It's a possibility. Louisa Moritz is one accuser who tripped herself up before even being cross examined. She gave a specific date of the alleged assault. She said Cosby assaulted her in a dressing room for The Tonight Show in 1971... however she wasn't on the the show the same night as Cosby.It's not unheard of for people to invent, or increase allegations when they smell the money.
I mean, take Jimmy Sav for goodness sake, he was obviously a major predator, but I doubt he touched seemingly everyone in England, which by the amount of stories coming out seems to be the way!
He admitted buying drugs to drug women who came to his house and he also settled a civil suit against him.In the Atlantic? I read that piece. I generally agree with his articles.
If I come across as defending Cosby, it is because I put myself in my shoes and realize that somehow, 15 people accusing me of doing something is enough proof in the eye of the public that I am guilty, which is a terrifying thought. The US has a long, dark history of black men getting lynched because of hearsay. That is not to say that the women are lying. I just don't have enough evidence to say for sure that either side is right or wrong. Nowadays, it just takes one accuser (cf Woody Allen and Mia Farrow)
I could also ask how is it possible that Bill Cosby raped 15 women, and not one single case made it to a judge in criminal court. That proves nothing though, we have come a long way in society from 20 years ago when sexual assault awareness was nowhere near today's standards.
I just don't know.
He didn't admit to drugging women. He said he bought Quaaludes to give to women and to other people. I believe he also used them himself. They were the drug of choice back then amongst many. The media have made out as if the drug is some sort of rohypnol when it isn't.He admitted buying drugs to drug women who came to his house and he also settled a civil suit against him.
Not the actions of an innocent man are they?
I dont know, usually when youre innocent you fight your case to clear youre name not pay people off and then hit them with a gagging orderHe didn't admit to drugging women. He said he bought Quaaludes to give to women and to other people. I believe he also used them himself. They were the drug of choice back then amongst many. The media have made out as if the drug is some sort of rohypnol when it isn't.
Settling a civil suit doesn't make a person guilty either. They can drag on and on and courts encourage settling cases. Numerous civil settlements have been reached by people and companies, it doesn't mean every single person or company is guilty of what they were accused of.
No, that's a naive approach to things. Otherwise you're saying every settlement that ever occurred between two parties meant the party paying out is guilty every time then. That's obviously not true.I dont know, usually when youre innocent you fight your case to clear youre name not pay people off and then hit them with a gagging order
So you realise that if I bring a civil suit against you and then lose in court that I am liable and would have to pay any of your costs.No, that's a naive approach to things. Otherwise you're saying every settlement that ever occurred between two parties meant the party paying out is guilty every time then. That's obviously not true.
'Pay people off' is also wrong. If you accused me of something and filed a civil suit against me and I settled with you out of court it wouldn't make me guilty because I chose to settle with you. Depending on the amount it may be of more benefit to settle. If I was worth £3 million and you filed a civil suit against me wanting £15,000 I'd more than likely be legally advised to settle with you irrelevant of if I was guilty or not. Given the fact a civil suit could go on for years, cost me more, effect my health and my family's health.
Lot's of celebrities settle cases given they are in a unique position in which they're easy targets for extortionists. (I'm not saying the woman against Cosby was an extortionist, I'm speaking in general). Companies also. It can be easier to settle in the end even if you're innocent.
You're not the only one to say it but people who say 'if you're innocent you fight your case' aren't in a position to say that. They haven't been hit with a civil suit themselves. Nor can they put themselves in the position of someone facing a civil suit. If you yourself were hit with a civil suit tomorrow it'd be entirely different to a celebrity being hit with one. The media wouldn't report on your case whereas they would a celebrity's. Also, you have no idea how you would deal with the case given the circumstances. You may even settle yourself depending on the many factors.
just too many accusations for there not to be some serious issues here.He is a rapist scumbag. Surely nobody doubts that?
That's what's he is doing with this latest case apparently. Mind you, the verdict will have no bearing on what the public thinks.I dont know, usually when youre innocent you fight your case to clear youre name not pay people off and then hit them with a gagging order
yea, you're right, once someone makes a claim like that against you its very hard to change peoples minds, particularly for celebritiesThat's what's he is doing with this latest case apparently. Mind you, the verdict will have no bearing on what the public thinks.
Not to mention the Republican reaction to Obama trying to stop innocent people getting shot.I'm really depressed with the inter web tonight, this thread, as well as the horrible stuff that went on in Germany on NYE.
Yeah that for me was just disgusting.Not to mention the Republican reaction to Obama trying to stop innocent people getting shot.
Haven't seen the reaction on here to that yet, wouldn't surprise me if they're a bunch of people out in support.Not to mention the Republican reaction to Obama trying to stop innocent people getting shot.
So you maintain that every settlement made by a person or company is because they were guilty? If so, that makes no sense. Major companies settle cases as they can afford to and don't need the media coverage. Famous people also do it to maintain their image. They'll be numerous civil suits we know nothing about as those people decided, whether they were guilty or not, to settle and avoid all the media saga, employees on their back and strain. Nobody can put themselves in the position of somebody facing a civil law suit. The whole 'if you're innocent you don't settle' is just nonsense. There are so many factors. People also don't know what is said in the settlement agreement, unless it was to leak of course, and what people are actually settling for.So you realise that if I bring a civil suit against you and then lose in court that I am liable and would have to pay any of your costs.
You could potentially bring a case against me too then, for damage to your reputation, etc. which in a common law system could probably be filed as damage to property would be a no win situation for me.
So, if you're innocent, you fight it, if you're guilty you settle out of court and gag people. That's my opinion on it.
Jane Doe number 2 is Chloe Goins who legal counsel for Cosby stated a while back that on the date of the alleged assault, August 9, 2008, there are flight and telephone records that clearly place Cosby in New York City. Which is 2,500 miles from the Mansion.Bill Cosby won't be charged in two cases investigated by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, the DA announced Wednesday.
According to a charge evaluation sheet, prosecutors think neither of the two allegations could have resulted in charges within the statute of limitations.
The accusers, listed as Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2, had accused Cosby of sexual assault.
"We are satisfied that the Los Angeles DA's office fully and fairly evaluated all the facts and evidence, and came to the right conclusion," said Chris Tayback, a lawyer for Cosby.
He probably saw their names and thought they were up for it.The accusers, listed as Jane Does
https://www.tedcruz.org/l/second-amendment-rights/Not to mention the Republican reaction to Obama trying to stop innocent people getting shot.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35478559A former prosecutor in the US state of Pennsylvania has said his decision not to charge actor Bill Cosby with sex crimes in 2005 is "binding".
In December, a new prosecutor reversed course and charged Mr Cosby with sexually assaulting a woman in 2004.
Former prosecutor Bruce Castor testified on Tuesday for Mr Cosby's defence team who argued that the criminal case should be dismissed.
Dozens of women have said the actor assaulted them over a span of decades.
Mr Cosby has said the encounters were consensual and has denied any wrongdoing.
Also on Tuesday, Mr Cosby was ordered give a deposition in a California civil case.
Mr Cosby is accused of drugging and fondling a former Temple University employee, Andrea Constand, in 2004. He could go to prison for 10 years if convicted.
Mr Castor said he found flaws in the case in 2005, making the decision not to press charges for the state, to last in perpetuity.
He also testified that he made an agreement with Mr Cosby not prosecute, but the current prosecutor, Kevin Steele, said there is no record of the deal.
Mr Cosby testified in a lawsuit brought on by Andrea Constand after the agreement was made.
"Cosby would've had to have been nuts to say those things if there was any chance he could've been prosecuted," Mr Castor said .
"I did not believe it was just to go forward with the criminal prosecution, but I wanted there to be some measure of justice" for Ms Constand, he said.
Documents from her lawsuit against the star were sealed until last summer, when damaging testimony was revealed as more women came forward.
The 12-year statute of limitations was only days away from expiring in January.
Mr Steele said Mr Cosby needs an immunity agreement for the case to be tossed out.
Mr Castor said he did not have a formal agreement with Mr Cosby's former lawyer Walter Phillips, who is now dead, that Mr Cosby would testify in Ms Constand's case.
"Mr Phillips never agreed to do anything in exchange for Mr Cosby not being prosecuted," Mr Castor said. "I thought making Mr Cosby pay money was the best I was going to be able to set the stage for."
Also on Tuesday, a California judge ordered Mr Cosby to give a second deposition in a case of a woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her at the Playboy Mansion in 1974 when she was 15.
He had given a deposition in that case last October but the woman's lawyer has said he did not answer all questions.
Classic sociopathic rapist working in the entertainment industry, in the vein of Savile and Harris.Apparently his trial has started a few days ago. What does the Caf think?
Already convicted in the court of public opinion. Actual court with judges and lawyers and jury is an afterthought.Apparently his trial has started a few days ago. What does the Caf think?
It generally will be, with this many accusers.Already convicted in the court of public opinion. Actual court with judges and lawyers and jury is an afterthought.
There's a sad thought.Classic sociopathic rapist working in the entertainment industry, in the vein of Savile and Harris.
The program will probably be on iplayer by now, called Fall of an American Icon...or something. It was good. He's basically comparable to an American Saville, abusing his status to get away with some truly vile stuff.There was a program on TV about this, possibly last night, but I didn't get a chance to see it.
Latest:
Bill Cosby Rape Trial: Jury Hears Taped Call Of Star Offering To “Set Up Something” For Accuser
http://deadline.com/2017/06/bill-cosby-rape-trial-phone-call-recording-1202109268/
I am pretty sure Savile was on a different level of nastiness than Cosby.The program will probably be on iplayer by now, called Fall of an American Icon...or something. It was good. He's basically comparable to an American Saville, abusing his status to get away with some truly vile stuff.
Yeah, I wasn't comparing relative nastiness, more the abuse of status and ability to hide in plain sight for so long.I am pretty sure Savile was on a different level of nastiness than Cosby.
This sort of thing should have zero effect on it. How people act after an indecent like that has no bearings over the seriousness of indecent itself. She could have been bewitched by his charms, in fear of him or unable to compute the seriousness of what had taken place. She could even have been trying to justify the event itself by trying to prove to herself that he has some sort of interest in her and that she wasn't some sort of convenient piece of meat.Apparently the woman who made the claims continued to hang out with Cosby well after the alleged incident took place, which muddied the waters a bit for the Jury.
Mistrial due to the deadlock. That's that then?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For that to happen society should first stop putting celebrities on a pedestal.I think we can all agree Cosby did it, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is another matter. This is why it's important for society to always encourage people to report sexual assault as soon as possible.
That has nothing to do with the vast majority of sexual assault committed by non-celebrities.For that to happen society should first stop putting celebrities on a pedestal.
I know. I'm referring to the Bill Cosby case.That has nothing to do with the vast majority of sexual assault committed by non-celebrities.
Ah, as you were.I know. I'm referring to the Bill Cosby case.
