In defense of jmoose's claim that it is unlikely Cosby was left alone with the kids on his CBS show, I don't have jmoose's TV/film experience, but I've been an extra, audience member, production assistant, etc. Most recently, all three of my grandchildren were extras on or had a small part in the GROWN UPS sequel.
AT NO TIME, in my experience, are children ever alone on the sets where I've been. There are nearly an infinite number of ways for a child (anyone, actually, but especially a child) to be injured or killed on a film/TV set. Children are therefore "wrangled", just like animals are. Separate people are hired to care for them, tell them what to do, rehearse their lines and generally hold their hands. When space and temperament permits, a parent or guardian of a child is also with them while they work.
So, no, jmoose can't know for a fact that Cosby never grabbed a kid and ran for a broom closet. But by the same token, no one can know Cosby never used a puppy to lure some street kid into a black van. But since nobody has even ACCUSED Cosby of molesting children and contact between stars and children-with-smallish-roles is almost always limited, I think probability suggests Cosby did not have opportunities to prey on children with whom he worked. (His long-running TV show might be an exception, since I imagine rules would be relaxed for minors who had been on a show for years; but, AGAIN, there have been no accusations by members of THE COSBY SHOW cast.)
***
On an entirely different note, I'm not a lawyer, but I was a legal secretary for large corporate law firms and have sat in on many settlement meetings (not the actual negotiations, but the discussions with the client as to whether to settle).
Sure, covering up the defendant's guilt is one reason to settle and pay some damages, but it isn't the only one and most lawsuits never even get to that point. (Note: there are published claims by a claimant's lawyer that Cosby settled when he realized that 13 other women were prepared to come forward with the same account.)
Another reason to settle is to get a signed confidentiality agreement and stop damaging chatter, whether or not it is true.
A third, more prosaic, reason is a clear-eyed calculation that the defendant is willing to accept less than the cost of continuing the trial. Depending on the subject of the suit, the cost of expert witnesses, days in court, out-of-court prep, etc., may be enormous (for both sides). It isn't unusual for both sides to decide it's simply cheaper to settle than to fight it out. (And our judicial system would quickly grind to a halt without such agreements.)
Insurance companies actually put clauses into contracts that allow then to FORCE a client to settle if the other side is willing to accept less than a certain amount. This protects the insurance company from spending a fortune defending what is merely a principle to the client. There have been famous trials where an insurance company forced a settlement (MacDonald v. McGuinness) and I have personally worked more such cases than I can recall. The client (and our defense team) weren't happy, but the insurance company felt their bottom line was more important.
So, NO, a settlement offer is NOT a clear admission of guilt.