Rape allegations against Cosby case of he said/she she she ... said and 15 women can’t all be lying

The Daily Mail ^ | November 19, 2014 | Piers Morgan

[EveningStar]

Full title: The rape allegations against Bill Cosby are a classic case of he said/she she she she she she she she she she she she she she, she said - and 15 women can’t all be lying

One of my favourite Twitter parody accounts is @TheTweetOfGod .

It's cheeky, irreverent, has over 1.6 million followers - and an unnerving ability to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Last night, it addressed the mounting Bill Cosby scandal with this tweet:

‘The rape allegations against Bill Cosby are a classic case of he said/she she she she she she she she she she she she she she said.’

Ain’t that the truth?

The total number of women who have claimed Cosby drugged and raped them is now 15. (The actress Janice Dickinson being the latest, yesterday.)

[ansel12]

Janet Reno was involved with (allegedly) sexually assaulting female prisoners in the jail. Reports were that she would have them tied up in preparation for her 'conjugal visit'.

I would like to see your sources for that claim.

[Jamestown1630]

There was a ‘blue dress’ in that case; and he lied under oath, and was impeached for PERJURY, among other things; not for sex.

-JT

[Pikachu_Dad]

Good point. You will notice that there is a very hard push to establish that a simple accusation of a crime to be sufficient to punish a student for 'rape' in the University environment. You will notice that several of the alleged 'freepers' here are pushing that if an accusation is made, then it simply must be true. They seem to have a similar attitude to the hard liberals pushing these abusive policies. Any accusation, no matter how tenuous is sufficient in their mind to convict. This hard liberal policy has finally gotten even the liberal attorney's at Harvard pushing back. Because what these folks are seeking to do is to undermine the entire system of law in this country. ==================================================== Rethink Harvard’s sexual harassment policy OCTOBER 15, 2014 In July, Harvard University announced a new university-wide policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The new policy, which applies to all schools within the university and to all Harvard faculty, administrators, and students, sets up the Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution to process complaints against students. Both the definition of sexual harassment and the procedures for disciplining students are new, with the policy taking effect this academic year. Like many universities across the nation, Harvard acted under pressure imposed by the federal government, which has threatened to withhold funds for universities not complying with its idea of appropriate sexual harassment policy. In response, 28 members of the Harvard Law School Faculty have issued the following statement: AS MEMBERS of the faculty of Harvard Law School, we write to voice our strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school. We strongly endorse the importance of protecting our students from sexual misconduct and providing an educational environment free from the sexual and other harassment that can diminish educational opportunity. But we believe that this particular sexual harassment policy adopted by Harvard will do more harm than good. As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach. We also find the process by which this policy was decided and imposed on all parts of the university inconsistent with the finest traditions of Harvard University, of faculty governance, and of academic freedom. Among our many concerns are the following: Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following: ■ The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing. The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial. ■ The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation. Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by: ■ Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law. ■ Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students. Harvard has pursued a process in arriving at its new sexual harassment policy which violates its own finest traditions of academic freedom and faculty governance, including by the following: ■ Harvard apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials, rather than exercise independent judgment about the kind of sexual harassment policy that would be consistent with law and with the needs of our students and the larger university community. ■ Harvard failed to engage a broad group of faculty from its different schools, including the law school, in the development of the new sexual harassment policy. And Harvard imposed its new sexual harassment policy on all the schools by fiat without any adequate opportunity for consultation by the relevant faculties. ■ Harvard undermined and effectively destroyed the individual schools’ traditional authority to decide discipline for their own students. The sexual harassment policy’s provision purporting to leave the schools with decision-making authority over discipline is negated by the university’s insistence that its Title IX compliance office’s report be totally binding with respect to fact findings and violation decisions. We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community. The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials. We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community. Elizabeth Bartholet Scott Brewer Robert Clark Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Christine Desan Charles Donahue Einer Elhauge Allen Ferrell Martha Field Jesse Fried Nancy Gertner Janet Halley Bruce Hay Philip Heymann David Kennedy Duncan Kennedy Robert Mnookin Charles Nesson Charles Ogletree Richard Parker Mark Ramseyer David Rosenberg Lewis Sargentich David Shapiro, Emeritus Henry Steiner, Emeritus Jeannie Suk Lucie White David Wilkins http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

[UCANSEE2]

Instead, she was attacked and raped in the now-empty rec-room. After being drugged in her drinks, which disabled her thinking as well.

And that's the part where I have trouble.

I read about this incident as well, and the woman admitted she was 'high', then had a 'drink', that she was an aspiring (do anything for fame) actress, and that she thinks he drugged her because she woke up the next morning after the party and couldn't remember a thing.

Like we've never heard that one before.

It's not that I doubt Cosby tried or did have sex with her or dozens of other Hollywood hopefuls, it's that , from reports of others who KNEW what was going on, that is what she was there for. If she wasn't an adult when it happened, then an adult(parent) should not have allowed her to be in that position in the first place. Their 'trust' was obviously misplaced.

What is odd is not that this happened, but that it happens all the time, and the reason we are shocked now is because it is a well known and mostly respected media figure.

Same thing happened over in England.

[Jamestown1630]

Whoa! Paragraphs, please :-)

Good Night!

-JT

[Pikachu_Dad]

Good point. (try that again, with paragraphs this time}

You will notice that there is a very hard push to establish that a simple accusation of a crime to be sufficient to punish a student for 'rape' in the University environment.

You will notice that several of the alleged 'freepers' here are pushing that if an accusation is made, then it simply must be true.

They seem to have a similar attitude to the hard liberals pushing these abusive policies. Any accusation, no matter how tenuous is sufficient in their mind to convict.

This hard liberal policy has finally gotten even the liberal attorney's at Harvard pushing back.

Because what these folks are seeking to do is to undermine the entire system of law in this country.

====================================================

Rethink Harvard’s sexual harassment policy OCTOBER 15, 2014

In July, Harvard University announced a new university-wide policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The new policy, which applies to all schools within the university and to all Harvard faculty, administrators, and students, sets up the Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution to process complaints against students. Both the definition of sexual harassment and the procedures for disciplining students are new, with the policy taking effect this academic year. Like many universities across the nation, Harvard acted under pressure imposed by the federal government, which has threatened to withhold funds for universities not complying with its idea of appropriate sexual harassment policy.

In response, 28 members of the Harvard Law School Faculty have issued the following statement:

AS MEMBERS of the faculty of Harvard Law School, we write to voice our strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school.

We strongly endorse the importance of protecting our students from sexual misconduct and providing an educational environment free from the sexual and other harassment that can diminish educational opportunity. But we believe that this particular sexual harassment policy adopted by Harvard will do more harm than good.

As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach. We also find the process by which this policy was decided and imposed on all parts of the university inconsistent with the finest traditions of Harvard University, of faculty governance, and of academic freedom.

Among our many concerns are the following:

Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:

The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.

Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by:

Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law.

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

Harvard has pursued a process in arriving at its new sexual harassment policy which violates its own finest traditions of academic freedom and faculty governance, including by the following:

Harvard apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials, rather than exercise independent judgment about the kind of sexual harassment policy that would be consistent with law and with the needs of our students and the larger university community.

Harvard failed to engage a broad group of faculty from its different schools, including the law school, in the development of the new sexual harassment policy. And Harvard imposed its new sexual harassment policy on all the schools by fiat without any adequate opportunity for consultation by the relevant faculties.

Harvard undermined and effectively destroyed the individual schools’ traditional authority to decide discipline for their own students. The sexual harassment policy’s provision purporting to leave the schools with decision-making authority over discipline is negated by the university’s insistence that its Title IX compliance office’s report be totally binding with respect to fact findings and violation decisions.

We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community.

The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.

We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community.

Elizabeth Bartholet

Scott Brewer

Robert Clark

Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus

Christine Desan

Charles Donahue

Einer Elhauge

Allen Ferrell

Martha Field

Jesse Fried

Nancy Gertner

Janet Halley

Bruce Hay

Philip Heymann

David Kennedy

Duncan Kennedy

Robert Mnookin

Charles Nesson

Charles Ogletree

Richard Parker

Mark Ramseyer

David Rosenberg

Lewis Sargentich

David Shapiro, Emeritus

Henry Steiner, Emeritus

Jeannie Suk

Lucie White

David Wilkins

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

[ansel12]

No there wasn’t, it was a ‘he said/she said’ claim of a 1978 rape that she brought up 19 years later during the Paula Jones suit.

While in Cosby’s 2004 drugging/raping you have the DA saying he did it (still today) and Cosby settling out of court and 13 women coming forward in support of the case.

[ansel12]

You will notice that several of the alleged 'freepers' here are pushing that if an accusation is made, then it simply must be true.

I haven't seen anyone assert that.

[UCANSEE2]

IF they are lying sluts.

I don't think they are lying sluts. I think they just remember things differently, now that they have grown up and time has passed.

And IF he was not a predator.

Maybe he's a deviant because he prefers white women who are helpless during sex, but when you have young white girls lining up at your door and willing to spend the night, it may be hard to justify the 'predator' label.

[Jamestown1630]

Oh, Ansell;

Go chase yourself.

-JT

[ansel12]

You don’t remember the Bill Clinton rape accusation and think that it was Monica Lewinski?

[berdie]

You kind of amuse me.

I don’t know the Law and Order actress or Lou Ferigno’s wife. So I assume that you do and can vouch for their honesty.

I have already said that I wouldn’t doubt what happened. I just question the circumstances and motivation for the current allegations.

So, here ya go...I, berdie, was assaulted by Bill Cosby. Yes it’s true! I had my heart set on a leading part in the high school performance of “West Side Story”’ I wanted to be Anita soooo bad. Bill said he could help me out. So I...well never mind. But then the slut-puppy threw me away.

Make ya feel better?

[ansel12]

I don't think they are lying sluts. I think they just remember things differently, now that they have grown up and time has passed.

All of them? Even the ones who escaped him, and the ones who filed police reports?

How about the one he settled out of court with?

[ansel12]

Strange stuff, that is a pretty wobbly way of defending him, what do you think the motive of those two women was years ago?

They aren’t part of the rape crowd, they are the ones that got away, so what was their motive, for instance Ferigno’s wife telling him five years ago about her run in with him and his sexual aggression?

[UCANSEE2]

Well, it was in a thread here on FR, but that’s been a long time ago and it would take a while to try and look that back up.

Or you could look for it your self. They have this thing called GOOGLE on computers that can search for just about anything.

[Gluteus Maximus]

There are indeed many unscrupulous family law lawyers out there who see a nice, juicy protected divorce litigation as the ticket to that dreamed-of skiing trip to Vale. I’ve never done that. It’s really immoral. I always tell my clients to get in and get out as fast as you can. Be open hearted and generous without being masochistic. Settle as best you can and move on. In the long run, you’ll be better off.

[ansel12]

LOL, you can’t name a reputable source for it.

You just wanted to post it.

[UCANSEE2]

Cosby was a regular.

So were many, many, many, other famous and wealthy people. Especially politicians. It was a very popular place. Probably had more sexual deviants per square foot than Caligula's Palace.

[Pikachu_Dad]

No, a number of women are CLAIMING to have been raped, groped and drugged by the man.

It remains to be seen if any of the claims are convincing and credible.

You can read the Andrea Constand lawsuit here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/cosby-hit-sex-assault-suit

The case was filed on March 8, 2005.

The alleged incident happened in January 2004.

The police investigation does not appear to have begun until Jan 2005.

The lawyer for the woman said “Our client is the victim of a sexual assault. Nor is it uncommon to delay reporting sexual assault for many reasons, including, among others, the traumatic nature of the event and the betrayal of trust which is felt by the victim. In this case, our client naturally experienced a great deal of emotions, having at one time perceived Mr. Cosby as a friend and mentor.”

Poor Bill Cosby... All these women only viewing him as a ‘mentor’ and not as a ‘lover’.

Shame.

If the woman had made this claim to the police at the time of the incident, then the police could possibly have actually had some evidence to work with !!!

As it is... All of the material evidence is long since gone.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=446798

[berdie]

Well, back in the day, when I was young and cute and a partier (kind of) there were men that came on to me.That doesn’t signal some kind of rape allegation. It had to do with circumstances...and walking away. If it were, I would be a rich woman today...and trust me I am not.