Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #1

[IzzyBlanche]

I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. I'm referring to Barbara Bowman's account.

She was NINETEEN years old. Chock full of all the insecurities any girl that age experiences, with no strong father figure to serve as protector.

Enter Bill Cosby, beloved by most and at that time as, "America's dad." Possibly the most, assuredly one of the most, admired and popular celebrities of the day.

It boggles my mind to think anyone could expect someone that young and powerless to have the stamina to take on someone of his stature.

In her place, at her age, in that time, I would have kept silent too.

Hell, I'm a middle-aged woman and if Cosby jumped out of the bushes and attacked me while I was taking a walk, I would have reservations about reporting it myself. I'm nobody. He is (or was) America's dad, at least for those of my generation.

Why would I put myself through the calumny I would undoubtedly receive for making such an accusation?

The women who are putting faces to the accusations have way more to lose than gain, IMO. So I believe them.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Which proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It proves to me that Cosby was willing to settle rather than take it to court. Starting with Michael Jackson on up, I've heard all the arguments that it's more expedient for a celebrity to settle rather than take it to court.

I don't buy it. If I were innocent I would never settle to make the charges go away. No matter how much money I had. My good name is more important to me than any loss of $.

Conversely, if I were guilty but the $ required to make the charges disappear were a mere drop in the bucket of my wealth, then hell yeah! Poof! Magic $ wand waved. Irritant gone.

MOO of course.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Which proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It also proves that your previous statement that victims don't need lawyers because they have lawyers called "prosecutors" isn't accurate.

 

[Steely Dan]

Cosby's routine on Spanish Fly. http://gawker.com/bill-cosby-once-did-a-stand-up-routine-about-date-rapin-1659904023

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

'He's a very, very sick man': Third woman to accuse Bill Cosby of rape urges comedian not to take allegations to the grave and seek 'help' as she recalls how 77-year-old would introduce her as 'Midget' to other stars"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...calls-77-year-old-introduce-Midget-stars.html

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

"Bill Cosby AMENDS blanket denial of rape allegations to exclude suit he settled with accuser Andrea Constand in 2006"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uit-settled-accuser-Andrea-Constand-2006.html

 

[Xara]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ide-home-Cosby-offer-drugging-raping-her.html

Janice Dickinson accusing him of rape too.

 

[Steely Dan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ide-home-Cosby-offer-drugging-raping-her.html

Janice Dickinson accusing him of rape too.

Well, she is the most credible witness so far, IMO. This cinches it for me.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

New Bill Cosby accuser claims the actor 'was sexually aggressive as he plied her with drugs and booze and wouldn't take no for an answer'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-booze-wouldn-t-no-answer.html#ixzz3JTL51HiX

 

[WillenFan21]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ide-home-Cosby-offer-drugging-raping-her.html

Janice Dickinson accusing him of rape too.

Well, she is the most credible witness so far, IMO. This cinches it for me.

ITA Steely! I was thinking the same thing. I'm familiar with Janice but I do know her name and know that she is famous.

 

[SStarr33]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ide-home-Cosby-offer-drugging-raping-her.html

Janice Dickinson accusing him of rape too.

Oh boy, she is a crazy lady.

http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articl...-opens-surgical-wound-demands-drugs-watch.htm

http://www.vh1.com/shows/celebrity_rehab_with_dr_drew/season_4/cast_member.jhtml?personalityId=14560

And there is lots of stuff I can't post here.

 

[lawstudent]

One thing that needs to be made clear is you can't settle criminal charges. You can buy their silence to the media, and even require them to release a public apology or something in exchange for money. You can prevent a civil lawsuit. But if the person wants to talk to the police/testify as part of a prosecution, he or she still can.

Obviously, settlement damages the credibility of the accuser and makes prosecution more difficult as a result. And if they got enough money, they may decide it is not worth the public, brutal hassle of a trial. So certainly there is a reason for celebs to settle that is advantageous - but I still think it should be clarified that they are not just buying their way out of criminal charges. That would be absolutely horrible public policy if we allowed it.

And, I do think there is a reason for celebs to settle instead of fight besides guilt (or despite it) - if someone wants to talk about it in the media forever, they can, and that is so damaging even if the celeb is acquitted or charges are not brought. Getting confidentiality can be almost necessary in those cases. Plus, these cases are really hard to prove/disprove, so a trial may not even clear much up, but will drag everyone through the mud.

The law has changed, but in the case of Michael Jackson, you could have a civil trial prior to a criminal one. Regardless of my opinions on his guilt or innocence, it would have been really questionable to go to a criminal trial with a civil one already having been litigated at a lower burden. That enables the prosecution to get a sort of rehearsal, and usually compromises the defense, even though they get a rehearsal as well. The burden is on the prosecutor in a criminal case, so when the arguments have already been made and the inconsistencies examined, it makes it much easier for them to present their version of events and tailor everything to fit it. So in that case, I can see the the settlement due to that alone. And I think there was some weird thing about the family in the 1993 case wanting to make a musical based on the story - I know how crazy that sounds but I'm pretty sure that is documented - it was going to be hard to go on without paying for their silence, since they wanted to exploit the story, true or not.

 

[Steely Dan]

One thing that needs to be made clear is you can't settle criminal charges. You can buy their silence to the media, and even require them to release a public apology or something in exchange for money. You can prevent a civil lawsuit. But if the person wants to talk to the police/testify as part of a prosecution, he or she still can.

Obviously, settlement damages the credibility of the accuser and makes prosecution more difficult as a result. And if they got enough money, they may decide it is not worth the public, brutal hassle of a trial. So certainly there is a reason for celebs to settle that is advantageous - but I still think it should be clarified that they are not just buying their way out of criminal charges. That would be absolutely horrible public policy if we allowed it.

And, I do think there is a reason for celebs to settle instead of fight besides guilt (or despite it) - if someone wants to talk about it in the media forever, they can, and that is so damaging even if the celeb is acquitted or charges are not brought. Getting confidentiality can be almost necessary in those cases. Plus, these cases are really hard to prove/disprove, so a trial may not even clear much up, but will drag everyone through the mud.

The law has changed, but in the case of Michael Jackson, you could have a civil trial prior to a criminal one. Regardless of my opinions on his guilt or innocence, it would have been really questionable to go to a criminal trial with a civil one already having been litigated at a lower burden. That enables the prosecution to get a sort of rehearsal, and usually compromises the defense, even though they get a rehearsal as well. The burden is on the prosecutor in a criminal case, so when the arguments have already been made and the inconsistencies examined, it makes it much easier for them to present their version of events and tailor everything to fit it. So in that case, I can see the the settlement due to that alone. And I think there was some weird thing about the family in the 1993 case wanting to make a musical based on the story - I know how crazy that sounds but I'm pretty sure that is documented - it was going to be hard to go on without paying for their silence, since they wanted to exploit the story, true or not.

Great post. I just want to add that it would probably be impossible to get a conviction against Bill Cosby. In fact I think it would be impossible to get a conviction against most Hollywood stars. In cases of rape the victim is usually put on trial instead of the defendant. Her entire sex life would be front page news and I'm sure the defense would be able to unearth people "who know she's lying". Those people would also have new cars or something like that. JMO

 

[lawstudent]

Great post. I just want to add that it would probably be impossible to get a conviction against Bill Cosby. In fact I think it would be impossible to get a conviction against most Hollywood stars. In cases of rape the victim is usually put on trial instead of the defendant. Her entire sex life would be front page news and I'm sure the defense would be able to unearth people "who know she's lying". Those people would also have new cars or something like that. JMO

I agree Cosby won't be prosecuted and any settlements that happen now are about silence, not avoiding jail. I also agree that sexual assault trials are just a mess - absent clear physical evidence or some other smoking gun, it's always based on the accuser's claims. It's hard to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in cases where that is the only evidence. The victim is put on trial along with the defendant, and the dynamics are complicated. No one comes out unscathed and there's no sense of resolution. I would hate to be a juror on a sexual assault case. People are ridiculous to expect some sort of perfect, angelic victim, and if I were a defense attorney, there are some lines I would not cross while still feeling that I zealously defended my client. But, it's also necessary to prove the case, and certain tough questions come up, and that is unavoidable.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well, she is the most credible witness so far, IMO. This cinches it for me.

May I ask why you think she is the she is the most credible witness so far?

ITA Steely! I was thinking the same thing. I'm familiar with Janice but I do know her name and know that she is famous.

I think you meant to say you are not familiar with Janice but you do know her name.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you saying she is more credible because she is famous?

Oh boy, she is a crazy lady.

I agree with you from what I know about her, which makes me suspicious of this claim. I expect some eager beaver journalist to present evidence, based on for example public records of where she and/or Cosby were on certain dates, that prove her story is concocted, in 3...2...1...

If it is, may she burn in hell first for false witness. And second because her bearing false witness will then lead to many concluding that all the other accusers are lying too. Which I don't believe.

In cases of rape the victim is usually put on trial instead of the defendant. Her entire sex life would be front page news JMO

Snipped for focus

Not necessarily, due to rape shield laws. Thank goodness.

 

[Steely Dan]

I agree Cosby won't be prosecuted and any settlements that happen now are about silence, not avoiding jail. I also agree that sexual assault trials are just a mess - absent clear physical evidence or some other smoking gun, it's always based on the accuser's claims. It's hard to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in cases where that is the only evidence. The victim is put on trial along with the defendant, and the dynamics are complicated. No one comes out unscathed and there's no sense of resolution. I would hate to be a juror on a sexual assault case. People are ridiculous to expect some sort of perfect, angelic victim, and if I were a defense attorney, there are some lines I would not cross while still feeling that I zealously defended my client. But, it's also necessary to prove the case, and certain tough questions come up, and that is unavoidable.

Unfortunately, defense attorneys have to cross every line to ensure the case isn't overturned on grounds of ineffective(?) council. Also, I think a lot of people would say "Who wouldn't want to have sex with a movie star?" If someone was voted People Magazine's sexiest man they could probably rape every woman they meet and never be convicted. JMO

I think victims have three choices:

1. Go to trial with an almost nil chance of winning and having your sex life paraded in front the country.
2. Do nothing and let the pig get away with it.
3. Take money from an out of court settlement that makes you look like a gold digger, but also calls in to question why the celebrity paid out.

Number three is the best answer in my book. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

May I ask why you think she is the she is the most credible witness so far?



I think you meant to say you are not familiar with Janice but you do know her name.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you saying she is more credible because she is famous?



I agree with you from what I know about her, which makes me suspicious of this claim. I expect some eager beaver journalist to present evidence, based on for example public records of where she and/or Cosby were on certain dates, that prove her story is concocted, in 3...2...1...

If it is, may she burn in hell first for false witness. And second because her bearing false witness will then lead to many concluding that all the other accusers are lying too. Which I don't believe.



Snipped for focus

Not necessarily, due to rape shield laws. Thank goodness.

I thought JD had the least to gain by making an accusation. However, after reading the posted articles about her and thinking about it. She may gain a lot of attention that she probably craves. Going on celebrity rehab is just a desperate attempt to get attention. JMO

In regards to the second comment, I think rape shield laws were passed well after a lot of these women claim to have been raped.

 

[Steely Dan]

Unfortunately, defense attorneys have to cross every line to ensure the case isn't overturned on grounds of ineffective(?) council. Also, I think a lot of people would say "Who wouldn't want to have sex with a movie star?" If someone was voted People Magazine's sexiest man they could probably rape every woman they meet and never be convicted. JMO

I think victims have three choices:

1. Go to trial with an almost nil chance of winning and having your sex life paraded in front the country.
2. Do nothing and let the pig get away with it.
3. Take money from an out of court settlement that makes you look like a gold digger, but also calls in to question why the celebrity paid out.

Number three is the best answer in my book. JMO

Just one more thing. To be taken seriously the person who gets the shut up money should publicly donate it all to rape crisis centers. To me that would cinch the accused's guilt. It would show the victim wasn't in it for the money at all. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

I thought JD had the least to gain by making an accusation. However, after reading the posted articles about her and thinking about it. She may gain a lot of attention that she probably craves. Going on celebrity rehab is just a desperate attempt to get attention. JMO

In regards to the second comment, I think rape shield laws were passed well after a lot of these women claim to have been raped.

BBM

I sit corrected. Most rape shield laws were passed in the late seventies and early eighties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

However, that doesn't keep the media from printing stories from former boyfriends or other "friends" who may sell a story to the tabloids. JMO

Sorry for all the back and forth in my posts, but I'm gonna plead temporary idiocy due to being sick. :angel:

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Just one more thing. To be taken seriously the person who gets the shut up money should publicly donate it all to rape crisis centers. To me that would cinch the accused's guilt. It would show the victim wasn't in it for the money at all. JMO

I couldn't disagree more.

Would you advocate that medical malpractice victims who win their lawsuits donate their settlements to aid anyone other than themselves, so as to prove that they weren't in it for the money?