Rape allegations mount against Bill Cosby #2

[Janedoe66]

Despite all his protests, I find it really hard to believe that many women could have a vendetta and all get together to screw up his life. Even the ones who aren't making allegations (Lisa Bonet) have done some cryptic tweeting that appears to be about his behavior. I never would want someone to be convicted on hearsay but it's really hard to ignore the sheer number of women.

 

[Donjeta]

Lisa Bonet's representative said that the tweets that were attributed to her were from a fake account

http://pagesix.com/2014/11/22/are-lisa-bonets-mysterious-tweets-hinting-at-cosby-scandal/
http://www.thewrap.com/lisa-bonet-tweet-about-bill-cosby-sent-from-fake-account-manager-confirms/

 

[Nova]

Hmm, I don't think I ever said that. Rape is a crime. No doubt.

The point is there is still evidence of contact and and act. And it is brought into a court of law to be examined and challenged. That is how we tell good evidence from bad. What stands up to scrutiny and what doesn't. In this case that can not happen. It matters to me. It is okay if that matters not to anyone else. But there is a reason there is a statute of limitations.

At this point he is not guilty of anything. I don't think he ever will be but if there is a case brought with evidence that supports the accounting I will rethink my position.

I think you understood my point and are deliberately ignoring it. If, as you say, you refuse to believe anyone is guilty of rape based solely on the testimony of the alleged victim, then you have essentially made rape legal (except in cases with a third-party witness or a videotape of the assault).

I realize that isn't your intention, but it is a logical consequence of your refusal to accept victim testimony as valid.

And it isn't just rape cases that would be affected by your position. I was a juror on a murder case: there was no argument that the defendant stabbed the victim to death. The case hinged on WHY the stabbing occurred, not something forensics could answer. So we had to decide the case based on the testimony of friends of the victim and defendant, and the testimony of the defendant himself.

So despite reams of physical evidence, the verdict came down to our sense of the credibility of witnesses. Just like a rape case.

I assume you would have acquitted that defendant because there was no independent evidence proving the killing was a murder rather than self-defense. Frankly, by the standard you set out here, we might as well shut down the justice system.

 

[Charlie09]

I think you understood my point and are deliberately ignoring it. If, as you say, you refuse to believe anyone is guilty of rape based solely on the testimony of the alleged victim, then you have essentially made rape legal (except in cases with a third-party witness or a videotape of the assault).

I realize that isn't your intention, but it is a logical consequence of your refusal to accept victim testimony as valid.

And it isn't just rape cases that would be affected by your position. I was a juror on a murder case: there was no argument that the defendant stabbed the victim to death. The case hinged on WHY the stabbing occurred, not something forensics could answer. So we had to decide the case based on the testimony of friends of the victim and defendant, and the testimony of the defendant himself.

So despite reams of physical evidence, the verdict came down to our sense of the credibility of witnesses. Just like a rape case.

I assume you would have acquitted that defendant because there was no independent evidence proving the killing was a murder rather than self-defense. Frankly, by the standard you set out here, we might as well shut down the justice system.

The reverse could be said, you seem to be re-writing the way the justice system works.
Regardless of how we kick things around here, the fact is at this point, NO charges have been brought - at this point, he's not guilty of anything in the justice system.

 

[Slebby]

OK, let's say this is a court of law. BC has been charged with one count of rape. There is a jury. In her testimony, the victim describes how she met BC, describes an incident in which she accepts a drink from BC and the next thing she knows, she's waking up post-rape, naked and groggy and bewildered by what has happened. The prosecution brings forward woman after woman describing more or less the same experience. 25 women testify. BC's lawyer has every chance to cross examine them, to cast doubt on their testimony, each and every one. The testimony of 25 women IS evidence. If a jury find their testimony credible, BC could be found guilty, and all without evidence from an eyewitness or a rape kit.

What we are seeing now is a different court. We see about 30 women coming forward with essentially the same story of BC drugging and raping them. 30 testimonies IS evidence out here, outside of a courtroom. BC's lawyers could "cross examine" them, so to speak, by bringing legal action against them for making false claims. That is BC's opportunity to defend himself. BC has boatloads of money and a jumbo sized ego. If he had a leg to stand on, he'd be suing these women with everything he's got, in order to restore his reputation and status in the entertainment world. He showed how much he wants this to go away when he asked the AP reporter to "scuttle" the part of the interview in which he was asked about the rape allegations. No denials, just "scuttle it".

BC hasn't even denied the allegations. Personally, if I was falsely accused of a crime, I'd be shouting my innocence, I'd be angry, I'd be on the offensive, and I would not sit still until my good name was cleared. If I had BC's financial means, I'd sure expect more from my legal team besides ineffectual sputtered pronouncements about "preposterous claims".

IMHO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JLSChook]

I do have to agree with you here...
If one needs to take side one way or the other... Why would we discount multiple statements by females... And accept accounts by one sole man...

:waitasec:

Because some people are trying to be jurors, NOT humans.
Also, it has been known to happen that certain individuals like to take the side of the obvious minority because it gets them the attention they so desperately crave. (negative attention or not, it's still attention.)

 

[Charlie09]

OK, let's say this is a court of law. BC has been charged with one count of rape. There is a jury. In her testimony, the victim describes how she met BC, describes an incident in which she accepts a drink from BC and the next thing she knows, she's waking up post-rape, naked and groggy and bewildered by what has happened. The prosecution brings forward woman after woman describing more or less the same experience. 25 women testify. BC's lawyer has every chance to cross examine them, to cast doubt on their testimony, each and every one. The testimony of 25 women IS evidence. If a jury find their testimony credible, BC could be found guilty, and all without evidence from an eyewitness or a rape kit.

What we are seeing now is a different court. We see about 30 women coming forward with essentially the same story of BC drugging and raping them. 30 testimonies IS evidence out here, outside of a courtroom. BC's lawyers could "cross examine" them, so to speak, by bringing legal action against them for making false claims. That is BC's opportunity to defend himself. BC has boatloads of money and a jumbo sized ego. If he had a leg to stand on, he'd be suing these women with everything he's got, in order to restore his reputation and status in the entertainment world. He showed how much he wants this to go away when he asked the AP reporter to "scuttle" the part of the interview in which he was asked about the rape allegations. No denials, just "scuttle it".

BC hasn't even denied the allegations. Personally, if I was falsely accused of a crime, I'd be shouting my innocence, I'd be angry, I'd be on the offensive, and I would not sit still until my good name was cleared. If I had BC's financial means, I'd sure expect more from my legal team besides ineffectual sputtered pronouncements about "preposterous claims".

IMHO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What does his financial means have to do with this?
What happens when it becomes someone of financial means who wants to go after someone else and pays a group of people to destroy someone -
Isn't that why we have a legal system? SO the courts decide someone's legal guilt or non-guilt?
We have an interesting concept built into our system that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone has their day in court.

 

[Charlie09]

Because some people are trying to be jurors, NOT humans.
Also, it has been known to happen that certain individuals like to take the side of the obvious minority because it gets them the attention they so desperately crave. (negative attention or not, it's still attention.)

So not walking in lockstep is attention seeking...got it!

 

[wendiesan]

A few notes on BC's relationship with some post secondary institutions.

In late November, 2014, BC relinquished his position as an honorary co-chair of University of Massachusetts Amherst's capital campaign.

On November 24, 2014, the very prestigious Berklee College of Music in Boston announced that it will no longer award a scholarship in BC's name.

As well,

The North Carolina university issued a statement saying, “In the best interest of all parties, we are removing his name from our board of advisers until all information on this matter is available,” according to a report by the High Point Enterprise newspaper.

http://www.amherstbulletin.com/news...hairman-of-umass-amherst-fundraising-campaign

 

[Slebby]

What does his financial means have to do with this?
What happens when it becomes someone of financial means who wants to go after someone else and pays a group of people to destroy someone -
Isn't that why we have a legal system? SO the courts decide someone's legal guilt or non-guilt?
We have an interesting concept built into our system that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone has their day in court.

I mention his financial means because he can afford to pursue these women legally if they are in fact making false allegations. I personally would spend my last dime clearing my name if I was falsely accused of a terrible crime.

This is not a court of law. It is possible to be very certain someone *did it* without first waiting for a criminal trial and a finding of guilt.

Under the law, innocent until proven guilty only saves BC from being convicted of a crime, acquiring a criminal record, and facing criminal punishment, namely incarceration. It does not shield him from condemnation or judgment from those who believe his victims.

IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IzzyBlanche]

If it happened to you or you witnessed it with your own eyes, would you feel differently?

snipped for focus

If I am not mistaken Scarlett has stated she has been a victim of sexual assault and domestic violence.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

What does his financial means have to do with this?
What happens when it becomes someone of financial means who wants to go after someone else and pays a group of people to destroy someone -
Isn't that why we have a legal system? SO the courts decide someone's legal guilt or non-guilt?
We have an interesting concept built into our system that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone has their day in court.

I am inferring from your post that you think someone of the financial means to do so wants to go after Bill Cosby and is paying a group of people to destroy him?

Who is it, pray tell?

Who is that person who has more financial means to destroy Cosby than Cosby has the financial means to legally clear his name if he desired to do so, as Slebby has so eloquently posted?

 

[Slebby]

I am inferring from your post that you think someone of the financial means to do so wants to go after Bill Cosby and is paying a group of people to destroy him?

Who is it, pray tell?

Who is that person who has more financial means to destroy Cosby than Cosby has the financial means to legally clear his name if he desired to do so, as Slebby has so eloquently posted?

And if I may add to your comment...

When did this person of means decide to go after BC? Was it in 2000, when Lachelle Covington made a police report against BC? Or was it in 2005, when Andrea Constand went to the authorities? Or in 2006, when BC chose to settle her lawsuit against him, rather than face the 13 other victims prepared to testify? It's a conspiracy to take down BC and was 14 years in the making, designed to take him down before he has a chance to...turn 78.

Clever...

IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And if I may add to your comment...

When did this person of means decide to go after BC? Was it in 2000, when Lachelle Covington made a police report against BC? Or was it in 2005, when Andrea Constand went to the authorities? Or in 2006, when BC chose to settle her lawsuit against him, rather than face the 13 other victims prepared to testify? It's a conspiracy to take down BC and was 14 years in the making, designed to take him down before he has a chance to...turn 78.

Clever...

IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Excellent questions, and another one. Why? What did BC do to warrant such vengefulness?

 

[Truthy]

I think you understood my point and are deliberately ignoring it. If, as you say, you refuse to believe anyone is guilty of rape based solely on the testimony of the alleged victim, then you have essentially made rape legal (except in cases with a third-party witness or a videotape of the assault).

I realize that isn't your intention, but it is a logical consequence of your refusal to accept victim testimony as valid.

And it isn't just rape cases that would be affected by your position. I was a juror on a murder case: there was no argument that the defendant stabbed the victim to death. The case hinged on WHY the stabbing occurred, not something forensics could answer. So we had to decide the case based on the testimony of friends of the victim and defendant, and the testimony of the defendant himself.

So despite reams of physical evidence, the verdict came down to our sense of the credibility of witnesses. Just like a rape case.

I assume you would have acquitted that defendant because there was no independent evidence proving the killing was a murder rather than self-defense. Frankly, by the standard you set out here, we might as well shut down the justice system.

Excellent post. And that there are so many women who have nothing to gain at all lends gret credibility. This is not the kind of crime that would be easy to take to court at all. Such a small percentage of reported rapes are actually investigated, and even fewer prosecuted that the mind boggles.
We should be advocating for changes in the court system that allow for evidence of other crimes in for serial criminals.

 

[Charlie09]

I am inferring from your post that you think someone of the financial means to do so wants to go after Bill Cosby and is paying a group of people to destroy him?

Who is it, pray tell?

Who is that person who has more financial means to destroy Cosby than Cosby has the financial means to legally clear his name if he desired to do so, as Slebby has so eloquently posted?

You are inferring incorrectly.

 

[Catmommy]

It is apparent to me now that the few who still defend BC here don't do it so much as they feel an innocent man has been falsely accused (by more than 30 women with strikingly similar stories) than it gets them the attention they crave by taking an opposing viewpoint and defending it unto death. Carry on then and enjoy yourselves, may you never be an unbelieved victim.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Bill Cosby facing litany of allegations



http://fox59.com/2015/02/01/bill-cosby-facing-litany-of-allegations-2/

 

[Nova]

The reverse could be said, you seem to be re-writing the way the justice system works.
Regardless of how we kick things around here, the fact is at this point, NO charges have been brought - at this point, he's not guilty of anything in the justice system.

No, I was merely making the point that eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence in many different cases, but particularly in rape cases. Simply announcing that you won't consider it disqualifies one from jury service.

Of course you are right that BC is not legally guilty and has not even been charged. That does NOT mean I can't form a private opinion as to whether he committed the acts of which he is accused. The sheer volume of accusations--especially against a beloved public figure--is telling, IMO.

 

[Nova]

So not walking in lockstep is attention seeking...got it!

Well, it would explain a lot about you, Charlie! LOL.

I am totally kidding. Your opinions are too consistent to be anything but genuine. I may disagree (almost always), but I would never question your sincerity or your ability to defend your point of view.