Posted on 12/04/2014 8:02:52 AM PST by SteveH
Kind of hard to miss Janice. She’s everywhere when you change the tv channels. Like a Kartrashian, it’s hard to escape her, or else I just pick the wrong time to veg in front of the tube.
Allred or Alred’s pic popped up when I was scrolling another conservative site this morning - I don’t actively seek this stuff. I didn’t click the link, because I have yet to hear anything believable coming out of her mouth.
I’m not dismissing claims, but buying into them as Gospel truth, either. Color me skeptical, but not completely closed minded.
If anyone could get away with it, it would be Cos. Whoddathunkit? Rich, celeb, Dr. Huxtable, America’s Dad.
How about ALL the info comes out, and then we can rush to judge?
And that scenario is between you and I, who don’t know anythinq about each other. The people accusinq Cosby may well have been with him the days they claimed. Anybody who saw you (or your father) on April 12, 1972 could make a claim that you raped them then. Would you be able to drum up witnesses to counter the claim? What exactly COULD you drum up to counter the claim from that lonq aqo?
I ask you about Constand who claimed that she was drugged and raped by Cosby in 2004 and who filed a police report in 2005 (another woman filed a police report in 2000), and who the DA is convinced was actually drugged and raped by Bill Cosby, but felt that he lacked the physical evidence for a criminal conviction.
Constand then sued Cosby and had 13 other women willing to testify to his drugging/rape method, and Cosby settled with her, and leaves her out of his lawyers denials of drugging and rape.
But you keep refusing to respond to her name, even though I have asked you repeatedly about her in response to your defenses of Cosby and attacks on the women.
To: LadyBuck
How about Constand’s accusation of being drugged and raped in 2004?
94 posted on 12/4/2014, 9:45:20 AM by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90
After the situation described in post 123, having his lawyers keep denying the claims of 20 women and dismissing them as coming out of nowhere, seems to be less believable.
i don’t know that i can prove i and my father were not there but there is documentation of where i and my father nominally were (college, job, thousands of miles from nebraska— if i am even spelling nebraska correctly because my computer is flagging it as wrong right now). given that it did not actually happen but presumably in this hypothetical case you have alleged in a public complaint that it is true, then you have a potential problem of a countersuit, and the preponderance of evidence will be against you (because of where we were and what we were doing at about that time, far away from where you allege us to have been). so are you worried about a hypothetical countersuit? or you do not have any assets and no reputation worth protecting, so nothing to lose?
Cosby took them there after drinks, it sounds like something hard to resist with the guy who was rich, famous, charming and funny, and doing Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids on TV at the time, if it happened.
"Huth's lawsuit states that she and a 16-year-old friend first met Cosby at a Los Angeles-area film shoot and the comedian gave the girls drinks a week later at a tennis club.
The lawsuit states that Cosby took them to the Playboy Mansion after several drinks, and told the teenagers to lie and say they were 19 years old if asked."
oh for pete’s sake.
I don’t know about Constand, never heard of her. again, is that a first or last name?
How about I just go with, he must be guilty - everyone says so. So, it must be true.
Guilty, Guilty, GUILTY.
That Better?
Any DA who is convinced that a rape occurred when there is no evidence of the same is not worth their salt.
Evidence matters.
Why didn’t Constand qet druq tested if she thouqht she was druqqed? Why didn’t she qet a physical examination which may have included DNA evidence? Why did she wait until a year later to report anythinq, and why did she report it in Canada?
The lonq and the short of it is this: If a woman is sexually assaulted she needs to report it immediately when evidence is still available, or else she has no credible way to make the accusation. If any one of these dozens of women had done that, you and I would not be havinq this conversation riqht now.
If you were konked out at some point, have yourself druq tested and save the underwear you were wearinq so that if the druq test comes back positive for date-rape druqs you may have some physical evidence of what happened while you were druqqed.
That’s what we need to be sayinq now, unless we want more and more of these unprovable accusations croppinq up at opportune times.
Why? The only limit on how many women could come forward is how many women were with him alone at some point in his career. He has no way to prove his innocence on any of them so what’s the risk for them?
Especially since to prove libel you have to prove that somebody KNEW they were lyinq. Some of these women aren’t even claiminq they knew what had happened, just what they think they remember when they think they miqht have been druqqed - so lonq aqo that there is no evidence and never will be.
That is absurd.
As you mock her delay of going to police for a year and dismiss the other 13 women willing to testify to rape and drugging during her lawsuit, did you work this hard to defend Clinton against Juanita Broaddrick's claim of being raped in 1978 when she came forward during the Paula Jones lawsuit in 1997?
So you have no evidence that would prove you didn’t do it.
And you have no evidence that I knew I was lyinq when I said that you did it.
Why should I fear a counter-suit?
If my purpose was to bankrupt you and destroy your qood name, I could do it then. All I would need is a motive.
Does that scare you?
If you had pissed off the entire political left would it scare you?
So you never heard of the drugged rape victim that Cosby won’t deny and who brought forth 13 more rape victims and that he settled with?
Truly, NO
My response to Broaddrick’s claim was, “Did she save the torn pantyhose?”
Does that answer your question? To me, what matters is evidence. And I worry about our society if we accept a different epistemoloqy than that. “Judqe’s knowledqe” may be enouqh to convict a person in Iran, but if we ever accept that standard here then America is in deep, deep trouble.
That’s all I’m sayinq, and I’m surprised that it’s qettinq as much blow-back here on Free Republic as it is. I would have thouqht this was a no-brainer.
If there was an out-0f-court aqreement then he CAN’T deny it - any more than she can talk about her claims.
But she reserved for herself some women who aren’t sworn to silence. Those are the ones Cosby has denied.
So your implication that Cosby isn’t denyinq Constand’s claims because he admits they are true doesn’t hold water.
see my previous response.
those people who knew cosby— i guess it is a valid point that they might know where he was at the times they accuse him of sexually molesting them. that might make some of them gold diggers or political opportunists.
however, some alleged witnesses are corroborating the accounts- for example, here:
what witnesses are coming forward to defend cosby? so far, none that i know of.
if there are witnesses to corroborate the accusers and none to corroborate cosby, and the MOs match, the preponderance of the evidence would seem to favor the accusers, which would make things difficult for cosby in civil court.
but the immediate problem i think is that cosby needs to stay out of depositions. watch what his lawyers do. even now, i think the strategy can be seen that they want to dismiss complaints pre-deposition.
it may be that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but fine.
if so, we could expect slow movement in one direction or another.
what we seem to be seeing right now is that more and more accusers are surfacing. and some witnesses surfacing against cosby. the MOs tend to match. all this is not good for cosby, everything else held equal.
if cosby declares that he will take depositions and testify at trial, then that would break the mold and reverse direction in his favor. but the continuing trend right now is not favorable to cosby.
one could be scientific about this— just make a prediction and come back in a few months. eg, that the overall trend against cosby will continue, or that it will stumble.
in the real world, we are forced to act given imperfect information. cosby is not on trial at this moment, i am not on the jury but if i were forced to comment on his chances of ultimate escape from some sort of censure (at a minimum) given all that is happened to date, i would say they are not good.
i would also tend to believe that a lot of this is due to cosby’s own allegedly less than angelic behavior, whether or not strictly legal.
I’d say (IANAL) there would be circumstantial evidence against your complaint and favoring my contentions. That circumstantial evidence would favor a countersuit. barring absolute evidence to the contrary— evidence i am certain would not turn up since i would know the charges to be untrue— the suit would probably not prevail but the countersuit probably would prevail, based on the totality of the evidence, both absolute and circumstantial.
IANAL, and i do not deny that frivolous lawsuits are a problem, especially for the rich, famous, and controversial.
LOL, he chose to settle for the rape/drugging, but you want to deny that he raped her, for him.
So you say that Bill Clinton did not rape Juanita Broaddrick, and that Cosby never raped Constand.
Did you work this hard in Clinton’s defense?
Well you read about her in post 123.
So after learning about her in post 123, perhaps you can answer that question that you keep ignoring.
To: LadyBuck
How about Constand’s accusation of being drugged and raped in 2004?
94 posted on 12/4/2014, 9:45:20 AM by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90
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.