Cosby - Count is up to 16

[LiberalElite]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/bill-cosby-rape-playmate-16th-victim-20142311

-snip-
A former Playmate has become the latest woman to speak out in light of the recent allegations of Bill Cosby's alleged sexual misconduct over his six decades in show business. Victoria Valentino was one of five women interviewed in a new Washington Post piece published on Nov. 22 making her the 16th woman to come forward in recent weeks
-snip-

[Happyhippychick]

1. I'm sure she just wants a quick payout, after all, she is of questionable moral character.

[rock]

10. State a most reasonable and obvious argument against your position

Quickly mark it as sarcasm before somebody else states the same argument without the sarcasm tag. It just might work.

[Happyhippychick]

12. I'm not understanding

Do you think I defend/support Cosby?

[rock]

17. Sorry, my fault for being so obscure

In your post you make the same argument I make but I don't mean it as sarcasm. I find it a pretty good argument.

[Happyhippychick]

30. Really?

[nomorenomore08]

117. One woman might make a false allegation against a famous person. But 16???

You think this is a conspiracy or something?

[djean111]

2. I found it interesting that Cosby siad he only gave someone Benadryl.

I have a friend who cannot take Benadryl because it knocks her out for 12 hours.
I tend to get big itchy welts from mosquito bites, and taking two Benadryl stops the swelling and itching in about 20 minutes.
Three Benadryl will knock me out, make me sleepy and feel like I am in a fog, unable to move, for five or six hours. Only made that mistake once, I do not like that feeling. I imagine taking Benadryl with alcohol magnifies the effect.

[FLyellowdog]

32. Aren't we hearing more than once

that he gave women drugs to "relax' them?

I've never been on a date where I had to take something to relax. Of course, I've never been on a date with Cosby. 'Nuff said.

[redwitch]

3. Sad when a greatly admired person falls off the pedestal.

This story just keeps getting worse.

[Initech]

4. I feel like we've fallen down a wormhole from which there is no escape.

[BlueStreak]

66. FWIW, I have not admired this guy for years. Projection !!!

When a person makes a public spectacle -- a highly profitable one at that -- of wagging his finger, telling everybody else how they should live their lives, you can be certain it is a case of projection.

[deutsey]

77. I grew up watching "Fat Albert" and loved that show

I have also always liked his stand-up bits like "Noah" and those movies he made with Sidney Poitier in the '70s ("Uptown Saturday Night" and "Let's Do It Again&quot .

However, I wasn't a fan of "Cosby." I could just never get into it. My interest in him has continued to dwindle ever since. I didn't dislike him; I just wasn't interested. His finger wagging made me roll my eyes, but he sounded more like an angry old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn to me at the time.

While I still love "Fat Albert", with all these allegations against him, I've gone from not being interested in him to really disliking him.

[BlueStreak]

94. But now we know it was not benign. it was projection.

I never thought the finger wagging was benign. I always suspected the guy had some serious issues. And now we know.

The lesson is to not automatically dismiss these moralistic pontifications. They almost always indicate a person with serious projection going on.

[Maedhros]

107. I started to dislike Cosby in the late 80's and 90's

when he began to make some problematic statements about parenting and blaming the plight of young black Americans on their own behavior. Sounded like a self-righteous Republican.

[nomorenomore08]

118. I just thought he was an out-of-touch old rich guy, assuming others were equally unaffected

by racism/classism. Now I see that there was a more malignant form of hypocrisy at work.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. They're only picking on him because he's African-American,

or so I'm told.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014950703#post44

ALL those women aren't lying.

[rock]

6. How many of Kerry's swift boaters weren't lying?

n/t

[rock]

15. To each his own

I like evidence with my beliefs.

[cali]

19. and there is evidence. it's called testimony.

legal and outside the courtroom.

You like to slur women is what you like. that is crystal clear. and disgusting.

[rock]

26. cali! I'm really surprised at you; where's your level head?

Testimony is the very weakest of evidence allowed in court and is mainly responsible for all the releases of convicted criminals who have be exonerated by new forensic evidence (DNA matching). To judge such testimony, I would actually have to hear (or read about) it, taken under oath, and with cross exam. All I have now is the media's reports (ugh) which are NOT evidence, and I decline to believe anything they say.

[geek tragedy]

71. So you pretty much think all rape victims are liars then.

Testimony is the ONLY way to establish a lack of consent.

You are rape culture.

[geek tragedy]

74. I suggest you adopt an approach to prosecution

of rape more evolved than sharia as practiced in the lesser developed parts of the world.

[mercuryblues]

72. what

amazes me is that so many on here refer to the Bush crime cartel even though they have never been arrested or tried, as fact. Yet they seem to want evidence, let the facts come out, holding judgment for a trial when (it is now up to) 18 women come out with almost identical stories.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I don't like sanctimonious moralizers.

I'm not terribly surprised by all this, frankly. And it seems to me once you get to 16 witnesses you are statistically well beyond coincidence or coordinated attack.

[pnwmom]

43. These women have nothing to gain and they're not pushing a political point of view. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

119. +1

[sabrina 1]

7. Did you believe all the women who accused Clinton of rape? Bring it court, present evidence, then

it's worth considering. Until then, these are allegations and nothing more. Which is how I viewed the women accusing Clinton of rape.

[sabrina 1]

18. No there wasn't just one woman. But you didn't say if you believed that one woman? Why should it

matter if she is the only one? If it happened? Airc, there were at least four. I believe none of them because anyone can say anything about anyone. Until I see evidence, it means nothing.

File criminal charges and get it into a court of law, Present actual evidence.

I have met many famous people through my job. It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to make false allegations against them. And plenty of people would believe me, especially their political enemies.

Sorry, present evidence, then I will pay attention to all of this.

Btw, did Cosby say anything recently about some important issue?

[sabrina 1]

41. You don't remember Juanita Broderick, the rape accuser, Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones who settled out

of court? If it had not been for Larry Flynt who exposed the hypocrisy of Clinton's political enemies, there probably would have been more.

I didn't believe them. I believed money was a factor in some cases. Most Dems didn't believe them. Yet, here on DU so many are jumping to conclusions without waiting for any evidence regarding Cosby. I can't help noticing the different reaction.

As far as I am concerned no one is guilty based on accusations alone.

If these women feel a crime was committed against them, then take it to a court in front of a jury, with evidence and under oath.

It's so easy to accuse people of anything, especially when you see someone else being paid large sums of money for similar accusations.

[pnwmom]

44. There is never going to be a trial because of the statute of limitations.

All we will ever have is the testimony of the various accusers -- there is nothing definitive that will ever come out. And there is nothing for most of them to gain by speaking -- it's too late for them to get money -- except the sense of relief that they can finally speak their truth.

And then we have two other things: his male employee who has spoken out against him; and his own taped "comedy routine" which makes light of plying women with drugs and then having sex with them.

[sabrina 1]

56. Who needs trials and juries and evidence? And what 'testimony' are we going to hear? Will it be

under oath? I asked you before but you haven't answered. Did you believe Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley? Paula Jones?

[pnwmom]

57. Those women were all caught up in a political campaign, which puts their credibility at question.

Most of the Cosby accusers have only come out now when there is no chance of financial or other gain.

[sabrina 1]

76. Thankfully we don't convict people on gut feelings, well at least not formally. There were plenty

of people willing to convict Clinton eg, on their 'gut feelings' that HE was 'creepy' etc. But most of us airc, slammed them for doing so, and rightfully so.

Broderick, like the woman I saw today for the first time, from 50 years ago, had nothing BUT allegations. Every woman, and probably a whole lot of men also, experience boorish behavior from men, women. Most of us handle it and don't come back 50 years later when there isn't a chance of doing anything other than smearing someone in public. What do they gain from this?

I am just amazed at the difference here regarding these allegations and the ones against Clinton. To me it is the same thing, without proof, the person is innocent.

[bettyellen]

80. you're suggesting women who were drugged and rape "handle it". Gotcha. No thanks.

Let them tell their stories, together they paint quite a picture. Now that men have joined in supporting them, they have (ironically) gained notice from the press, and wide spread credibility.

[sabrina 1]

85. And there it is, my point clearly made. Thank you. Let's do a little experiment here.

Allegation by bettyellen against sabrina:

bettyellen: you're suggesting women who were drugged and rape "handle it". Gotcha. No thanks.

sabrina: That is a preposterous allegation. Post a link to those words or it is nothing more than a baseless allegation.

Let's see what happens when proof is required for mere allegations.

[bettyellen]

88. if you were not equating drugging and raping someone with "boorish behavior" then why the heck did

YOU bring it up while suggesting these women should NOT come forward?

Seriously- WTF else is someone to infer from that post, except that you are underplaying allegations of rape for Cosby (while exaggerating claims against Clinton) by likening them to "boorish behavior" that should be "handled" i.e. forgiven and forgotten. What a pant load.

[sabrina 1]

89. My point made even more strongly: 'Inference' V 'facts' is all that is required to convict someone.

Seriously- WTF else is someone to infer from that post, except that you are underplaying allegations of rape for Cosby (while exaggerating claims against Clinton) by likening them to "boorish behavior" that should be "handled" i.e. forgiven and forgotten. What a pant load.

Post my words, iow, the EVIDENCE, and no one has to 'infer' anything. But you won't do that, why??

I asked for proof of your false allegation and got that rambling post above in response.

It's exactly what those of us who actually do care about facts, not 50 year old allegations, as in Clinton's and now Cosby's case from people we do not know who have no evidence of their claims, who waited for decades to appear on TV to tell a story that there is no way for anyone to believe, are saying. Thanks again.

I'm asking again, show PROOF, not your INFERENCE of MY WORDS to back up YOUR CLAIM as to what I SAID. It's not hard, my words are right here on this thread.

Or you are making my point regarding mere allegations more strongly than I could do it myself.

Did you believe Juanita Broderick?

For the record my views on her decades old allegations were the same as they are on these latest decades old allegations. See, it's easy to answer a direct question directly when one is CONSISTENT.

[bettyellen]

90. so your post about "boorish behavior" had nothing to do with Cosby rape allegations? LOL

Just rambling on about nothing, were you?


PS: In case you have not noticed, there is no trial scheduled, and we are not on the jury. So you can simmer down- your "concern" has been noted.

[sabrina 1]

91. Thank you for your assistance in my little experiment. Avoid, distract, do anything, but do not

admit that you simply made up your false allegation against me.

Did you believe Juanita Broderick? Is there some reason why you have not answered that question? Kathleen Wiley?

Who needs a trial? There was no chance of a trial for Broderick was there? Which is why those of us who care about FACTS, dismissed her allegations. Did YOU?


And that is how 50 year old allegations are defended, without facts, without evidence, with INFERENCES and personal attacks on those who dare to ask for EVIDENCE, and finally when unable to provide evidence, a resort to the old 'LOL'.

I did not say what you claimed I said, and you know it. So why are you unwilling to admit that? Of course your false allegation was intended to cause others to believe I said what you falsely claimed I said. And some probably will, IF they have an agenda.

If there was a chance of a trial, neither Broderick nor anyone else who makes decades old allegations would be on TV making those claims, because, as can be seen here by your refusal to back up YOUR allegations, they know they would have to provide proof, under oath where just 'saying' something isn't going to cut it.

[bettyellen]

92. yes- refusing to explain that nonsense you posted about "boorish behavior" is avoiding,

distracting, and doing anything BUT admit you were somehow equating it with being drugged and raped. Which is pretty disturbing.
And minimizing the seriousness of the allegations by comparing sixteen allegations to one? Who could take you seriously now?
All well noted.

[Major Nikon]

93. I remember all of them

Juanita Broderick swore out an affidavit that Clinton DIDN'T rape her. Kathleen Wiley accused Clinton of kissing her involuntarily yet pursued him relentlessly after the alleged kiss took place. Paula Jones never accused Clinton of rape or sexual assault of any kind.

[sabrina 1]

95. I see you are making excuses for not believing those women. Broderick accused Clinton of rape

and Wiley accused him of sexual harassment, there were others.

I saw no evidence of those claims, especially decades old claims. I didn't disbelieve them because of Clinton, I disbelieved them because there was no evidence.

I see decades old claims again, against Cosby this time, I see no evidence, just, as in Clinton's case, allegations, many of them so old one wonders why they are being raised now, rather than way back then.

You say about Kathleen Wiley: Kathleen Wiley accused Clinton of kissing her involuntarily yet pursued him relentlessly after the alleged kiss took place.

So, you are disbelieving her because she 'pursued him' AFTER the kiss took place. How do YOU know this?

Similar excuses can be made in the Cosby allegations, but if we even dared to try to do so, guess what would happen??

And that is my point, the hypocrisy I am witnessing here. And I'm wondering why.

I believe nothing without PROOF. Regardless of the target of such allegations, show me some evidence and then I will believe you.

But to believe one set of women and not the other, that is the height of hypocrisy, and it is what I have always objected to AS A WOMAN, using women for political purposes.

Broderick DID accuse Clinton of Rape and few if any on the Left ever believed her.

[Major Nikon]

99. If you consider facts "excuses", then you might have something

"So, you are disbelieving her because she 'pursued him' AFTER the kiss took place. How do YOU know this?"

May 3, 1993

Willey: ``Dear Mr. President. The enclosed tie is named `President's shoes.' I couldn't think of another president I know who could do it better justice than you!

... I watched you at the press correspondents' dinner on Saturday evening - you were hilarious - at least you haven't lost your sense of humor! Thanks again for all your help - don't let the bastards get you down!''

Clinton (handwritten): ``Dear Kathleen. I love the tie. Thanks. ...

Best, Bill.''

July 21, 1993. Clinton's longtime friend and aide, Vince Foster, had just killed himself.

Willey: ``I'm so very sorry for your loss. I know that your deep faith will get you through this.''

Clinton (handwritten): ``Dear Kathleen. Thanks for your note about Vince and for your friendship. Best, Bill.''

Aug. 4, 1993

Willey: " ... regarding your possible vacationing in Colorado next week. ... I would be more than happy to assist your advance people with their arrangements.''

Clinton, in note to staff: ``Get me her Vail (Colo.) (number)''

Oct. 12, 1993:

Willey: ``I've just finished this book and thought that you'd enjoy it, if for no other reason than the fact that you just happen to be one of the characters! ...

Clinton (in typed reply): ``Thanks for your note and for giving me a copy of Jeffrey Archer's `Honor Among Thieves.''' (Jotted in the margin): ``Glad to see you at the ropeline. Thanks for your help.''

Nov. 22, 1993 (Seven days before the disputed meeting)

Willey: ``... I would very much like to have a few minutes of your time to discuss something of importance to me. ...''

Clinton, in note to staff: ``I'll see her next week.''

Dec. 20, 1993:

Willey: ``I just wanted to wish you a wonderful Christmas ... Thank you for the opportunity to work in this great house.

``After this bittersweet year, my first resolution for 1994 will be the pursuit of a meaningful job - I hope it will be here.''



No Clinton reply.

June 17, 1994:

Willey: ``... how caring and heartfelt your speech was on D-Day.

``While you have had many shining moments, that day was for me the proudest I have been that you are our president.''

Clinton to staff: ``Should send her a copy of speech.'' On a copy of speech, Clinton jots: ``To Kathleen Willey. With Thanks. Bill Clinton.''

Oct. 18, 1994

Willey: ``... I have invested almost three years with your campaign and administration and am not very willing to depart yet. I would like to be considered for an ambassadorship or a position in an embassy overseas. ...

``I don't need to remind you of my willingness to help you in any way that I can.''

No Clinton reply.

Nov. 11, 1994

Willey: ... ``Take heart in knowing that your number one fan thanks you every day for your help in saving her wonderful state.''

No Clinton reply.

Feb. 14, 1995

Willey: ``I would very much like to be considered for'' a position on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Clinton to staff: ``Is this what Shelia Lawrence did? Can we do this for her?''

Dec. 5, 1995

Mrs. Willey: ``... while I am very much in need of employment, I think that the Clinton-Gore campaign needs me too. I am free to travel and work on your behalf for the next year. ... Fondly, Kathleen.''

Clinton (typed letter): ``... I'm glad to hear you've already met with (aides) regarding a job with the campaign. It sounds like you're on the right track. ...''

Nov. 13, 1996

Willey: ``Congratulations on your outstanding win on November 5th. How fortunate for us all that you will lead us into the 21st century. ...''

No Clinton reply.

[sabrina 1]

103. Did you believe her? I saw all this long ago and did not believe her regardless of those

communications. I did not believe her because SHE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE of her claims.

We could do the same thing regarding the women in the Cosby case. Why were they around him in the first place, because he was a celebrity? Hoping to advance their careers? Did THEY contact him eg?

None of that matters to me What matters is EVIDENCE. Clearly you have accepted Wiley's apparent infatuation with Clinton as proof she was not telling the truth.

I take it as meaningless. Where was her EVIDENCE of the actual claims she made? THAT is all that is important and there was none, just allegations, so I dismissed them.

None of my suppositions about the Cosby accusers matter either, they are meaningless. Where is the EVIDENCE of the actual claims they are making?? I have not seen any, I have seen words, accusations, but NO EVIDENCE.

As I said, the hypocrisy is simply stunning because both these cases are almost identical wrt to the core issue, women making allegations against famous men, period. All that matters should be 'are they true, can they be proven'. So far in both cases, the answer appears to be 'no'.

Consistency is everything. Standards should not change depending on the accused. Same standard 'Show me the evidence', period. The danger of publicly convicting anyone, based only on allegations, should not escape anyone at least on the Left who supposedly are smarter and not as easily swayed, as those on the Right.

Because when we are told that because several people have 'come forward' so there is no need for an actual, fact finding trial, I am not going to accept that, no matter who the accused happens to be.

You are entitled to deny or accept whatever you wish, I have the same standard for all allegations.

[Major Nikon]

105. Here's the interesting part...

I find it a bit strange and curious that you claim to demand a high standard of evidence to substantiate other's allegations, yet you feel no such restraint in making your own allegations about what I do or don't believe.

I have provided you with evidence and you are free to interpret it any way you wish just as anyone else is. And just because you believe the "core issue" is the same, doesn't mean both situations are the same. This isn't a court of law. People are free to make their own inferences about what they believe regardless of what they can prove. The evidence is that Clinton had one person who may have mentioned he raped her, but when faced with having to tell the truth under oath she swore out an affidavit that specifically said those allegations were false. This is NOT the same thing as 16 individual women accusing Cosby of rape with virtually identical methods and never recanting their story. You are not really doing yourself any favors by suggesting otherwise.

[sabrina 1]

106. Have any of these women been placed under oath yet? The core issue is the same. You provided me

with information I already had from long ago. I pointed that out to you, that it proved nothing. You appear to have agreed with that.

I saw a woman on TV this morning who appeared to be in her sixties or seventies, claiming Cosby sexually harassed her way back in the '60s. I saw Juanita Broderick make even worse claims about Clinton on tv from decades earlier. I saw her often on tv. I did NOT believe her.

What you just did was to prove my point. IF she ended up contradicting herself when put under oath, then I was RIGHT, was I not?

So what we are arguing about?

When put in a corner to present facts, which is where this whole mess belongs, in court, where you can't just tell a sensational story without some kind of evidence, and hearsay isn't evidence last time I looked, and you have to think twice about lying, because there might be OTHER witnesses around to refute what you are saying, it appears that those who run around making allegations sing a different tune.

So either put all these under oath, ask them for corroborating evidence or as far as I am concerned, they are simply jumping on a bandwagon and getting TV time with the possibility of some tabloid paying them for their 'story'.

Which is why we have a judicial system. To protect people from this kind of thing.

[louis-t]

104. I think Kathleen Wiley had mental issues.

I've seen interviews. She had been through a lot of emotional trauma, her husband dying, etc. I felt sorry for her.

[freeplessinseattle]

37. Geez, guess your kids or friends are shit out of luck for moral support

If they're ever raped. But of course, we all believe the best of people we know (or think we know, indirectly) and there are always the surprised acquaintances after mass shootings that "never would have thought"

[sabrina 1]

40. Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you know any of the people involved in this? I don't. I don't

generally assume I 'know' someone simply because they are famous. To try to conflate how someone might react if someone they love and know and trust were to tell them about a crime committed against them with something that is happening to people they do not know, shows how invested some people are in media personalities.

If a friend told me they were raped, I would go with them to the police immediately. That is what any good friend would do. An investigation would include gathering physical evidence as soon as possible so that the perp could be prosecuted.

I most definitely would not encourage them to wait decades when there is no chance of producing anything other than their word.

I don't know you, and you don't know me. So I'll thank you not to make assumptions about people you do not know.

I could respond as personally to you by wondering what kind of juror would you be on a case like this? Would you go in with your mind made up or would you wait to see what evidence was presented?

Looking at the reaction to these allegations here on DU by some people, I can say I hope none of them are ever on a jury where someone's freedom is at stake.

[freeplessinseattle]

42. If you go to the police, they would be more supportive and realistic

They know better than most that no evidence does not "mean nothing".

I know how purposefully obtuse DU can be, especially when people's minds are made up (despite how "open-minded" some may claim to be, ala Mr. Colbert

[cwydro]

86. I know, right?

Some posters here I would never want on any jury ever.

[JI7]

34. and the Clinton stuff all involved political enemies

all his accusers were connected to right wingers who were after him and many of these had no credibility . and there was a huge investigation and the "worst" thing they found was his involvement with lewinsky.

so it's not really the same thing at all.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. I don't recall anyone accusing Clinton of rape.

They spilled their guts after they schtupped him a few times but I don't recall any accusations of rape.

I'm surprised you're taking this position. You've always been a strong supporter of women's rights. These women are having the most heinous things said about them -- it's classic victim blaming. But to claim they're only going after Cosby because he's an African-American celebrity is beyond sickening.

[sabrina 1]

35. He absolutely was accused of rape, by a woman named Juanita Broderick eg. Thirty years earlier.

I didnt believe her. Still don't. I believed she was jumping on a bandwagon already started hoping to make some money.

But there were plenty of people without a shred of evidence other than her word, who were CERTAIN she was telling the truth. Then there was Kathleen Wiley, the case settled with Paula Jones etc etc.

How could anyone forget those women? Airc, we all believed they were just looking for attention and perhaps a settlement.

We wondered why, eg, Broderick took 30 years to claim she had been raped.

Sorry, but until something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is merely someone's word or a whole lot of people's words. People will do strange things for money and fame.

I'll wait for criminal charges and a trial with evidence under oath.

[pnwmom]

45. The courts held that George Zimmerman is NOT GUILTY. Do you believe that's the definitive word,

or are DUers and others permitted to make up their own minds, regardless of what the court finally decided?

Just because the courts are required to presume Cosby's innocence until proven guilty doesn't mean ordinary citizens need to -- especially when there's no chance he will ever be tried.

[sabrina 1]

48. And just because you are willing to convict someone without a shred of evidence you don't get to

tell other people they have no right to wait for something other than mere allegations.

Did you believe Juanita Broderick's rape charge against Clinton?

[pnwmom]

52. Without a shred of evidence? Are you kidding?

We have the accounts of 16 women, plus the male employee, plus Cosby's own "comedy routine," where he jokes about slipping drugs to women in order to have sex with them.

I don't remember J.B., but I assume she was making her charges at the time that the Rethugs were trying to take down Clinton. By contrast, most of these women speaking out against Cosby had NO motivation -- no monetary motivation or anything else.

[sabrina 1]

58. Did you believe Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley who was a Democrat and had no political motive

and it's hard to believe anyone could forget Juanita Broderick, who, as far as I know, was not political? We have HER 'testimony' and Kathleen Wiley's 'testimony' and we have other 'witnesses' who knew Clinton.

I take it you are saying that those women had political motives (what was Kathleen Wiley's political motive, she was a Clinton supporter?) and are not to be believed?

People have all kinds of motives, some feel they have been rejected by a famous person and resent it. Some want money, and as I understand it, one of them already received money.

They can file civil suits, so why haven't they? If the truth is what they are interested in. A Civil Suit would allow them to present their evidence.

What you call 'evidence' is legally called 'hearsay'. So no, we have nothing until people are under oath in a court of law, Civil or Criminal.

[pnwmom]

62. Paula Jones didn't claim she was raped, did she? Or claim Clinton gave her drugs?

And she was connected with the Repubs who were trying to bring Clinton down.

Kathleen Wiley didn't claim Clinton drugged and raped her. She said he forcefully kissed her.

What Cosby is being accused by of many of these women is much worse than anything Clinton was accused of. Strange that you are so bent on making that comparison.

You don't understand what hearsay is -- it's when someone else is repeating someone else's testimony. When the Cosby accusers personally make accusations, it is a form of evidence. Personal testimony is evidence.

But the statute of limitations precludes these women from filing civil suits now, and precludes prosecutors from filing criminal charges.

[pnwmom]

55. I never said other people "have no right to wait for something other than mere allegations."

You put those words into my mouth.

[cali]

20. women have come forth to press charges. one case was settled out of court

the prosecutor said that although he thought Cosby did it, he didn't prosecute.

[sabrina 1]

36. Why would a woman who was sexually assaulted settle out of court, presumably for money? If I

was a victim of sexual assault I would want it on the record, with the evidence, in court so that there was little chance of this person doing it again.

If the prosecutor didn't prosecute, it was because he did not have the evidence to take it to trial

Let's see of any of the others present their evidence in court, or take a sum of money instead. As if that could pisslbly assauge a victim of sexual assault.

And if they keep getting paid, you can be sure there will be more.

That prosecutor should have taken the case to court. He 'believed' Cosby did it? How unethical, to smear someone, as a prosecutor, when you know you do not have a case. He should have kept his mouth shut about what he believed as a professional. Shameful

[pnwmom]

46. Not every woman is you. Lots of people who have been damaged by someone do take

monetary settlements out of court. That doesn't mean they don't deserve the settlement -- and even more. It just means they stopped pursuing the court action, usually on the advice of their lawyer.

Don't forget, their lawyer must be paid. He's not going to tell them to turn down a good offer -- and they'd still owe him attorney's fees if they did.

[sabrina 1]

50. Not every woman is you either. Some prefer justice to money. And any prosecutor who 'believes' a

crime has been committed and refuses to take it to court, should resign. It is their job to get justice, not just for the victim but for the people they represent. To NOT prosecute a crime you say you 'believe' occurred means you are either not fit for the job, or you don't have a case.

[pnwmom]

54. Then by your measure almost all prosecutors should resign.

Because all of them, upon occasion, have cases where they believe that a crime has been committed, but they don't go to trial because they don't think they have enough evidence to win.

[sabrina 1]

59. They don't go to trial based on 'belief' because they know that their 'belief' will be

challenged and they could be proven to be wrong.

[bettyellen]

114. And by her measure, drugging and raping is somehow related to "boorish behavior" a person should

just get over. WOW. There's no walking back from THAT sick minded comparison.

[KMOD]

49. That's easier said than done, sabrina

Too many times it comes down to what people believe as "he said, she said".

Many times, sexually assaulted victims do not want to testify. They do not want to relive the assault. Unfortunately many find it humiliating and awkward. Which stinks, because the victim should not feel humiliated, the perpetrator should. But society has contributed to the victims reluctance.

16, 17 alleged victims and counting, is far too many to give Bill Cosby the benefit of the doubt at this time.

[sabrina 1]

53. Prosecutions are never easy. Justice isn't always guaranteed. I know that from

personal experience. There are crimes other than sexual assault that are not easy on the victims. But crime is crime and if crimes are committed, they should be prosecuted. If there are that many victims, it only proves that someone along the way needed to put a stop to it. Out of that many people, there had to be one or two willing to go to court. Either that or no crimes were committed because it's hard to believe that so many crimes were committed and no one reported them, until decades later. That not one of the victims pursued justice.

I have no idea what happened, I wasn't there, I don't know any of the victims, does anyone btw? And I certainly don't know Cosby. So I don't know if this a case of a serial sexual predator or a whole lot of people jumping on what might be a lucrative bandwagon.

If I were on a jury for any of those cases, I would hope I would not go in with my mind made up, one way or the other. And I sure hope some of the people I've seen here who are absolutely certain they know all the facts, are never on any jury where someone's life is on the line.

[KMOD]

60. There was one willing to go to court

2. Andrea Constand. Constand told Ontario police in January 2005 that a year prior, when she was 31, she had visited Cosby at his home in Pennsylvania seeking career advice. (Constand, an Ontario native, worked at the time for Temple University, Cosby's alma mater.) Constand alleges he gave her "herbal" pills for anxiety, then “touched her breasts and vaginal area, rubbed his penis against her hand, and digitally penetrated” her. The Pennsylvania prosecutor who looked into the case has said that while he didn't bring charges because the available evidence was not sufficient, he found Constand "credible" and found Cosby "evasive." After prosecutors declined to charge him, Constand filed a civil suit against Cosby for $150 million; her suit cited, anonymously, 13 other women who alleged that he had sexually assaulted them. (Some of those women, referred to as "Jane Does" in legal language, have since identified themselves publicly and are mentioned below. The identities of Jane Doe witnesses are disclosed to defendants so their testimony can be fairly researched and challenged, but they are not ID'd by name in court or in public records.) Cosby's attorney called Constand's claims "utterly preposterous." The suit was settled for an undisclosed amount in 2006.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/21/bill_cosby_accusers_list_sexual_assault_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html

I agree, that jurists cannot go in with their mind made up. And yeah, none of us truly know, but we can certainly speculate, that where there is smoke, there is fire. It's just too many at this point. Too many, who have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose. It's sad. I'm sad. Plus, things were very different in the 60s, 70s, 80s than they are today. That behavior was almost expected, back in the day. Men will be men, right? Also, most the victims were young, like 17-19ish. Think about how they would feel going against a powerful, and very popular celebrity like Cosby.

The case isn't closed, but it's very damning.

[davidpdx]

67. The prosecutor you are referring to was interviewed within the last few days

He said he believed the victims, but lacked the evidence to file charges against Cosby. He stated his opinion in part because people like you are second guessing his decision not to take the case to court. You have no idea what evidence he had or didn't have. What I think is shameful is that a woman would simply dismiss any allegations as a money grubbing scheme.

Tisk tisk tisk!

[sabrina 1]

75. Did you believe Juanita Broderick's rape allegations from decades ago against Clinton?

Airc, Democrats slammed the prosecutor in those cases and accused all the women of lying for political reasons. Tsk tsk indeed.

Only problem was, Kathleen Wiley was a Democrat and a Clinton supporter. Still, the general consensus was, on this and other Dem forums, there was no proof, therefore the women should not be believed.

I was among those who held that view.

That prosecutor had an obligation, since as you say, he had NO EVIDENCE (thank you that was my point) to NOT publicly indict someone against whom, he admits, he has no evidence. I have zero respect for such people. Either prove your 'beliefs' or be professional and simply say if asked, 'we had no evidence to bring this case to trial'. Period. This is why we have a judicial system, so that people are not tried and convicted by the media, or by their enemies or by gossip. I like that system.

[davidpdx]

109. I'm not talking about anything to do with Clinton, I'm referring to one of Cosby's victims

who was raped and reported it and the prosecutor didn't have enough evidence to try it. The prosecutor couldn't bring a case against Cosby if there was not enough no evidence.

[sabrina 1]

110. Can you provide something that substantiates this allegation? Some evidence? What I have seen so

far regarding this Prosecutor is that there was no evidence so he chose not to go to trial. He stated he 'believed' the ALLEGED victim, yet he chose not to seek justice for her.

I saw nothing about rape in that interview, nor did I see any evidence, just one prosecutor, admitting he had nothing to go on in order to file charges.

Do you have something other than that?

And why am I having such a difficult time getting an answer to my questions about the very similar case of the allegations against Clinton?

DID you believe Broderick, Wiley, Jones eg, and if not, why not? Of course you don't have to answer but I am curious about the consistency of Democrats on these kinds of issues.

I did not believe them, because there was no EVIDENCE, just as in this case.

[davidpdx]

111. No, of course not

We aren't privy to the evidence. So you are saying that the prosecutor was right to not bring charges if there was not evidence?

By the way, I don't think that all 16 victims could be lying. Sadly we will never know because the SOL has passed for both a criminal and civil trial.

Again this is about the allegations against Cosby, not against Clinton. Look at the title of the thread.

[Happyhippychick]

13. Sadly if most of his victims were African American, this story would probably have no traction

[Le Taz Hot]

16. I don't know the racial make-up of "most of his victims"

but I do know there are African-American females that are among the accusers.

[maced666]

97. You mean like the no traction for last 40 years lol

All these white women no one listened for 40+ years. Sorry, you have no argument.

[Happyhippychick]

98. I wonder why you are so hostile?

Oh, I think I figured it out.

[gollygee]

23. It's entirely possible

that it could both be true, and be given greater media attention than rape claims of white celebrities for the reasons in that post. I think the point that's being raised is that black men such as Bill Cosby are treated differently in the media, not that he's innocent or should be forgiven.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. And it's all just another way of

devaluing women.

[gollygee]

25. Why?

The way I see the problem, white men are more easily forgiven for rape. The problem is that white men aren't taken to task as they should be. It isn't that Bill Cosby is treated worse than he should be, it's that Jimmy Page and Rob Lowe are let off too easily. Why is there a difference? (better example on DU might be Julian Assange.)

[Le Taz Hot]

27. I don't remember anyone "forgiven" for rape.

Assuming ALL of these women aren't gold-digging lying hussies, Cosby has been getting away with this for years. How has he NOT been given more deference than an ordinary person? This is about celebrity and not race. And with that, the victims and their stories are getting obfuscated by these side stories. "Oohh! Look over here! Pay no attention at those gold-digging hussies! I don't know about Jimmy Page -- did multiple women come forward to accuse him of drugging them and raping them over a period of decades. Rob Lowe was filmed having sex with a 16-year-old and another person, over 18, in Georgia which, at the time, was the age of consent so, as creepy as it was, there were no laws broken and there were certainly no knock-out drugs involved.

But go ahead and continue to put emphasis on everything but the crime itself. If we can write all of these women off as gold-digging hussies, well, that's what they get for accusing a celebrity and an African-American celebrity at that.

I'm done here. You apologists make me sick. <flush>

[gollygee]

28. I'm not in any way an apologist

but whatever.

[pnwmom]

47. gollygee isn't an apologist. n/t

[KMOD]

51. except the media seems to have glossed over coverage of

Cosby's behavior and allegations of rape as well.

I don't think this is a race issue. Most rapes, regardless of who commits them, seem to be glossed over.

[Jamastiene]

64. I don't think any of them, regardless of their race, should be let off easy.

I think if they did the crime, they should be prosecuted and convicted, period.

[gollygee]

68. I agree n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I'll say it again: Cosby has always given me the creeps.

I inherently distrust sanctimony, public moralizing, and finger-wagging, for one. Also he had that comedy special where he played up "beating" his kids- like, "there's going to be a beating tonight, ha ha" -- for laughs.

I always heard that and went "yuck".

[polly7]

70. I agree with you there.

I remember all the rest of my family fighting for space on the couch and chairs when one of his shows was to come on .... I left to go read or ride my horse because I just didn't like him for some reason.

I don't know if the charges against him are true or not and hope that somehow it can all be resolved .... but he did give me that icky vibe too.

[Wella]

29. Do you have a list of all 16?

A link? Thanks.

[KMOD]

38. Slate has a running list

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/21/bill_cosby_accusers_list_sexual_assault_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html

[Wella]

39. Thanks.

I'll take a look.

[CrawlingChaos]

33. In Scottish Law they have something called The Moorov Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate

"The essential facts of the case are where the accused was an employer who had allegedly committed a string of sexual offences regarding 19 of his female employees over the period of four years, with a total of 21 counts. There was corroboration of evidence available for 3 counts This case brought light on the original course of similar fact evidence which was generally regarded as inadmissible in court. It created a "course of conduct" which related from a connection of special circumstances, such as recurring sexual offences, similar to the case itself. The course of conduct is sufficient as it determines the use of corroboration for each victim involved."

[bettyellen]

115. we should have a system like this as well, I think.

[CrawlingChaos]

116. No shit! I mean, COME ON... how many victims does it take before people cut the BULLSHIT?

It is really blowing my mind that people in this thread and elsewhere on DU are STILL attempting to provide cover for this scumbag predator. At this point, the mental gymnastics it takes to maintain that there's ANY fucking chance he could be innocent... it's enough to make you nauseous.

What the FUCK? I mean, is this the power of celebrity worship? Very, very, very disturbing. And I say this as someone who believes passionately that criminal prosecutions should be held to an extremely high standard of proof. I can think of so many examples of innocent people who have been railroaded to conviction by vile prosecutors without a shred of human decency and very few people notice or care about our FOR SHIT legal system, designed to fill our prisons with slave labor -- contrasted now with the spectacle of "beloved TV dad" (barf) Bill Cosby with a clear pattern of HEINOUS criminal conduct stretching back decades, and people bend over backwards to PRETEND there might be nothing to this. It's making me feel very stabby.

[Jamastiene]

63. But....but....they are all lying and money hungry and making it all up.

Saint Cosby couldn't possibly do any wrong and we all know that...


At least, that is what has been said by numerous people on DU, who have obviously never been sexually assaulted by someone with lots of power....or anyone for that matter.

What is it going to take for them to finally arrest him? And before the Saint Cosby crowd starts replying to this post with more bullshit, the reason he is being "tried in the court of public opinion" is because the real courts aren't listening to these women and at least getting to the bottom of all this.

[Beringia]

65. The statute of limitations have run out

so there will be no court case upcoming.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. I hate public trials.

this guy is absolute scum - but hate the public hanging no matter how scummy the person is

[deutsey]

78. Yeah, I agree

CBS This Morning actually had a segment they called "The Cosby Crisis" (they had a graphic for it as well).

That's not tossing fuel on the fire...no, not at all.

[NCTraveler]

79. The name Clinton has been associated with rape 11 times by one individual in this thread.

They don't even hide it anymore.

[bettyellen]

82. and it was one allegation, not 16- but they pretend it is exactly the same

drugging women is not the same thing as stepping out on your wife, not even close.

[NCTraveler]

83. They had no point to make.

They just found an opening.

[bettyellen]

84. the point was, as always, that it is a man's world and women are here just to keep it sweet

and "deal with" the rapes by keeping your mouth shut if you do not have videotaped evidence.

[craigmatic]

81. I wish they all would've come out sooner and pressed charges so there could've been a trial instead

of this constant drip of accusations without proper evidence for anybody to act on.

[bettyellen]

87. likely there was no useful physical evidence- any drugs or semen could be explained away

as being consensual. They would have- with the help of Crosby's friends, be painted as "nuts and sluts". Especially since some alredy had ongoing relationships with Cosby- people assume that means consent.

[Maedhros]

108. Bill Cosby, for a significant amount of time, was the most powerful entertainer in Hollywood.

I can understand how that could be used to intimidate the victims into silence.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. Objective question here:

Not looking to push any agenda. I haven't made any judgment in my mind as to Cosby's guilt, yes or no.

Is there any record of any of these women ever having reported--or attempting to report--the alleged abuse before the 2004 lawsuit was filed?

If so, that's definitely pretty damning against Cosby. If not, it doesn't mean they are lying, but it leaves me with the same open-ended questions I currently have now.

[Lex]

100. Some of them who ultimately didn't report, talked to friends about what happened

and the friends have corroborated their story from the time. This is a good article with a time-line laid out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-cosbys-legacy-recast-accusers-speak-in-detail-about-sexual-assault-allegations/2014/11/22/d7074938-718e-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html

[Tommy_Carcetti]

101. Right. But is there any official, written record of allegations before the 2004 suit?

That's really what I wanted to know here.

[Lex]

102. Did you read the article?

[PCIntern]

112. Here you go...

[lindysalsagal]

113. Not saying he's innocent. Also, not forgetting how celebrities are easy targets.

All 16 women might be victims, of course. His TV work doesn't inoculate him from being a predator.

There will always be an allure where famous men are concerned, and a few of them will take advantage of that. Same story for cases of domestic abuse with professional athletes.

I also know that it would be a long, uphill battle to accuse such a beloved celebrity. I doubt I'd bother, myself. So I can understand why victims of celebrities don't prosecute.

The way it stands now, he's getting punished in his old age by the court of public opinion. Maybe it's too late for justice to be done.

Personally, I am taking account of the fact that he's made no attempt to defend himself or to return fire on these women.

If I had to call it from my uninformed armchair, I do lean toward guilty, but I also know that I really don't know.

One thing I do know is that america has a gun culture, and a rape culture. That much is undeniable.