Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

It seems that the statute of limitations has passed, so there's no criminal case possible. So I guess that means he's innocent, and the accusers should no longer care if he did rape them.

Well, I guess the moral of the story is this: if you get raped and you want people not to be skeptical of your motives, don't wait until the statute of limitations run out, and then attempt a civil suit or sell your story to the highest paying reporter, if you want the alleged rapist to go to jail.

 

I'm not mocking those who get raped by any means, but really, isn't it better to go to the police when it happens, than have it happen in 1969 then come forward decades later? Better to try to put the alleged rapist in jail and fail, than wait until its too late.

 

I guess that's the moral of the story. But I'll be honest, I have a hard time believing my local law enforcement is going to do more than go through the motions if I got raped, considering that the US has over 100,000 backlogged rape kits waiting to be tested. Oh, well, this article says there are over 400,000 estimated untested rape kits.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have responded to Fozzie's statement with that verbiage I used, but essentially, what is wrong with saying if a woman is raped, she should report it? That is the only way anything can be done. At least legally, anyway.

As for your statistics, police can only do so much, right. And they are only set up to react and catch the criminal after the fact. There probably is no good answer to the fact that many police agencies are backlogged. It's just an unfortunate reality that, I at least, don't know what can be done about it.

It IS the women's fault! It's their own fault for dressing like pudding pops!

 

And for being shamed, intimidated by a rich and power manipulator and for living in a culture that reflexively thinks they should be able to deal with rape emotionally with ease and point a finger.

I never said that, nor do I agree with that, Driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Internet was just used for people to talk without fighting, people said smart things, and somebody changed their minds. IM FREAKING OUT

I don't get people who care enough to hate them. Or like them.   They're an annoyance, like ants.

A struggling young woman trying to claim that BILL COSBY, the nicest man in the universe, raped her? In 2014 that's a hard case for a woman to make, 30 years ago it would be so ridiculous that the pol

 

What if you assume the rapist won't be punished -because he's such a beloved entertainer-and you will have exposed your shame to the world. Then you see 19 other women telling the same, exact story as happened to you? Do you stay silent because the statute has run out or do you add your story so at LEAST the world will know?

Of course this is assuming said person was in fact raped, and for whatever reason their case slipped through the cracks, then yeah, its totally understandable a person would go public with that. I am not arguing against that.

 

But here's the thing: what am I, as the recipient of the news supposed to do with that information? I have no way of knowing if the alleged victim had in fact been raped, or if Cosby is the victim of a frivolous lawsuit.

 

How do you know this to be true?

Not absolutely, but as far as I know, there hasn't been. Look, if more information comes to light, like there were in fact police reports filed and the police buried them, that totally changes the dynamic, and I would change my mind.

 

All I am saying is, at least with the info I have right now, there is no proof of wrongdoing. Just accusations. And for me, accusations alone, aren't enough for me to jump on board with destroying someone's reputation, if there is reasonable doubt.

 

I don't understand why that is such an unreasonable position to take.

 

I didn't say it was an unreasonable position, I'm just asking you questions and discussing.

 

I don't understand what you mean by what are you supposed to do with the information-do you DO something with every other news item you read? And if so, what?

 

I was just giving you a valid and common reason most women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist, especially when it's one who is wealthy, powerful and extremely well-known for being such a nice guy. Look at how many people are still having a tough time believing it NOW and 20 women have come forward with the same story. There are many, many valid reasons women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist and this well may be the biggest-most people won't believe them. If this were a frivilous lawsuit wouldn't all of them be asking for tons of money and wouldn't it have come on the heels of his earlier hush money? I can't see any reason for these women to be doing this now, other than they're telling the truth.

 

All I'm saying is I see 99% more validity in their claims than I see in him. Nobody but those involved know for sure and he deserves to be legally considered innocent until proved guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In just a few minutes of research, here's what I found:

 

"....Andrea Constand... alleged Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in...2004.

 

Despite the prosecutor’s decision not to indict Cosby, (It’s very challenging to secure a criminal conviction without more evidence than just one person’s word against another), Constand didn't simply go away. She filed a civil lawsuit in 2005 that included the claim that 13 other women, identified as “Jane Doe” to protect their identity, were prepared to testify at trial that Cosby had sexually assaulted them as well. Cosby settled the case in 2006 by paying Constand an undisclosed amount."

 

http://thedeansreport.com/item/113-bill-cobsy

 

So, clearly, at least 14 women tried to have him prosecuted at least 9 years ago. That enough to make you at least wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

In just a few minutes of research, here's what I found:

 

"....Andrea Constand... alleged Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in...2004.

 

Despite the prosecutor’s decision not to indict Cosby, (It’s very challenging to secure a criminal conviction without more evidence than just one person’s word against another), Constand didn't simply go away. She filed a civil lawsuit in 2005 that included the claim that 13 other women, identified as “Jane Doe” to protect their identity, were prepared to testify at trial that Cosby had sexually assaulted them as well. Cosby settled the case in 2006 by paying Constand an undisclosed amount."

 

http://thedeansreport.com/item/113-bill-cobsy

 

So, clearly, at least 14 women tried to have him prosecuted at least 9 years ago. That enough to make you at least wonder?

It certainly doesn't look good for Cosby, and yes, it does make me question his innocence.

 

That said, and to play Devil's advocate, if this was not just about money, then why did Constand take the settlement? Settlements usually involve a payout to the accuser to drop the suit, but the accused doesn't have to admit wrongdoing. Basically, the accuser is payed to go away. So, I'd like to know if this was so the world would know that Cosby raped her, and wasn't about money, why would she do that? And did she share the money with the other 13 Jane Does? Did they have input in the decision to settle, or did Constand act unilaterally? IF the answer is no to the last two, then to me, that DOES seem to be about the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I didn't say it was an unreasonable position, I'm just asking you questions and discussing.

 

I don't understand what you mean by what are you supposed to do with the information-do you DO something with every other news item you read? And if so, what?

 

I was just giving you a valid and common reason most women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist, especially when it's one who is wealthy, powerful and extremely well-known for being such a nice guy. Look at how many people are still having a tough time believing it NOW and 20 women have come forward with the same story. There are many, many valid reasons women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist and this well may be the biggest-most people won't believe them. If this were a frivilous lawsuit wouldn't all of them be asking for tons of money and wouldn't it have come on the heels of his earlier hush money? I can't see any reason for these women to be doing this now, other than they're telling the truth.

 

All I'm saying is I see 99% more validity in their claims than I see in him. Nobody but those involved know for sure and he deserves to be legally considered innocent until proved guilty

I totally get why a rape victim might not come forward. I also get why maybe now, there are alleged victims coming forward now. I understand why the victims may have been fearful to come forward before, and that in numbers, they may be less fearful...assuming they were in fact victimized.

 

However, what I am trying to do, and have tried to be (maybe it isn't coming off that way, and if so, I apologize) is objective about this situation, and not have a knee jerk reaction, which I believe a lot of people have had about Cosby. What I have been trying to point out is that I have no way of personally knowing the truth, and I also did not feel there was any actual proof, only allegations Cosby did something. As more come forward, it does look worse for Cosby, sure. And I am not trying to be so open minded that I am empty headed, but before I personally think Cosby is guilty of rape, I want to see some kind of proof, besides a number of women (many of which doing so anonymously) accusing him. Now, the example of the 2004 Constand civil lawsuit definitely counts towards that, but I will have to read a little more about that, and more on this case in general, before I am willing to say I think Cosby is absolutely guilty, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets bring up another case. How many of those women who claimed to be involved with Tiger Woods really were?

 

I am in no way defending Cosby here other than it is wrong on many levels to drag a persons name through the mudd and no criminal charges or evidence has been produced.

 

I think there should be more defamation of character lawsuits to counter the witchhunts that go on in the media today. All it takes is one person who is willing to go on tv and acusse someone of a crime whether true or not and it can ruin a person forever even if it wasnt true.

 

That is what I have a serious issue with. I seriously doubt any of you would want that to happen to you? The problem with many people is not being able to distinguish fact from opinion or fiction. They think because they read it on the internet or see it on facebook that it must be true.

Well lets bring up another case. How many of those women who claimed to be involved with Tiger Woods really were?

 

I am in no way defending Cosby here other than it is wrong on many levels to drag a persons name through the mudd and no criminal charges or evidence has been produced.

 

I think there should be more defamation of character lawsuits to counter the witchhunts that go on in the media today. All it takes is one person who is willing to go on tv and acusse someone of a crime whether true or not and it can ruin a person forever even if it wasnt true.

 

That is what I have a serious issue with. I seriously doubt any of you would want that to happen to you? The problem with many people is not being able to distinguish fact from opinion or fiction. They think because they read it on the internet or see it on facebook that it must be true.

Well lets bring up another case. How many of those women who claimed to be involved with Tiger Woods really were?

 

I am in no way defending Cosby here other than it is wrong on many levels to drag a persons name through the mudd and no criminal charges or evidence has been produced.

 

I think there should be more defamation of character lawsuits to counter the witchhunts that go on in the media today. All it takes is one person who is willing to go on tv and acusse someone of a crime whether true or not and it can ruin a person forever even if it wasnt true.

 

That is what I have a serious issue with. I seriously doubt any of you would want that to happen to you? The problem with many people is not being able to distinguish fact from opinion or fiction. They think because they read it on the internet or see it on facebook that it must be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In just a few minutes of research, here's what I found:

 

"....Andrea Constand... alleged Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in...2004.

 

Despite the prosecutor’s decision not to indict Cosby, (It’s very challenging to secure a criminal conviction without more evidence than just one person’s word against another), Constand didn't simply go away. She filed a civil lawsuit in 2005 that included the claim that 13 other women, identified as “Jane Doe” to protect their identity, were prepared to testify at trial that Cosby had sexually assaulted them as well. Cosby settled the case in 2006 by paying Constand an undisclosed amount."

 

http://thedeansreport.com/item/113-bill-cobsy

 

So, clearly, at least 14 women tried to have him prosecuted at least 9 years ago. That enough to make you at least wonder?

It certainly doesn't look good for Cosby, and yes, it does make me question his innocence.

 

That said, and to play Devil's advocate, if this was not just about money, then why did Constand take the settlement? Settlements usually involve a payout to the accuser to drop the suit, but the accused doesn't have to admit wrongdoing. Basically, the accuser is payed to go away. So, I'd like to know if this was so the world would know that Cosby raped her, and wasn't about money, why would she do that? And did she share the money with the other 13 Jane Does? Did they have input in the decision to settle, or did Constand act unilaterally? IF the answer is no to the last two, then to me, that DOES seem to be about the money.

 

I may go look for that if I have the time-I have the same questions but for now am assuming it's all because of the law. I'm reminded of the hot auditorium scene in Erin Brockovich in which Massey tells the crowd how it works-how little hope they have, how much money PG&E has-how almost none of these things ever even go to trial. I feel that may be a lot of it. Perhaps Constand felt it was the best she could do and that it, at least, got the word out to the world? And maybe she didn't have a say in how the money was used. I don't even know she took it at this point. But it certainly is JUST as possible 20+ women are just out for money with a star of his magnitude. I just tend to believe people who say they've been raped unless they're suspect to begin with and Tawana Brawley's the only one I can think of right now and oddly, I believe Bill Cosby was the first person to give her money for her legal fund.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/05/209194252/15-years-later-tawana-brawley-has-paid-1-percent-of-penalty

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't say it was an unreasonable position, I'm just asking you questions and discussing.

 

I don't understand what you mean by what are you supposed to do with the information-do you DO something with every other news item you read? And if so, what?

 

I was just giving you a valid and common reason most women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist, especially when it's one who is wealthy, powerful and extremely well-known for being such a nice guy. Look at how many people are still having a tough time believing it NOW and 20 women have come forward with the same story. There are many, many valid reasons women have for not trying to prosecute a rapist and this well may be the biggest-most people won't believe them. If this were a frivilous lawsuit wouldn't all of them be asking for tons of money and wouldn't it have come on the heels of his earlier hush money? I can't see any reason for these women to be doing this now, other than they're telling the truth.

 

All I'm saying is I see 99% more validity in their claims than I see in him. Nobody but those involved know for sure and he deserves to be legally considered innocent until proved guilty

I totally get why a rape victim might not come forward. I also get why maybe now, there are alleged victims coming forward now. I understand why the victims may have been fearful to come forward before, and that in numbers, they may be less fearful...assuming they were in fact victimized.

 

However, what I am trying to do, and have tried to be (maybe it isn't coming off that way, and if so, I apologize) is objective about this situation, and not have a knee jerk reaction, which I believe a lot of people have had about Cosby. What I have been trying to point out is that I have no way of personally knowing the truth, and I also did not feel there was any actual proof, only allegations Cosby did something. As more come forward, it does look worse for Cosby, sure. And I am not trying to be so open minded that I am empty headed, but before I personally think Cosby is guilty of rape, I want to see some kind of proof, besides a number of women (many of which doing so anonymously) accusing him. Now, the example of the 2004 Constand civil lawsuit definitely counts towards that, but I will have to read a little more about that, and more on this case in general, before I am willing to say I think Cosby is absolutely guilty, in my opinion.

 

Okay-that's totally cool with me. I FEEL the same way you do-and I'd love to believe in his 100% innocence but my gut tells me otherwise. I've always had an uneasy feeling about the guy but I always attributed it to him reminding me of my ex-father-in-law who I never got along with. They just each have that same smug, lazy ease about them and I know my ex FIL has hit some women in his life-HIS wife and granddaughter, for sure. I mean, I don't know the guy and I certainly can't claim to have known THIS about him from watching him on my teevee. Maybe I'm just letting MY knee jerk because of the association I've made in my mind.

 

Odd, too, nobody's come forward with any story discrediting any of the accusers in any way. Shouldn't Cosby's people be digging up dirt on them or trying to show them as gold diggers by now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one person who is willing to go on tv and acusse someone of a crime whether true or not and it can ruin a person forever even if it wasnt true.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm starting to wonder about this. Tiger Woods is still playing golf and making money. I don't know how many of those women were truly ****ing him, but those who sold their stories to tabloids were suspect immediately and it didn't take long to flush out the truth. And remember when Pete Townsend was found with kid porn on his computer and said it was because of the research he was doing? That turned out to be true and it didn't ruin his life or career.

 

I'm just now wondering if the internet and social media may be making it easier to get at the truth and not as many unfounded accusations are taking people down the way it all used to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, what I am trying to do, and have tried to be (maybe it isn't coming off that way, and if so, I apologize) is objective about this situation, and not have a knee jerk reaction, which I believe a lot of people have had about Cosby. What I have been trying to point out is that I have no way of personally knowing the truth, and I also did not feel there was any actual proof, only allegations Cosby did something. As more come forward, it does look worse for Cosby, sure. And I am not trying to be so open minded that I am empty headed, but before I personally think Cosby is guilty of rape, I want to see some kind of proof, besides a number of women (many of which doing so anonymously) accusing him. Now, the example of the 2004 Constand civil lawsuit definitely counts towards that, but I will have to read a little more about that, and more on this case in general, before I am willing to say I think Cosby is absolutely guilty, in my opinion.

I don't think anybody is saying 100% that he's absolutely guilty, just that it certainly appears that way with what we know at this moment.

 

You're on my "All-Time Lyceum" squad, and I really enjoy reading your posts, but I think in trying to play devil's advocate, you've rubbed some people the wrong way. I'm hardly one to ask others to be more sensitive in how they speak or frame things, but given some of the comments you have made, I strongly suggest reading some recent history on the issue of rape and sexual assault in America. Probably starting in the early 1960s. I can think of a ton of reason these women didn't come forward.

 

It's important to remember that police did not understand that acquaintance rape was even "a thing" until the 1960s (rape was only the "creepy guy jumping out of the bushes;" the term "date rape" wasn't coined until the mid-1970s), and that saying you were raped carried just as much or more risk of ruining your reputation than the person you accused. You also stood to have your family and entire past ripped apart in an effort to prove you were lying/a floozy/asked for it/etc... if the accusation was even taken seriously. You would have had to have been completely nuts to take somebody of Cosby's caliber to court and think you had a snowball's chance in hell.

 

It is also telling that at least one of the alleged victims didn't consider it rape at all, because she was already regularly having (non-sedated) sex with him -- people's view of what constitutes rape and general unacceptable behavior changes over time. People may have felt what happened was "Weird, but OK" for years, then thought about it after the first victims began coming forward and had an epiphany. iirc, the woman who came forward first says he assaulted her in the early 2000s, not the 1960s-'80s -- well after societal attitudes had shifted.

 

But even with changes in attitude and so much more support available today for rape victims, even with "but you asked for it with those heels you were wearing" no longer a valid excuse outside of troglodyte dens, you still have to remember that a lot of people don't want to be there at all -- they just want it all to go away, and not to have their name out in public or be forced to relive those moments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody please give me the name of a celebrity who was caught up in a scandal whose career was subsequently ruined?

 

Just one. Total ruin.

 

Fatty Arbuckle was the center of the first big studio scandal ever, and it cost him millions and his career.

 

There's varying degrees of reports on MJ was doing at the end. A lot of people say he was broke. Obviously he still lived ridiculously and had his fanbase, but I don't know that he would ever shake the allegations.

 

Lance Armstrong aint coming back

 

Mel Gibson was once Hollywood's leading man and now is a pariah who only gets cameos and makes his own weird movies

 

Lots of politicians have being ruined forever due to scandals

 

He was never a huge star, but Stephen Collins won't be hired any time soon

 

How's Paula Deen doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel most reports I've seen/heard/read about Cosby are simply detailing the accusations. I haven't seen any slimy reporting on it yet.

The only blatant muckraking I've seen was some site out there trying to claim that Cosby had also done something monstrous with li'l Raven-Symone while she was a wee tot on The Cosby Show. She popped in and shut down that line of sensationalist claptrap real quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

You're on my "All-Time Lyceum" squad, and I really enjoy reading your posts, but I think in trying to play devil's advocate, you've rubbed some people the wrong way. I'm hardly one to ask others to be more sensitive in how they speak or frame things, but given some of the comments you have made, I strongly suggest reading some recent history on the issue of rape and sexual assault in America. Probably starting in the early 1960s. I can think of a ton of reason these women didn't come forward.

Well, thank you for the constructive criticism and heads up, there Pong. It certainly was not my intent to offend anyone here, and if I have, I do sincerely apologize.

 

Perhaps, I was being too simplistic and black-and-white about, this, an especially sensitive subject. Also, that is good advice to read up more on the topic, because admittedly, I haven't followed it too closely as of late (due to being busy with the holidays, and other things), and as MG pointed out, there is at least one development that has made me rethink the issue.

 

Sorry guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet was just used for people to tLk without fighting, people said smart things, and somebody changed their minds.

 

IM FREAKING OUT

STFU poser.

 

Better?

 

I really want to bring poser back as an insult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The culture in Hollywood has always been off. That's part of the problem here. In 1969, during the height of free love and drug use glory days, with no DNA testing and a predisposition to blame any rape victim that wasn't in her own bed with her flannel nightgown and hair in curlers when the attack occured, I absolutely believe that wannabe actresses would have been intimidated by a big celebrity.

 

Did Grace Lee Whitney come forward and name her attacker back in 1966? Why not? Her career would have been over and I've heard, though I could be wrong, that her friend and confidant, Leonard Nimoy, essentially told her that. Forget about getting a conviction, her experience would have been brushed off as that wild and crazy casting couch culture that Hollywood has oft-parodied in TV and film and was generally accepted in the freewheeling 60s and 70s as just being part of doing business in the entertainment industry.

 

It was before sexual harassment was taken seriously, if we can call it taken seriously now when Bill Clinton is still the Darling of the Democratic Party, having had his multiple accusers vilified by his PR people, despite the credibility of their claims, and ironically head up the Democratic Convention's celebration of women while decrying a so-called GOP War on Women.

 

We have a love affair with celebrities and often have a hard time separating their real personality with the characters on TV. There's a reason why Raymond Burr was approached by a woman wondering how he won every case, why Christopher Reeve was hit by a woman's purse for how his character treated his wife on "Love of Life" (and later why he had trouble getting people to accept him as anyone other than Superman) and, maybe more relevantly, why - when "Diff'rent Strokes"' Todd Bridges was on trial for murder and the jury selection was going on - a prospective juror announced, "Sure, I can be fair to Willis".

 

So, in a court of law back in the 1980s, a prosecutor would have been hard-pressed, without DNA evidence, a defense attorney ready to question the credibility of the victim (with the same argument many of Cosby's defenders are using today) and a probable jury unable to separate Cosby the Man from Everybody's Dad to file charges.

 

To be honest, there are too many accusations for me not to believe them. Which is sad. Cosby had a good message and an important one to spread. Now, the message is overshadowed by the messenger.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But most of these women are not looking for money, they are trying to make the truth known. Many of them from the past DID try to speak out, and got buried. This is the upside of social media. I despise humanity and the mainstreme media in general, but this is a case where people who were snowballed had a chance to speak out and expose an ugly truth.

You say they are not looking for money, but do we know their every action since the allegations surfaced? Have they all refused pay from the Today show, GMA, People, the Globe, New York Post, The Enquirer, etc.? If one truly feels they were the victim in a crime, then he can--like anyone around the world--recall the story, and refuse to accept compensation. I'm not the only one who dealt with people who provided personal or eyewitness information, but did not accept offered pay no matter how serious the situation, so there's certainly precedent.

 

However, this is a disturbed society, where their moral compass of too many is constructed of fortune & fame--even from infamy (personal or external). This is not saying the women are all frauds, but the sudden outpouring of alleged victims of Cosby--and their willingness to grant access to every arm of the media always sets off alarms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's starting to sound like there may be a police investigation as a result of one alleged rape.

Wow! Imagine that. An actual proper investigation to determine guilt or innocence, instead of the "court of public opinion" wherein everybody weighs in with their own little agenda: the women saying "Another male rapist, that's what they're like you know. Good thing we're women and therefore better than men" vs the men saying "Another gold digging whore fabricating rape charges to bring down a good man and take his money. Well, you know what women are like ..."

 

I really think RestlessMalice has the right of it:

Once again this is the stuff I cannot stand! The media gets its slimey hands on something and stirs up a hornets nest to make money whether it is true or false or a little bit of both.

 

If there is "criminal" evidence [emphasis mine] to charge Cosby with then do it,if there is not then move on and dont give the "acussers" anymore attention. I do not mean to sound insensitive to anyone but we have a legal system that should be used and not a court of public opinion. Stop trying cases about people on tv.

You know, more actual proper legal investigative procedure and less media circus to lather the mob into a righteous frenzy and fewer wingnuts and moonbats with a personal axe to grind. THAT would be nice. But THAT doesn't get ratings and exposure, and that's what the advertisers want, after all. Money talks and, well, you know what walks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...