Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #2

[BirdycatNY]

He is asking people to remain neutral. Not side with him.
I'm still waiting on judgment here.

If you want people to remain neutral, one option would be to state "I am asking that people remain neutral at this time and have no further comment." Some of the language seems to me like "trigger" words: http://www.copyblogger.com/trigger-words/ but not exactly sure if/what is being triggered. I could be reading into though, jmo.

 

[nrdsb4]

But if women really want to construct an entire bureaucracy around consenting to physical contact, then who is buying Fifty Shades of Grey?

Have you even read that book? I have read the first book, and I have to say it was absolutely the most STUPID book I've ever read, not because of the subject matter, but because of the simply atrocious writing. That said, the book was all about consent. I will say that the male protagonist did put a lot of pressure on the female to consent, but there was no forced anything. Dominance/submission did not eliminate the need for consent, at least in that book.

 

[Slebby]

http://pagesix.com/2014/12/13/cosby-to-media-stay-neutral-despite-rape-allegations/

Cosby didn't just ask the media to stay neutral, he asked the black media to stay neutral. Why do you think he would ask that? Is he saying only the black media can be neutral and unbiased, unlike the white media? Is he saying the accusations and the media coverage are racial, and can only be countered by the black media's superior capacity for neutrality?

Just my opinion, but I think he is manipulatively playing the race card in a conversation with a black journalist. It's an attempt to bully the journalist about what he chooses to write about the allegations. He is, ironically, actually asking for a bias, a bias in BC's favour. It's a lot like BC's attempt to control the AP interview by asking the interviewer to scrap the part of the interview in which he asked BC about the allegations, appealing to his "integrity".

imo

 

[Slebby]

Here's a nice tidy list of all the women who have come forward, so far. It's all very damning, imo, when you read them all at once.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...n_women_s_stories.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

 

[Sonya610]

If you want people to remain neutral, one option would be to state "I am asking that people remain neutral at this time and have no further comment." Some of the language seems to me like "trigger" words: http://www.copyblogger.com/trigger-words/ but not exactly sure if/what is being triggered. I could be reading into though, jmo.

Another thing....INNOCENT people do NOT remain "neutral" when accused of horrible crimes (unless legal proceedings compel silence).

If someone accused you of sexually abusing your children would you remain "neutral" when replying? Heck no, if you are innocent you would be UPSET at the accusation! The police look for that in interrogations, innocent people usually get loud and upset when accused of something they would never do, especially if they are asked multiple times. Guilty people usually stay "neutral" and simply deny it.

He is far far too neutral about the accusations. Of course he thinks none of them can prove it and he is probably right.

 

[BirdycatNY]

I'm not saying BC did not rape/drug women, but because one (several) women have come forth with stories does not mean all the women are truthful. How do you differentiate?

I'm not sure if you are asking legally how to determine one's credibility, but for LE investigation corroboration of places, things, dates, times, with people (ie Mr. Scotti has paper receipts of transactions and may have witnessed something re: BC). In general, in court cases, credibility can be weighed against things like previous false/inconsistent statements in court or to LE, and this is not specific to any type of case.

It would be easy to discount a person who, for example, has been locked up in an institution their entire life and so would have absolutely no access to BC ever unless he was in the institution. But trying to discredit someone for let's say having more than one partner doesn't in general discredit them. What if hypo BC claims something like all alleged victims consented to not only sex and drugs and sleep rape?, then it comes down to who you believe, jmo. If it's true that even one/some of the victims were drugged/raped then obviously very bad and why these allegations should be thoroughly investigated, imo. But short answer case-by-case basis. (You should read Slebby's link upthread on the individual claims).

Here's some articles on credibility:

Rape Victims, False Rape Accusations and Credibility
Misinformation About Rape Victims, False Rape Blurs Issues of Sexual Assault
By Linda Lowen
http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Rape-Victims-False-Rape-Accusations.htm

False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases
David Lisak, Lori Gardinier, Sarah C. Nicksa,
and Ashley M. Cote2
(from google search, but there are other academic articles on "credibility" issues)

"False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault" The Voice, vol. 3 no. 1. The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. 2009. (link at end of linked article)

 

[BirdycatNY]

...Guilty people usually stay "neutral" and simply deny it....

Everyone is different in how they defend themselves...but agree personally I would more likely be upset and vocal if falsely accused. But I wonder after Bill Clinton wagged his finger and said his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," when we now know otherwise. Clinton survived, so I would think public figures or anyone would be more comfortable with doing the "wag" if they didn't have sexual relations with someone. But I can't speculate what/why Mr. Cosby is or isn't saying...has he ever said anything about the actual claims specifically other than deny them through someone else? idk.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

That wouldn't work I think... men who are related have coerced women into sex forever. And they don't have to be alone either.

Women get raped in the sharia countries as well, they just have even harder time reporting it because of the consequences.

BBM and if I'm not mistaken the victims are often the ones who get stoned to death, not the rapists.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Everyone is different in how they defend themselves...but agree personally I would more likely be upset and vocal if falsely accused. But I wonder after Bill Clinton wagged his finger and said his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," when we now know otherwise. Clinton survived, so I would think public figures or anyone would be more comfortable with doing the "wag" if they didn't have sexual relations with someone. But I can't speculate what/why Mr. Cosby is or isn't saying...has he ever said anything about the actual claims specifically other than deny them through someone else? idk.

Here is how I have always interpreted Bill Clinton's denial: in his mind "sexual relations" meant penis-vagina intercourse. Since he didn't do that with Monica Lewinsky, he could deny sexual relations and be telling the truth in his own mind.

Bill Cosby admits only to spilling some milk. Ewwwww.

 

[gitana1]

Not sure if this has been posted. It's a clip from the Howard Stern show. He discusses the allegations and Janice Dickinson. He plays a tape of Janice talking about Cosby in a 2006 interview. Illuminating: http://youtu.be/4BOkX4EmL98

 

[IzzyBlanche]

If you want people to remain neutral, one option would be to state "I am asking that people remain neutral at this time and have no further comment." Some of the language seems to me like "trigger" words: http://www.copyblogger.com/trigger-words/ but not exactly sure if/what is being triggered. I could be reading into though, jmo.

Here is my take on it. Cosby's exact quote from Pagesix.com is, “Let me say this. I only expect the black media to uphold the standards of excellence in journalism and when you do that you have to go in with a neutral mind."

The trigger words are "standards of excellence." Anyone who goes in with less than a neutral mind is violating journalistic standards of ethics.

It's quite manipulative because journalistic standards of excellence do not require going in with a neutral mind. Journalists are expected to report both sides of an issue dispassionately and fairly, but this site, at least:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

says nothing about maintaining neutrality. Ironically, one of the ethics is this:

"Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless."

"Black media" are other trigger words. IMO there is a subtle implication that the white media is trying to "tear down the black man" so the black media should close ranks around him. Beverly Johnson alluded to this mindset in her Vanity Fair article:

Cosby cut a striking figure on-screen then. He was funny, smart, and even elegant—all those wonderful things many white Americans didn’t associate with people of color. In fact, as I thought of going public with what follows, a voice in my head kept whispering, “Black men have enough enemies out there already, they certainly don’t need someone like you, an African American with a familiar face and a famous name, fanning the flames.”

All IMO of course.

 

[Trino]

There are folks here who can answer your question - "how do you differentiate?" - way better than I will. But my first inclination is to respond: why do you have to differentiate? If BC is a drugging and raping pig, is he somehow less of a pig if he only did it 10 times? Or 5?

Speaking for myself, I don't know what is gained by knowing 100 percent of the allegations are true, or only 75 percent, or 25 percent? If BC drugged and raped *some* women, if it's 2 or 5 or 25 doesn't really matter to me. He's not going to jail, he may or may not face civil action, which he may or may not lose. He has already gotten off lightly. To paraphrase one very astute comedian, BC will be living out his years in luxurious exile.

PS I personally believe the victims. And I also believe there are more out there who have not come forward.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why? Because some of the women are/will be asking for $$$.

 

[gitana1]

Thank you.
No need for further explanations, nor the need to beat dead horses.
A question more of analytical thinking...Why the silence?

So...BBM...They were afraid to tell. Fear is an awful thing.

So...I have been drugged, sexually assaulted, either or both by Bill Cosby. I am confused, ashamed...in a fog. If I speak forward...I may lose my dream career, chastised by people (media/public). The risks are too great. So, I hush now.

I KNOW what Cosby is doing. I hear the 'talk'. I KNOW other women are falling prey. I'm sad and I'm sorry. But, I continue to hush.

I'm guessing maybe that's why the accuser's have been silent against this celebrity god...so revered and powerful?
That's where my confusion lies...with full understanding its an unpopular stance of opinion.
I can't fathom going thru my years...KNOWING my drug-pushing rapist was still circulating in action.

Suppose women are cut from different molds.
I wish power to fearless women.

Lots of women did come forward though. During the lawsuit in 05'?, several women came forward and were deposed and agreed to testify about what he had done to them, to bolster another woman's suit - not their own. None of them sued after that but they were on record.

Further, the link that I posted of an interview of Janice Dickinson indicates that for many, and prior to the 05' suit, they knew it was he said/she said and that he had the funds to sue the heck out of them and win if they alleged anything. With his power and money, that was a legitimate fear.

Thankfully, times have changed, the legal system has changed a bit and social media has made it difficult to sweep things under the rug and hide wrongdoing. It's affecting many that were stone fortresses before - like the Church of Scientology, for example. Previously, they would sue and win against anyone who challenged them or talked about what was going on. With their unlimited funds, they were unstoppable. But with social media and the internet, it became impossible to stem the talk and the transfers of information about what was really happening. You can't sue the world.

A similar thing is happening here. Too many people are talking at once and too many people are discussing it. You can't un-ring the bell.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Why? Because some of the women are/will be asking for $$$.

Tamara Green is suing him for defamation. That aside, who is asking for money? I have missed that.

 

[gitana1]

If Bill Cosby indeed drugged and raped multiple women over several decades it's very unfortunate indeed that he was never reported to the police and investigated until 2006. Even if it didn't lead to any criminal proceedings it might have scared him of making further attempts or made women more aware of the danger when dealing with him. So I hope women would have more power to report sexual crimes. And men too.

It's also very scary the way everyone who's heard rumors can look away and pretend they didn't. The Jian Ghomeshi article that was posted above is a good read. Everyone go read it, now.

But ultimately, if Bill Cosby had more than one victim, it's not the previous victims and their silence who are responsible for the further victims. It's Bill Cosby.

BBM. Powerful statement.

I'm not saying BC did not rape/drug women, but because one (several) women have come forth with stories does not mean all the women are truthful. How do you differentiate?

How does a judge determine whether someone is telling the truth? How does a jury? We listen to them. We weigh their words. We watch them as they speak. We see if anything comes out that refutes what they are saying. We see if anyone or anything corroborates their claims. We see how the accused responds to the allegations. We use our common sense and life experience to determine the probability of truthfulness.

Millions of people heard Susan Smith crying for her "babies" and knew she was lying. How did they know?

He is asking people to remain neutral. Not side with him.
I'm still waiting on judgment here. I think that it could be that she knows these allegations are false because she was with him at that time. It could be that there is a past we don't know about where these women have threatened to tell a story if he does not pay him. There are more possibilities than can be counted.

I don't like end runs around the law. And I don't like people suing people for money unless there is a death.

So for me this is still not coming out where I need it to to make the leap to him being guilty of anything.

The law does not need to decide everything in our culture. Sometimes society does. We do not always need to utilize the legal system to right wrongs.

And I don't see this as an "end run" anyhow. Some have screamed or just insinuated that these women should shut up because they didn't "put up" with police reports or lawsuits way back when. Well, why doesn't that logic work both ways? If someone accused me of doing something I didn't do and caused a massive hit to my reputation and clear financial damages, the latter two which have occurred with Cosby, you better believe I would sue that person or persons for defamation. That's not happening. Instead, Cosby is the one being sued for defamation.

The legal system is getting better but it has been fallible. Those in power have often been able to control it. Money makes a difference in outcomes. And a guilty verdict is not a necessary component to guilt. Just look at casey anthony and OJ Simpson, among others.

I'm satisfied, as a woman, a human and even as an attorney, with how this is playing out. I feel that those without power have been finally able to make their voices heard, in a changed and more-evolved society that is now beginning to realize that might does not always mean right.

 

[Nova]

I'm not saying BC did not rape/drug women, but because one (several) women have come forth with stories does not mean all the women are truthful. How do you differentiate?

By my count, we're approaching 30 women. How, exactly, do you define "several"?

 

[Trident]

http://pagesix.com/2014/12/13/cosby-to-media-stay-neutral-despite-rape-allegations/

Cosby didn't just ask the media to stay neutral, he asked the black media to stay neutral. Why do you think he would ask that? Is he saying only the black media can be neutral and unbiased, unlike the white media? Is he saying the accusations and the media coverage are racial, and can only be countered by the black media's superior capacity for neutrality?

Just my opinion, but I think he is manipulatively playing the race card in a conversation with a black journalist. It's an attempt to bully the journalist about what he chooses to write about the allegations. He is, ironically, actually asking for a bias, a bias in BC's favour. It's a lot like BC's attempt to control the AP interview by asking the interviewer to scrap the part of the interview in which he asked BC about the allegations, appealing to his "integrity".

imo

Now this I can agree with. Innocent or guilty, the race card carries a lot of weight among some people - rightly or wrongly.

 

[Nova]

IIRC they also had stipulations about that, what to do if any of the parties change their minds in the middle of things

I don't know, I think it might be a good idea to sign a contract. At least it takes up so much time to contact a lawyer and draft a document that everyone has time to sober up and think about birth control

If Cosby really drugged women unconscious that has very little to do with seduction or coercion or any gray area between consent and lack of it I think, to me that's a physical assault pure and simple. (Manipulative tactics may have been used before or after the assault to get victims into a suitable position or to keep them quiet afterwards)

We're lucky if we get a hot-to-trot couple to pause long enough to put on a condom or insert a diaphragm. I don't have much hope we'll get them to stop and negotiate a legal contract.

As far as I'm concerned, drugging someone without her knowledge and consent is just plain old-fashioned rape. It's really no different than overpowering her physically.

 

[Trident]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is BS. Anyone who goes/meets alone. . .well, you know the rest, and drinks it or takes it is., .well, you fill in the blanks.

Cosby and a lot of others must have been like buffalo in new grass with the women wanting stardom and/or recognition. Shame on 'em, and I don't mean Cosby.

I think that's what is wrong with today's world, no one takes responsibility for their OWN actions, they want to foist it off on someone else.
My opinion of course.

 

[popsicle]

FOX 5 Atlanta ‏@FOX5Atlanta 2m2 minutes ago
BREAKING: Spelman College suspends Cosby Chair for the Humanities "until such time that the original goals can again be met." #fox5atl