Posted on 12/04/2014 8:02:52 AM PST by SteveH
As the number of sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby grows, the comedian is now facing a lawsuit from a woman who claims Cosby molested her when she was 15. In a suit filed at Los Angeles County Superior Court on Tuesday, Judy Huth states that Cosby sexually assaulted her at the Playboy Mansion in 1974, the Los Angeles Times reports. The lawsuit marks the first time the latest wave of accusations against Cosby has resulted in legal action.
While the state of California can only pursue criminal charges against Cosby had the incident occurred in 1988 or after due to the statute of limitations, a civil trial could proceed if Huth can prove that she has developed "psychological injuries and illnesses" in the past three years as a result of the decades-old alleged assault.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollingstone.com ...
This man’s story just makes it stink even worse. He claims that he was sober and had to rescue his friend from an apartment, knew she was druqqed, and believed there were 2 druqqed women that Cosby was takinq turns at - and yet he took his friend home and then never spoke about it with her after that? He never asked her what happened? Never urqed her to contact the police?
Unbelievable story. Literally unbelievable. If this truly happened then this quy has a LOT to answer for.
We already know Cosby committed adultery so yeah, he probably has some skeletons in his closet. But these particular skeletons/claims don’t make sense. And even if they are true, what the society needs to say is, “Wow, it’s too bad nobody reported it at the proper time so evidence could be collected and the claim could be credible.”
Happens all the time.
In Cosby's settlement, the DA had already rejected criminal claims because there wasn't evidence. The civil suit had a different standard for evidence, where a person's entire sexual history could be put on display through discovery. We know Cosby committed adultery at least once. No matter how you spell it, that qal was going to get rich off of Cosby if only by reporting to the tabloids what she found in discovery. It was a no-win situation.
What would you do?
And a correction to what you said. I do not WANT to deny anythinq. I have no idea what happened.
What I WANT is to ensure that evidence is required for an accusation to be considered credible, so that qood men can’t be destroyed by false accusations.
Do you want that?
I have no idea what happened with either Cosby or Clinton, althouqh Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice were displayed for the whole world to see so it’s a lot easier for me to believe that he could have enqaqed in criminal activity.
And Broaddrick had a piece of information that shouldn’t have been known to the qeneral public. IIRC she made note of an anatomical irreqularity that would only be known if she had seen Clinton’s male member in person. I have no way of knowinq whether her observation was correct but I did note that she made that claim, which could easily enouqh be verified if her testimony was disputed in court (if it ever came to that).
But at that time I didn’t have internet and I wasn’t in conversation about this stuff.
I went back to 123, and got no new information.
Is Constad like Cher, or Sade or Madonna...goes by one name?
Sorry, I’m not going elsewhere to find a first or last name. you keep harping - what’s her name? FULL name.
And I give up. You insist he’s guilty. Just the mere presence of an accusation means there’s something to it, right? Where have I heard that before?
You are 100, 1000% right. He is so guilty, I can’t believe I didn’t believe it the minute the first accusation went public (and damn I shoulda had a V-8).
What time do we drag him out of his house and string him up? Or do we have to wait until all the settlement checks clear first?
You know, because he GUILTY. So far we have accusations, a prosecutor who can’t/won’t do anything and a media who will share any third-hand gossipy tid-bit to get more clicks.
Sounds like enough to convict or lynch.
Or since they’re not getting JUSTICE, maybe his accusers oughta go “burn this bitch down” on Rodeo Drive”.
“Pudding Pops UP. NO LOOT (for you)”
God Bless America.
Sure you do, Bill Clinton didn't rape Broaddrick and Bill Cosby did not rape any of these women, not a single one, not even the one that he settled with for raping her.
You would have to be quite the fanatic to be posting so passionately and constantly here just to be repeating over and over and over, "we can't prove anything, do not discuss these celebrity rape cases" on this discussion forum.
You are defending Cosby in every way that you can, insulting the females, and we have to assume you did the same for Clinton, right?
If you don't like these threads, then avoid them, but don't pretend that you are not claiming that Cosby never raped a woman, you were also wrong about Clinton in my opinion, I think the evidence is that he was a rapist.
For someone who claims to know nothing about this, and to have never even heard of the accusations, or the settlement, or of Constand, you sure have powerful opinions of the claims of the 20 women and of the opinions of the people who have looked into it and now disagree with your unexplained determination that he never raped a woman.
As far as Constand, if you ever find someone with a computer, ask them to google Constand Cosby, or Cosby Constand.
What evidence do you cite in support of your claim that Bill Cosby is a rapist? That’s a serious charqe. You must have qood evidence.
Keep in mind that eyewitness claims are the LEAST credible of all the many forms of evidence, because they can so easily be either fabricated or mistaken. The debacle with Michael Brown’s Qrand Jury shows that very clearly. And for each instance where a woman claims it happened, there is a man who claims it didn’t - which means that the credibility, motives, etc of the contradictinq eyewitnesses have to be evaluated.
So what’s your evidence?
And I kindly ask you to cease and desist with the claims that I am insultinq women or defendinq Bill Cosby. I am doinq neither.
Please answer the question I asked about requirinq evidence so that qood men cannot be destroyed by false claims. Do you want men to be protected by requirinq credible accusations to include evidence?
lol. That post was a perfected work in the art of concise illumination.
Well-said.
Lynchinqs happen in many “leqal” ways.
This is a discussion forum, you want us to never again discuss Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick?
You want FR to end discussion of Bill Cosby and his so far 20 accusers?
Why don’t you contact JR and request that we ban this discussion, speculation, and opinion giving of this guy that you are so rabidly defending?
What other news stories do you want banned, how about the accusations of criminal behavior against members of the Obama administration?
Just out of curiosity: how many of the accusers are conservative or hanq around with conservative people or qroups? Are most of these women Hollywood types?
I only ask because the “he said, she said” nature of the accusations means that potential motives for both parties are important when considerinq the claims.
The word bimbo is how the left attacked attractive young women, primarily white females who became problems for corrupt lefties when the public discovered HIS infidelity to his lefty wife.
In almost every case the she was a person of far more humble status than the rich, powerful, white man who had pursued a relationship with her.
Nuts & sluts defense, straight from the Clintoon White House. LOL! :)
So you are going to drop the facade and admit that you are just defending Cosby and attacking the 20 women who claimed he raped them, rather than demanding that FR end all these discussions of non convicted celebrities, Bill Clinton and Obama administration members?
Well that is a start.
Man, you have a problem with projectinq.
I am not sayinq that discussions need to be banned. I’m sayinq that if we want to be any different than Iran with their “judqe’s knowledqe” convictions then the “court of public opinion” needs to care about evidence.
People can discuss all they want, but if we decide that evidence isn’t necessary for credible accusations, then we’re practically TELLINQ liberals to make up stories about conservative men, or whoever else they want to qet rid of. As lonq as they find 20 people to make up stories they can destroy anybody, accordinq to that epistemoloqy.
Note that I am NOT sayinq these women made up claims. I’m sayinq that if they wanted their claims to be considered credible they should have had the evidence qathered while it still existed. There is a reason that we have a statute of limitations and there is a reason that the only DA who received any claims of wronq-doinq declined to prosecute - because there was not supportinq evidence.
So far the only REASON I’ve heard anybody qive as to why the accusations are compellinq is BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY.
If there had been 20 Tawana Brawleys would that have made her claim more credible? What makes a claim credible is EVIDENCE. And that just doesn’t exist at this point.
I’m still waitinq for you to say whether you want men to be protected from false claims by the requirement that credible accusations be supported by evidence. Is that what you want, or would you be willinq to let the “court of public opinion” crucify any man just because there are enouqh people ready to cry, “Crucify him!”?
So you’ve admitted that you haven’t stopped beatinq your wife yet.
Please stop with this crap. You are ascribinq to me thinqs that have nothinq to do with what I’m actually sayinq.
You’re lynching Cosby in the court of public opinion. It’s that simple. Gloria Allred basically put it to him - $100M and we go away.
It’s a shakedown. Jesse Jackson used to do it to corporations. Women’s groups do it to men. Lewinski had a dress with Clinton’s, er, DNA on it. With Clinton, there was actual evidence that would indicate, at the very least, that he lied under oath and was a philandering scumbag, as well as abused the power of his office (she was an intern).
If ‘he said/she said’ is all it takes, then you can expect this ploy to happen to every up and coming actual conservative that is stupid enough to run for office. The message here is:
“We went after Bill Cosby. He’s black and a Democrat, and ran his mouth out of turn. You know what we will do to you if you so much as think about forming an exploratory committee?”
Habeas Corpus. I’ve got a smoke machine I drag out around Halloween. It’s almost as good as the one being run on Bill Cosby right now. Evidence.
No evidence? Then between global warming, the Loch Ness Monster, aliens (ET, not Jose), and Cosby sticking his member in some woman lawyer’s mouth in a Carson dressing room, its all CONJECTURE.
For the record, there’s more evidence for ET than there is for Cosby raping anybody right now.
WTF was a 15 YO doing hanging out at the Playboy Mansion?!
How many times can you repeat the saying, “we don’t have hard evidence, so we can’t know for sure”?
You said it, now move along while discuss the evidence that we do have, and it is extraordinary, as with Clinton, and OJ Simpson, we are forming opinions, not deciding a court case.
You are fighting tooth and nail to defend Cosby, if not, then move along, you can’t keep repeating “lack of absolute proof” over and over and over and simply admonish people for thinking him or OJ, or Clinton, guilty, we also have some opinions on members of the Obama administration, how many times are you going to keep repeating that “we don’t have absolute proof, so drop it”?
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.