• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Is being tried in public opinion....

  • Good, fuck em!

    Votes: 22 71.0%
  • Bad, help em!

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • Total voters
    31
I would like add the navy ever giving him honorary CPO status was a bad call any way. So many have had to work so hard to put on there anchors.
To simply hand it title to someone who got out as a third class on the merits of fame, shits on the personnel who gave so much of themselves to earn the title.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the number of women now coming forward makes it hard to continue to consider him innocent, without a doubt I agree with that. But I will add that the civil lawsuits being filed sit wrong with me especially while potential criminal charges are still pending.

I'm not saying that filing a civil lawasuit makes them liars rather just that it doesn't sit well with me at this early of a stage in an investigation. I understand that the crimes are said to happened decades and decades ago but they are just being investigated now and I don't like civil lawsuits being filed while the police are still trying to investigate. It complicates things, a lot.

Do you suppose that some of these civil lawsuits are being filed so early because of some time limit factor? Maybe there's a time limit that the victim has to file civil suit after the criminal charge has been filed. I don't know for sure, but I'm just wondering.
 
I'm not at all surprised by the wave of accusations coming at once. By all accounts, some women did speak out about before, but were quickly hushed and ignored. It was known enough that a male comedian finally made a joke about it, which then led to a lot of media reports, a lot of media attention, then more women coming forward.

The same phenomenon happened here when the Jimmy Saville case broke. The celebrity culture at the time protected him, and his victims quietly buried their pain. When he died, someone came forward, then victims were faced with seeing him all over the news again, articles where people defended him, and were reassured that someone else had spoken out, so they braved it too.

Dear ScarlettHarlot:

I had forgotten all about Jimmy Saville until you mentioned it in this post. I saw a documentary about his case on YouTube a couple of years ago and forgotten all about it until I just read your posting.

You are correct, I believe, in drawing a comparison between Cosby and Saville. Two high profile, media stars accused of sexual abuse going back many years. But in Saville's case, he died before the law caught up with him, but he lived in the UK, while Cosby has always lived in the USA.

Makes you wonder how many Cosby's and Saville's there are out there, famous media figures who have gotten away with sexual abuse for years and all the victims are too afraid to report it because they all think that they are the only victim, and who'll take their word over that of a media "star".
 
1) Technically, the US Constitution says that you are innocent until proven guilty. But I guess that idea only applies in a court of law, and not in the "court of public opinion".

2) Although I can understand that a person would be afraid of reporting sexual abuse by Cosby because she feels like she's the only victim, and because Who's going to take her word over the word of a famous media star like Cosby, with So many women coming out after So many years, something doesn't look right to me. Did ALL these women keep the abuse to themselves, over the course of years without telling ANYONE ELSE about it in their lives? That is kind of hard for me to swallow. At least SOME of all these alleged victims must have told SOMEONE (bro, sis, mom, dad, husband, boyfriend, close friend, psychiatrist, etc) in their lives about this abuse and, if they did, why didn't these other people do SOMETHING? Surely, these others weren't suffering from the trauma of abuse themselves. These "others" could've "worked on" the victim to make a PD report, or some "other" could have gone to the PD themselves. And surely there must have been some "other" that would selfishly "pump" the victim for information about the abuse and try to sell a story to The National Enquirer, or whoever. This just doesn't add up for me.

But, of course, ScarlettHarlot brought up Jimmy Saville of the UK in another post in this Thread. Saville's case is so strikingly similar to the Cosby case that it just blows my mind-many years of sexually abusing teenage and young adult males and females, and nothing comes out until a year after his death. The Saville case doesn't make the Cosby case any more understandable for me. It just fills me with even more awe and wonderment about what the HELL is REALLY going on here?????

3) Part of the answer might lie with the news media. Both in the Cosby case and the Saville case, the media seems to have whooped up the public into a frenzy. MAYBE some of these allegations from years ago are a reaction to all the media hype about Cosby. Some gal who got psyched by all the media hype and wanted to jump on the "Let's Fuck Over Cosby Bandwagon !!!".to get her "15 minutes of fame". I'm not suggesting that this is what happened in even one case of alleged abuse against Cosby, but I will say that the possibility that some of these allegations may have been false allegations brought on by a media frenzy makes more sense, at least to me, than the idea that SO MANY victims and the people around them would keep quiet for SO LONG.

4) Whether or not some of these might be "false allegations, what criteria are both the media and the courts going to use to evaluate these cases in the end? It seems that a lot of these alleged incidents happened at Cosby's house. So, unless these victims have some other corroborating evidence, then it boils down to a "He Said, She Said" kind of situation. If that's so, then is it really fair to crucify Cosby in the media and in the courts over "He Said, She Said" situations that have gone unreported for years? Maybe Cosby's got a tattoo on his dick, or some other identifying mark in a "private" part of his body that a victim could only see if he was naked. I Just Don't Know !!!! This whole Cosby situation is JUST TOO STRANGE for me !!!

5) Then I saw another posting on this thread that reports that Richard Pryor's widow said in an interview something like "everybody" knew that Cosby was a pervert. If that's really true, if other people around Cosby knew about his "problem", then why didn't THEY do SOMETHING about it??? What was their motivation for keeping quiet about it? Really, the only way that I can figure out that people around him knew that he had a "problem" would be if they got some information from a victim. I mean, where else could they have gotten their information? Sure, gossip is gossip, but given all these allegations that have been coming out about Cosby, even the gossip must have started with some first hand knowledge about a particular victim. I just don't see it happening any other way. And , of course, there's always the possibility that Pryor's widow was just full of shit and just wanted to jump on the "Let's Fuck Over Cosby !!" bandwagon to get her "15 minutes of fame", or to settle an old score.

6) The thing is that a REAL investigative journalist could get down to the bottom of what is really "fact versus fiction" in this Cosby situation, but does TRUE investigative journalism even exist anymore? Seems to me that the news is more interested in "sensationalism" than truth, simply because weird, freaky, crazy stories sell more newspapers and attract more viewers than stories that simply set out to reveal the truth about a situation. Which gets us right back to the public frenzy whooped up over this Cosby case by the media.
 
@jkulik - you might want to read up on both cases, since you're so mystified by them, and you don't know all the facts about them that have since been revealed. Cosby admitted to obtaining drugs for the purpose of sedating women.

But by all means, assume that all the victims have been brainwashed by media frenzy, and want their fifteen minutes of fame. It doesn't make you a revolting rape apologist! Honest.
 
Last edited:
Guyssssss (Valley Girl voice), we should be ignoring the claims, 'cause, like, rape allegations are so 2014. Cosby is innocent! These succubi want fame and fortune! And they wanted to be raped! But we can never know.
 
Ol' Puddin' Pop has had his name connected to sexual allegations for a long while.
What gets my knickers in a twist is how he held himself out to be an example to young black males. He is exposed as having feet of clay and the ground he stands on is J-E-L-L-O!!!!!!
 
@jkulik - you might want to read up on both cases, since you're so mystified by them, and you don't know all the facts about them that have since been revealed. Cosby admitted to obtaining drugs for the purpose of sedating women.

But by all means, assume that all the victims have been brainwashed by media frenzy, and want their fifteen minutes of fame. It doesn't make you a revolting rape apologist! Honest.

1) I NEVER said that ALL of the alleged victims might be may be making false accusations.
2) Even if Cosby did admit to getting drugs for the purpose of sedating, and then raping women, that still in no way means that he is actually guilty of raping ALL the women who are accusing him.
3) Sounds to me like you yourself might be a victim of the Cosby media frenzy, if you're willing to assume his guilt in ALL of the alleged cases before they are ALL substantiated.
4) Like it or not, false accusation is POSSIBLE in any case, rape or otherwise.
Google "wrongful conviction".
Google "Project Innocence".
A lot of the people that you'll read about there spent years in prison for crimes they didn't commit and in many cases at least partially due to a media frenzy that poisoned the jury pool.
 
I kept my rape secret for 12 years. I told NO ONE, until I finally told my husband last year.

In at least one woman's case, she WENT to the police. The cop who took her report told her (kindly?), "No one will believe you. It's best that you just try to put it behind you." This was standard procedure in the 60s and 70s, especially when a (relatively) powerful man was accused by a (relatively) powerless woman. These days, they don't tell you to put it behind you; the cops just steer you toward that conclusion. "What were you wearing?" "What did you have to drink?" "Were you on any drugs?" "Why did you go to his house?" "What did you think was going to happen?" That last one: What did you think was going to happen, you stupid cunt? Enough of those questions, and a victim who tries to report decides that no one will believe her, that it's best to just try to put it behind her.

Look at the arguments coming up: "They're gold-diggers;" "There's no way he could have raped all of them;" "Why would he need to rape them? He could have had anyone he wanted;" etc., and so forth, ad nauseam, same as it ever was.

Let me tell you why he needed to rape them, even though he could have had tons of willing girls, even though he was rich enough to buy whatever flavor of pussy he wanted: It was never about sex. Let me repeat: It was NEVER about sex.

What was it, then? It was about power. It was about dominance. This man didn't want a willing participant; this man wanted to fuck an object who didn't want to be fucked. This man did not see these women as people. Why didn't he cover his tracks better? He didn't have to. There was an entire society willing to tell these women that no one would believe them, that it was best to just try to put it behind them. There was no point in covering up, anyway: Who cares how an object feels after it's been put to use?

It's coming out now, because there's safety in numbers. But I will guarantee that this isn't all of them. There are some who won't come forward, because they're dead. They're dead of alcohol and drug addiction, dead of mental illness that led to suicide. There are probably others that just did their best to put it behind them; they've got kids and grandkids and good jobs and stock portfolios and shit. They've made names for themselves in the wake of what might have happened, and they won't give those names up to become Cosby Victim #45.

Shame silences. Shame kills.
 
I haven't read enough about all of the allegations to even form an opinion. I always liked the man, thought he was funny and sincere. I'm dreading hearing about any more "celebrities" I grew up watching being accused of this. They're all adult women who have accused him, right? So far anyway. Really makes you wonder how many monsters there are on tv, hiding in plain sight...

I'm guessing there are quite a few. I was reluctant to believe the accusations against Cosby also, but after listening to what his accusers had to say, and after reading his now-disclosed admissions of obtaining drugs for the purpose of drugging women, I now believe it.

I doubt he'll ever be charged with anything, as the statue of limitations has kicked in on everything I've heard of so far. However, I have no problems with honors being revoked and people socially turning their backs on him. He's not being tried in a court, and he's not being put in prison, so I don't think any kind of "proof" in a legal sense is necessary. Common sense is enough in this case. I know there are some civil suits out there, the courts in each case will decide based on the evidence.

Cosby's behavior seems to have began as part of the entertainment culture of the times, as this week's stories about the Runaways seem to confirm (quaaludes also figure prominently in that situation). Great article about the Runaways and their crazy bastard producer/manager here:
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/

I'm sad that someone who made me laugh and seemed like a grandfatherly and benign male figure has turned out to also be a aggressive sexual predator. I'd rather know than not know, however, because I think this kind of behavior may be less tolerated in the future.

At least one can hope. :shifty:
 
In at least one woman's case, she WENT to the police. The cop who took her report told her (kindly?), "No one will believe you. It's best that you just try to put it behind you." This was standard procedure in the 60s and 70s, especially when a (relatively) powerful man was accused by a (relatively) powerless woman. These days, they don't tell you to put it behind you; the cops just steer you toward that conclusion. "What were you wearing?" "What did you have to drink?" "Were you on any drugs?" "Why did you go to his house?" "What did you think was going to happen?" That last one: What did you think was going to happen, you stupid cunt? Enough of those questions, and a victim who tries to report decides that no one will believe her, that it's best to just try to put it behind her.

If what you are saying here is true, and I have no reason to doubt you at all, then the cops are at least partially responsible for at least some of Cosby's victims, morally responsible, if not legally responsible.

I mean, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A GOOD FLYING FUCK, who the accused party is, or even what the alleged crime is, or even whether we're talking 1970 or 2015, it is the JOB of the cops to follow up on EVERY report of a crime, rape or otherwise. That "This was standard procedure in the 60s and 70s, especially when a (relatively) powerful man was accused by a (relatively) powerless woman." is PURE 100% GRADE A BULL SHIT, as far as I'm concerned. And even if a hint of this kind of BULL SHIT attitude on the part of the cops still exists in 2015, then something needs to be done about it.

Of course, it's not all about the cops, is it? Isn't the whole fucking legal system skewed in favor of the rich and the powerful? I mean, let's suppose that the cops in the situations that you're suggesting actually did aggressively follow up on women's complaints about Cosby and locked his ass up in jail. So when he gets to trial, all his wealth and influence gets him a team of high priced, high power attorneys that the average Joe on the street could never afford, and they get him off the hook anyway. Let's face it, the part of the Pledge Of Allegiance that goes "...with liberty and justice for all" is just BULLSHIT because, at least in this country, "justice" varies depending on who you are, both as the victim of a crime, and as the accused perpetrator of a crime. In reality, you get as much "justice" as you can afford, dollar-wise.The OJ Simpson case got a lot of media attention, but "OJ Simpson" happens everyday in the USA, one way or the other, and we often don't even know that it happened.
 
1) I NEVER said that ALL of the alleged victims might be may be making false accusations.
2) Even if Cosby did admit to getting drugs for the purpose of sedating, and then raping women
Done! One or forty. Creep is a fucking rapist. End of story.
 
Of course, it's not all about the cops, is it? Isn't the whole fucking legal system skewed in favor of the rich and the powerful? I mean, let's suppose that the cops in the situations that you're suggesting actually did aggressively follow up on women's complaints about Cosby and locked his ass up in jail. So when he gets to trial, all his wealth and influence gets him a team of high priced, high power attorneys that the average Joe on the street could never afford, and they get him off the hook anyway. Let's face it, the part of the Pledge Of Allegiance that goes "...with liberty and justice for all" is just BULLSHIT because, at least in this country, "justice" varies depending on who you are, both as the victim of a crime, and as the accused perpetrator of a crime. In reality, you get as much "justice" as you can afford, dollar-wise.The OJ Simpson case got a lot of media attention, but "OJ Simpson" happens everyday in the USA, one way or the other, and we often don't even know that it happened.

I'm saying. Enough women in the Enlightened Modern Era (read: the last 20 years or so) have seen these cases happen. Women in general are not fools. They see what comes of the trials of these people, people who are accustomed to throwing money at a problem until it goes away.

1. Rich/Famous Man does Thing.
2. Rich/Famous Man goes to Jail.
3. Rich/Famous Man goes to Court.
4. Rich/Famous Man is eventually Declared Not Guilty.
Often followed by:
5. Rich/Famous Man does Thing of Equal or Greater Depravity to First Thing.

What usually happens long before the above scenario is Rich/Famous Man Pays Restitution, Gets Record Sealed, PR Scrambles to Quiet This Down, etc. (NB: This is not restricted to Rich/Famous Men; Rich/Famous Women and Rich/Famous Children do this too, but it's usually drugs and rehab and DUIs. Rich/Famous Men sell more papers when they murder their wives and their girlfriends mysteriously show up drowned in the pool. Oh, and rape. Hella rape.)

Women listen to their families as well; a news story shows up about an 11-year-old being gang-raped by grown ass men, and a woman hears her mother, father, brothers, sisters, all saying "What did that girl think was going to happen?" And that woman stores the information away; and if that woman is raped, she knows she can't trust the people in her own life with what happened to her, so how is she going to trust a stranger? (NB: If the woman is a woman of color, if she is queer, if she is trans*, that also affects who she can trust, who she thinks will believe her; sometimes the answer is no one at all. This is a whole nother can of worms.)

Even if a woman goes to the cops and she finds someone who will do the police report with a minimum of bullshit (or she has the strength to sit through the bullshit), there's the gathering of evidence, which equals a rape kit if it's soon enough, or good ol' fashioned questioning if it's too late for a kit. The rape kit is bad enough on its own, but then for it to sit in evidence for years without being processed is worse. When the woman's rapist is questioned, it's "he said, she said," and then he gets on whatever social media he can to discredit her before she can get a chance to tell anyone else. Her whole friend group knows, her whole school knows, her whole church knows, everyone at work knows, the whole town knows. What do they know?

"Bitch falsely accused me, but she was beggin' for it."

And when her family finds out, she's lucky if she's not accused of being a tramp. She's lucky if she doesn't get kicked out. She's lucky if they support her. (NB: This is, granted, dramatic. Life is dramatic sometimes.)

There are a million reasons a rape victim wouldn't tell until years or decades after the fact. There's only one reason a victim is raped: The victim was near a rapist.

(ETA: Men can and often have been victims of sexual assault and rape as well; they're even less likely to report.)
 
If what you are saying here is true, and I have no reason to doubt you at all, then the cops are at least partially responsible for at least some of Cosby's victims, morally responsible, if not legally responsible.

I mean, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A GOOD FLYING FUCK, who the accused party is, or even what the alleged crime is, or even whether we're talking 1970 or 2015, it is the JOB of the cops to follow up on EVERY report of a crime, rape or otherwise. That "This was standard procedure in the 60s and 70s, especially when a (relatively) powerful man was accused by a (relatively) powerless woman." is PURE 100% GRADE A BULL SHIT, as far as I'm concerned. And even if a hint of this kind of BULL SHIT attitude on the part of the cops still exists in 2015, then something needs to be done about it.

Of course, it's not all about the cops, is it? Isn't the whole fucking legal system skewed in favor of the rich and the powerful? I mean, let's suppose that the cops in the situations that you're suggesting actually did aggressively follow up on women's complaints about Cosby and locked his ass up in jail. So when he gets to trial, all his wealth and influence gets him a team of high priced, high power attorneys that the average Joe on the street could never afford, and they get him off the hook anyway. Let's face it, the part of the Pledge Of Allegiance that goes "...with liberty and justice for all" is just BULLSHIT because, at least in this country, "justice" varies depending on who you are, both as the victim of a crime, and as the accused perpetrator of a crime. In reality, you get as much "justice" as you can afford, dollar-wise.The OJ Simpson case got a lot of media attention, but "OJ Simpson" happens everyday in the USA, one way or the other, and we often don't even know that it happened.

You just love to back-pedal, dontcha? First, you said that something about the case was off, because why would all these women hold their silence? "Some of them must be lying because they love the media attention!!!" Then, when facts are pointed out to you, you back-pedal like a mad thing.

Now you think the attitude of society and cops towards rape victims in the 60s and 70s isn't true? Fuck you. Like a 65 year old guy who lives in front of his computer (self admitted) knows a damn thing about what a woman goes through when she's raped and has to face the trial by cop. You hope that things have improved now? Well, you displayed the exact same attitude those cops in the 60s did. "she must be jumping on the bandwagon, making it up for attention".

The guy is a self-admitted rapist. And you referred to it as his 'problem'. You're as disgusting as he is.
 
Okay, I'll come to @jkulik 's defence for a minute. Y'all remember the Columbia mattress debacle? This is going to sound terrible, but the issue with rape allegations is quite simple: they are allegations. Irrespective of whether X person raped Y person, we need to respect due process. Vilifying X due to Y's accusations is unsettling, as it completely disregards the presumption of innocence.

This of course does not apply to Cosby, because he's admitted to being a fuck-wad. I mean, come on guys...he had an episode 25 years ago where his character drugs a woman and she turns into a nymphomaniac.
 
Medal of Freedom.......... excuse me but by drugging his prey he made them his slave of the moment for victimization and humiliation. F*ck Cosby!!!
 
Do you suppose that some of these civil lawsuits are being filed so early because of some time limit factor? Maybe there's a time limit that the victim has to file civil suit after the criminal charge has been filed. I don't know for sure, but I'm just wondering.
Yes, there is a statute of limitations issue at hand here and civilly speaking those same rules do not apply.

I wish that the lawsuits had waited just a bit longer. This was already going to be a circus when the allegations started coming out with his celebrity as well as the celebrity of some of his victims, I think that the addition of civil suits could potentially complicate things further.

Public opinion weighs heavily in a case like this (by this I mean the celebrity factor) and many people are against suing civilly for criminal acts and see the lawsuits as "proof" that the women are lying. Like they are making the allegations to get money instead of justice.

Not everyone understands the purpose of civil suits not only in their monetary value but in their value in the eyes of justice. If he victims prevail then a court has adjudicated that Cosby is more likely than not guilty, guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. Which, while a lower standard of proof than in criminal courts it is still indicative of the likelihood of guilt. Due to the statute of limitation in many jurisdictions a guilty verdict in civil court may be the only justice the victims will get.

But, not everyone sees it that way and instead see it as purely a "get rich" tactic. Victims need support and people's misunderstandings of the civil court system and their prejudices based on that can sway support from the victims to the perpetrator.
 

Per his depo, straight from the rapey, old horse's mouth:
(ETA: Gotta love his defense attys!)

Excerpts of statements made by entertainer Bill Cosby under questioning in 2005 from a lawyer for former Temple University employee Andrea Constand, who accused him, in a case that was settled before trial, of drugging and sexually assaulting her at his suburban Philadelphia mansion:

___

According to the documents, unsealed by a federal judge on Monday and obtained by The Associated Press, Cosby had admitted obtaining seven prescriptions for quaaludes and said he gave them to other people. That was followed up by this questioning by Constand's lawyer:

Question: Who are the people that you gave the quaaludes to?

Cosby's lawyer interrupts and asks to limit the questioning to a certain group of accusers referred to in the documents as the Jane Does.

Q. When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?

Answer: Yes.

Q. Did you ever give any of those young women the quaaludes without their knowledge?

Cosby's lawyer objects, again asking Constand's lawyer to limit the question to only the Jane Does. After their wrangling, Cosby continues.

—I misunderstood. Woman, meaning (another accuser), and not women.

Q. OK. So, you're saying you never gave the quaaludes to anyone other than (a specific person)?

Cosby's lawyer: Don't answer the question. You can ask all the questions you want about the Jane Does.

___

Cosby also answered questions about a sexual relationship with a woman in 1978. The woman went public last November with allegations he drugged and assaulted her two years earlier, when she was 19. That woman has accused Cosby of defamation over his denials.

Cosby: I meet (the accuser) in Las Vegas. She meets me backstage. I give her quaaludes. We then have sex. I do not. I can't judge at this time what she knows about herself for 19 years, a passive personality ...

(The accuser) was sweet in her personality. As far as I was concerned was well-mannered, didn't demand or give a feeling that she was above anyone. If anything, I think she may very well have been very happy to be around the show business surroundings.

Constand's lawyer: Star struck?

Cosby: You'll have to ask her.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c11...cerpts-bill-cosbys-statements-2005-deposition
 
Last edited:
Admitting to giving a girl drugs before banging her doesn't necessarily mean he fucked her unconscious body. Plenty of peole bang after partaking in narcotics. He also is saying he gave them to her, not that he spiked her drink or something unseemly like that.

I've yet to see anything convincing regarding Cosbys rapey past.

Gonna go watch Ghost Dad now, while eating some jello and wearing a sweater.
 
Admitting to giving a girl drugs before banging her doesn't necessarily mean he fucked her unconscious body. Plenty of peole bang after partaking in narcotics.
While in part this makes perfect sense, people do use drugs and alcohol before sex, the thing is it's not usually quaaludes.

Quaaludes are a pretty strong downer, something that someone new to it would need much of to be incapable of resisting or consenting, even unconscious and unresponsive. An experienced user can take some pretty hefty doses but I've seen 1 Quaalude bring adult men down into nodding, drooling junkies.

Quaaludes are hardly a "party" drug for sexual purposes unless you like fucking dead fish.
 
From the New York Times (Pt. 1)

19cosby3-master675.jpg

He was not above seducing a young model by showing interest in her father’s cancer. He promised other women his mentorship and career advice before pushing them for sex acts. And he tried to use financial sleight of hand to keep his wife from finding out about his serial philandering.

Bill Cosby admitted to all of this and more over four days of intense questioning 10 years ago at a Philadelphia hotel, where he defended himself in a deposition for a lawsuit filed by a young woman who accused him of drugging and molesting her.

Even as Mr. Cosby denied he was a sexual predator who assaulted many women, he presented himself in the deposition as an unapologetic, cavalier playboy, someone who used a combination of fame, apparent concern and powerful sedatives in a calculated pursuit of young women — a profile at odds with the popular image he so long enjoyed, that of father figure and public moralist.

In the deposition, which Mr. Cosby has for years managed to keep private but was obtained by The New York Times, the entertainer comes across as alternately annoyed, mocking, occasionally charming and sometimes boastful, often blithely describing sexual encounters in graphic detail.

He talked of the 19-year-old aspiring model who sent him her poem and ended up on his sofa, where, Mr. Cosby said, she pleasured him with lotion.

He spoke with casual disregard about ending a relationship with another model so he could pursue other women. “Moving on,” was his phrase.

He suggested he was skilled in picking up the nonverbal cues that signal a woman’s consent.

“I think I’m a pretty decent reader of people and their emotions in these romantic sexual things, whatever you want to call them,” he said.

Through it all, his manner was largely one of casual indifference.

At one point in the first day of questioning, Dolores M. Troiani, the lawyer for the plaintiff in the case, Andrea Constand, a young woman who worked at Temple University as a basketball manager, seemed struck by Mr. Cosby’s jocular manner.

“I think you’re making light of a very serious situation,” she said, to which Mr. Cosby replied: “That may very well be.”

Interest in Mr. Cosby’s deposition grew this month when a federal judge unsealed a 62-page memorandum of law in the case, which had been settled in 2006. The memorandum contained excerpts from the deposition, including Mr. Cosby’s acknowledgment that he had obtained quaaludes as part of his effort to have sex with women.

The parties have been prohibited from releasing the memorandum because of a confidentiality clause that was part of the settlement agreement, but the deposition itself was never sealed. This month, Ms. Constand’s lawyer asked the court to lift the confidentiality clause so her client would be free to release the nearly 1,000-page deposition transcript. The Times later learned that the transcript was already publicly available through a court reporting service.

Mr. Cosby has never been charged with a crime and has repeatedly denied the accusations of sexual assault, now leveled by dozens of women. David Brokaw, Mr. Cosby’s publicist, did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday. Ms. Troiani declined to comment. In three suits, women who accused Mr. Cosby of sexual misconduct are pursuing civil claims against him. In addition, the Los Angeles police have said they are reviewing a complaint of a sexual nature against Mr. Cosby.

While Mr. Cosby described encounters with many women through the course of his deposition, it is through his long and detailed descriptions of his relationship with Ms. Constand, who is much younger, that Mr. Cosby’s attitudes, proclivities and approach to women are most clearly revealed. Ms. Constand was present for at least some of Mr. Cosby’s testimony in the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia.

An Interest Piqued

First spotting her at Temple University in the early 2000s, Mr. Cosby said he felt romantic interest immediately (“She’s good-looking”), and began a relationship that led, in his telling, to dinners and more.

Asked how he wooed her, Mr. Cosby, who has been married since 1964, responded: “Inviting her to my house, talking to her about personal situations dealing with her life, growth, education.”

He painted his relationship with Ms. Constand as one of mentor and mentee, casting himself in the role of an experienced guide and offering her the benefit of his contacts, fame and experience.

At times he described becoming frustrated after Ms. Constand failed to follow his advice, such as when he wanted her to pursue her interest in sports broadcasting by calling someone and she did not. “Here’s a mentor, Bill Cosby, who is in the business, Bill Cosby, who happens to know something about what to do and Andrea is not picking up on it,” he said.

Ms. Constand ultimately went to the police to complain of Mr. Cosby’s behavior, but in his telling, his seduction was one of persistence and patience.

Early on in his courtship, he arranged an intimate meal alone with her at his Pennsylvania home, complete with Cognac, dimmed lights and a fire, he said. At one point he led her to his back porch, out of sight from his chef. “I take her hair and I pull it back and I have her face like this,” he said. “And I’m talking to her ...And I talked to her about relaxing, being strong. And I said to her, come in, meaning her body.”

But the two remained inches apart, he said, and he did not try to kiss her because he did not sense she wanted him to. Nevertheless, at the next dinner he said they had what he described as a “sexual moment,” short of intercourse. He described her afterward as having “a glow.”
 
Pt. 2 of 2
Expounding on his philosophy about sex, Mr. Cosby said he tended to refrain from intercourse because he did not want women to fall in love with him. To him, he said, the act of sexual intercourse “is something that I feel the woman will succumb to more of a romance and more of a feeling, not love, but it’s deeper than a playful situation.” As far as he and Ms. Constand went, he said, they were “playing sex, we’re playing, petting, we’re playing.”

Was he in love with her? “No.”

Yet the association endured for a few years, until one night at his Pennsylvania home, when Ms. Constand said Mr. Cosby drugged and molested her.

19artsbeat-constand-master315.jpg

Andrea Constand, pictured in 1987

Mr. Cosby said he gave her one and a half tablets of Benadryl to relieve stress, they kissed and had sexual contact. Her lawyer said she believed it was a much more powerful drug.

Some time later, after Ms. Constand had moved home to Canada, Mr. Cosby spoke with Ms. Constand’s mother on the telephone. The mother, he said, was upset about what her daughter said Mr. Cosby had done, describing the experience as “a mother’s nightmare.”

In the deposition, he said he was worried that Ms. Constand’s mother would think of him as a “dirty old man.”

During the call, Mr. Cosby told the deposing lawyers, he wanted Ms. Constand to tell her mother “about the orgasm” so that she would realize it was consensual.

“Tell your mother about the orgasm. Tell your mother how we talked,” he said he remembered thinking.

Subsequently, concerned that Ms. Constand and her mother might seek to embarrass him, he said he offered to help pay for Ms. Constand’s further education. Years earlier, he offered to reward another woman, Therese Serignese, whom he had met at the Las Vegas Hilton in 1976, with money as a bonus for good grades.

Hiding His Behavior

It is difficult to say to what extent Mr. Cosby’s wife, Camille, was aware of her husband’s womanizing, though it was certainly clear to her by 1997, when Mr. Cosby acknowledged an affair. Mrs. Cosby suggested at the time that there had been marital problems but they had put them behind them.

Still, in the deposition, Mr. Cosby, 78, described going to some lengths to hide his behavior, blocking a magazine article to avoid publicity and funneling money to one woman through his agent so “Mrs. Cosby” wouldn’t find out.

In the case of Ms. Constand, who never sought any funds, Mr. Cosby said he imagined his wife would have known he was helping with her education. But, he said, “My wife would not know it was because Andrea and I had had sex and that Andrea was now very, very upset and that she decided that she would like to go to school.”

While Mr. Cosby insisted the only drug he had given Ms. Constand was Benadryl, he was open about his access in the 1970s to quaaludes, a sedative also popular as a party drug.

He said he obtained seven prescriptions for them over two to three years from a doctor in Los Angeles, ostensibly for a sore back but in reality to give to women.

He admitted to giving young women quaaludes at that time “the same as a person would say have a drink,” he said, but not without their knowledge.

Though he portrayed the drug-taking and sex as consensual, Mr. Cosby — when asked whether Ms. Serignese was in a position to consent to sexual intercourse after he gave her quaaludes in 1976 — said: “I don’t know.”

Joseph Cammarata, a lawyer for Ms. Serignese and two other women who are suing Mr. Cosby for defamation, said of the deposition: “This information is important because it sheds light on the private practices of a man who holds himself out as a public moralist.”

A Life of Wealth

During the questioning, Mr. Cosby cast himself as a sensitive and attentive supporter of Ms. Constand, though his tone changed when addressing Ms. Constand in the present tense.

Asked by Ms. Constand’s lawyer about how he felt when Ms. Constand cried during her own deposition, Mr. Cosby was unsparing: “I think Andrea is a liar and I know she’s a liar because I was there. I was there.”

And he could be dispassionate in recalling former relationships. With a woman named Beth Ferrier, a model he met in the 1980s, he recalled inquiring after her career and her father, who had died of cancer.

“Did you ask her those questions because you wanted to have sexual contact with her?” Ms. Troiani asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Cosby responded.

Still, he said he viewed himself as a good person, worthy of trust, and chivalrous in his desire to never tell others about the women with whom he had sex.

“I am a man, the only way you will hear about who I had sex with is from the person I had it with,” he said.

In some passages, Mr. Cosby offered a glimpse into a life long insulated by perks and wealth. Some idiosyncrasies are revealed, like his penchant for sweatpants (he had at least 100, he said), how he used the name Seymour Rapaport as an alias in the 1970s and 1980s when he traveled, and how many of his employees signed confidentiality agreements.

In the deposition, Mr. Cosby described sexual liaisons — he sometimes calls them rendezvous — with at least five women, and having a “romantic” interest in two more, in locations like Denver, Las Vegas and New York and Pennsylvania, in hotels or in one of his homes.

In the court case, 13 women came forward with anonymous sworn statements to support Ms. Constand, saying that they, too, had been molested in some way by Mr. Cosby. But they never had a chance to pursue their claims in court because, six months after the fourth and final day of his deposition, Mr. Cosby settled the case with Ms. Constand on undisclosed terms. His deposition was filed away, another document in a settled court case, until now.​
 
Last edited:
monique.png


"Cosby Lawyer: I'm Not Victim-Blaming, But 'Women Have Responsibility'"
Bill Cosby's attorney Monique Pressley told HuffPost Live on Friday that all women who are sexually assaulted have a "responsibility" to immediately report it to create evidence of the crime -- evidence she says does not exist in the accusations against her client. But Pressley rejected the idea that her defense of the comedian constitutes victim-blaming, a phenomenon she wrote off as a "hashtag."

Pressley spoke with host Marc Lamont Hill days after allegations of rape against Cosby reached a new crest, with 35 of his alleged victims appearing on the cover of New York magazine. The lawyer said the decades-old stories of those and other women who have accused Cosby can never be proven or disproven without evidence that would have existed had they reported the assault earlier.

"I'm not speculating, I'm not thinking, I'm not opining, I'm not waxing poetic, but what I'm saying is women have responsibility. We have responsibility for our bodies, we have responsibility for our decisions, we have responsibility for the way we conduct ourselves," Pressley said.

She insisted that though she does not blame any woman for not reporting a rape or assault, their decision not to do so is the foundation of Cosby's defense. Pressley said:

The only way for a woman to get the justice that she seeks -- and that, if her allegation is true, that she deserves -- is to come forward [soon after the crime]. And even if the reasons that the women did not do that are legitimate ones, what cannot happen -- in my opinion, in the United States -- is that 40 years later there is a persecution tantamount to a witch hunt where there was no prosecution timely and there was no civil suit timely. And there's not any testimony or any accusation from any of these women that Mr. Cosby in any way bound them, gagged them, prevented them from coming forward and saying whatever their truth was at the time. That's not what happened.

The full 50-minute HuffPost Live interview with Cosby's attorney is available here. Below, watch more highlights from the conversation.

Must see video highlights from the full length interview @ link (can't embed): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ction=black-voices&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047
 
Ugh, ditto on the shower. I always thought he was a good role model for young black men. Just goes to show, never use a celebrity as a role model. You never really know them. And I hope they get all his money and a tiny bit of justice. Perverted bastard.
 
Here's NPR's formal announcement:
Narrowly beating a statute of limitations deadline to file charges, prosecutors in Pennsylvania announced a felony sexual assault charge against comedian Bill Cosby on Wednesday. A former Temple University employee says Cosby drugged and assaulted her in January of 2004.

Montgomery County, Pa., prosecutors have charged Cosby with aggravated indecent assault, a first-degree felony.

"These charges stem from a sexual assault," according to prosecutor Kevin Steele, who said the assault occurred at Cosby's house in Cheltenham, a Montgomery County township that's just outside Philadelphia.

Steele said Cosby is expected to appear in court to be arraigned Wednesday afternoon; he also urged any other victims to contact his office.

Over the past year, Cosby has been accused of sexually abusing dozens of women. Cosby has denied those charges, and earlier this month, he filed lawsuits against seven of his accusers, saying they had made up the claims to extract money from him. . .
Continued: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ed-indecent-assault-in-philadelphia-area-case
 
Back
Top