Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #1

[Donjeta]

Not the person who posted this, but since this is a civil suit, I think anything already paid would be subtracted from anything awarded. Civil suits aren't really about punishment, although there can be punitive damages. It's about compensation. It can't be purchased in advance - settlements don't usually apply to future conduct.

There is no civil suit currently active, is there? Andrea Constand settled hers several years ago and no others have been filed since although Louise Moritz (iirc) was talking about she'd like to see a class action lawsuit.

From the accounts we have heard it seems to me that giving the women money was sometimes a form of grooming the future victims and sometimes an act of contempt (when he left money after the rape)

 

[Truthy]

Nope, not obvious! Michael Jackson was taken to court and still managed to beat the charges, even though it was painfully obvious to everyone else in the world, but his star-struck jury that he was a child molester.

Good point, and in the MJ case the kids and families were vilified as wanting to exploit MJ, but from where I sit, they were just as starstruck (and manipulated) as the jury was.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Bill Cosby offers to reimburse tickets for his New York stand up show after University of Massachusetts, Netflix and NBC all cut ties with 77-year-old comedian

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ties-77-year-old-comedian.html#ixzz3KULX4h5d

 

[lawstudent]

There is no civil suit currently active, is there? Andrea Constand settled hers several years ago and no others have been filed since although Louise Moritz (iirc) was talking about she'd like to see a class action lawsuit.

From the accounts we have heard it seems to me that giving the women money was sometimes a form of grooming the future victims and sometimes an act of contempt (when he left money after the rape)

I agree about money left beforehand - but people are talking about the women getting money now and getting compensated for Cosby's actions - I assume they mean via a civil suit. How else would this happen? I'm only talking about the people who are asking why money would help now or saying Cosby should be held responsible civilly, since rape prosecution seems unlikely. I know there is not currently a suit. The quote you responded to seemed to be talking about the prior settlements.

 

[lawstudent]

Good point, and in the MJ case the kids and families were vilified as wanting to exploit MJ, but from where I sit, they were just as starstruck (and manipulated) as the jury was.

The two families that we know a lot about seemed pretty exploitive - that's kind of the issue, and I think a big reason the jury doubted the second one's story. The parents of the alleged victims and many of the witnesses had engaged in questionable behavior, and people equate not having credibility with not telling the truth. Someone who has been discredited in the past might tell the truth now, but it's going to be tough to meet a criminal standard because those doubts exist. The parents could have been manipulated and also been exploiting the situation - a lot of people get away with exploitation because everyone they hang around with is also exploitive. I don't think a lot of people realize the details of how messed up the parents were in those cases - but of course that has no impact on whether or not the kids were victimized or not. That sort of judgment impairs a lot of sexual assault cases involving both children and adults. They didn't act how people expected a victim to act, and the burden is on the prosecution to explain why. Sexual predators target victims who may not be believed or protected properly.

 

[Donjeta]

Bill Cosby and only Bill Cosby can save Bill Cosby: Phillip Morris

Although Cosby cannot survive without enduring deep wounds, the homepage of his website remains defiantly optimistic:

“Laughter Is Universal – Bill Cosby – Far From Finished,” declared a highlighted message Friday afternoon.

Perhaps.

http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/11/bill_cosby_and_only_bill_cosby.html

Sexual-assault accusations against Bill Cosby have simmered for years. And then -- spurred in part by a comedy act-- the water boiled.

The media is self-flagellating. Last week, the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote of his reported essay about Cosby, published in 2008, after multiple sexual-assault accusations had already been made: "The subject was morality -- and yet one of the biggest accusations of immorality was left for a few sentences, was rendered invisible. ... The lack of pursuit puts me in league with people who either looked away, or did not look hard enough."

The New York Times's David Carr, in "Calling Out Bill Cosby's Media Enablers, Including Myself," highlighted a Q-and-A he did with Cosby in 2011 for the United Airlines in-flight magazine. "We all have our excuses," Carr wrote. "But in ignoring these claims, we let down the women who were brave enough to speak out publicly against a powerful entertainer."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rginia-fraternity--20141128-story.html#page=1

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/centre-in-the-square-has-no-plans-to-cancel-bill-cosby-show-1.2116927

Cosby is slated to hit Kitchener on Jan. 7, and Centre in the Square officials say they have no reason to call off the show – and plenty of reason not to.
“This is a rental show and CITS is contractually obligated to move forward with the show unless it is cancelled by the external promoter,” a CITS spokesperson posted on the venue’s website Monday.

Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/centre-...ancel-bill-cosby-show-1.2116927#ixzz3KUSyusZY

 

[gitana1]

I think that even dismissing someone like J Dickinson is really unfortunate because it's always easy to dismiss the eccentric party girl. Well, prostitutes can be raped and women of every age, race and personality; just because J Dickinson is part of Hollywood culture doesn't make it less likely. As a matter of fact, predators may choose carefully a "broken bird" because it makes the perpetrator that much more believable and makes it easier to claim "well she's crazy"...

For example, one of my close friends was raped by another student at our high school. She was an outspoken girl, sometimes a drama queen, and many of her friends stopped being her friend because she spoke out. It got pretty heated at school and people tried to silence her. Some kids didn't want to deal with it and the perpetrator kept lying saying she was just crazy. A few of us believed her and were really upset that nothing happened to the student and it was downplayed. Well, eventually the perpetrator admitted that he raped her after he wasn't going to get in trouble. Initially they thought she was being "dramatic". The point is, is it's not about personalities, it's about facts. To me, it does women a disservice to take their claims less seriously because they are in limelight or in a non-traditional female profession.

ETA It's just appalling that Cosby "spanish fly" comedy bit was allowed and that people actually found it funny. Sometimes the misogyny is too much. BC actually discussed with L.King awhile ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/cosby-uproar-...lYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ0M18x

If BC can joke about it, he probably confided in his friends or acquaintances what he was doing (if allegations are true). If so, I bet there are male friends of his that are fully aware of his crimes, and hope they speak out if that's the case.

I don't dismiss Dickinson because she's an "eccentric party girl" (your words) or a prostitute or a "broken bird". Those aren't my words. I would dismiss her because she has shown that she is obsessed with getting attention for herself. Can such a person be raped? Yes. However there are consequences to wanting attention. It's like the boy who cried Wolf.

 

[Trino]

I agree about money left beforehand - but people are talking about the women getting money now and getting compensated for Cosby's actions - I assume they mean via a civil suit. How else would this happen? I'm only talking about the people who are asking why money would help now or saying Cosby should be held responsible civilly, since rape prosecution seems unlikely. I know there is not currently a suit. The quote you responded to seemed to be talking about the prior settlements.

Class Action Suit:
http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/24/bill-cosby-accuser-class-action-lawsuit-rape-louisa-moritz/

 

[Nova]

the self righteous was directed at the very idea someone not go along with the group think on this thread...if he raped all the women claimed he should be criminally prosecuted ..the reason he wasn't is obvious. [modsnip]

By "obvious", I assume you mean it's obvious that victims and prosecutors alike are reluctant to take on the legal "dream team" Cosby could and would assemble with his vast wealth. As I'm sure you know, victims who have been drugged during a rape make poor witnesses because their memories are impaired--which isn't to say they don't know they were raped.

 

[gitana1]

He was supposed to get the art back all along anyway, Smithsonian is just borrowing them for the duration of the exhibition.

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/dc/2014/11/24/bruce-leshan-copy/70059482/



In the meantime, Donna Motsinger says she wants nothing from Cosby:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Cosby-drugging-raping-1971.html#ixzz3KIo6KSY2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The words of Motsinger are powerful. And very credible. It's hard to understand how one could dismiss them at this stage of the game, beloved celebrity or not.

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.

No. That's not the meaning of innocent until proven guilty. That concept applies to the legal system. It has to do with how our legal system operates. It has to do with who has the burden of proof in a criminal case. "Innocent until proven guilty", is one of two very misunderstood concepts. The other one is "freedom of speech."

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to the court of public opinion. Like the concept of freedom of speech it applies to government conduct, really, not the conduct of private citizens nor, the media, to a large degree.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Class Action Suit:
http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/24/bill-cosby-accuser-class-action-lawsuit-rape-louisa-moritz/

Nowhere in that article does it say that a suit has actually been filed. So lawstudent was correct in stating "there is not currently a suit."

 

[BirdycatNY]

I don't dismiss Dickinson because she's an "eccentric party girl" (your words) or a prostitute or a "broken bird". Those aren't my words. I would dismiss her because she has shown that she is obsessed with getting attention for herself. Can such a person be raped? Yes. However there are consequences to wanting attention. It's like the boy who cried Wolf.

I didn't mean you thought that, I have no idea what you think, but there are plenty of doubters of JD for those reasons previously mentioned imo. And of course it happens that there are women/men that want the attention and make up stories, but I don't think JDickinson is one of them. Does she have a pattern of making up rape stories on tv or false statements in court just because she may be an attention-seeking celebrity, or that is the kind of attention that she would want? I don't think so but I'll admit I don't know her (assuming all allegations true). It seems to me more likely that if someone wants the fame and fortune or the attention in Hollywood that one would not go about it falsely accusing someone of rape or discuss the unsavory aspects of Hollywood. I don't think this will further anyone's career, it's more likely they'll be damaged by it. I don't think how people are portrayed on tv etc is who they are in real life. But everyone is entitled to their opinions. I haven't dismissed any of the alleged victims yet unless shown otherwise. JMO

 

[Trino]

The words of Motsinger are powerful. And very credible. It's hard to understand how one could dismiss them at this stage of the game, beloved celebrity or not.



No. That's not the meaning of innocent until proven guilty. That concept applies to the legal system. It has to do with how our legal system operates. It has to do with who has the burden of proof in a criminal case. "Innocent until proven guilty", is one of two very misunderstood concepts. The other one is "freedom of speech."

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to the court of public opinion. Like the concept of freedom of speech it applies to government conduct, really, not the conduct of private citizens nor, the media, to a large degree.

I'm just stating that Cosby is being publicly crucified w/o absolute legal proof or judgment. As to Motsinger, if her purpose was to ruin Cosby's reputation, that's done. Perhaps, too, it enables her to feel better that the accusations have come out. Do you think she would not join a class action suit? Would she refuse monetary compensation? Time will tell.

 

[Donjeta]

It seems to me that the women are in a damned if they do damned if they don't situation.

If they sue they're probably lying because they want money. If they don't sue they're denying Cosby his day in court, probably because they're lying.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm just stating that Cosby is being publicly crucified w/o absolute legal proof or judgment. As to Motsinger, if her purpose was to ruin Cosby's reputation, that's done. Perhaps, too, it enables her to feel better that the accusations have come out. Do you think she would not join a class action suit? Would she refuse monetary compensation? Time will tell.

Assuming Motsinger's claims are false, what reason would she possibly have to try to ruin Cosby's reputation in the first place? And wait 43 years to do so?

ETA, of course, she didn't wait 43 years as she was part of the 2005 lawsuit.

 

[lawstudent]

Janice Dickinson is a perfect example of someone who could be telling the truth but who has very little credibility with a lot of people due to her past. That's what makes these cases tough. And while flurries of false accusations definitely happen, they usually have some common tie/instigation (Salem Witch Trials, McCarthy, the satanic cult prosecutions). These allegations are all over the place, but it isn't the type of situation where a bunch of random crazy people become convinced that something happened after reading about an alleged conspiracy. The only motive established so far would be money, but I don't think a bunch of unconnected people seek money from celebs based on the same allegation as often as some people think. Most scandals I can think of that are alleged to have been a money grab consist of a few people the accused knew pretty well - and there appeared to be personal disputes in addition to money as possible goals. The closest I can think of was Tiger Woods, but that wasn't criminal and at least some of them were truthful, but it was very clear their motive was money and fame and some of them were joining together in that pursuit.

ETA: Main point is that there are a lot of easier ways to get money than making up allegations and taking it to the public through the legal system - people who choose that avenue are especially cold and patient. Plus he has very little incentive now to pay since the damage has been done. It's way more common to just sell a BS story to the press for immediate cash, carefully crafted to avoid litigation.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

It seems to me that the women are in a damned if they do damned if they don't situation.

If they sue they're probably lying because they want money. If they don't sue they're denying Cosby his day in court, probably because they're lying.

And all the while, Bill Cosby, who admitted under oath trying to deceive the public, gets a pass.


"The Enquirer in 2005 withheld her story and instead published Cosby's account, in which he said, 'Sometimes you try to help people and it backfires on you and then they try to take advantage of you.'

In the legal deposition, taken at a Philadelphia hotel, Constand's lawyer asked Cosby if he tried in the Enquirer article 'to make the public believe that Andrea was not telling the truth?'

'Yes,' Cosby replied."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-testimony-describes-accusers-spiked-story/

 

[gitana1]

the self righteous was directed at the very idea someone not go along with the group think on this thread...if he raped all the women claimed he should be criminally prosecuted ..the reason he wasn't is obvious. [modsnip]

Hi Charlie. I know you know most of us well enough by now to know that most of us form our opinions based on other than simply following the herd.

One thing I can say that is common about our diverse group of websleuthers is that few of us are followers.

so, if more than one person accuses anyone of anything it should be accepted at face value and that person shouldn't have to answer in the legal system, just the press?

I'm not sure what you're asking. With respect, it doesn't make sense. The volume of women coming forward doesn't have anything to do with a person not having to participate in the legal system. Statutes of limitations, how rape allegations are prosecuted and what can be accomplished civilly, is what decides that.

I'm not sure why you think public allegations rule out legal action or that lack of legal action would rule out public allegations or that multiple accusers means there can be no legal action.

For me, it is not the volume of accusers on their own that makes the allegations credible. It is what they are saying, how they are saying it, the context of their allegations, and who they are. Also, the similarities in experience, while not exact, have the ring of truth.
The fact that so many of these women came forward years ago as witnesses to the civil suit also supports their credibility. IMO.

What do the accusers want from Cosby in 2014?
1. To ruin his reputation? DONE
2. Class action civil suit. This is money. If they file, they want money.

Do we know every one of these women is being truthful?

No. We don't know that every one is being truthful. But there is nothing that suggests they are lying. Truth kills evil. There is more to coming forward than money.

I think they want him to know that despite his celebrity and power, he can't get away with this. Everyone will know what he is and the mask will be torn away. For victims of crimes, being heard is often quite important.

 

[nrdsb4]

if they were as you say knocked unconscious, how is it known what happened?

Seriously? Ok, I'll be blunt.

When a woman desires sex with her partner, she becomes aroused and lubricating secretions are generated, easing penetration. When a woman is not willfully involved with the sexual act, her vagina is relatively dry, and sexual intercourse in this state can be painful and physically traumatic. The soreness would very likely be noticeable the next day. Any woman who is sexually active knows how she feels inside after the act. I have NO DOUBT that any woman who has been raped knows that she has not just fallen asleep. She knows she has been penetrated.

 

[gitana1]

I'm just stating that Cosby is being publicly crucified w/o absolute legal proof or judgment. As to Motsinger, if her purpose was to ruin Cosby's reputation, that's done. Perhaps, too, it enables her to feel better that the accusations have come out. Do you think she would not join a class action suit? Would she refuse monetary compensation? Time will tell.

I think he's being accused. Not crucified. And many people believe those allegations and are responding accordingly by not supporting him or his art. I have zero problem with that. Casey Anthony had her day in court. Should she be warmly embraced by society? Should we support whatever endeavor she chooses? Maybe be allowed to adopt as she has expressed interest in? Open a daycare center?

Or are we allowed to protest, boycott, voice our opinions a to her character and culpability, even though she was found not guilty?

I believe my common sense skills, use of logic and good ol' fashioned b.s. detector are pretty good. Kind of have to be in my profession or you get taken and don't tend to have a great success rate. The claims of these women ring true to me. They seem quite credible. And so I am quite comfortable with how public opinion is turning on Mr. Cosby.

And if he's innocent? Well, there is an easy remedy for what has befallen him: Defamation suits. Of course, truth is an absolute defense to such a lawsuit.

Janice Dickinson is a perfect example of someone who could be telling the truth but who has very little credibility with a lot of people due to her past. That's what makes these cases tough. And while flurries of false accusations definitely happen, they usually have some common tie/instigation (Salem Witch Trials, McCarthy, the satanic cult prosecutions). These allegations are all over the place, but it isn't the type of situation where a bunch of random crazy people become convinced that something happened after reading about an alleged conspiracy. The only motive established so far would be money, but I don't think a bunch of unconnected people seek money from celebs based on the same allegation as often as some people think. Most scandals I can think of that are alleged to have been a money grab consist of a few people the accused knew pretty well - and there appeared to be personal disputes in addition to money as possible goals. The closest I can think of was Tiger Woods, but that wasn't criminal and at least some of them were truthful, but it was very clear their motive was money and fame and some of them were joining together in that pursuit.

ETA: Main point is that there are a lot of easier ways to get money than making up allegations and taking it to the public through the legal system - people who choose that avenue are especially cold and patient. Plus he has very little incentive now to pay since the damage has been done. It's way more common to just sell a BS story to the press for immediate cash, carefully crafted to avoid litigation.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. And I actually think it is likely Dickinson is telling the truth. However, as I stated before, if she was the only one making the accusation, I'd be more than skeptical. But she's not the only one. So it is difficult to dismiss her allegations.