Hef on Cosby: 'The mere thought of these allegations is truly saddening'

Los Angeles police opened an investigation into a woman's claims that Bill Cosby molested her when she was 15 years old at the Playboy mansion, a department spokeswoman said.

In response to the accusation, Hugh Hefner released the following statement about the comedian.

“Bill Cosby has been a good friend for many years and the mere thought of these allegations is truly saddening. I would never tolerate this kind of behavior, regardless of who was involved.”

The investigation was opened Friday after Judy Huth, who is suing Cosby for sexual battery, met with detectives for 90 minutes, Officer Jane Kim said.

Huth's civil suit claims Cosby forced her to perform a sex act on him in a bedroom of the Playboy Mansion around 1974 when she was underage.

Funny thing when I went to reply to this, this morning. Was just about ready to hit “Post” and my laptop quit. Won’t start again. So then I went to my desktop; my browser closed itself 3 times in succession because of a critical error but wouldn’t ever let me send an error report. In the past 4 years I’ve been through 2 laptops and 3 desktops. Destroyed. My family doesn’t want me using their computers because they know it’ll get hit if I start doing my stuff on it. I’m the only one who ever has this stuff happen.

A friend says I shouldn’t mention when stuff like this happens because it only encourages the jerks to do more. Not sure what more can be done besides wiping out every computer I touch... Of course it could all be coincidence, like it was with Sharyl Atkisson...

Anyway, accusers who slip up on their story will always say they just “mis-spoke”, and the only way to show otherwise is with evidence we don’t have access to, like the phone and email records from 2004.

In a court appearance, you can confront them with discrepancies and watch their immediate responses - not what they’ve had time to figure out how to spin. The closest we can come to that is the media “gotcha”, but the media won’t even ask these women to explain discrepancies because we’ve already had about 4 years of the leftists telling us that anybody who scrutinizes women’s claims has a “war on women”.

If they’ve tried to fabricate evidence that can be shown simply by examining that evidence and seeing, for instance, that in 1982 Bill Cosby didn’t look like the guy in those photos, and the setting has the wrong kind of booze, and the whole story of her pulling out a Polaroid camera right as she was going to pass out makes no sense - like other details don’t make sense, such as her being there to discuss going on a TV show that Cosby wouldn’t have until 2 years later, or her bringing her pajamas with her to a dinner date, or her getting into her pajamas and Cosby getting into his robe without her ever suspecting something fishy was going on...

Nancy Grace commented that the stories began to be taken seriously when Dickinson came forward. If her story was a fabricated lie - done with the help of somebody close enough to Cosby to take photos of him in his robe without Cosby thining twice about it - then there is a deliberate effort by media and at least one insider, to frame Cosby for things he didn’t do.

And I can’t even post the pics here on Free Republic, so people can easily see how the alleged “right before the rape” photos don’t fit the claims or the time period. If the evidence isn’t welcome here, we can be pretty sure that the leftist media won’t process the evidence either. So it’s one great big lynching. Evidence not welcome.

And that’s sad.

hardware issues

—you might just be hard on your hardware. btw lots of computer stuff is presumed to have a product lifetime of about 2 years.

mis-speaking

—i suppose. however, on the web it is mentioned that a police report was filed in 2000, so tarshis could have heard about it then, and the people she was talking with are (to my awareness) not necessarily all those who recently came forward. these are all technicalities that can be worked on in cross examination, which is always helpful, yes. so a trial would serve a useful purpose if it were to be held. but the simplest explanation is still usually the best. one can of course build a conspiracy theory around a single quote, but then the conspiracy theory is only as strong as that one instance, and if the instance is easily retracted by a correction, ...

when dickinson came forward

—when did she come forward about cosby specifically? she states that cosby’s laywers had a role in censoring her second book, no lifeguard on duty (2002). apparently dickinson only came forward about the cosby story by name this past november 18? tarshis came out november 17? bowman came out november 11? buress gave the routine october 17? nancy grace sounds as if she is just giving her opinion of others’ collective opinions, and hardly seems to matter that much one way or another.

dickinson’s photos

— i personally am not convinced that dickinson is centrally important to determining cosby’s guilt or innocence, see one of my previous responses

your inability to post dickinson’s photos

— you may want to brush up on html img command and http/html in general. i learned http/html in part from fr, so perhaps you can do the same. as to fr selectively picking on you, i personally suspect it is more likely to be either an obscure fr policy issue regarding posting material from the websites you used, or an html issue. either way, i’ve been there plenty of times, other fr users have also been there plenty of times, and you are a html beginner, so i think there are apt to be alternative explanations for why some of your posts are not working well. the vast majority of fr users have also probably struggled with this kind of stuff and felt frustrated at times too. i know i have had those feelings in the past.

—

btw: qlad to see some “q”s back in your responses. that was qettinq annoyinq. lol

One more point— since dickinson is publicly claiming that a draft of her 2002 book was effectively censored by cosby legal/PR team in 2002, then there should be a paper trail of that dating to 2002 from both cosby’s lawyers, dickinson’s literary agent and her publisher. this would be 2 years before tarshis’ claim. an issue would be why did dickinson and tarshis wait so many years to go public: in particular, would burell need to be in the alleged conspiracy, since his act seems to have precipitated the current wave of negative publicity toward cosby? and if so, when would he have been recruited?

the dickinson paper trail would presumably be subject to subpoena if anything went to trial.

IANAL

The 2000 police report didn’t claim drugs were used. It was claimed that Cosby put her hand on his stomach and nudged it towards his pants but stopped when she told him to stop. Tarshis’ statement means that there was no talk about drugging or rape because of any police report.

I’m the only one in my family who has these computer issues, and my family believes the way I am hard on my computers is by doing research and not shutting up about it.

ALL of this is just a bunch of people blowing on about their opinions. The one piece of actual evidence was Dickinson’s claimed photos, but they instead reveal big problems with her claims and with the claim that nobody collaborated on bringing forward false charges.

When the rule is “innocent until proven guilty”, the person who makes the positive claim (and thus would have any evidence that could be produced) is responsible to produce it. If Dickinson says her manuscript was censored then she should bring forward the original draft and the letters telling how it would be edited. Regardless of whether her claim of rape was in the manuscript, though, the fact remains that she said in the book that Cosby blew her off because she wouldn’t sleep with him, and now she claims that she DID sleep with him (unwillingly). Either she was lying then or she is lying now, or both.

Why is the media totally silent on that?

2000 report omits drugs

— so big (redacted) what. it establishes the first official time that cosby is officially on the criminal defensive in public. i emphasize in public only because there may have been prior contacts with LE by alleged victims which did not result in any released police reports or other publicly available LE records, but still potentially exist and await formal entry into the public record via discovery, independent affidavits, interviews, etc.

— research can be very, very hard on computers. i do research on computers. i know. don’t beat yourself up about it. hope your family will eventually at least understand if not accept.

opinion blowing

— no it’s not just strictly all about people blowing there opinions. exhibit #1 - buckhead (the one and only)

dickinson photos, dickinson photos, dickinson photos (bleah)

— relatively unimportant, relatively unimportant, relatively unimportant. see one of my first responses to your dickinson posts. did you ever take a debate course? ever? ever? buehler? buehler?

innocent until proven guilty

— we are not here parties to any lynch mob to my knowledge. i’ve stated early on that everyone alive is constantly called upon to make decisions in real time based on realtime and imperfect data streams. in addition, there is the challenge of the general issues involved such as power inequity resulting in the potential for rape to go unpunished in the la culture, the showbiz culture, and beyond. with all due respect, some folks aim is intellectually on the low side in their arguments. they go down ratholes and every attempt to help them extricate them is met with resistance and digging in deeper. hello.

why media silent

— with all due respect, who gives a (redacted redacted). this is not the media. we’re fr.

:-)

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.