Bill Cosby - how is this possible?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Surely when people say that someone must point out that these are two very different situations. If someone shows that all of Cosby's accusers were treated by the same incompetent therapist who asked leading questions, then McMartin might be a good analogy. Otherwise this is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I agree that it is a bullshit defense. Just noting that it seems to be a popular one with Cozpologists.

[Ken Stone]

And that pretty well describes what goes on in our society. Not all men are bad, as is always pointed out, but so many men stand by silently, or even encourage wrongdoing or enable it.

I find this offensive. Not too surprised that no one else does. Rape culture and all that.

[Glaurung]

Yeah, the 20 unique victims, all of whom have basically nothing to gain since civil suits are mostly out of the question at this point, is pretty damning evidence.

While Cosby appears to have been a monster, what pisses me off even more is the attorneys and PR people who were willing to help him sweep it under the rug for a few bucks. A lot of these rapes are on their hands.

One does have to ask how they sleep at night. Probably on pillows stuffed with hundred dollar bills.

[Fragile Bird]

Look, I probably have a different POV here because of my age (I'm 60). It's really hard to complain about being sexually assaulted today, it was a hundred times worse 30 or 40 years ago. When you took the witness stand, it was open season on you. Anything and everything that could be dredged up against you could be thrown at you in the witness stand. But similar complaints against the accused could not be brought up, because that was deemed to be too prejudicial. So you were all alone up there. In this case, you would be all alone against a famous movie star who had a very cool, soft spoken, kindly and gentle reputation. And look at the crap Cosby's lawyers have dredged up against every complainant to discredit them.

It's different now, it's not as aggressive, at least in Canada. The laws regarding what you can ask a victim have changed as well in the USA, have they not? An American lawyer would have to tell us.

I keep racking my brains, wondering why someone who probably had women falling all over him, would have to use drugs to get his way. And I guess it comes down to the same old story, it's not about sex, it's about control.

And, btw, the story has been a real disappointment to me. I was a big fan of his, listening to his comedy albums, and then watching him on I Spy. I watched him on The Cosby Show as well, and was very sorry that his Cosby Mysteries show lasted only one season (he played a NYC police detective who won a $44M lottery and retired). When the lawsuit was filed against him 10 years ago, I was preoccupied with looking after an ill parent, and never paid much attention to it.

What I believe is that there has to be a lot of people who knew or suspected what he was doing, and I hope some of these people speak up now. I mentioned the story about the huge controversy over the CBC radio star who was fired for his private conduct with women. Back in May or June, at Sunday dinner, we were having a discussion about how some people can seem like they are wonderful people in public and turn out to be jerks behind the scenes. A friend who has friends who work at the CBC said, yes, just like Jian Ghomeshi, who has a reputation of being a creep, a real wierdo. Apparently there were a lot of stories going round about 'bad dates'. There's already been an NBC employee who has said he quit his job because Cosby was using him to go and pay off women on a regular basis. People talk about scandalous conduct.

And then there are the scandals out of Britain, where people knew for decades that a big BBC star was molesting children....

[Athias]

There may be some out there that make false accusations...but come on man....there is so much smoke around Cosby that it would be difficult for a rational person to not think there is a fire somewhere.

It isn't so much that there's smoke, but 20 women, now, yelling, "fire." The evidence of said fire ever occuring has yet to be produced. I think a rational person would take that into account when making one's judgement.

She holds a bit too strongly to the innocent until proven guilty school of thought.

The presumption of innocence is the most ethical procedural instrument because it countermands the prospect of accusations becoming convictions by default. (She's a witch!; He's a commie!) Presuming that Cosby is innocent prima facie doesn't mean that he's innocent any more than placing the burden on the alleged victims to substantiate the veracity of their claims mean that they were not raped. However, in any epistemic disputes, one would hope that justice and accountability would be dispensed through valid reasoning--which includes the integrity of evidence--and not thorugh argumentum ad populum, appeals to ignorance, or what have you.

[1918me]

It isn't so much that there's smoke, but 20 women, now, yelling, "fire." The evidence of said fire ever occuring has yet to be produced. I think a rational person would take that into account when making one's judgement.

To take the metaphor a step further, why are these 20 women, who would really have nothing to gain by lying and who are completely independent of one another, all yelling "fire?" I think a rational person would be highly suspicious at this point, while yes, understanding that there is no hard evidence as of yet.

[Fragile Bird]

Athias, Cosby hasn't been charged with anything. If he is ever charged with anything, he will be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Since no one ever went to hospital after any of the alleged events and got blood tests done to see if they were drugged, or had a sexual assault examination performed, it is unlikely he ever will be charged with anything.

On the other hand, the stories of the women who have chosen to speak up are out there in the public now, and people will judge for themselves whether or not the stories are credible. Some people will never believe them, more people (afai can tell) do believe them.

[Castel]

As an attorney, I resemble that remark. I'm so used to at this point when people ask what I do, I tell them, they give me that look, and I say, "yeah, I know" and hang my head in shame.

Well, at least some of that hate is bleeding off to the bankers now. Or at least it was for the liberals.

[Tywin Manderly]

You could see him trying to work that same shit in the AP interview. Intimidating the journalist, questioning the journalist's integrity if they didn't do what he wanted, getting the journalist's superior on the phone...

The art of soft intimidation at is very best.

People fail to appreciate how much the wealthy and powerful can really get away with.

Indeed.

[Athias]

To take the metaphor a step further, why are these 20 women, who would really have nothing to gain by lying and who are completely independent of one another, all yelling "fire?" I think a rational person would be highly suspicious at this point, while yes, understanding that there is no hard evidence as of yet.

First, you don't know that they have nothing to gain. Secondly, if 20 people came to me yelling fire, it would make me suspicious--so much so that I'd probably be spurred into investigating their claims. However, I'm not going to conclude that there was a fire--or there were fires--just because some people made claims. It doesn't mean that there were no fires, but making a claim does not by default substantiate one's account.

Athias, Cosby hasn't been charged with anything. If he is ever charged with anything, he will be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Since no one ever went to hospital after any of the alleged events and got blood tests done to see if they were drugged, or had a sexual assault examination performed, it is unlikely he ever will be charged with anything.

On the other hand, the stories of the women who have chosen to speak up are out there in the public now, and people will judge for themselves whether or not the stories are credible. Some people will never believe them, more people (afai can tell) do believe them.

I don't object to this.

[sperry]

It isn't so much that there's smoke, but 20 women, now, yelling, "fire." The evidence of said fire ever occuring has yet to be produced. I think a rational person would take that into account when making one's judgement.

Yes, a rational person would take that into account. And a rational person would also take into account that these women have almost nothing to gain at this point by levying false accusations (due to statutes of limitations), while exposing themselves to liability for defamation if they fabricated the accusations. One can then wonder how likely it is that 20 different women would all choose to come forward with false accusations that exposed themselves to liability while presenting little possible gains, and base their opinions accordingly.

[karaddin]

In those days silencing 20 women was a piece of cake for someone like Bill Cosby.

Just in case it seemed like endorsement, I was quoting it as ridiculous, you are spot on.

ETA: I doubt its possible under current law, but I would love for the (non-lawyers - maintaining protections around the legal system is important) people around him who knew it was going on and helped bury it, PR types etc, to be up for accessory charges. Obviously in this case even he isn't likely to be charged so it couldn't happen here in general, but I'd like society to have a firm "covering this up is not OK".

[Tywin Manderly]

One does have to ask how they sleep at night. Probably on pillows stuffed with hundred dollar bills.

Well, they probably sleep very well, with smug, complacent and self-righteous smiles on their faces.

And if they cannot sleep, they can always turn to Bill Cosby for some "candy".

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

First, you don't know that they have nothing to gain. Secondly, if 20 people came to me yelling fire, it would make me suspicious--so much so that I'd probably be spurred into investigating their claims. However, I'm not going to conclude that there was a fire--or there were fires--just because some people made claims. It doesn't mean that there were no fires, but making a claim does not by default substantiate one's account.

The reality is the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults take place under circumstances where there simply won't be extrinsic evidence of the crimes. Even where evidence of a sexual encounter is available, this evidence usually leaves unresolved the central and most important question: was there consent to the sexual act? This often boils down, ultimately, to a "he said-she said" scenario. I think most of the people posting in this thread acknowledge that there is unlikely to be ANY real evidence presented of Cosby being a rapist OTHER THAN the word of Cosby's accusers. For some people, that's enough to convince them, by whatever standard it is that people adopt for purposes of their personal belief in something. And for some people, that's not enough.

The problem with the "is there a fire?" scenario is that whether there was a fire or not is something that is readily ascertainable by reference to extrinsic evidence. You can see fire. You can smell fire. If a house burns down, you can see that it burned down, take pictures of it, etc. The evidence will likely persist for days, or weeks, or even years.

When something is readily verifiable by reference to extrinsic proofs, people expect that the extrinsic proofs will be provided. When something is not readily verifiable by reference to extrinsic proofs, people don't necessarily expect it.

I doubt that Cosby will ever be convicted in a Court of law of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. It's quite possible that no proof currently exists that would allow a reasonable jury to make that finding. If you put me in a jury box, I couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt based on the accusations that have arisen.

But as far as my personal belief in Cosby's guilt or innocence goes, I have very little problem believing the allegations against him. If any of these accusers take the stand against him in a criminal or civil suit, I'll look at their testimony under oath and perhaps revise my opinion. But as for right now, I'm quite comfortable in my belief that Bill Cosby is quite likely a serial rapist and dangerous predator, and I will never support a thing he does ever again.

[sperry]

The reality is the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults take place under circumstances where there simply won't be extrinsic evidence of the crimes. Even where evidence of a sexual encounter is available, this evidence usually leaves unresolved the central and most important question: was there consent to the sexual act? This often boils down, ultimately, to a "he said-she said" scenario. I think most of the people posting in this thread acknowledge that there is unlikely to be ANY real evidence presented of Cosby being a rapist OTHER THAN the word of Cosby's accusers. For some people, that's enough to convince them, by whatever standard it is that people adopt for purposes of their personal belief in something. And for some people, that's not enough.

The problem with the "is there a fire?" scenario is that whether there was a fire or not is something that is readily ascertainable by reference to extrinsic evidence. You can see fire. You can smell fire. If a house burns down, you can see that it burned down, take pictures of it, etc. The evidence will likely persist for days, or weeks, or even years.

When something is readily verifiable by reference to extrinsic proofs, people expect that the extrinsic proofs will be provided. When something is not readily verifiable by reference to extrinsic proofs, people don't necessarily expect it.

I doubt that Cosby will ever be convicted in a Court of law of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. It's quite possible that no proof currently exists that would allow a reasonable jury to make that finding. If you put me in a jury box, I couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt based on the accusations that have arisen.

But as far as my personal belief in Cosby's guilt or innocence goes, I have very little problem believing the allegations against him. If any of these accusers take the stand against him in a criminal or civil suit, I'll look at their testimony under oath and perhaps revise my opinion. But as for right now, I'm quite comfortable in my belief that Bill Cosby is quite likely a serial rapist and dangerous predator, and I will never support a thing he does ever again.

Well said. I also think that at a certain point (i.e. 20 accusers coming forward), the burden of proof outside the legal arena can safely be shifted to the accused to show that the allegations, are in fact, untrue.

[karaddin]

Nestor - would such a trial then alter your personal opinion? Given the eloquently stated reasons why a conviction would be extremely difficult I wouldn't let the failure to attain the legal standard change my personal opinion. I would accept it as the correct legal decision even as I thought it was an injustice.

[Castel]

Just in case it seemed like endorsement, I was quoting it as ridiculous, you are spot on.

ETA: I doubt its possible under current law, but I would love for the (non-lawyers - maintaining protections around the legal system is important) people around him who knew it was going on and helped bury it, PR types etc, to be up for accessory charges. Obviously in this case even he isn't likely to be charged so it couldn't happen here in general, but I'd like society to have a firm "covering this up is not OK".

Well, what would you charge the PR guys with? (assuming there was something). It seems like an even worse prospect than charging Cosby. Unless you have someone outright handing money with full knowledge or outright ignoring or suppressing the accusations it'd be a hard sell.

[karaddin]

Well, what would you charge the PR guys with? (assuming there was something). It seems like an even worse prospect than charging Cosby. Unless you have someone outright handing money with full knowledge or outright ignoring or suppressing the accusations it'd be a hard sell.

Under current law I doubt accessory or conspiracy would stick, so I was expecting legislative change would be required. And yes it would be hard to reach reasonable doubt for it, but if someone screws up to that extent and is that callous...they are part of these crimes.

[Tywin Manderly]

Louisa Moritz, one of the women to have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, is planning to sue the comedy actor and hopes to encourage other alleged victims to file a united lawsuit against him.

Bill Cosby alleged sexual assault victim calls to other accusers to file united lawsuit.

The trial of the century may be coming up.....

[Castel]

Under current law I doubt accessory or conspiracy would stick, so I was expecting legislative change would be required. And yes it would be hard to reach reasonable doubt for it, but if someone screws up to that extent and is that callous...they are part of these crimes.

Just to be clear here: what are we talking about here? The usual PR bullshit that ranges from generic statements like "Mr Cosby is deeply troubled by these false and harmful allegations etc.something, blah" to "such and such person isn't trustworthy because we found X alibi for Cosby-and he did Y good thing- and she cheated on her Econ 101 midterm" ? Or some other action?