Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #1

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't know if this is okay or not as a link.. So if it needs to be edited I understand..

But this is what I am talking about. We have launched into this society where the women now is never lying and we know that is just factually not true. We can not just assume someone is telling the truth about something so despicable. The only way to protect the real victims is to make sure that all really are victims.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It seems to me that you're making it impossible for anyone to have been raped 40 or so years ago.

I mean, you won't believe it without proof but what kind of proof would you accept?

What kind of proof are you expecting to get?

There were no DNA tests even available in the 60's- 70s. If there's semen it would have told people that there was sex but not if it was consensual or not. Tox screens were somewhat less developed as well, and if no tests were taken right away it would be too late now. Rape doesn't necessarily leave visible bruises and injuries, particularly if the victim is unconscious. For the most part there probably aren't too many eyewitnesses to rape. If there is filmed evidence it's probably with the rapist and not easily available to the victims.

So there will in all likelihood be no proof coming up, beyond the testimony of the people recounting what happened.

This is not true just in this case where it's famous people involved, but every case. So are we to conclude that because there is no proof, (and you won't believe anything without proof), that very very very few people ever got raped in the 1960s.?

And if it happened 40 years ago as sad as that may be if it is true you have lost your chance to get real justice. Because anyone can say they were raped in the 60' 70's and ruin someone.. true or not.

What about the women who have consensual sex and leave dna and then claim rape?? That happens too.
To me the only way to protect all the real victims. The ones that really are truly victims is to make sure the ones who aren't don't get away with lying about it.

 

[Donjeta]

And if it happened 40 years ago as sad as that may be if it is true you have lost your chance to get real justice. Because anyone can say they were raped in the 60' 70's and ruin someone.. true or not.

What about the women who have consensual sex and leave dna and then claim rape?? That happens too.
To me the only way to protect all the real victims. The ones that really are truly victims is to make sure the ones who aren't don't get away with lying about it.

That doesn't work because there are inevitably some real victims who can't prove it to your satisfaction and when you brand them as liars and not truly victims you're not protecting them, you're just victimising them a little more

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And victims of rape specifically have always been blamed for their rape in ways other victims do not get blamed.

If a man is mugged, no one says "what were you doing out at 2 am in that part of town?" Or has his money and jewelry stolen, no one says "well what were you wearing? Were you nicely dressed?" Or "How do we know you were robbed at knifepoint? How much did you have to drink?"

If someone's car is stolen, no one says "what do you expect, driving such a nice car? You might as well have posted a sign that says 'steal me'"

No, it is victims of rape that are almost consistently blamed and disbelieved.

Imo



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And even in cases where someone was burglarized through an unlocked door or window, no one suggests they bear any personal responsibility for being victimized.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I mean, you won't believe it without proof but what kind of proof would you accept?

Snipped for focus.

Scarlett has been asked this question many times. She refuses to answer it directly. Yet keeps stating that she won't believe the allegations without proof.

It's a Catch-22 in a discussion-killing kind of way.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Snipped for focus.

Scarlett has been asked this question many times. She refuses to answer it directly. Yet keeps stating that she won't believe the allegations without proof.

It's a Catch-22 in a discussion-killing kind of way.

I think it is self explanatory. Proof. Evidence of a crime. DNA. Something that proves the claim. There is a reason there is a statue of limitations on some crimes. What happens now is that someone can just keep accusing and instead of going through the proper channels, they just go to the press. I think after this much time, if you want to come out and accuse you need proof of the events in question.

 

[Trident]

We must agree to disagree. Even if you get someone to go into a private place with you, even if you think they want to use you for career advancement, even if you're convinced that they're willing to sleep their way to the top, even if they get high with the pills you offered.

Even so, you have no licence to rape them.

I don't care if it's hookers in a brothel straight out from a full day's work, giving anyone a pill to knock them out and then commit sexual acts on their unconscious frame is a crime.

Some of them actually said that they had been willing to have consensual sex with him.

Doesn't mean he had the right to have unconsensual sex with them while she was unconscious.

Agree to disagree is right. I believe in personal responsibility, obviously you give the poor victim an out. Maybe that's what is wrong with this country today?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I think it is self explanatory. Proof. Evidence of a crime. DNA. Something that proves the claim. There is a reason there is a statue of limitations on some crimes. What happens now is that someone can just keep accusing and instead of going through the proper channels, they just go to the press. I think after this much time, if you want to come out and accuse you need proof of the events in question.

DNA proves sexual contact, which the rapist can claim was consensual. Not proof.

What else?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

DNA proves sexual contact, which the rapist can claim was consensual. Not proof.

What else?

Exactly. So Tell me what proves that this is true? What proves the allegations?? Just their word?? Is that all it takes?

Any rapist can claim it was consensual but men get convicted of rape all the time. So there is proof that convinces the jury and most likely that includes physical evidence. There has to be more than just because someone says so. There has to be. We don't convict people on rumor or innuendo. They have a right to face their accusers and see the evidence against them.

 

[Donjeta]

Agree to disagree is right. I believe in personal responsibility, obviously you give the poor victim an out. Maybe that's what is wrong with this country today?

I believe in personal responsibility too, that's why I'm not willing to give the poor rapists an out by blaming it all on the victims.

You are not forced to rape anyone even if they're being stupid and high and came into a dark room with you.

 

[Donjeta]

Exactly. So Tell me what proves that this is true? What proves the allegations?? Just their word?? Is that all it takes?

Any rapist can claim it was consensual but men get convicted of rape all the time. So there is proof that convinces the jury and most likely that includes physical evidence. There has to be more than just because someone says so. There has to be. We don't convict people on rumor or innuendo. They have a right to face their accusers and see the evidence against them.

The courts have their standard of evidence.
However, it does not mean that everyone who can't prove what they say is lying.

 

[Trident]

Cosby doesn't need an "out", because there is no PROOF he is a rapist.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The courts have their standard of evidence.
However, it does not mean that everyone who can't prove what they say is lying.

IT means that we should not assume they are telling the truth because it is not a court of law.. Only twitter and facebook. We have become a nation that convicts people without proof. It is not what this country was built on. IT is not what it should stand for.

 

[Donjeta]

I think it is self explanatory. Proof. Evidence of a crime. DNA. Something that proves the claim. There is a reason there is a statue of limitations on some crimes. What happens now is that someone can just keep accusing and instead of going through the proper channels, they just go to the press. I think after this much time, if you want to come out and accuse you need proof of the events in question.

So let's say the rapist used a condom and left no DNA. Not a crime?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am not soft on rapist.. What I think should be done to them can't posted here however it has to be proven they are one.

 

[Donjeta]

IT means that we should not assume they are telling the truth because it is not a court of law.. Only twitter and facebook. We have become a nation that convicts people without proof. It is not what this country was built on. IT is not what it should stand for.

But here you are convicting the women without proof that they're lying.
Why the double standard?
Where is your proof that they're not telling the truth?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So let's say the rapist used a condom and left no DNA. Not a crime?

The DNA does not alone prove the crime but it does prove he was there at least. Don't need a condom to have DNA. Skin cells, touch DNA, there are many options.. hairs.. whatever..
Show me some source of evidence and I can start pondering it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But here you are convicting the women without proof that they're lying.
Why the double standard?
Where is your proof that they're not telling the truth?

No double standard. You have to prove what you are saying. I am not calling them liars I am asking for something that proves what they say. If not, I have to discount it.

 

[Trident]

But here you are convicting the women without proof that they're lying.
Why the double standard?
Where is your proof that they're not telling the truth?

I see no double standard. What I do say is "she said". He didn't say a word, nor is there any forensic evidence. She can "say" whatever "she" wants, but that doesn't make it true, no matter how many "shes" say it. Money is a powerful lure for so many people.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Exactly. So Tell me what proves that this is true? What proves the allegations?? Just their word?? Is that all it takes?

Any rapist can claim it was consensual but men get convicted of rape all the time. So there is proof that convinces the jury and most likely that includes physical evidence. There has to be more than just because someone says so. There has to be. We don't convict people on rumor or innuendo. They have a right to face their accusers and see the evidence against them.

So what you are saying then, is that you won't believe the allegations without proof, yet there is truly nothing you can point to as defining, convincing proof.

As I said, Catch-22.