Didn't want to believe them, because he was one of my favorite celebrities. But now I am wondering. There are just too many coming forward.

That means no rape kits or other evidence was collected.

Cosby admitted to having an extra marital liaison with only one of the women and claimed it was consensual. And he made a settlement with one of the women...don't know if it was that same woman, though.

Not making statements has worked for him all these years, so no surprise he continues to be silent.

She was jailed for extorting him. There must have been at least one criminal complaint, because in 2006, there was supposed to be a trial during which 13 women had agreed to testify. The woman, Andrea Constand, settled out of court.



rocktivity

That case was not criminal and must have been the one I heard about.

But at least one now-adult woman is speaking out openly, and it's not because she wants money. She's not suing or trying to press charges, though she could.

I think she's credible.

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm one of those who isn't sure about these charges. She said that Cosby flew her many times to events and put her up in hotels to meet him. He even flew her mother as well.

This was after the alleged rape (even though she doesn't say there was actual penetration). It 's hard to know what to believe since she kept going along with these trips to "help her career". She even says she sometimes gave in to him.

She also claims she did didn't get any money from him but admits that he got her apartments and paid her rent for two years and for acting classes in New York City — I'd call that money. Nothing is cheap in New York.

I don't know. Seems she's looking back on this after 25 years and her career didn't take off so she's a little bitter.

What it really seems is she was a mistress of sorts.

Just so you know in the future and don't try to claim it is not still sexual assault if there is no penetration.

She said it was sexual assault yet she kept going back to be in his presence — multiple times.

That doesn't make sense. Would you do that? Would you allow yourself to be kept in an a paid for apartment with acting lessons also paid by your sexual assailant?

You kinda have to admit it sounds like she was a mistress.

Something's not adding up.

I'm sorry, but if you are working with someone, live next door to someone, or go to school with someone who assaults you, having to be in their presence might be extremely traumatizing, so I can understand responding like the assault didn't happen.

But actually going back repeatedly and accepting what she says she accepted.... she was bought and paid for.

then he is a rapist.

Would you do that?

She said it was sexual assault yet she kept going back to be in his presence — multiple times.

That doesn't make sense. Would you do that? Would you allow yourself to be kept in an apartment with acting lessons paid by your sexual assailant?

Something's not adding up.

She was young, and her mother put her in this situation and made her think he was going to help her career.

So the mother bears some responsibility. But if he drugged her it doesn't matter who else was at fault. He raped her.

But she's not after his money or trying to put him in jail. She just wants the truth to come out. Everyone else settled for money and kept things quiet. I respect this woman for deciding to speak out.

Because you seem to be saying that he did it, how do you know?

other than attention, but she doesn't seem attention-seeking. My impression is that she's very sincere.

And then there are all the other women he has settled with for some reason or another.

but it turned out be lies.
I don't know if he did or didn't do what this woman is accusing him of, but absent any proof, other than an unfounded allegation, the presumption of innocence should always fall on the accused.

The presumption of innocence applies to a trial. There is never going to be a trial so it is up to each of us to make up our own minds, or not.

I think she's probably being truthful, but that's just my opinion.

My opinion is that I have no opinion, which I suppose is an opinion.
Wait, wut did I say?

the chances of a big settlement are much less.

She's just trying to put out her voice in support of other women she thinks he's hurt.

the complaints ought to be taken seriously. If it's true, he's been able to get away with it for far too long.

I haven't voted myself.

But I do think it is OK to have an opinion.

ie, the woman is possibly lying, is lying, or whatever.

An opinion they don't state so boldy, but is emphatically implied.

Guess for some it's better to look away, cause obviously there's nothing to see.

is that she kept going places with him even after she was allegedly raped the first time.

I mean, wtf?

were supporting witnesses.

I don't know anything for sure cause I wasn't there, but seems as though something is very amiss here, no?

Because a similar argument was used in that case.

I don't see the two as analogous at all.

Every time they speak.

Why should anyone have any opinion about anyone else's reality, if they havent been a part of it? It makes no sense.

No possible good flows to me by believing either party in any dispute. So I simply do not form opinions about people's claims on any matter...not unless I am impacted by belief or disbelief.

i don't understand why anyone would think that their claim is entitled to my belief.

is really too bad.

I would fall into the "whatever" camp and to be more specific- it isn't that I think the woman MAY be lying or is a liar, it MAY be that she remembers the situation in a way that distorts what happened.

has the "guilty before proven innocent" chromosones.

Look for a book deal coming soon

That would be the conspiracy of the century. Could so many women from Cosby's past really be such greedy liars, willing to expose themselves to civil lawsuits? I don't think so.

Or is this over a long span of time?

then she decided to claim rape. So she was having him put her up in swanky hotels, flying her around the country and I'm sure as well
buying her nice things .

This is an affair . She's trying to say she never slept with him EVER then woke up in his T shirt

Come on.....this was a agreed upon affair and Cosby just decided to move on .






Bowman was just a teenager at the time she met Cosby, and soon the actor was flying her to meet him around the country and putting her up in the nicest hotels, it is alleged.

Things changed, however, when one night she reportedly passed out after a glass of wine and woke up vomiting in the toilet wearing Cosby's white t-shirt.

Bowman is certain that she was drugged by Cosby. And she believes she was raped by him too.

After that her relationship with Cosby changed, and by 19 he had sent her on her way after a final night in Atlantic City, where she claims he tried to rape her


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836700/Bill-Cosby-not-respond-decade-old-discredited-allegations-drugged-raped-13-women-says-lawyer.html#ixzz3JFbyM6Cp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It's possible to be treated like gold by someone for quite sometime and then be raped by them.

It's hard to know. There are these other lawsuits, but I haven't seen what those other lawsuits allege.

I cannot believe there are people insinuating that rape cannot happen if the person may have had a relationship with someone.

It happens too, unfortunately and some people don't consider it rape.

I cannot believe how some people think. Just because someone is married doesn't mean the woman has to give him sex every time he wants it. If he forces himself on her, it doesn't matter if they are married or not, it's still rape.

The story just doesn't add up. She kept going back after the alleged rape.

Would you do that?

No sane person would put them self in that situation.

IMO there's more to it than what she's admitting.

Sorry.

It's not like she had to work with him. It was totally her choice to accept gifts and be his mistress.

nt

That's statutory rape in most states.

Another of the Jane Does, aspiring actress and model Barbara Bowman, comes forward with her story. Bowman claims that at 17 she was also taken under Cosby's wing. Bowman says that Cosby became like a father figure to her, convincing her that he loved and cared for her. The abuse didn't start, she says, until she turned 18. After that, Bowman says, the assaults happened several times on out-of-town trips.

"I was assaulted a number of times from age 18 to 19. Cosby would warn me before out-of-town trips, 'You aren't going to fight me this time, are you?'" Bowman recounted to Newsweek earlier this year




Now lets also add this and it seems the story changes



Things changed, however, when one night she reportedly passed out after a glass of wine and woke up vomiting in the toilet wearing Cosby's white t-shirt.

Bowman is certain that she was drugged by Cosby. And she believes she was raped by him too.

After that her relationship with Cosby changed, and by 19 he had sent her on her way after a final night in Atlantic City, where she claims he tried to rape her

According to this, anyway.


Each US state has its own age of consent. State laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.

age of consent 16 (32): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana (as of april 1st 2014 http://www.age-of-consent.info/states/Louisiana)
age of consent 18 (10): Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

Cosby would have been at LEAST twice her age.

And of course not all egotists rape young women but it turns out that lots of women seem to think he was chauvinist who was used to being catered to. I don't really know and I certainly hope not. I guess the truth will out eventually.

And frankly, I can't see why it's all that interesting as a news item. Did he? Didn't he? I'm not sure I care, except that if he did, he should have been prosecuted for it.

Bill Cosby is an entertainer.

were preparing to testify against Cosby in a civil suit about 7 years ago. Cosby is wealthy enough to pay those women to shut up. It's easy to say "the victims should've told the police". But sometimes even telling the police doesn't work. Look up the Jimmy Savile scandal to realize the far-beyond-yes-or-no nuance of rape.

It's not something that I've read a lot about, so I don't have enough information to form an opinion one way or the other.

Because if anyone knows the truth it's me, right. I guess I could have voted 'no' and been equally as valid.

Only Cosby and Bowman know.

I don't care if it's a big name celebrity or a complete unknown.

And no, the mere fact that lawsuits may have been filed in the past and then settled out of court, or statistics alone, does not constitute proof in and of itself to lay that label around someone's neck. And yet people seem perfectly willing to view that as acceptable proof in and of itself, despite the fact that's all there is at this point in time.

Does that completely exonerate Cosby? Certainly not. But I'm not going to put that label around anyone's neck merely because it's the fashionable thing to do at the time.

This whole business has come to light recently because an obscure comic named Hannibal Burress--who neither I nor most of America had ever heard about before all this--used it as part of his comedy act. And I'm sure Mr. Burress has profited nicely since the whole incident in the forms of bookings and album sales and visibility in general.

But no, I don't have anything to point to than the fact some women filed a lawsuit a while back to prove to me to the level where such a label is fitting, not even in the court of public opinion.

It's commenting and giving an opinion based on what is known.

You do realize that you are labeling "some women" as liars, no? Whether you come right out and use those exact words, you are in fact labeling them liars.

The public will form opinions in light of what is known. Fact, he settled a suit, there were 13 other women who were prepared to be witnesses stating similar things happened to them, and many of them are speaking out now.

Do you think that no one should have an opinion on Darren Wilsons culpability in shooting Mike Brown?

They could indeed be telling the truth. Or maybe they are lying.

I just don't know.

I'm sorry, but the fact that a lawsuit has been filed accusing someone of something means nothing in and of itself.

Bottom line: I just don't know. And because I don't know, I will not rush to put poisonous labels on anyone.

including Darren Wilson and him shooting Mike Brown?

Or is it only with allegations of rape?

Secondly, civil trials and settlements do mean things, no matter how many times you tell yourself it means nothing.

It all depends on what concrete information has come to light.

Here, very little concrete information has come to light, other than mere allegations of things that were said to have happened years ago.

And that's not enough for me to make any sort of judgment, pro or con. Sorry I won't jump on any type of bandwagon for you.

Regarding the civil court system, it should be noted there was no civil trial in this instance. Just a lawsuit that was filed and then settled out of court. Cases settled out of court--typically with varying degrees of confidentiality clauses--are extremely nebulous to decipher in terms of getting to the truth of the matter.

first hand about Darren Wilson and Mike Brown. And what CONCRETE information has come to light in that case.

The answer to that is NOTHING.

So, it shouldn't surprise you that one may think you have different measuring sticks based upon the type of allegation.

You took such grave offense to my position that I wasn't going to form an opinion without further information.

And you essentially strawmaned me into making it sound that because I wouldn't immediately render an opinion on someone's accusations without further proof, I was automatically rendering the accuser a liar.

Seriously, step back and think for a minute.

before a jury verdict?

And if you do, why?

Is it only accusations of rape that you reserve opinion on and find it so reckless for any one to dare do?

People all the time will form opinions on what is known. You seem to do that in some cases and not others. The reason for the questions is many times women are not believed when they report rape, and in essence are called liars. I'm curious to know if it is based upon the type of crime where you hold these reservations.

For example, based on the evidence and all the information I gathered, I do not think George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin and therefore I believe he was guilty of at least manslaughter if not second degree murder. The fact that a jury ultimately came to an opposite conclusion does not affect my own analysis of what came out in that trial.

But the key word there is "trial". There was a trial with actual evidence presented under strict standards, and testimony provided under oath for the whole world to hear. I could deduce an opinion in the Zimmerman case because there was sufficient grounds for me to do so.

In the case of Cosby, all I've seen are written statements from some of the accusers in a lawsuit filed 10 years ago about allegations that occurred 15 years before that. I haven't seen any deposition transcripts where any of these accusers were questioned under oath and you could judge those individual's credibility. Nor was there any physical or documentary evidence for me to consider as well. Perhaps these people do have good credibility, and perhaps there may have been physical and documentary evidence that would have come out if there had been a trial in the case. But right now that's just a huge unknown.

All I'm saying is that I'm not willing to label an individual a rapist on written accusations alone. Your apparent outrage over my cautious approach is frankly bizarre.

Are you outraging over my alleged outrage, which is non existent.

I haven't misstated anything you have written.

You are willing to believe something different on a murder case where the jury judgment was different, but where there is a civil suit that was settled with 13 supporting statements from women who told very similar accounts are just accusations and you aren't willing to consider someone to be a rapist based on that, ok.

Again, rape cases very rarely have witnesses. It is usually a he said she said. I tend to believe people who state they have been raped.

I don't make these distinctions that you do, as I as well believe Zimmerman was a murderous racist thug with a gun and the jury was wrong.

You can have a differing opinion, as well as I can, and you and I can both come to conclusions about each other due to those differences.

And I don't mean 'funny' in a ha ha way. You've been calm but insistent in making your point in this whole thread, but as we often see, that has to be minimized and denigrated by calling it "outrage" and "bizarre". Anything to take away from your point, I guess.

You misstated my opinion right above:

and there were 13 other women with similar accounts of it happening to them as well.

Stating that it isn't evidence, or something to be believed, in your mind, is labeling them liars.

I do think it is evidence. You do not and you hold a different measuring stick for different types of crime, or at least that is what I was trying to get at. In a very calm manner, to get you to possibly rethink.

You need evidence to prove allegations. Maybe that evidence exists, but it was never proven in a court of law or otherwise brought to public light.

Again and again, I have not called anyone a liar. The women making the allegations are the accusers, nothing more and nothing less. That's an accurate term.

As I said before, that you get on my case about not jumping to conclusions and calling someone a rapist is completely bizarre. As is your instance that you think I automatically assume the women making the accusations are liars.

Now back to your original claim where you called it "reckless" to label someone a rapist with no evidence.

No sir, there is evidence. The words of the victims used to gain a settle in a civil lawsuit.

If you don't believe there is any basis in their allegations, you are stating they are lying.

I'm saying we don't have anything at this time to go on beyond those allegations. Nor is the fact that a case settled before going to trial evidence of anything in and of itself. So I'm not going to leap before I look and call someone a rapist.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference, unless you are intentionally trying to be obtuse?

but keep telling yourself that.

Go figure.

You find it "reckless" to call him a rapist. Because according to you they are only allegations. Allegations are one of two things. They are either true or they are false.

What the hell else is one to think you mean when you say that?

If they are accusing him of raping them, and he in fact did rape them, he is a rapist.

If they are accusing him of raping them, but he did not actually rape them, they are liars.

I do not know whether or not he actually raped them.

Therefore, at this current point in time, I do not view him as a rapist, nor do I view them as liars.

It's just too early to make a judgment as to either of them.

Capiche?

It's really not that hard to understand.

Zimmerman. That he is in fact a murderer even though a jury found differently.

I agree with you on Zimmerman.

But with 13 women making the same allegation and a settlement is not enough for you to not be upset with persons who thinks he raped them. It is not reckless and you shouldn't try to control the conversation like that especially in light of you feelings on Zimmerman. Where you allow your own self some leeway. Have I made my point clear enough to you now.

There was a civil complaint filed against Cosby, and it settled out of court before there could be any witness testimony or presentation of evidence.

Appels + Oranjes.

I feel comfortable forming an opinion about Zimmerman because everything was laid out on the table. I don't feel the same way regarding Cosby. As such, I reserve judgment until I believe there is sufficient evidence for me to form an opinion, whatever that opinion might be.

Zimmer was found not guilty. Are you forgetting that?

So, if you are going to put all your eggs into one basket as to their being a criminal trial to and determine guilt or innocence only that way, you aren't doing that in the case with Zimmerman.

You have an opinion. FINE. But you take the side that anyone who feels he may be guilty without a trial is "reckless". And my opinion and all of my responses to you in this conversation have made that point over and over again.

You allow yourself to form opinions even when after a trial you have an opposite opinion. I don't think that is "reckless". And I do not find it "reckless" to have an opinion that Bill Cosby is a rapist after a settlement and 13 other supporting witnesses.

Again, you hang your hat on allegations and no trial, yet when there is a trial, you throw that out the window.

Is it because this is a rape? There are hardly ever witnesses to rape. You have to make a determination as to whether you think a victim is making a true allegation or not. People will do that whether you find it "reckless" or not.

And you finding it reckless, does mean that you don't find the allegation to have merit. ie, someone is lying.

If one takes the accusations at face value and believes they may be true, that's entirely different. But to go out on a limb and say absolutely, 100%, without a doubt this man is a "rapist "when there's never been any criminal charges filed, evidence presented or sworn testimony given, yes, I do believe that is reckless.

Because "rapist" is a very strong word. If you call someone a "rapist" and it turns out not to be true, that's what is called in the legal field as defamation per se, i.e. defamation the nature of which no doubt was intended to harm one's reputation.

It doesn't matter that Zimmerman was found not guilty. What matters is that evidence and testimony was presented at a public trial that people such as myself could use to form an opinion on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It never even got close to that level in Cosby's case. All we have are accusations. Words, really. Words that could be true, but right now they are only words.

Available and make a decision. There is nothing reckless about it.

Just as you do yourself.

Have a good one.

Especially when it comes to labeling someone a rapist.

A settlement in light of that. Do you not think rape victims statements is not evidence?

They may be true, but that truth comes in the form of either corroborating evidence or sworn examination of the persons making the statements so we can judge the declarant's credibility.

Until that point, they are just words.

And a settlement of a civil case is evidence of nothing.

ok

In other news, I'm the Queen of England. Bow before me.

I said it. Ergo, it is evidence that I am the Queen of England.

Still don't believe me? I'll get a couple of other people who will also tell you that I am the Queen of England.

and that in this case there were 13 other women witnesses supporting the claims.

I get it. You think it means nothing. You think that these claims are on par with you declaring yourself the Queen of England. I get it. You think women say they are raped is just like you stating you are the Queen of England.

Keep on building that case of what I have said is true all alone. You claim its due to there being no due process, yet there was in this case. A civil suit was brought and it was settled in the plaintiffs favor.

You think their words, their accusations mean nothing. And that no one should ever declare Bill Cosby a rapist based upon it. Why, cause in reality, you think women are lying. There is nothing else to say really.

You keep on a digging tho..

Perhaps that's the case in some instances.

But people could also assume that a plaintiff who brings the suit might settle it quickly for some money rather than take it to trial and have their case fall apart and they get nothing.

Most often, however, the decision to settle a case out of court is a business one. The defendant pays now to avoid having to pay more legal fees later to continue to defend a case. Defending a case is not a cheap proposition.

You can draw inferences as to why Cosby settled the case rather than fight it at trial. You could also draw inferences as to why the Plaintiff in that case settled so quickly before any of the witnesses could be deposed and potentially increase the value of the case significantly if those depositions went well. I'm sure a lot of stuff was discussed on both sides behind the cloak of attorney-client privilege that we'll never know.

In the end, though, trying to draw inferences out of civil settlements is like trying to read tea leaves. Hence, I'm not going to do that.

I will say that your heavy handed attempts to strawman me in this thread are quite obnoxious and obvious.

akin to you declaring yourself the Queen of England.

That about sums up your thought process.

Funny how you vehemently insist that I am calling these women liars when I've never done anything of the sort, and then you deny you're strawmanning me.

Thank you for admitting as much.

but I'm getting use to it.