GK photo wrote:
sure, but in the real world of prosecution, there would never be any conviction (in any trial), without a measurable dose of circumstantial evidence. even in cases where there is/was a confession.

i don't know how there could be any hard evidence to support this case, after this amount of time, without a third party (possible drug dealer) coming forth and offering their testimony.

obviously, any forensic evidence would be long gone at this point.

and it is unfortunate how women who come forth like this (years after) are instantly raked over the coals. selecting a few bad examples (duke lacrosse, etc) to always assume the accuser is lying is just unsound, and further perpetuates all the bad myths, and bolsters outdated, misogynistic mindsets.

Lots of people are being raked over the coals.

Wye wrote:
Again.  Where there's this much smoke there's fire.

Where there's money, there are people willing to say anything in order to cash in.

An interesting read:

http://list25.com/25-worst-cases-of-peo … y-accused/

Click Hamilton wrote:
In the end was quilt determined, convictions made and punishments rendered?

Was justice achieved?

After the media circus of the time, I didn't hear any of the followup.

-
Sandusky will spend the rest of his life behind bars.  His wife is still proclaiming his innocence.  They tried to deprive Mrs. Sandusky of her Penn State retirement package.  That may still be in the system.  Last I knew, it was ruled she could keep the pension because he (Sandusky) committed his crimes after he left Penn State.  Joe Paterno died a few weeks after being fired.  The athletic director and former university president have not gone on trial yet.  Paterno's family is suing.  I think the  NCAA is the defendant.  The Freed report is widely regarded as a hatchet job done at the bequest of the board, who preferred to take a burnt earth policy, so that the board could plead contrition and move on.  Some recent court discovery has revealed e-mails that the NCAA acknowledged internally that they didn't have the authority to penalize Penn State for this matter, but they counted on Penn State to be bluffed into agreeing because Penn State wanted to move on.   The NCAA also indicated that it had received political pressure from other universities to act.  Corbett agreed to the sanctions.  Corbett has said, after the November elections, Paterno shouldn't have been fired.  He laid the blame for the firing at the feet of the board, because Corbett, though being on the board, didn't vote for the dismissal because of his role in the investigation while he was AG.  However, Corbett also said nothing positive about Paterno and did indicate Paterno's responsibility.  The board members that are elected by the alumni association (9 members) are trying to fight the sanctions.  The remainder of the board just wants to forget it and move on.  The board has recently voted to expand the number of members,  none of the new members would be voted in by the alumni, thus diluting the voice of those who are demanding the facts.

Another interesting parallel between Paterno and Cosby, is how many people came out and talked to the press about the Mr. Hyde side of Paterno's personality.

Penn State has been settling the suits brought by the victims.  I am not aware of the dollar figures.

Has justice been achieved?  Sandusky, probably.  The victims, probably.  Everyone else, probably not.  Lots of other people have been hurt. 

A game at Rutger's this year, the Rutger's fans held up signs about "Ped State".  Thus everyone who ever attended Penn State seems to be culpable.  Rutger's University President publicly apologized for the behavior at the game.

edit:  The NCAA emails were released right after the election.

GK photo wrote:

sure, but in the real world of prosecution, there would never be any conviction (in any trial), without a measurable dose of circumstantial evidence. even in cases where there is/was a confession.

i don't know how there could be any hard evidence to support this case, after this amount of time, without a third party (possible drug dealer) coming forth and offering their testimony.

obviously, any forensic evidence would be long gone at this point.

and it is unfortunate how women who come forth like this (years after) are instantly raked over the coals. selecting a few bad examples (duke lacrosse, etc) to always assume the accuser is lying is just unsound, and further perpetuates all the bad myths, and bolsters outdated, misogynistic mindsets.

There are often wrongful convictions.  Yesterday's paper talked about a woman in California that got a reversal and a factually not guilty verdict after 17 years in prison for a murder she did not commit.  Someone was released near here, recently.  This one really pissed me off.   The prosecutor would not sign off on the release until the wrongly convicted man gave up his right to sue the county.

Both sides of the table know that the not guilty till proven innocent thing, is a myth.  Juries are usually biased to prosecution.  Among their biases: that the prosecutors won't bring charges unless they are absolutely sure.  The day care sex scandals (in the 80s?) proved that not to be the case.  Another one I read this week was about a guy that won in trial.  Not guilty on all counts.  The conviction was so important that the prosecutor offered parole and no jail time if the defendant plead guilty to, I believe, a felony.  The only source I am reading is the newspaper.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Yes I could find 16+ PEOPLE who would lie, steal, cheat, murder, sell their grandmother for a piece of a 400 million $ pie.
Not saying that's what's happening here but its naive to believe peeps are above this sort of thing.

What would Lou's wife gain from an accusation?
Lou is worth about 6 mil.
That is not enough?

----------
http://gawker.com/lou-ferrignos-wife-ha … 1661415120

Lou Ferrigno's wife, Carla, also told a disquieting Cosby story Thursday, alleging that Cosby attacked her in 1967 while his wife, Camille, was in the house. She said she ended up at Cosby's home after going on a date with a friend of his.

She and her date and Bill started to play pool and in the middle of the game, she looks up and asked where Camille [Cosby's wife] was.

She's probably gone to bed,' Cosby told her.

'Things are starting to feel odd now. I'm from the South and you always say good night to your guests so I asked, "Why didn't she say goodnight?"'

'He said she was probably tired so I kept watching them play. And then Bill won, so Bill and I played. And pretty soon I noticed that the guy disappeared and I asked where he went,

'He told me 'probably to the bathroom'.

'Things really seemed odder now. We kept playing. Bill beat me. And just as I was ready to put the pool cue down he came forward at me. I thought he was reaching for the pool cue. But he came at me and grabbed me in such a powerful way. Grabbing me.

'He was much bigger than me. Much bigger and he pulled me so hard and so rough. I had never been treated so roughly and he pulled me hard to him so hard.

'And then kissed me so hard, right in the mouth. No one has ever been that physically violent with me.

'I was stunned. I was frozen. I took all my body strength and used both of my arms to stop him and push him away from me. He was so forceful.

GK photo wrote:
and it is unfortunate how women who come forth like this (years after) are instantly raked over the coals. selecting a few bad examples (duke lacrosse, etc) to always assume the accuser is lying is just unsound, and further perpetuates all the bad myths, and bolsters outdated, misogynistic mindsets.

and that is exactly the crux of the matter.

The mental gymnastic required for people to believe that all 16 (and counting) women are just lying and in it for the money is remarkable.

GK photo wrote:
and it is unfortunate how women who come forth like this (years after) are instantly raked over the coals. selecting a few bad examples (duke lacrosse, etc) to always assume the accuser is lying is just unsound, and further perpetuates all the bad myths, and bolsters outdated, misogynistic mindsets.

Yup. The irony (or perhaps outright hypocrisy) in some of those assumptions is that they insist we all put all our faith in the legal justice system... and yet, this thread is already replete with examples of how frequently that same legal justice system actually FAILS.

In Cosby's case, it is too late for anyone to obtain justice through the legal justice system. Cosby's ongoing collapse is a result of free market forces and open public opinion, both of which are sending a message that is quite loud and quite clear: whatever currency his name once held is becoming virtually worthless... and rightly so.

Wye wrote:
The mental gymnastic required for people to believe that all 16 (and counting) women are just lying and in it for the money is remarkable.

Make it 17. If I can settle out of court for $5 million then I'll be happy to claim he molested me too.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Make it 17. If I can settle out of court for $5 million then I'll be happy to claim he molested me too.

Go ahead. Actually do it. See if the beating you get from the press and lawyers and friends and family and strangers is worth it.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Make it 17. If I can settle out of court for $5 million then I'll be happy to claim he molested me too.

And just because you're willing to sell yourself out for a measly 5 million doesn't mean these women are.

Wye wrote:
Go ahead. Actually do it. See if the beating you get from the press and lawyers and friends and family and strangers is worth it.

The only possible reason for the additional 15 (and counting) people to speak out now, long after all possibility for criminal actions to be taken, is money. You would be amazed at what people will do for a fast buck.

I wonder how many would be suddenly speaking out now if Cosby was only worth $400 instead of $400 million.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
The only possible reason for the additional 15 (and counting) people to speak out now, long after all possibility for criminal actions to be taken, is money. You would be amazed at what people will do for a fast buck.

Come on in, the water's fine!

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

The only possible reason for the additional 15 (and counting) people to speak out now, long after all possibility for criminal actions to be taken, is money. You would be amazed at what people will do for a fast buck.

I wonder how many would be suddenly speaking out now if Cosby was only worth $400 instead of $400 million.

I invite you as I did the earlier gentleman to think a little harder and discover another reason that the additional women have come forward. And no. Your reason is not the only possible reason.

Click Hamilton wrote:

Wye wrote:
The guilt or innocence of the person being accused is a fully different situation than those who are looking for fodder to promote their own agenda or campaign, and who want to gleefully wave banners in some kind of vague victimized women's rights parade.

Personally, I'll wait for evidence and convictions by a judge and a court of law before I jump to conclusions.

Innocent until proven guilty under law.

Well said, sir.

I worked for certain celebrities "male" and it was common for them to be sexually involved with a multitude of women on a monthly basis, sometimes carting in 4-5 or more different women in a single day to sleep with ...they were all willing participants who were just "Ga-Ga" over being associated with a star and the glitter of their excessive wealth.  As someone else from this industry noted: this was commonplace.

Though I may not have approved of that personal lifestyle, it was not my place nor my job to judge other peoples conduct.  Nobody was being hurt, and they were there as willful-consenting adults. 

...what troubles me is all this feverishly wild speculation thrown about by others here who have absolutely NO connection or first hand knowledge of this mans life or the accusers ~ yet stumble into this mob mentality of pre-judgment.

Cosby may be a Celebrity, but I would argue that his personal life off-set/off-camera is pretty much none of our business (since you're not a close friend nor family, nor associate or connected in any way)   

Let the cards fall where they will after this whole mess blows over, then you can make a more informed decision of just how much of this tabloid drama "actually" affects your own personal lives.   seriously.. get a grip.

Jules NYC wrote:
Here's a guy that people made a big deal out of his personal life. He didn't commit any crimes.

I guess many (including myself) had a problem with the general dishonesty factor since he was leading our country and all.

"I did not have sex with that woman."
Even the pres can't hide behind lawyers as he has to address the people.

I didn't have a problem with it. It was a personal marital issue between his wife ("The Hillary"). And it was consensual. Monica loved it, and so did he. What Cosby is being "accused" of is that of non-consensual. Big difference. Cosby is funny. Let's let it go at that.

Jules NYC wrote:
Here's a guy that people made a big deal out of his personal life. He didn't commit any crimes.  I guess many (including myself) had a problem with the general dishonesty factor since he was leading our country and all.

Even the pres can't hide behind lawyers as he has to address the people.

Jesus Chr*st  ...does this even warrant a response ?   sure, why not.

"Bill Cosby" is an entertainer.  His life off camera should not be a continued source of public entertainment at his personal expense.

"Bill Clinton" was an appointed chief executive of a national superpower by the citizens of the United States.  By definition of his title, his conduct while in office is accountable to the public at large.

                  ...sigh*    tiny, tiny minds.

Wye wrote:
I invite you as I did the earlier gentleman to think a little harder and discover another reason that the additional women have come forward. And no. Your reason is not the only possible reason.

If the additional women had come forward WITHOUT hearing the first's accusations plastered all over the news then yes, I would agree there "smoke".  I find it highly unlikely though that any of them didn't see the news stories.

Why go to the media with these stories after all this time? Why not just talk to their therapists or husbands about it? They can't get Cosby charged with anything, and he's not running for office or anything like that. What's the motivation to tell the world about it?

Don't get me wrong... I have no idea if he's guilty or not... I have no way of knowing. I'm just saying the numbers of people piling on AFTER the first accuser is widely publicized mean nothing to me.

Jules NYC wrote:
Here's a guy that people made a big deal out of his personal life. He didn't commit any crimes.

Rape isn't a crime? Since when? I'm not talking about Monica, I'm talking about the several woman who did in fact accuse him of rape. He was never convicted, but it did get pretty messy for a while (not just for him, but for those women who came forward).

The Grey Forest wrote:
Jesus Chr*st  ...does this even warrant a response ?   sure, why not.

"Bill Cosby" is an entertainer.  His life off camera should not be a continued source of public entertainment at his personal expense.

"Bill Clinton" was an appointed chief executive of a national superpower by the citizens of the United States.  By definition of his title, his conduct while in office is accountable to the public at large.

                  ...sigh*    tiny, tiny minds.

What is small-minded thinking is dismissing ugly character/behavior be it the president, an entertainer or your average Joe.

I don't respect or like dishonest people.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence

Commentators have noted that the ability of defendants to call character witnesses can give an advantage to more affluent defendants. Affluent defendants can call as character witnesses celebrities, athletes, and prominent members of the community.

mommydearestzz wrote:
Another female victim of abuse has came forward against Bill Cosby..
Which, oddly enough, means he is now officially eligible for the NFL draft.

bahahaha

ZingArts wrote:
I didn't have a problem with it. It was a personal marital issue between his wife ("The Hillary"). And it was consensual. Monica loved it, and so did he. What Cosby is being "accused" of is that of non-consensual. Big difference. Cosby is funny. Let's let it go at that.

I don't think it's funny that 17 people are accusing Cosby of rape. Hey, if it's not true, I'd like proof.

He said, she said. Oh wait, team of lawyers say, 17 women say, and Bill says -0-.

Jules NYC wrote:
I don't respect or like dishonest people.

Honest + Politician is an Oxymoron

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

Honest + Politician is an Oxymoron

I agree with you there.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Rape isn't a crime? Since when? I'm not talking about Monica, I'm talking about the several woman who did in fact accuse him of rape. He was never convicted, but it did get pretty messy for a while (not just for him, but for those women who came forward).

As we can't discuss it anymore, you may find this article interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/b … bout-that/

Jules NYC wrote:
I don't think it's funny that 17 people are accusing Cosby of rape. Hey, if it's not true, I'd like proof.

...okay, I see where this is going,
so apparently in your mind - anyone "accused" is considered 'guilty' until proven innocent.

there's nothing further to discuss... laterz

Jules NYC wrote:
I don't think it's funny that 17 people are accusing Cosby of rape.

One person accused him of rape. 16 others heard about it and are saying "Can I get in on this too?".

The Grey Forest wrote:

...okay, I see where this is going,
so apparently in your mind - anyone "accused" is considered 'guilty' until proven innocent.

there's nothing further to discuss... laterz

No.
You read that wrong.

Sarcasm

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

One person accused him of rape. 16 others heard about it and are saying "Can I get in on this too?".

I don't think that is fair to say.

Jules NYC wrote:
Here's a guy that people made a big deal out of his personal life. He didn't commit any crimes.  I guess many (including myself) had a problem with the general dishonesty factor since he was leading our country and all.

Even the pres can't hide behind lawyers as he has to address the people.

The Grey Forest wrote:
Jesus Chr*st  ...does this even warrant a response ?   sure, why not.

"Bill Cosby" is an entertainer.  His life off camera should not be a continued source of public entertainment at his personal expense.

"Bill Clinton" was an appointed chief executive of a national superpower by the citizens of the United States.  By definition of his title, his conduct while in office is accountable to the public at large.

                  ...sigh*    tiny, tiny minds.

you mean elected. and although what bill did with monica may be sleazy and salacious,  it was in no way tantamount to a crime. his lying about it under oath is another matter. bill cosby's accusers are making claims that amount to crimes, and serious ones at that. unfortunately, they probably have no grounds for getting any kind of conviction, unless (like i said) someone else would come forth to corroborate their claims.

even then, i'm sure there are statute of limitations problems.

Jules NYC wrote:

I don't think that is fair to say.

I recall several years ago when the Philadelphia transit folks decided to announce a fake bus accident to try and expose people for filing false claims when it comes to bus accidents. They got several hundred people coming in and claiming to have been on the bus when it had the "accident" and hoping to cash in on a quick payoff.

We see this sort of behavior all the time... sad, but true.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

I recall several years ago when the Philadelphia transit folks decided to announce a fake bus accident to try and expose people for filing false claims when it comes to bus accidents. They got several hundred people coming in and claiming to have been on the bus when it had the "accident" and hoping to cash in on a quick payoff.

We see this sort of behavior all the time... sad, but true.

nice false analogy.

Michael Bots wrote:
Video - Cosby refuses to answer related questions, no denial, request to scuttle tape.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 … y-assault/

-
Do you have a point?

The video wouldn't load which isn't a surprise for my internet connection.  So I read the accompanying article.  Interesting.  Carla F is talking about something that happened in 67.  Not a rape.  An assault, or so it appears.

An actress in 1992 was forced to masturbate him.  A sexual assault.  Another sexual assault with another actress in 71.  Another in 76.  A drugging in 1982.

Everything else talks about the age of the victim when it happened.  There isn't enough information to do the math without googling each individual to get there current age.  Somehow, I think, if these accusations were recent, the article would have presented the recent dates.

Do I have the facts correct?  One story is from 47 years ago.  Was it even a crime to kiss her 47 years ago?  Yes, a horrific thing to do under today's standards; but, was it a crime then?  By law, would this have been defined as a sexual assault or an assault? Was the person who posted this link born 47 years ago?  I was to young to be able to give you a perspective.  I remember the cops beating people on the street, especially black people.  I remember some dead kids at Kent State and my cousin coming home from Nam in box. Anybody old enough to discuss this kiss in context of 67? 

Okay, the most recent one, 1992.  22 years ago.  Forced masturbation.  Hmm.  Someone forced me to handle somebody's dick, he better have a gun to my head, because I am ripping it off otherwise.  But, that's me.  I have learned from this thread, that being forced to handle a man's dick is too traumatic for a woman to act out in rage until 22 years later. :eyeroll:

So, all this bull, and these are all stories that have been out there for decades.  You would have thought, from this thread and the press, that this was NEWS ! (There is a reason it is called NEWS, right?)

You think he should address these accusations now?  For what reason?  To save his career?

Here's a video for you to watch.  A law professor and a detective are the speakers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#t=60