FWIW, testimony, IIRC, becomes considered as fact only after solemn declarations have made under oath. (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testify) Accusations made to reporters and journalists re BC, so far seem to be uncorroborated statements about personal experiences. In some cases, the statements are hearsay. I haven't read any yet that are from witnesses who have first hand knowledge of a sexual assault made on another person. This doesn't mean that all the alleged victims/survivors are lying, or that witnesses to some of these allegations don't exist. Neither should these statements be ignored. Just as the silence of comedians who knew and worked with BC has been damning, the growing list of accusers/alleged victims/alleged survivors is, to say the least, damning and sickening.
However, IIRC, even some very damning testimony is not admissible in a court case in some circumstances. In California, the Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), permits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact...other than his or her disposition to commit such an act". (
http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articles_and_outlines/UnchargedActsEvidence.pdf) So even should the accusations become testimony and establish facts, they might not ever be considered in a trial should they be considered as prior bad acts that would unduly influence a jury to become prejudiced against a defendant. (
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prior-bad-act/) This seems to be true when the character of the accused is under consideration.
(
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404)
In court the character of a witness may also be tested. Even if the statement that a particular witness makes may be considered as evidence, a jury may not accept it based on what they believe to be the credibility of the person who testified. Since some of the alleged victims were addicts, or accepted money from BC via Frank Scotti (
http://deadline.com/2014/11/bill-cosby-the-cosby-show-nbc-frank-scotti-1201293952/), a member of the jury might consider their testimony to be suspect, IMO.
Again, I'm not saying that the statements made to the media won't be considered as evidence, just that the possibility exists that at least some of the accusations against BC may never be heard in court as evidence. As to any person's opinion about a particular allegation, I think each person is free to form their own judgement whether in favour of accuser or accused. It may be JMO, but I think it's really important to have a Devil's Advocate is discussion threads to point out the flaws in arguments or gaps in logic.
I'm looking forward to hearing from speculations from lawyers, especially CA lawyers, about how various statements will be sorted out.
