from: "bucko"
My apologies for the mistaken observation that your posts give the impression of someone who is primarily interested in defending Cosby.
Perhaps you could clarify something: one would think that a woman would naturally sympathize with women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted. Surely you understand better than most men the complex emotional dilemma that a young woman would face especially in an age when sexual-assault victims had a much more difficult time making their case. It was a time when victims faced the humility of being examined by male officers, and whose testimony was often not taken seriously.
Cosby was at the height of his career, and was viewed as virtually unchallengeable. Who would dare make such an accusation against Dr. Huxtable?
Surely you understand (better than us men) the tremendous emotional barriers to "going public" and facing the inevitable public ridicule, even after having suffered in silence all these years. For as you know, time does not heal all wounds.
It is by no means true that Cosby is left with no way to combat the accusations. If he was seriously interested in clearing his name, he could waive the statute of limitations and go to court to rebut the allegations. If I were him (and I am not), I would spare no cost - of my $400 million fortune - to clear my name. What is a few million in lawyer's fees to a man like Cosby?
I certainly agree that "Only the Lord knows" the full truth, but we are also instructed to use our God-given spiritual gift of discernment. And what is your discernment regarding the now more than twenty women of varying walks in life who are accusing Cosby of rape?
My view of these women is that if they wanted to be believed they should have had the evidence taken while it was there to be had. Bill Cosby was not Dr Huxtable at that time; he was a comedian friend of Hugh Hefner. Combine testimony from the people giving the alleged “knowing looks” with a blue stained dress and the jerk would be off the streets rather than out raping more women.
Why did NOT ONE of those 20+ women do that?
I’ll ask ya something else too. The earliest report was in 2000 from a starlet who wanted Cosby to help make her famous. Her claim to the police was that Cosby didn’t drug her and quit as soon as she told him to stop trying for first base. Yet decades before, he supposedly had this big “turn on” with drugging women and then doing non-evidence-producing sexual activity with them (having them touch him, digital penetration of them, etc Did any of them actually claim he had just plain old coitus, complete with semen?). What serial rapist DE-escalates over time? If it took raping a woman to turn on Cosby in 1965 then why are the first public allegations, decades later, basically that he was an average college-type guy who simply tried for first base and then stopped when resisted?
The claim of Cosby being this horrible monster only emerged in 2005, 6 months after he angered the NAACP and leftists by making the comments that this “comedian” referenced in his opening non-comedic salvo at Cosby a little over a month ago. So, what? He was a terrible monster over all these decades, brutalizing everybody in Hollywood, and then in 2000 he tamed down into trying first base and then stopping when told? The chronology just doesn’t make sense.
And what Cosby’s attorney said is true, if Huth tried to sell her story for money in 2005: She perjured herself by claiming she only just now discovered that she had been harmed. Do you believe that these delicate flowers should now have license to commit perjury because of the police reports they chose not to file when their allegations could have been proven or disproven by actual forensic evidence? If these women will lie to get their case into a civil court, why should we believe they’re not REALLLY lying to get a case into the civil court?