Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #1

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Congratulations! The DA will make sure you never have to serve as a juror on a rape case.

That is not the same thing.. In a case there would be evidence that would be more than just someone words most likely it would not be 40 years and there would be a case that was put on. That is something I could weigh and decide guilt or not..

Here we just have people saying something happened. They are not under oath, Just telling the media and calling someone a criminal. I can not just accept that and get on board. I am not in the habit of defending criminals but I am also not just going to jump on the media train and buy it all hook line and sinker without more than someone's interview on ET.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Rape allegations haunt Bill Cosby in the digital age
By Todd Leopold and Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 11:45 AM EST, Sat November 15, 2014

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/showbiz/tv/bill-cosby-rape-allegations/

"In the case of Andrea Constand, who sued Cosby in 2005 over an incident the year before, Cosby says the sex was consensual."

Sorry, I don't see anywhere where Cosby says it was consensual. I see him denying allegations.

 

[Donjeta]

He through her atty has called her a liar as of late in the news. He has been silent in a lot of the allegations but this one he has stepped out and made a statement of sorts.

Way back he made statements to the National Enquirer that implied Constand was a liar too. But recently he issued a joint statement with Constand that the lawyer's statement that the allegations are lies are not intended to refer to Constand case, tacitly implying that he's not calling her a liar anymore.

There are lots of motives at play for Cosby and his legal team too so I'd take the things they say with a grain of salt too.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Way back he made statements to the National Enquirer that implied Constand was a liar too. But recently he issued a joint statement with Constand that the lawyer's statement that the allegations are lies are not intended to refer to Constand case, tacitly implying that he's not calling her a liar anymore.

There are lots of motives at play for Cosby and his legal team too so I'd take the things they say with a grain of salt too.

Do you have a link to that? Because I have not seen anything but denials about all these cases.

 

[Nova]

It is.. but alone it does not mean much. There has to be something to back it up or everyone's words or story would put everyone in jail on just that.. JA has been telling us stories for years.. Yes her words are in the evidence files of the trial but are they real evidence people believe? uh.. no..

Words and stories alone aren't enough unless something backs them up.. IMO

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you're the one who keeps the rotting corpse around.

What do you think eye-witness testimony is? In your phrase, it's mere "words and stories".

Defendants have been convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony (i.e., "direct evidence" or "words and stories") for thousands of years. (See the OT and the Hammurabi Code.)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you're the one who keeps the rotting corpse around.

What do you think eye-witness testimony is? In your phrase, it's mere "words and stories".

Defendants have been convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony (i.e., "direct evidence" or "words and stories") for thousands of years. (See the OT and the Hammurabi Code.)

Yes but in court they are under oath and subject to cross examination.. In the media, well they can pick and choose their interviewers and are not under oath or subject to perjury charges. IT is different.

 

[BirdycatNY]

Thank God the Sandusky victims came within SOL and there were "witnesses". Victim(s) direct testimonies were key. And there are probably more victims that never came forward. Part of the problem with BC case is SOL ran out.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Thank God the Sandusky victims were not constrained by SOL and there happened to be bystanders that witnessed it. Their direct testimonies were key too. And there were probably more victims that never came forward.

Also they all testified. They all went to court and gave their testimony.

 

[Donjeta]

Do you have a link to that? Because I have not seen anything but denials about all these cases.

It's been quoted in this thread.
http://billcosby.com/2014/11/1744/

Joint statement from Dolores Troiani, counsel to Andrea Constand, and John P. Schmitt, counsel to Bill Cosby.

The statement released by Mr. Cosby’s attorney over the weekend was not intended to refer in any way to Andrea Constand. As previously reported, differences between Mr. Cosby and Ms. Constand were resolved to the mutual satisfaction of Mr. Cosby and Ms. Constand years ago. Neither Mr. Cosby nor Ms. Constand intends to comment further on the matter.

The earlier statement has been removed but here it's quoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...5-i-didnt-say-that-he-didnt-commit-the-crime/

“Over the last several weeks, decade-old, discredited allegations against Mr. Cosby have resurfaced,” John P. Schmitt, Cosby’s lawyer, said in a statement, which has been removed from billcosby.com. “The fact that they are being repeated does not make them true. Mr. Cosby does not intend to dignify these allegations with any comment. He would like to thank all his fans for the outpouring of support and assure them that, at age 77, he is doing his best work. There will be no further statement from Mr. Cosby or any of his representatives.”

The statement didn’t stay up long. It was quickly replaced with one that addressed Constand’s case directly.

 

[Nova]

Well no because the law was on his side. That is not even close to the same thing. There is no doubt that englishmen here were persecuted and searched with no cause and taxed beyond measure. That is not even close to the same thing we are talking about here.

My point was that gossip, innuendo, newspapers eager to sell papers, charges of abuse of power, etc., have always been with us.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's been quoted in this thread.
http://billcosby.com/2014/11/1744/




The earlier statement has been removed but here it's quoted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...5-i-didnt-say-that-he-didnt-commit-the-crime/

To the mutual satisfaction does not mean that the event was consensual. IT means the resolution was agreeable to both..

 

[Donjeta]

Also they all testified. They all went to court and gave their testimony.

There were several women who were willing to testify when Constand filed her suit.

 

[sunflowerchick]

I haven't seen any interviews or quotes either pro or contra from Cosby's children and grandchildren? If there are some I'd be glad to read them but I don't think it's fair to put words in their mouths based on the absence of any comments.

But even if they came out to defend him it wouldn't prove anything to me really. It's possible that the children and grandchildren don't know anything about it. Bill Cosby is not being accused of incest or familial abuse here so it's quite possible that he could be nice to his own kids and fail to rape his grandkids and have a Hyde face come out when he's with aspiring models who are not related to him. Or the family might know about it but want to protect him anyway.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/11/20/raven-simone-bill-cosby-rape-allegations/
Yes, Raven Symone said nothing untoward occurred but that doesn't really prove anything to me either. I'm sure even if he raped all the women who have come out now there are some females that he didn't have time or the inclination to rape. Furthermore, Raven Symone was quite a young child at the time she was in the Cosby Show, and no one's accused him of being a pedophile that I know of. All the women who have come forward were adults or teenagers at the time, not small children.



Everybody is innocent in a court of law until proven guilty, including the ones who did it.

Presumption of innocence in a court of law does not mean that the society in general can't have their own opinions as to the guilt of people who have been accused of something even if they weren't convicted, it means that no one can't be convicted of a crime without following the legal standards.



True but it cuts both ways I think... If you've made up your mind that no crime occurred and the people who say so are lying because it wasn't reported early enough or there are not enough DNA tests and police files or because you like the celebrity and that's why there's an unfair media assault on him or whatever it's just as easy to become blind.

I am not putting words in the mouths of his family. I just said to my knowledge I haven't seen anything to indicate that they have spoken against him. I also haven't said I have made up my mind about anything. I am open to the possibility that he is guilty of all, a few or none. I just think it is sad for the consequences he is facing before even being charged with a crime. That isn't justice.

 

[BirdycatNY]

Do you think that these alleged victims of BC do not want to go to court? Because I'm not sure why you are insisting this is being played out in the media, it's likely because they have little/no recourse. These allegations have been about for a number of years mind you. It's just that society never gave it the attention that maybe it deserves looking into more. jmo

eta: I don't think anyone needs to be schooled on the difference between court testimony and talking to the media. I am sure we are all aware of potential perjury and false statement charges with court testimony/LE statements. But there is absolutely no indication that any of the alleged victims in BC case were/are avoiding coming forward to avoid testifying in court.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My point was that gossip, innuendo, newspapers eager to sell papers, charges of abuse of power, etc., have always been with us.

Sure it has but we don't convict people based on that. Something that happens in the newspaper and something that happens in a court of law is different.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you think that these alleged victims of BC do not want to go to court? Because I'm not sure why you are insisting this is being played out in the media, it's likely because they have little/no recourse. These allegations have been about for a number of years mind you. It's just that society never gave it the attention that maybe it deserves a little more. jmo

But they could have gone to court. They could have brought charges then. They could have come out then but they didn't. And now when there is no chance for a real court case they come out and say it happened. That bothers me. I know it does not bother other people but it bothers me.

 

[Donjeta]

To the mutual satisfaction does not mean that the event was consensual. IT means the resolution was agreeable to both..

I did not post that quote as evidence that Cosby said it was consensual. I posted it because you asked for a link for the statement where Cosby or his representatives say they did not mean to say Constand is a liar.

 

[Nova]

Yes but in court they are under oath and subject to cross examination.. In the media, well they can pick and choose their interviewers and are not under oath or subject to perjury charges. IT is different.

Nothing stopped Cosby from going to court in 2005. Nothing stops him from filing suit for libel, which would afford him the opportunity to depose his accusers and subject them to cross-examination.

Nothing stops Cosby from exercising his own freedom of speech and the press and speaking out in his own defense.

To date, Mr. Cosby has largely declined to make use of his options.

 

[Donjeta]

But they could have gone to court. They could have brought charges then. They could have come out then but they didn't. And now when there is no chance for a real court case they come out and say it happened. That bothers me. I know it does not bother other people but it bothers me.

In 2006, 13 Jane Does did come out and said it happened. It's not their fault that Constand and Cosby chose to settle. The statute of limitations had for the most part already run out for them in 2006 so the 8 extra years make little difference to me in that regard.

 

[Crimson clover]

Whoa.
I came visiting here for 2 reasons. To escape thoughts of the plight of the missing, and to get info about Bill Cosby.
I've yet to form a concrete opinion of whether BC should rot...or twitches are seeking opportunistic cha-ching$.
But, whoa...something happened...and this thread took a vile turn. Clear as day, on the outside, where majority lays...yet posts of the contrary, are picked and pecked to no end.

My ears hurt. It's a 'I'm right...You wrong' line of reading. Is this impartial discussion people?
So...I best be moving along.

Happy season to everyone, and Merry Christmas to all!
I'm sure THIS post will fall at the most inopportune time...so butcher it at will.