Not criticism, it's healthy skepticism.
I would be very surprised if we have heard the last one
I would as well. Of course, I would treat the new claimants with the same skepticism I treated the initial ones.
That is a lot of witnesses and plaintiffs. How do you explain that?
I think I made that clear earlier. Cosby was allegedly a sexual deviant, however and whenever that started, and he was a 'celebrity' for a long, long time. It wouldn't be hard to chalk up a huge score over 40 years. Look at Wilt Chamberlain. A good rock band 'star' could probably do 30 in a month.
I guess I am not expecting these people who come forward to be perfect.
Me either. Matter of fact, I'm absolutely certain that their 'memory' of the incident(s) is not perfect either. Most of them state they "don't remember" what happened, but they are sure they were raped. A Judge would laugh at the during a testimony. None of these women have any evidence. Only ONE claims that Cosby got her pregnant, yet she refused to allow a DNA test. It has been a long time since most of these incidents occurred. Human beings don't remember 'events' exactly as they occurred. They remember HOW THEY FELT about them.
All these things make me skeptical.
Then again, I don’t go around thinking of women who are models, aspiring actresses and/or playboy bunnies (or who happen to work in talent agencies) necessarily as marks for some sort of quasi-legal variant of forced sex by anyone with a penis.
Having sex with someone while they are unconscious is wrong. Regardless to why they are unconscious.
I just want to confirm that you are not arguing conspiracy.
The only 'conspiracy' was done by Hefner, the Hollywood crowd, and the MSM who conspired to keep this under wraps for at least dozens of years.
I don't know if you believe they had no idea this was going on, but I certainly don't.
Healthy skepticism is OK. However, healthy skepticism can become increasingly unhealthy as the number of unrelated witnesses, alleged victims, and plaintiffs increase.
My understanding at least is that the nominal role of judges is not to laugh at testimony. It is to dispense justice in a fair and unbiased manner. Juries are accorded the role of determining guilt, innocence, or liability.
I think what you mean by lack of evidence is lack of direct evidence. there is testimony which is also evidence, and people have stepped forward indicating willingness to give such testimony. Also, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. It is just not direct evidence. Also, evidence can be impeached on cross by other evidence introduced by the opposing party. The jury is (usually) the ultimate trier of fact (judge being the usual trier of law). (In a bench trial, the judge is trier of fact and law, but these are high profile cases so I regard bench trials for these actions as being unlikely in prospect.)
yes, I too believe many of the “wrong” Hollywood crowd probably had considerable knowledge that this kind of stuff was going on, if they were not somehow more directly involved. Having stated my belief, I also believe that it is to the advantage of this wrong crowd to keep details to themselves so that they can continue to prey upon the unsuspecting and naiive, of which Hollywood had an almost unlimited supply, at least up until now. So just because the wrong Hollywood crowd may have been in the know does not imply to me that everyone was necessarily in the know.
Yes, I share your concern that people such as Hefner knew or suspected. Take, for example, the most recent allegation to surface (the 2008 Playboy Mansion alleged incident). The woman claims that Cosby gave her a drink, that she became drowsy, that Hefner offered a bedroom, and that Cosby escorted her to the bedroom. If this account is true, Hefner is IMHO a scumbag and an enabler of Cosby’s alleged molestation in at least this case and likely others that have not yet been reported.
I also share your skepticism that the MSM was also not complicit at some level.
What is interesting is how the LA police are handling the situation now. They seem to be acting as johnny-come-lately and in an embarrassed manner. It is almost as if they had to be shamed into investigating, after all these years of alleged molestations happening in the shadows. Sheesh.
The reason I inquired about the conspiracy angle was only that arguments to counter the conspiracy angle are different from the arguments I presented, and I wanted to make sure I did not have to bring those arguments to bear. If I had, and conspiracy was not the issue, then it would have been tedious (or even more tedious as the case may be, haha). Sorry to bother.
IANAL