Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #1

[CuriousPortlander]

UMass Amherst cuts ties with Bill Cosby amid rape allegations
11/27/14 09:43 AM—Updated 11/27/14 02:17 PM


Comedian Bill Cosby was once an ideal famous face to be associated with a college or university. Now, amid a slew of allegations that he drugged and raped numerous women over several decades, the University of Massachusetts Amherst has become the latest institution to cut ties with the legendary performer.

...On Thursday, UMass confirmed that Cosby had agreed to end his relationship with the school.

...“At a time when the state is focused on prevention and response to sexual assaults on campus, allowing Mr. Cosby to continue to represent our state university sends the exact wrong message,” Coakley wrote on Wednesday in a letter to the college.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/umass-amherst-cuts-ties-bill-cosby-amid-rape-allegations

 

[CuriousPortlander]

Berklee College Of Music Removes Bill Cosby’s Name From Scholarship
By WBUR Newsroom November 26, 2014 Updated November 26, 10:48 am

BOSTON — Berklee College of Music is distancing itself from comedian Bill Cosby, who has come under sharp scrutiny in recent weeks over more than a dozen accusations of sex assault.

Berklee has removed his name from an online scholarship it awards.

But, according to The Boston Globe, the University of Massachusetts Amherst is not cutting ties with Cosby, who is a UMass graduate. He remains an honorary co-chairman of the school’s fundraising campaign.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/11/26/berklee-bill-cosby

 

[Trino]

Okay, they came forward and eased their mind(s), feel better now that it's all out. Is that all they want? If that were so, I would feel it was okay.

By the way, do they have exact dates? If they do, it would be interesting to compare where Cosby was during those dates.

 

[lawstudent]

It's important that women know to stay away from him, although that would have been much more valuable a long time ago. Given all the circumstances, I can understand why people would be reluctant to speak up at that time. But the media really blew it - they were the ones who had the power to make or break that story; more power than the women. The media was a lot more controlled than today.

 

[margarita25]

What is the statute of limitations for rape in the US? What about 'administering a noxious substance'? TIA

(Slightly O/T, I remember in Heather Graham's case, the police chief started one of the press conferences with "Thank goodness there is no statute of limitations for rape in the state of Virginia"...or something very similar).

 

[La Louve]

Quote:

He was supposed to get the art back all along anyway, Smithsonian is just borrowing them for the duration of the exhibition.
"But Cosby loaned the art, and the exhibit was built around his personality and fame. There are quotes from him on the walls, and he appeared at the museum to tout it."
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/loca...copy/70059482/

"In its new statement, the museum says "Exhibiting this important collection does not imply any position on the serious allegations that have been made against Cosby."

________________
IMO when the Smithsonian made the exhibit as much about the collector as the collection, they indeed did take a position regarding the allegations.

And let's not forget, the Smithsonian is funded primarily by US tax dollars.

Shame on you, Smithsonian.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Okay, they came forward and eased their mind(s), feel better now that it's all out. Is that all they want? If that were so, I would feel it was okay.

By the way, do they have exact dates? If they do, it would be interesting to compare where Cosby was during those dates.

Would you mind clarifying your opinion regarding the situation? If you have stated it already I missed it.

Do you think all of these accusers are lying?

If not, do you think they should have continued to remain silent?

I do not mean to put words in your mouth but I'm having a hard time understanding what your perspective is, and I'd like to.

 

[Charlie09]

Would you mind clarifying your opinion regarding the situation? If you have stated it already I missed it.

Do you think all of these accusers are lying?

If not, do you think they should have continued to remain silent?

I do not mean to put words in your mouth but I'm having a hard time understanding what your perspective is, and I'd like to.

does it matter if even one is not telling the truth?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

It's important that women know to stay away from him, although that would have been much more valuable a long time ago. Given all the circumstances, I can understand why people would be reluctant to speak up at that time. But the media really blew it - they were the ones who had the power to make or break that story; more power than the women. The media was a lot more controlled than today.

I agree only up to a certain point. One news report that I linked, I think, or maybe someone else did, way up thread, pointed out that four of these women's stories appeared in mainstream media sources such as People and Newsweek. Yet the public shrugged and turned its attention to the next hot topic.

I vaguely remember the publicity around Autumn Jackson's paternity claim and I may or may not vaguely remember the Andrea Constand lawsuit at the time. I was much younger and more naive then so I feel quite certain that I probably dismissed both as extortion attempts with no real grounds beneath them.

Because it was Bill Cosby, of course, and he simply couldn't have done such a thing.

I'm older and wiser now.

But my point is, while there were media outlets that hushed up the story, there were others that covered the accusations timely.

And people like me paid no attention so the stories faded away until now.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

does it matter if even one is not telling the truth?

What is "it"? Does what matter?

I'm confused.

 

[Charlie09]

What is "it"? Does what matter?

I'm confused.

Why are you confused? It was an easy question...does it matter if there is untruth with accusers?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm confused because I didn't understand what you were asking. I still don't.

So I'll give my best shot at answering the question I think you were asking.

If even one accuser is lying, yes it does matter for that one accuser's case, but one lying accuser does not ipso facto mean all the other accusers are lying as well.

 

[Charlie09]

I'm confused because I didn't understand what you were asking. I still don't.

So I'll give my best shot at answering the question I think you were asking.

If even one accuser is lying, yes it does matter for that one accuser's case, but one lying accuser does not ipso facto mean all the other accusers are lying as well.

I see this as a dangerous way to to bring attention to an issue. The legal system should be the venue, not whispers and partial memories. If even one person is lying they should be called out as publicly as he is...it's as much as a disservice to victims of sex abuse as abusers. I think it should matter if the accuser's stories be verified.



Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Snoods]

Okay, they came forward and eased their mind(s), feel better now that it's all out. Is that all they want? If that were so, I would feel it was okay.

By the way, do they have exact dates? If they do, it would be interesting to compare where Cosby was during those dates.

BBM Yes! This is what I don't understand. His posse could easily pin these women down to dates or time periods in an attempt to discredit them, but that's not happening. He should be suing them for slander/libel so fast their heads spin off their bodies. And not necessarily for money (although a few of the women are wealthy) but to clear his name. But he's not.

Why would he passively sit by and watch his career and name tank? He has millions, why isn't he fighting this? It's obviously not going away, yet still he remains silent.

 

[Snoods]

Thank you Donjeta and Izzy for posting the articles and links, and to everyone for posting about this. I thought about this situation as I spent hours on I95 in a virtual parking lot of cars trying to beat the Nor'Easter on Tuesday.

I am puzzled by certain actions by BC. He was a powerful man, with fame and fortune, and he was appealing. We know him best through our tv screens as witty and humorous and someone who gave back. I am guilty of wanting him to be as he appeared on tv, even when I know that is unrealistic. The Cosby Show, Jello commercials, and Kids Say the Darndest Things were enjoyable to watch and seemed to appeal to all sectors of our country.

What I don't understand is the drugging part. Why did he feel the need to drug these women to take advantage of them sexually? I would imagine many women would be flattered by his attention. So why the force? Did he think by drugging these women, they wouldn't remember? And why? Why did he feel the need to do this? Power? Used to taking what he wanted? I just don't get it on his part. JMV

BBM Let's face it, Bill Cosby is a superstar and there's no shortage of women willing to have sex with superstars. He easily could have found any number of women eager to sleep with him without drugging them. So why would he choose to drug them? Because that's what gets him off. It's his fetish, his thing. If he did this (and I believe he did) I think this is why.

Andrew Luster, heir to Max Factor, is another example of someone who had his pick of women but got off on drugging his victims and filmed himself raping their unconscious bodies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...or-heir-drugged-filmed-and-raped-victims.html

 

[CuriousPortlander]

BBM Let's face it, Bill Cosby is a superstar and there's no shortage of women willing to have sex with superstars. He easily could have found any number of women eager to sleep with him without drugging them. So why would he chose to drug them? Because that's what gets him off. It's his fetish, his thing. If he did this (and I believe he did) I think this is why.

Andrew Luster, heir to Max Factor, is another example of someone who had his pick of women but got off on drugging his victims and filmed himself raping their unconscious bodies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...or-heir-drugged-filmed-and-raped-victims.html

I've been thinking about this. I can think of 4 objectives/benefits for drugging:

- fetish, as you said; sexual gratification
- control/power; psychological ego boost
- no resistance from the victim; convenience/ease/power
- hopeful that victim would have no memory of what happened; self-preservation

If he did this, and I'm now starting to believe he did, he not only got his way with these women, but he had an almost built-in alibi to boot, counting on them not to remember or being easily discredited. Plus, knowing he had enough money and celebrity status to buy off anyone that says otherwise. Pretty disgusting all the way around, IF it's true.

 

[CuriousPortlander]

BBM Yes! This is what I don't understand. His posse could easily pin these women down to dates or time periods in an attempt to discredit them, but that's not happening. He should be suing them for slander/libel so fast their heads spin off their bodies. And not necessarily for money (although a few of the women are wealthy) but to clear his name. But he's not.

Why would he passively sit by and watch his career and name tank? He has millions, why isn't he fighting this? It's obviously not going away, yet still he remains silent.

This is what does it for me, too. His smugness when he states he doesn't have to answer to allegations just makes me think he thinks he can just ignore this until it just goes away again. Only I don't think it's going to go away this time. Not in this day and age, with all the attention this is getting. I think he's in for a rude awakening; maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[lawstudent]

I agree only up to a certain point. One news report that I linked, I think, or maybe someone else did, way up thread, pointed out that four of these women's stories appeared in mainstream media sources such as People and Newsweek. Yet the public shrugged and turned its attention to the next hot topic.

I vaguely remember the publicity around Autumn Jackson's paternity claim and I may or may not vaguely remember the Andrea Constand lawsuit at the time. I was much younger and more naive then so I feel quite certain that I probably dismissed both as extortion attempts with no real grounds beneath them.

Because it was Bill Cosby, of course, and he simply couldn't have done such a thing.

I'm older and wiser now.

But my point is, while there were media outlets that hushed up the story, there were others that covered the accusations timely.

And people like me paid no attention so the stories faded away until now.

Yes, those are good points. The culture is so different now that things like this become 24/7 news and so prevalent that it is inescapable. At the time, they could cover it, but not feel a need to mention the incident in every later story as an addendum to his name. I don't necessarily think today's society is an improvement in that regard in terms of the sensationalism, but it is better than selective silence. It still amazes me how some media figures get passes on things and others get crucified.

I agree Cosby thinks it will go away and it won't. But I also don't think that makes a real difference to him - he isn't somebody who is going to grovel and talk about it. He'll probably just withdraw and change his focus. He doesn't seem easily rattled and I think that's how he can compartmentalize so well - he does what he wants and isn't too sensitive to others' opinions.

It is really hard to sue someone for slander so that doesn't surprise me. Whether he did it or not, I think remaining quiet is the best strategy for him. Yeah, it looks bad, but I don't think he could say anything to correct it. He doesn't spend much time running to the tabloids and has remained above all that, so why not keep doing it now? It's in line with his personality IMO, and not as 'damning' as it would be for someone who was formerly always talking to the press about every detail of their personal lives. He should just stay home be quiet for a while.

 

[Trino]

Would you mind clarifying your opinion regarding the situation? If you have stated it already I missed it.

Do you think all of these accusers are lying?

If not, do you think they should have continued to remain silent?

I do not mean to put words in your mouth but I'm having a hard time understanding what your perspective is, and I'd like to.

Are they lying? In the court of public opinion they are not. However, public opinion has crucified him. I just think, legally, he deserves his say. Isn't that what innocent until proven guilty means? He has not been found guilty by any court.

Legally, today, his attorneys, going back to 1969, 1970's, 1980's, would have field day. Just a few questions: When did the rape occur? What time? Were there witnesses? Did you go for a medical evaluation? Did you tell anyone? Why were you alone with BC? Did you report this to authorities?

What will be the outcome? The discussion will eventually die down, especially if there's a civil case or if he settles out of court. Cosby is very financially stable. Check out Lance Armstrong's re-payments and financial stability. He's still worth $$$. The same will be true for Cosby.

 

[Slebby]

I see this as a dangerous way to to bring attention to an issue. The legal system should be the venue, not whispers and partial memories. If even one person is lying they should be called out as publicly as he is...it's as much as a disservice to victims of sex abuse as abusers. I think it should matter if the accuser's stories be verified.



Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

They are not whispers, they are statements describing their experiences. Where has there been whispering?

Partial memories - the memories seem pretty good, and where they're not can be attributed to the fact HE DRUGGED THEM.

Bringing it into the legal system is done in order to incarcerate. BC will not be incarcerated, so imo, his punishment of losing a few $$ compared to his mass of wealth, and damage to his reputation is very small and something he has brought on himself by his own actions.

The nature of the rape experience - the shame involved, the fear of repercussions for accusing a powerful man, the fear of being disbelieved (which is precisely what happened for those who did tell others) - means that the majority of rapes go unreported and that it can take years to report. The legal system falls far short of being able to prosecute under these circumstances.

As for the stories being verified, by the time 19 women come forward with similar stories of sexual assaults by BC, that seems like a lot of verification to me.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk