisdom, or his legacy." Phillips ends his essay with a plea though: asking Cosby to "Please, go live a quiet country life."

The actor appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to further discuss his essay. "I think like a lot of people, I was really giving Bill the benefit of the doubt," Phillips said. "This was not the man I knew, this was not the man I worked with."

BTW, I believe the identify of this anonymous woman on set referenced by Joseph Phillips is actress Michelle Hurd.

 

[zinfamous]

Why do the amounts have to match? Jackson had many. The point is that the amount doesn't revoke the presumption of innocence. Almost the entirety of Salem would execute mob justice on presumed "witches" against people who were accused by others who often had ulterior motives. I'm pretty sure that's more than 50.

He may be a rapist, but the point stands.

Because the amount of accusations matter. That is exactly the point.

Jackson didn't have many--he basically had two families accusing. The first went to settlement simply because it would have been cheaper than a trial, but also because the prosecution had a terrible case, apparently. 2nd happened trial happened because of "inertia" from the first. It also ended up being a bit of a sham. Creepy guy, sure, but no real evidence that he was anything worse than a very strange man-child.

Letterman...really? One accusation from a crazy fan. Or are we talking about something else?

 

[Theb]

Interesting cover.

 

[UberNeuman]

Bill Cosby in the spotlight looking good... as a serial rapist....

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting cover.

If you think the cover is interesting, you should see inside.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So is it OK for the news to start using their names since they have posted them? Personally its far, far too suspicious of Bill at this point. I do hate how accusers names tend to be concealed especially for decades old charges.
I don't mean this in a misogynist way I believe we are past the scorned women days.

 

[Phynaz]

Just so you know, we're currently sitting at 48 accusers. So barring 2 more people coming forward, it looks like you're in the clear! Cosby, not so much; every single person on Earth is now fully convinced he's a rapist. But you're good. You're only supporting someone who raped 48 people, not 50; that would be too much.

Two more today. That's the 50 bshole needed.

 

[Phynaz]

50. Give me 50 accusers and I will officially believe. Even one less will not cut it though. 49 is simply not convincing to me, it has to be 50. There is your bar, can you reach it?

Bar was reached today. Any comment?

 

[werepossum]

If you think the cover is interesting, you should see inside.

I don't know what that thing is, but I categorically refuse to believe that anyone tried to have sex with it within the last two centuries.

Well . . . Maybe a Japanese tentacle porn junkie, looks like it might have tentacles. No one else.

 

[Meghan54]

I don't know what that thing is, but I categorically refuse to believe that anyone tried to have sex with it within the last two centuries.

Well . . . Maybe a Japanese tentacle porn junkie, looks like it might have tentacles. No one else.

Dude, that lady had a stroke after her alleged affair with Cosby. That's kinda why the right side of her face looks to be sagging. Age is hell.

 

[HumblePie]

Dude, that lady had a stroke after her alleged affair with Cosby. That's kinda why the right side of her face looks to be sagging. Age is hell.

Looks like she lost her right eye too..

Most of the women on that magazine NY times photoshop I wouldn't touch with 10 ft pole even if that pole belonged to someone else. Then again, most are now probably older and uglier than when Cosby was after them. Someone of them though are just down right ugh and would have been ugh regardless of their age/weight.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't know what that thing is, but I categorically refuse to believe that anyone tried to have sex with it within the last two centuries.

Well . . . Maybe a Japanese tentacle porn junkie, looks like it might have tentacles. No one else.

Wonder what you might look like when you reach her age.