Apparently Bill Cosby had been accused by various women of actions which the women claimed (rightly or wrongly) were bad.
Without getting into any value judgements on the sexual accusations however, I thought one case was really intriguing:
(this is from further down in the story)
"Green first told her story in 2005 on the "Today" show and in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and starting in the fall of 2014 she told it to multiple media outlets. Each time, she asserted in the lawsuit, Cosby, through his lawyers or his publicist, denied her allegations, defaming her by declaring them "absolutely false."
In effect, Green asserted in the suit, every time Cosby through his representatives said he didn't do it, he was defaming her. "Thus, by innuendo and effect, Defendant Cosby publicly branded Plaintiff Green a liar," the lawsuit said. "
--
So what it sounds like to me, is it now very nearly the case, that a woman can accuse a man of impropriety, then when he denies it, SUE the guy for defaming her?
Did I understand that correctly?
Wow. If I did.
Wow.
My interpretations is the claims get you into court where you have to show facts or evidence to prove your claim. The defendant while innocent till proven guilty cannot prove a negative unless has an alibi.
If that was,in fact,the case it was stupid beyond belief.
Liability policies will cover defamation and slander but obviously not sexual assault or rape. She has some smart attorneys.
This is where we are today.
Dead man walking.
The Cosby Show is still on TV all the time.
Good thing he bought the anti-defamation rider on his Rape Insurance?
Here is another interesting question, suppose the matter proceeds to the discovery phase of a lawsuit and the criminal defendant must then choose in the civil case whether to open himself to questioning or decline to answer damaging questions on the grounds it might incriminate him. Can the plaintiff in the civil case have use of that?