Bill Cosby- Sexual predator orextortion victim?

[RStar]

So do you think he is a sexual predator as these ladies say, or are they just trying to jump on the Cosby gravy train?

[scaeagles]

Hard to believe if there's one....hard to disbelieve when there are what...15 accusers?

[RStar]

It's up to 16 now. That's my thought, how can it not be true when so many come forward. And when it's an enduring popular figure like Cosby, and you have no real memory of what happened, I can see not wanting to come out about it right away. Who would believe them anyway, right?

Plus, he was investigated in 2005 and indicted. Not that it means he is innocent, just that there is not enough proof for a trial or conviction. And now the police are investigating, not to press charges against Cosby as the statute of limitations has long past, but I think to validate the claims and see if extortion is in play.

A recent statement from Cosby's lawyer, Martin Singer:

“The new, never-before-heard claims from women who have come forward in the past two weeks with unsubstantiated, fantastical stories about things they say occurred 30, 40, or even 50 years ago have escalated far past the point of absurdity,” he said. “These brand new claims about alleged decades-old events are becoming increasingly ridiculous, and it is completely illogical that so many people would have said nothing, done nothing, and made no reports to law enforcement or asserted civil claims if they thought they had been assaulted over a span of so many years.

“Lawsuits are filed against people in the public eye every day. There has never been a shortage of lawyers willing to represent people with claims against rich, powerful men, so it makes no sense that not one of these new women who just came forward for the first time now ever asserted a legal claim back at the time they allege they had been sexually assaulted."

[3894]

Listen, I believe these women. However ...

If it happened within the window of taking Cosby to court, take him to court. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to the public. Talk to the police. Talk to the prosecuting attorney. It is not fair or right to try him or anyone else solely in the court of public opinion.

Same goes for Woody Allen.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm of two minds on that front. While I agree that the trial-by-media thing going on is unseemly (which is why I have not weighed in), the particular nature of what he's accused of makes it a little harsh to say, "Sorry babe, statute of limitations has run out." What he's accused of has so much to do with coercion, abuse of his trusted status in the media, and enormous pressure for the women to stay silent that the whole statute of limitations thing is way too convenient of cover for him (and more importantly many others with the opportunity to do the same now) to get away with it. So unfortunately, trial-by-media may be the only way anyone could ever be held accountable for this kind of thing.

[Alex]

Quite a few of the women did take action while it was possible to do something legally. I was certainly aware of the accusations years ago.

The current situation did arise because new people came forward or pushed their claims back into the limelight but because someone who didn't forget about them mentioned it in a forum that spread around social media.

And once the conversation is rekindled I have absolutely no problem with the women who were victimized saying "yeah, don't just hear his side of things again..."

And, to be honest, when it comes to having been drugged and raped I'm not too worried about the etiquette of when it is appropriate to talk.

While obviously he shouldn't be formally sanctioned/punished without a trial and due process I have no problem at all moving forward with my life on the assumption that he is a rapist, and a pretty aggressive one at that.

[RStar]

From the tone of what I hear on here and in the media, it sounds like most everyone (myself included) thinks him guilty. But it's circumstantial evidence by hearsay. There's no real evidence, which is why he was able to get away with it for so long. And probably a good reason for the police to investigate, if only to bring the truth to light. So two questions:

Is it right for us to judge him guilty?

Did he do this on his own? Or did he have someone close to him that helped him, say get the drugs used or make sure he left no evidence? If so this could be the smoking gun.

My guess is that he is very intelligent and pulled it off himself, but a celebrity of his stature rarely is truly alone. So someone must have seen something.

[Alex]

Is it right for us to judge him guilty?

Sure. It's wrong for the state to judge him guilty as things stand now. But if the only way we could ever reach the conclusion that someone did something was by putting them through a beyond a reasonable doubt trial then that'd be silly.

More information my change my judgement, but with the information currently available to me, I'm comfortable with the resulting conclusion.

That said, my judgment really doesn't mean anything. If someone asked me if I think Cosby is a rapist I'll say yes. But it isn't like I'm going to chain myself to his front door to prevent him leaving his house.

I wouldn't pay to see him live (but I wouldn't have done that before) but my general view is that the misdeeds of artists don't really impact my willingness to consume their art. Unless I feel that the art is trying to convince me their misdeeds were right or that my money would go directly to continuing their misdeeds. So if the Cosby Show were on TV the reason I wouldn't watch it would have nothing to do with Cosby as a person, just that I've never thought the show aged very well.

I'd watch I Spy though. Or Ghost Dad. Those remain classics.

Did he do this on his own?

I have no idea. Has anybody in their claims suggested otherwise?

[Strangler Lewis]

Not to mention "Mother, Juggs and Speed."

[Strangler Lewis]

Jugs.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, I had COMPLETELY forgotten that I actually have a relative who was a fairly close business associate of Cosby's during the height of his career. I don't think they were best buddies, but close enough that Cosby was invited to my relatives see-and-be-seen wedding.

Had lunch with him yesterday. Their business relationship ended a long time ago, so he's no longer in the loop. But of course he knew him during the time period in question. My relative's assessment seemed to be that he never saw anything that would have made him suspect him of the things he's being accused of. But that said, he DID know him to make the rounds with several women, and that while he wouldn't have guessed, he wouldn't be entirely surprised if it were true.

Which, really, doesn't add much color to the picture. Cosby was a wealthy influential person in an industry where wealthy influential people often abuse that wealth and influence and get away with it. Almost everyone in that position could fall under the, "Well, he never did that kind of thing around ME...but I guess I'm not TOO surprised that it happened," banner.

[RStar]

Alex, that's one thing I have always maintained- that I could consume the art of a person whether I like the way a person is outside of that setting.

And no, there has been no reports that anyone else helped with said crimes. Those that would have "helped" in some fashion would be held close and very unlikely to share that information. But a third party would be an interesting twist. My question was just a hypothetical thought, however.

And GD, that's a very interesting story. It does tend to lean me that much more to the guilty side of the equation.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I know a woman who says it's true, with firsthand knowledge. She was very young at the time, of course, this was all a long time ago, but she still remembers.

I can't decide if I should let a celebrity's personal life affect how I feel about their thing they do. Should Mel Gibson's nut-job antics and personal nastiness affect how I feel about him as an actor? In that particular case, it does, though his later films are not what I'd want to see, regardless of who he was.