Posted on 06/17/2017 4:08:31 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Excuse me? Your proof is? The evidence is?
But these weren’t random women. These were women who were in a credible position to have been a victim, often with contemporaneous confirmation, as I noted in my original post.
The vast majority of women are not dishonest free riders on such claims. Sure, make it random nationwide and you’d get plenty of free riders. Make it a smaller universe of actual proximity and you almost certainly get more who were victim but don’t want to come forward than those who would make up such an accusation.
And for the main accuser’s part they had exchanged romantic gifts over a sustained period of time and she had spent the night in his bed on other occasions. They remained close after the event in question.
Maybe you don’t really understand what it means to be American, the rights of the individual are protected no matter if many could benefit by injustice to the one. Without that there is no justice and its just a matter of what is the corruption of the moment.
Your statement is the slippery slope of the Liberal, the ends justify the means.
We have an imperfect system but it must attempt to err on the side of protection of individual rights.
Or not. The truth does not always lie in the middle. Smoke does not mean fire when someone threw a smoke grenade.
Or not. The truth does not always lie in the middle. Smoke does not mean fire when someone threw a smoke grenade.
(That last was pretty good, I think I’m going to use it as my tagline for a while.
She DID settle out of court - about 12 years or so ago, for an undisclosed amount of money in a civil suit.
The deposition was sealed.
The then D.A. said there was no evidence to take a criminal case to trial.
The AP (associated press) went to court several years ago to have the deposition from the civil suit unsealed. They won.
This D.A. used the argument that he would take Cosby to trial if he won the election, which he did. The deposition from the civil trial was used as "proof".
Not only is that right, but your conclusion warrants you getting a tenured chair at one of our prestigious universities in the field of your choice!
“But these weren’t random women. These were women who were in a credible position to have been a victim, often with contemporaneous confirmation, as I noted in my original post.”
You are correct, of course. I’m arguing ‘generalities’ and ‘human nature’. You are arguing from the specifics of this case, where the prosecution undoubtedly sent out detectives in a search for women who were potential victims.
But again, a detective making an initial phone contact is the functional equivalent of that mailer that arrives asking you to join a class action suit.
Hopefully a good detective would be able to discern the difference between a real victim and someone who playing along for the possibility of personal gain.
I have my doubts.
You’re close to being an incompetent...or a liar.
Maybe you didn’t understand what I wrote...
“60 women just don’t claim rape.”
What if they are paid?
The only thing the left learned from Clarence Thomas’s confirmation is that one lying slag may not be enough.
Would they pay that many? Sure they would.
Not with these specifics. We had two black CPT’s sent back to college to complete their degree with me at Nebraska Omaha in 70-72. One was out with at least one of several different white girls at least twice a week. He told his wife he out with us. Sad as we never saw her. The other did not cheat. My first wife (71)and I saw them ( he and wife) often. We both have the other over for dinner, etc. Very nice couple.
Most women, I am quite sure, would not falsely accuse for participation in a class action suit.
We apparently have differing views on human nature.
Most is not all. Like I said in earlier posts, I’m perfectly willing to believe some of Cosby’s encounters fit the legal definition of rape.
How can he be tried now? Don’t these cases have a statute of limitations? How long ago did they happen?
Once upon a time our nation's laws were very closely aligned with the objective morality of our Judeo-Christian roots. Even then; however, there was some degree of variance. Not all sins in the eyes of God are illegal under the laws of man. Conversely, just because something is, "legal," does not necessarily make it moral, right or just. As we have become an increasingly Godless nation, the void between God's law and man's law has widened substantially.
In the end, the findings and pronouncements of earthly judges and juries matter little, and we can all be assured we will at some point, all be judged perfectly.
This ONE case was within the Statute of limitations.
However, after the initial case was dropped by police, the vicitim sued.
They reached a civil settlement.
In return for money... the matter was supposed to be dropped.
So for the ‘victim’ to be bringing the case now means that the terms of the settlement are most likely voided.
She should return her settlement.
How many women have to come forward with allegations before a jury believes it?
You calling them all liars?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.