Posted on 11/19/2014 5:19:23 AM PST by WhiskeyX
Does anyone think this is being stirred up by those who would benefit from Bill Cosby having no voice to affect the upcoming Ferguson riots?
LOL-
loveable Ol’ bill Clinton?
surely you jest- he was a Rhodes scholar!
And the girl/slut in England has Never had her allegations proved! sarc
seriously- never had known about ALL the women these 2 Bill’s - at LEAST met- and probably raped-
but I would have never imagined David Letterman doing the
same thing— no morals left anymore- in politics or
crazy hollywood
You missed the original context. The original question was why the alleged victims did not “IMMEDIATELY” file legal complaints at the time the alleged rapes and sexual assaults occurred? Bowman and others we’ve heard from described how it was not until long after they could get anyone to listen to them. Yes, many years after the alleged incidents of rape some of the women finally got an opportunity to bring their complaints into a court of law, but none of those even then were in a criminal court.
So, the many complaints by FR posters saying Bill Cosby is getting a raw deal because his reputation is being defamed by gold diggers prejudges the alleged victims as guilty scammers and prejudicially assumes the innocence of the alleged rapist, Bill Cosby. Yes, Bill Cosby has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a “court of law”, but the plaintiffs as the alleged victims of rape also have the same right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given the manner in which the plaintiffs were denied their day in court for a number of years and/or decades, it appears self-evident they still possess the right of free speech and the right to defend their own reputations and rights just as Bill Cosby has his rights to his reputation and free speech. Since the statute of limitations on the alleged rapes have expired, the plaintiffs can no longer bring criminal complaints against Bill Cosby. They may, however, use their free speech to challenge the reputation of Bill Cosby in the court of public opinion.
If Bill Cosby feels he is innocent of the allegations of rape the more than one dozen women are complaining about, Bill Cosby has the right to become a plaintiff against these women in a court of law. So far, it appears Bill Cosby has one or more reasons for not doing so. Of course, one of the reasons Bill Cosby may not wish to become a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit could very well be his personal knowledge of his guilt. Given this circumstance, both parties to the dispute may be exercising their legal rights. The women may be exercising their legal rights to warn the public about the dangers of one or more serial rapists, including Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby may be exercising his right to not become a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit.
You said nobody would represent [those claiming Cosby sexually assaulted them] in a court of law.
Those were exactly your words and your words were what I addressed. I didn't attempt in any manner to address the timeliness of anything or the decision of women to pursue Cosby in a civil action rather than a criminal action.
I addressed your claim about the inability of Cosby claimants to obtain representation.
Your claim was wrong.
“Does anyone think this is being stirred up by those who would benefit from Bill Cosby having no voice to affect the upcoming Ferguson riots?”
No, it came back into prominence because of the comedian’s defense of the alleged rape victims. His motivation for bringing up the alleged rapes is part of a recently broader defense of women and children who have undergone all too widespread incidents of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse by Hollywood celebrities. Many of the child victims of this sexual abuse are now dead as a result of the psychological trauma suffered in silence, because they did not dare challenge their abusers. Too often not even their own parents would listen to such allegations of sexual abuse.
Co-star Robert Culp once said that Cosby "is the angriest young man I've ever met."
Cosby has long publicly pushed for education as a way of making it in life. Yet he was allegedly given a work-free Doctor of Education degree by the University of Massachusetts, with most course work waived and another work-free "desertation" on his cartoon show "The Cosby Kids" accepted by the school. UMass was among the forefront of schools drooling to give black people unearned advanced degrees as a kind of early social justice. As a grad student there I tried to read his desertation once and was told it was "restricted" and locked away.
Cosby sold the rights to his "The Cosby Show" to syndication for the then unimaginable sum of $500 million -- particularly smart since it has died quickly in reruns. He does not need money.
He lives in a mansion in western Massachusetts when he is there and flies in his private jet from Westfield Airport. When coming and going he avoids any contact with the public that made him so rich.
As to the charges against him, who knows?
Hollywood is like the Mafia, they take care of their own, and they have a lot of “enforcers” out there working for them.
Interesting post. Thanks.
Q: What goes into 13 six times?
I worked for a company that hired Cosby to do some commercials for us in the 90’s.
The day after we were told we started bracing ourselves for some scandal like this to break about him.
Not that we had any inside info on Cos. It’s just that our company had such an awful track record on ad campaigns.
I responded specifically to your statement on this thread that nobody would represent [those claiming Cosby sexually assaulted them] in a court of law.
You were wrong. I gave you the names of the attorneys who agreed to to represent those women in a court of law. If you would like, I can provide you with a .pdf of a legal pleading with one of those attorneys' signatures on it.
Instead saying 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' and trying to get everyone to ignore what you first wrote, you would be best served IMHO by saying that you were wrong.
I wrote exactly: “You don’t believe the alleged victims have been denied their own reputations and livelihood because they were presumed to be guilty and not innocent when no one would represent them in a court of law?”
The part which says, “when no one would represent them in a court of law?” means exactly that, “when”, i.e. during the space of time in which “no one would represent them in a court of law?” This period of time in which no one would represent the victims in a court of law extended variously from the day in which the rape occurred to some years afterwards. During this interval of time some of the victims tell us they were accused of being guilty of lying, often ridiculously so. They were repeatedly accused of what amounts as gold diggers trying to get some of Bill Cosby’s money.
So, you are wrong and being argumentative where there is no justification whatsoever. As my comments in the other threads clearly indicate, I have always been talking about the period of time before the first of the women finally secured legal counsel and a court hearing and before the statute of limitations had expired. You should also note how I posted links to such sources as an interview with a victim, and I was obviously aware of the 2004 court case in which Bill Cosby induced some of the victims to settle out of court before the other victims could testify in court. Consequently, your attempt to misrepresent my comment to mean other than what it clearly says is contradicted by the sources I linked and the very words I used.
Look again at what some of these women have said about what happened to them when they tried to tell other people about their being raped. Their talent agent denied them. The attorney laughed a victim out of his office. Their reputation was ruined. Their opportunity and potential livelihood as an aspiring actress was ruined. None of them were able to secure the help they needed to prosecute Bill Cosby in a criminal court before the expiration of the statute of limitations. “You don’t believe the alleged victims have been denied their own reputations and livelihood because they were presumed to be guilty and not innocent when no one would represent them in a court of law?”
Drugging women and serial rapist is not the definition of a dirty old man.
plus he was a young man when he started drugging and raping them
Good point, it’s funny how we forget stuff like that sometimes when a story covers a long time span.
Cosby was 6’1” and about 185 pounds at about age 32 at the time.
#8 Yuck. Hugh Hefner is a pimp to Hollywood.
Life at the Playboy Mansion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1342643/Hugh-Hefners-Playboy-mansion-like-squalid-prison-say-Playmates.html
"The problem here is the apparent inability of some 13 to 16 alleged female victims finding themselves unable to take their complaints into a court of law, because the justice system and rule of law were denied to them in the first place. Some have said they went to the authorities and were laughed and/or scorned right out of their offices in disbelief and/or unwillingness to take the matter into a court of law."
I replied to your first sentence. We do not know of a single case in which any of the victims was unable to take her complaint into a court of law. Nary a one. One of the victims, Bowman, consulted one attorney who did not take her case, according to Barbara Bowman. If she had wanted to take her case into a court of law, I believe she could have found an attorney to do so. Don't you?
Some of the women chose not to pursue any claim. Women choose not to pursue sexual assault claims on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
Andrea Constand settled a filed, public, legal civil action for an undisclosed amount of money subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Some of the women accepted payments of travel and/or living expenses from Mr. Cosby. Why file a lawsuit?
We know of two cases in which a prosecutor decided not to go forward with a criminal prosecution of Mr. Cosby: Barbara Bowman and Andrea Constand
Ms. Constand then filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Cosby and he settled it. Ms. Constand's attorneys are the ones who found the double-digit 'Jane Doe' I-was-sexually-assaulted-by-Bill-Cosby witnesses, including those who were received payments from Mr. Cosby before 2005.
In addition to the two cases that prosecutors wouldn't file, Lachele Covington filed a claim with the police but was told that because Mr. Cosby quit trying to thrust Ms. Covington's hand down Mr. Cosby's sweatpants when she said 'no' and pulled her hand away, no molestation had occurred. Ms. Covington was an actress on the Cosby Show and claimed Mr. Cosby was consulting her about career advice. She filed her claim with the police three days after the incident, one day after she told her family.
Wait? Having her touch Cosby's manhood? That's how Barbara Bowman says it started, including the rubbing-my-head-because-Mr.-Cosby-says-that's-how-he-concentrates stuff that Ms. Covington also reported to the police.
So, no, there wasn't a "when no one would represent them in a court of law?” at all, and the accusations of "what amounts as gold diggers trying to get some of Bill Cosby’s money" came from Mr. Cosby's people about the ones who went public, while Mr. Cosby was paying the ones who didn't go public.
Capisce?
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.