Bill Cosby in the spotlight looking good!

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have worked a fair amount as a criminal prosecutor and defense attorney, including working on some extraordinarily awful sexual assault and molestation cases.

My own view is that the sheer quantum of women who have come forward against Cosby, the similarity of their allegations, and the fact that many of them having nothing to gain from accusing him are sufficient to convince me that he is very likely guilty of drugging and engaging in sex acts with at least some of them. His own refusal to directly confront the issue in an interview just bolsters this opinion.

I do not find the arguments in favor of Cosby's innocence persuasive.

First, I am reading the argument that there was no "motive" to do this, because Cosby could have had consensual sex with as many young women as he wanted. This argument reflects a fundamental ignorance of sexual paraphelias. People with deviant sexual interests want to engage in them regardless of the availability of normal sexual outlets. I have prosecuted men for child pornography and molestation who were married to attractive women and had no need to look to children as sex partners. Similarly, it appears Cosby has an unhealthy interest in having sex with women who are non-responsive. This could stem from an instinct to overpower them or simply the preference that they lie there silently while he poses them and manipulates them. This is in no way inconsistent with the fact that he could have had sex with them consensually. The point is, not everyone who drugs a woman is a horny young man who can't get sex through other means - there are people who are just into weird stuff, and it appears to me Cosby is such a person.

Second, I am reading people arguing that the fact that these women didn't come forward sooner is evidence of Cosby's innocence. I am not so sure. He has been an astronomically wealthy, successful man in show business for something like 50 years. Nearly all of these women have been young, aspiring actresses and models. It seems very likely that they were generally some combination of a) unsure what had happened, since they were drugged and didn't really remember; b) intimidated by him and afraid of the blowback associated with accusing him; and/or c) hopeful he would help their careers in some way if they did not report him (and in fact he did pay for Renita Chaney Hill to go to college). In addition, at least some of them (Lachele Covington and Andrea Constand) did report him shortly after the alleged assaults occurred, and he settled out of court with Constand.

Personally I am ambivalent about these accusations, because Cosby has already suffered blowback for things he was never convicted of. On the other hand, he's 77 years old, and has more money than God. As stated above, I do believe he's guilty of at least a good percentage of what he has been accused of. Accordingly I think he has been incredibly lucky to have kept his reputation mostly clear for as long as he has, and have no sympathy for his current predicament.

 

[bshole]

I have worked a fair amount as a criminal prosecutor and defense attorney, including working on some extraordinarily awful sexual assault and molestation cases.

My own view is that the sheer quantum of women who have come forward against Cosby, the similarity of their allegations, and the fact that many of them having nothing to gain from accusing him are sufficient to convince me that he is very likely guilty of drugging and engaging in sex acts with at least some of them. His own refusal to directly confront the issue in an interview just bolsters this opinion.

Horseshit. I have watched Cosby for decades now on TV. Anybody watching can tell that he is a decent and honorable person. You have a bunch of hearsay and smears. That is ALL you have. Shame on you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Horseshit. I have watched Cosby for decades now on TV. Anybody watching can tell that he is a decent and honorable person. You have a bunch of hearsay and smears. That is ALL you have. Shame on you.

So I assume you loved OJ Simpson so much on Monday Night Football and in the Naked Gun movies that he couldn't have committed any crimes either, correct? Whether or not Cosby raped anyone, "decent and honorable" people don't serially cheat on their spouses or abandon and refuse to acknowledge their illegitimate children.

 

[fskimospy]

So I assume you loved OJ Simpson so much on Monday Night Football and in the Naked Gun movies that he couldn't have committed any crimes either, correct? Whether or not Cosby raped anyone, "decent and honorable" people don't serially cheat on their spouses or abandon and refuse to acknowledge their illegitimate children.

Your previous post sums up my thoughts better than I would have. The sheer quantity of accusers all with the same story and little to gain makes it hard for me to believe he is completely innocent.

 

[Genx87]

My reasoning for why these stories might be true compared to the past. Usually these women were trotted out after Cosby went against the black establishment. But afaik Cosby hasn't said anything to piss them off.

As for access to easy women? Rapists don't rape for the sex. They rape for the power.

 

[thraashman]

Shocking, the conservative website Daily Caller is doing what conservatives do and defending a rapist.

 

[Exophase]

As for access to easy women? Rapists don't rape for the sex. They rape for the power.

That's an often repeated overgeneralization. I'm sure the psychology and motivation of rapists is not identical for all of them under all circumstances. I find it very hard to believe that rape is never motivated at least in part by sexual frustration and desire.

Who knows if all of these women were really willing to have sex with him.

 

[bshole]

So I assume you loved OJ Simpson so much on Monday Night Football and in the Naked Gun movies that he couldn't have committed any crimes either, correct? Whether or not Cosby raped anyone, "decent and honorable" people don't serially cheat on their spouses or abandon and refuse to acknowledge their illegitimate children.

With regards to OJ, there was physical evidence that he committed the atrocity, her blood in his car, his blood at the scene, etc... In Cosby's case you have NO physical evidence whatsoever, just accusations made decades later. Cosby has MORE than earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

With regards to OJ, there was physical evidence that he committed the atrocity, her blood in his car, his blood at the scene, etc... In Cosby's case you have NO physical evidence whatsoever, just accusations made decades later. Cosby has MORE than earned the benefit of the doubt.

Negative. You also have accusations made at the time, including one by an accuser with whom Cosby settled. I find it very difficult to see giving Cosby the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances, and certainly wouldn't do so based on my perception of Cosby as a "decent and honorable" man, because he has made it clear through his behavior that he is neither.

 

[brycejones]

Horseshit. I have watched Cosby for decades now on TV. Anybody watching can tell that he is a decent and honorable person. You have a bunch of hearsay and smears. That is ALL you have. Shame on you.

Don't you need to teach your wife how to operate the stove?

 

[bshole]

Negative. You also have accusations made at the time, including one by an accuser with whom Cosby settled. I find it very difficult to see giving Cosby the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances, and certainly wouldn't do so based on my perception of Cosby as a "decent and honorable" man, because he has made it clear through his behavior that he is neither.

You are judging his behaviour based on scurrilous, unproven accusations and NOT the proven record. If you can't prove it, IT DID NOT HAPPEN! Every proven fact that I am aware of STONGLY indicates that Bill Cosby is indeed a decent and honorable man.

 

[zinfamous]

With regards to OJ, there was physical evidence that he committed the atrocity, her blood in his car, his blood at the scene, etc... In Cosby's case you have NO physical evidence whatsoever, just accusations made decades later. Cosby has MORE than earned the benefit of the doubt.

why do people keep saying these accusations were made decades later?

Most of these were made many, many decades ago. Will you at least confront the argument without lying about the details?

It is also very true that in Hollywood and entertainment circles, this has been Cosby's MO for many, many decades. The open secret that everyone in the trade talks about.

This isn't new in any way. What you and I, the naive viewer that really only sees Cliff Huxtable, and what his peers see as Bill Cosby, have always been two very different things.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You are judging his behaviour based on scurrilous, unproven accusations and NOT the proven record. If you can't prove it, IT DID NOT HAPPEN! Every proven fact that I am aware of STONGLY indicates that Bill Cosby is indeed a decent and honorable man.

He has admitted to cheating on his wife, and admitted, specifically, having an affair with the mother of Autumn Jackson. Those are "proven facts." Without ever agreeing to a DNA test to determine whether he was her father, he filed charges against Jackson for extortion when she threatened to make his affair with her mother public, leading to her going to prison. He also settled with Andrea Constand, who accused him of drugging and raping her. I simply can find no plausible explanation for the profusion of accusers, many of whom stand to gain nothing, other than that Cosby is guilty of at least some of what he has been accused of.

 

[Zaap]

Shocking, the conservative website Daily Caller is doing what conservatives do and defending a rapist.

If they went after him, you'd call it racist.

 

[CZroe]

He has admitted to cheating on his wife, and admitted, specifically, having an affair with the mother of Autumn Jackson. Those are "proven facts." Without ever agreeing to a DNA test to determine whether he was her father, he filed charges against Jackson for extortion when she threatened to make his affair with her mother public, leading to her going to prison. He also settled with Andrea Constand, who accused him of drugging and raping her. I simply can find no plausible explanation for the profusion of accusers, many of whom stand to gain nothing, other than that Cosby is guilty of at least some of what he has been accused of.

People keep assuming that they have nothing to gain as if that means they must be telling the truth. Hello?! They stand to gain extortion money! This is Michael Jackson all over again.

 

[fskimospy]

People keep assume my that they have nothing to gain as if that means they must be telling the truth. Hello?! They stand to gain extortion money! This is Michael Jackson all over again.

So you're saying that several dozen women have conspired over the course of decades to accuse Bill Cosby of a particular offense and have worked together to align their stories into a coherent narrative is more likely than simply the idea that he probably did it?

If so, why?

 

[bradley]

Chloe Goins is the latest woman accusing Bill Cosby of sexual assault. In 2008, she was drugged at the Playboy Mansion and awoke to a 70-year-old Cosby sucking her toes and pleasuring himself.

That makes a total of 25 accusers, for those (such as me) who were losing count.

EXCLUSIVE: 'I was only 18 when Bill Cosby drugged me. I woke up naked; he was licking my toes.' Comedian faces new claim he committed sex attack at the Playboy Mansion just SIX years ago on woman who has contacted police.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ust-SIX-years-ago-woman-contacted-police.html

 

[CZroe]

So you're saying that several dozen women have conspired over the course of decades to accuse Bill Cosby of a particular offense and have worked together to align their stories into a coherent narrative is more likely than simply the idea that he probably did it?

If so, why?

Yes. Just like Michael Jackson was an easy target due to a previous accusation, so was Cosby. They spent the time finding each other and developing a believable story to extort him for money outside of the courts while making it appear that there is no monetary incentive with the whole "outside the statute of limitations" crap that you fell for. The coordination of their latest accusations makes this obvious.

Ask yourself: why did he continue using a method which clearly didn't work? If he was really paying hush money because so many women were aware and able to make accusations despite being drugged, then his drug clearly wasn't working and was costing him millions. Why would he keep doing it that way?! The similarity of their accusations is what actually makes it LESS believable. It is clear that they concocted that because they were stupid enough to think it sounds more believable. To critical thinkers, this is obvious.

 

[werepossum]

Why do they seem more credible than everyone else?

For one, neither is attempting to profit. For a second, neither has the serious issues (mental illness, dishonesty, desperate need for money) that typically make cops suspicious of unsupported claims. For a third, neither is now alleging behavior too heinous to make failure to report it at the time unbelievable. I find it difficult to believe that all these women were drugged and raped and NONE reported it at the time. (Not "only a few years later", at the time, when it could be proven.) On the other hand, Hurd reported behavior not out of line with other stars' repulsive behavior, but nothing that would rise to the level of filing a complaint. And Johnson now reports an experience that is consistent with the accusations of drugging and raping women, but which at the time would have been difficult to prove any wrong-doing. Without the rape, she would have had to prove drugging with intent to rape, and that's difficult at best.

I should add that most of us probably know Cosby more from his stand-up than from his Cosby Show.

Not sure why you would think that.

Um, rape is near the pinnacle of not nice behavior. Sure, a rapist might SEEM nice, but that's extremely difficult to keep up for half a century. The ones that have done so almost entirely fall into two categories, those like Bill Clinton whose activities have some plausible deniability and those who prey on strangers. It's easy to get the benefit of the doubt if a woman accuses you of groping her; maybe she's building it up to be more than it really was. There's not nearly as much plausible deniability with rape, and almost none with rape via drugging. If a woman makes that accusation when evidence is still available and her blood shows the drug, then unless she's a real nut job for whom consensual sex with self-drugging might be reasonable doubt the man IS going to be arrested and go to trial.

Should be self-evident why a serial rapist who preys on strangers might continue seeming like a nice guy; he his not associated with the crimes.

Hey, um...

Well, maybe Cosby isn't actually a nice guy?

:hmm:

Entirely possible. I just don't see any particular reason to accept that as fact at this point.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes. Just like Michael Jackson was an easy target due to a previous accusation, so was Cosby. They spent the time finding each other and developing a story to extort him for money outside of the courts while making it appear that there is no monetary incentive with the whole "outside the statute of limitations" crap that you fell for. The coordination makes this obvious. Ask yourself: why did he continue using a method which clearly didn't work? If he was really paying hush money because so many women were aware and able to make accusations despite being drugged, then his drug clearly wasn't working and was costing him millions in hush-money. Why would he keep doing it that way?! The similarity of their accusations is what actually makes it LESS believable. It is clear that they concocted that because they were stupid enough to think it sounds more believable. To critical thinkers, this is obvious.

I think there's a strong possibility that a certain number of the new and more recent charges could be based on this--

However we are talking about accusations from the 60s--basically conversations between individuals and lawyers, in a world where information was nearly impossible to obtain if you wanted it that way.

Consider that these are multiple allegations from individuals that never knew or knew of each other, telling the same story.

Again, this isn't about new allegations--it's about the pervasive history of this situation, and how it has been repeatedly and undeniably swept away.

 

[Linux23]

Sooooo, er, um, can they charge him for these heinous acts going back decades ago?

If not then

/thread.

 

[zinfamous]

Entirely possible. I just don't see any particular reason to accept that as fact at this point.

Neither you nor I are Cosby's peers. That is something that neither of us can determine either way. We really have no place to assume that he ever was a nice guy, really.

His peers are in a better place for determining this. ....and by all accounts, it seems that they established their opinion of him a very long time ago.

This is a fact: Among comedians, "Cosby is pretty much a rapist" is the same kind of underground truth/joke that they all share, sort of like "The Aristocrats."

So, is there real truth behind that?

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

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. Just like Michael Jackson was an easy target due to a previous accusation, so was Cosby. They spent the time finding each other and developing a story to extort him for money outside of the courts while making it appear that there is no monetary incentive with the whole "outside the statute of limitations" crap that you fell for. The coordination makes this obvious. Ask yourself: why did he continue using a method which clearly didn't work? If he was really paying hush money because so many women were aware and able to make accusations despite being drugged, then his drug clearly wasn't working and was costing him millions in hush-money. Why would he keep doing it that way?! The similarity of their accusations is what actually makes it LESS believable. It is clear that they concocted that because they were stupid enough to think it sounds more believable. To critical thinkers, this is obvious.

You think alleging that a decade spanning conspiracy between large numbers of unrelated women, several of whom have made it explicitly clear they neither need or want any money from him is more probable than Cosby being a sex offender and you think consistency between accounts, even from people who were almost certainly unaware of the other people's stories makes it less believable.

This is not an example of good critical thinking skills.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Horseshit. I have watched Cosby for decades now on TV. Anybody watching can tell that he is a decent and honorable person. You have a bunch of hearsay and smears. That is ALL you have. Shame on you.

Wow, you watched an *ACTOR* acting for many years and you *know* this person by having done so.

I repeat, an *ACTOR* (a person who behaves in a way that is not genuine, one who represents a character in a dramatic production).

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes. Just like Michael Jackson was an easy target due to a previous accusation, so was Cosby. They spent the time finding each other and developing a believable story to extort him for money outside of the courts while making it appear that there is no monetary incentive with the whole "outside the statute of limitations" crap that you fell for. The coordination of their latest accusations makes this obvious.

Ask yourself: why did he continue using a method which clearly didn't work? If he was really paying hush money because so many women were aware and able to make accusations despite being drugged, then his drug clearly wasn't working and was costing him millions. Why would he keep doing it that way?! The similarity of their accusations is what actually makes it LESS believable. It is clear that they concocted that because they were stupid enough to think it sounds more believable. To critical thinkers, this is obvious.

Stewox? Is that you?