U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-06-2015, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,156,317 times
Reputation: 5622

Advertisements

Having heard noting but allegations of assaults that allegedly happened decades ago and nothing from the alleged rapist, I will refrain from passing judgement until the courts sort out the inevitable "civil rights violation" suit by the victims and Cosby's counter-suit for slander and defamation of character. For these allegations to be made more than a quarter of century after the fact, the only "justice" these alleged victims can obtain is some kind of financial gain from Cosby. As Cosby has not paid up any "hush money" to date, the next logical step these victims can take is a lawsuit. Of course, without any forensic or physical evidence, combined with the fact they kept their collective mouths shut for so long, they are going to have a uphill battle trying to back up their allegations in open court without having Cosby sue them into oblivion.

 
Old 02-06-2015, 02:51 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,208 posts, read 4,779,726 times
Reputation: 4220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Having heard noting but allegations of assaults that allegedly happened decades ago and nothing from the alleged rapist, I will refrain from passing judgement until the courts sort out the inevitable "civil rights violation" suit by the victims and Cosby's counter-suit for slander and defamation of character. For these allegations to be made more than a quarter of century after the fact, the only "justice" these alleged victims can obtain is some kind of financial gain from Cosby. As Cosby has not paid up any "hush money" to date, the next logical step these victims can take is a lawsuit. Of course, without any forensic or physical evidence, combined with the fact they kept their collective mouths shut for so long, they are going to have a uphill battle trying to back up their allegations in open court without having Cosby sue them into oblivion.
I have to agree with this ^

These alleged events didn't just happen in the '60's, they allegedly happened up through the '80's. In fact there is one alleged rape that is still within the SOL for him to be charged.

Do I believe that all of the women who are speaking out are victims? No, I don't.
Do I believe that some of the women are victims? It's possible that they are being truthful, but it's also possible that they aren't. (they haven't provided any proof so far)

As for the ones that I don't believe are being truthful -- a few examples of why I don't believe them ...
One woman claimed she was at the playboy mansion for some particular party when Cosby drugged and raped her. Cosby was not only not at the playboy mansion that night, he wasn't even in that state that night.

One woman claimed to be drugged and raped, then went back with him on later date to watch a performance and was miffed because she was told to stand in the wings of the stage instead of being given a special seat in the audience. She claimed she was drugged and raped again later that night.
More than one of the women claimed that they had been drugged and raped, only to go back to see him at later dates, then claimed to be drugged and raped again. There were a few women who claimed to have steadily been seeing/dating him, or seeing/dating him off and on, even though they were being raped, or, drugged and raped while seeing/dating him -- yet they continued to see/date him.
If a woman is drugged and raped by a guy, why would they ever want to be around that guy again?!?

One woman claimed she was drugged and he tried to rape her but she yelled out that she had an STD. She then stated that he asked her for oral sex and that she consented to doing it.

One woman claimed that he'd given her a drink and she took a sip of it and began to feel the effects. Even when feeling the effects she claimed that she took a second sip and then became totally blasted. Sip? Good golly if she became totally blasted after two small sips, she probably would have OD'd if she'd taken a couple of normal swigs, or, if she'd downed it all.

Anyway, those are just a few examples of the ones that I don't believe.

I had read in this thread where someone said that there were no rape kits in the '60's. Actually there were rape kits during that time. They weren't as sophisticated as the kits are today, naturally, but they were good enough to pinpoint it to a certain male family line -- meaning that they would have known if it was a Cosby, but they wouldn't have known if it was him, his father, brother, uncle, etc.

I've seen people mention in this thread that there is nothing in this for these women for speaking out. Actually there is. As far as monetarily, these women are getting paid to tell their stories to the media (plus there may be book deals down the line). If Cosby decides to 'pay them off', then there's that. (if there were some women that it had actually happened to then I hope they make a small fortune out of it) Some may still carry a grudge for having (consensual?) sex with Cosby and not getting a part that they were hoping he could get for them -- which makes me think of the Hitchcock blonde leading ladies, if they wanted the part then they had to sleep with him to get it. No that doesn't make it right but they went into it with their eyes wide open.

Again I'll say that there may be some who were victims, or not, but so far they haven't provided proof.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 05:44 AM
 
6,461 posts, read 6,096,745 times
Reputation: 9778
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
I have to agree with this ^

These alleged events didn't just happen in the '60's, they allegedly happened up through the '80's. In fact there is one alleged rape that is still within the SOL for him to be charged.

Do I believe that all of the women who are speaking out are victims? No, I don't.
Do I believe that some of the women are victims? It's possible that they are being truthful, but it's also possible that they aren't. (they haven't provided any proof so far)

As for the ones that I don't believe are being truthful -- a few examples of why I don't believe them ...
One woman claimed she was at the playboy mansion for some particular party when Cosby drugged and raped her. Cosby was not only not at the playboy mansion that night, he wasn't even in that state that night.

One woman claimed to be drugged and raped, then went back with him on later date to watch a performance and was miffed because she was told to stand in the wings of the stage instead of being given a special seat in the audience. She claimed she was drugged and raped again later that night.
More than one of the women claimed that they had been drugged and raped, only to go back to see him at later dates, then claimed to be drugged and raped again. There were a few women who claimed to have steadily been seeing/dating him, or seeing/dating him off and on, even though they were being raped, or, drugged and raped while seeing/dating him -- yet they continued to see/date him.
If a woman is drugged and raped by a guy, why would they ever want to be around that guy again?!?

One woman claimed she was drugged and he tried to rape her but she yelled out that she had an STD. She then stated that he asked her for oral sex and that she consented to doing it.

One woman claimed that he'd given her a drink and she took a sip of it and began to feel the effects. Even when feeling the effects she claimed that she took a second sip and then became totally blasted. Sip? Good golly if she became totally blasted after two small sips, she probably would have OD'd if she'd taken a couple of normal swigs, or, if she'd downed it all.

Anyway, those are just a few examples of the ones that I don't believe.

I had read in this thread where someone said that there were no rape kits in the '60's. Actually there were rape kits during that time. They weren't as sophisticated as the kits are today, naturally, but they were good enough to pinpoint it to a certain male family line -- meaning that they would have known if it was a Cosby, but they wouldn't have known if it was him, his father, brother, uncle, etc.

I've seen people mention in this thread that there is nothing in this for these women for speaking out. Actually there is. As far as monetarily, these women are getting paid to tell their stories to the media (plus there may be book deals down the line). If Cosby decides to 'pay them off', then there's that. (if there were some women that it had actually happened to then I hope they make a small fortune out of it) Some may still carry a grudge for having (consensual?) sex with Cosby and not getting a part that they were hoping he could get for them -- which makes me think of the Hitchcock blonde leading ladies, if they wanted the part then they had to sleep with him to get it. No that doesn't make it right but they went into it with their eyes wide open.

Again I'll say that there may be some who were victims, or not, but so far they haven't provided proof.
And this is why they don't come forward. People just don't believe them. I'm not saying they were all raped, but the sheer numbers tell a story.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 08:28 AM
 
2,639 posts, read 5,057,601 times
Reputation: 2346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland View Post
And this is why they don't come forward. People just don't believe them. I'm not saying they were all raped, but the sheer numbers tell a story.
The sheer numbers simply mean that a lot of women have claimed something. That's the ONLY story it tells.

Let's flip the roles. Ignore this Cosby situation for a moment.

Take Cindra Ladd. Say if Ladd in the past was in a position similar to Aileen Wuornos - a lesbian who took sugar daddies to bed and then killed them afterwards. Let's take out the killing part, but insert Cosby as one of the men.

Now, assume that over time, these rich men start coming out, claiming that Ladd stole their money after drugging them and taking them to bed.

First off because they're men they won't be believed. But second, that she's a lesbian makes their claims less credible without evidence.

Say Cosby comes forward. He claims he lost over $30,000 to this woman and just woke up and didn't know what happened, he just remembers that she was in the room. No evidence, no proof of lost money. Nothing.

Society would not take Ladd to task or try to burn her at the stake and say she must be guilty because "so many men are coming forward now with the same message". They would say three things:
  1. The men were stupid.
  2. There's no proof.
  3. She's a lesbian, she couldn't have done it.

That's called a double standard. People want to, as aptly put before, "Salem Witch Hunt" when it's a man, but if it were a woman, it wouldn't matter if 100 men came forward, nobody would believe them without evidence.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 09:22 AM
Status: "Busy being triggered by pumpkins" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,365 posts, read 8,542,942 times
Reputation: 18099
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619 View Post
Really
Your idea of nobody caring about, interracial relationships in the 60's vs. the rest of America is different
The poster stated that black men were being killed for whistling at a white woman, and that was not the case in the late 1960's, early 1970's. And we're talking about L.A., not Podunk, Mississippi.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 09:24 AM
Status: "Busy being triggered by pumpkins" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,365 posts, read 8,542,942 times
Reputation: 18099
And this explains why even today, women may not come forward if they've been raped. People ignore logic, ignore experts, and blame the victim.

What a sick world.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 09:28 AM
 
672 posts, read 582,701 times
Reputation: 1979
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated View Post
The sheer numbers simply mean that a lot of women have claimed something. That's the ONLY story it tells.

Let's flip the roles. Ignore this Cosby situation for a moment.

Take Cindra Ladd. Say if Ladd in the past was in a position similar to Aileen Wuornos - a lesbian who took sugar daddies to bed and then killed them afterwards. Let's take out the killing part, but insert Cosby as one of the men.

Now, assume that over time, these rich men start coming out, claiming that Ladd stole their money after drugging them and taking them to bed.

First off because they're men they won't be believed. But second, that she's a lesbian makes their claims less credible without evidence.

Say Cosby comes forward. He claims he lost over $30,000 to this woman and just woke up and didn't know what happened, he just remembers that she was in the room. No evidence, no proof of lost money. Nothing.

Society would not take Ladd to task or try to burn her at the stake and say she must be guilty because "so many men are coming forward now with the same message". They would say three things:
  1. The men were stupid.
  2. There's no proof.
  3. She's a lesbian, she couldn't have done it.
That's called a double standard. People want to, as aptly put before, "Salem Witch Hunt" when it's a man, but if it were a woman, it wouldn't matter if 100 men came forward, nobody would believe them without evidence.
First of all, this is a total straw man. You are making assumptions based on gender that you can't prove. They might make you feel better, but there is no correlation.

Second, there are a lot of people in this thread who still can't get their heads around the difference between circumstantial, physical and testimonial evidence. Just because there is a lack of physical evidence, especially after all these years, this does not mean that there is a lack of the two other types, or that the two other types (alone or together) are not viable. People have been convicted of murder on circumstantial and/or testimonial evidence alone.

A good number of highly credible women have come forward to say that he did this to them. Most of them are not looking for money, they are telling their stories as catharsis, and they want the world to know that rapists are often people who are trusted, respected, beloved members of the community. Rape isn't just about the act of sex, it is about the power that the rapists hold over their victims, and not just at the time of the act, but after. Is it possible or even probable that some of these women aren't telling the truth, that they are looking for money or attention? Sure, of course. But most of them have nothing to gain, and in fact, have now put themselves into the line of fire so that people can accuse them of lying, money grabbing, being fame whores, who deserved what happened to them because they went to a man's hotel room, accepted a drink or dinner invitation, or of being loose women who willingly had sex with Cosby to further their means.

The last part there, that is yet another reason that there are skeptics. Cosby was a famous, powerful, wealthy man who could have had consensual sex pretty much anytime he wanted. But again, rape isn't about the act of sex, it is about the power that the rapist has.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,434 posts, read 41,632,813 times
Reputation: 46995
^^^very well put.

As for the poster who thinks bill cosby, scott peterson, o.j. simpson , casey anthony, etc are not guilty because all the authorities had was circumstantial evidence: you would be emptying the prisons if you wanted CLEAR evidence of crimes being committed. Even eyewitnesses get it wrong more times than not, and short of a police officer actually seeing somebody committing a crime and there being filmed footage of it nobody would be found guilty of crimes.

Do cops sometimes plant evidence? of course. Do innocent people sometimes get found guilty? Of course. Do guilty people sometimes get off? Happens more than we want to think. While all this is true, I still have some confidence in our legal system and believe it is far superior to most around the world.

I believe most of the women. I'm sure there are a few in the group who just want the attention but I think more women are coming forward because they are encouraged by the previous victims to speak their own truth.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 02:00 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 5,057,601 times
Reputation: 2346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz Bee View Post
First of all, this is a total straw man. You are making assumptions based on gender that you can't prove. They might make you feel better, but there is no correlation.
Really?

DO I really need to share with you the overloads of female teachers who had sex with underage students only to be let off with a slap because "...the boys knew what they were doing!" yet the male teachers get thrown in jail? Underage sex is illegal regardless of who initiates it!

Do I need to share with you the story of Rebecca Gayheart, who with her vehicle murdered a young boy, got SENTENCED...to community service and probation and a chump change fine? Yet Wesley Snipes who just refused to pay taxes sat in jail for 5 years?

Do I need to enlighten you on McKayla Maroney who was essentially distributing child porn to an unknown somebody (male) via iPhone and instead of being punished for distribution, was sided with to go against the hacker only? Vs. the San Diego kids where two girls sent nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends (distribution of child porn) and the girls didn't get charged, the guys did for sending it to their buddies?

Or Stephanie Draheim (DO NOT GOOGLE THIS NAME. NSFW), who has been arrested more times than Lindsay Lohan yet they keep letting her out. For drugs. Yet Ol' Dirty Bastard got 4 years in the clink.

There is no "assumption". It's been proven time and again that males are treated as guilty until proven innocent and even then there's a disbelief. Women are assumed innocent even when proven guilty.

Take it to the extreme. Jodi Arias. Convicted, yet they hesitate to give her the death penalty despite the brutality of the crime warranting it? Wasted tax payer dollars debating a moot point - she doesn't even deny she did it, now she's basically claiming extreme emotional disturbance, and because it's a man, there's a smear campaign going on to discredit the guy to save her life. Regardless of the fact the man didn't deserve to die in the first place AND the state statute calls for the death penalty.

I guarantee you, if a man had done what Jodi did, that man would be sharing a block with Scott Petersen, no debate, no questions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz Bee View Post
Just because there is a lack of physical evidence, especially after all these years, this does not mean that there is a lack of the two other types, or that the two other types (alone or together) are not viable. People have been convicted of murder on circumstantial and/or testimonial evidence alone.
And that's wrong. Testimony is often fabricated - as in Ricky Jackson's case:

A free man: Ricky Jackson to leave prison 39 years after a boy's lie helped put him behind bars | cleveland.com

I also provided a simple search about witness recanting. Testimony in its pure form is to be used to strengthen the case, NOT as the only evidence in the case. That's called heresay.

Circumstantial evidence should only be used to support a conviction in situations where the strength of said evidence is enough that it might as well be direct evidence.

Example:

A person is shot on the street. The street is within close proximity to one or more locations frequented by the accused. The victim and the accused were acquainted. A motive is identified - say, the victim owed the accused money that he/she never paid back (determined well after the fact by detectives tracing bank records and communications). The accused cannot account for their whereabouts before, during or after the time of the killing.

Say the detectives can't find a gun and there is no trace powder, no fingerprints, no blood splatters, nothing on the accused that directly links them to the crime. That person is not guilty until said evidence is found. All that can be said is that they are "a person of interest" due to the circumstantial, but if you can't lock a case with full evidence, that person is not a criminal. Period. A good defense attorney would have a field day.

Now, suppose that given the above, there's a witness who saw a vehicle matching the description of one owned by the accused in the area around the suspected time of the crime. Still doesn't prove the accused did it. Just adds to the possibility. BUT, if that witness took a somewhat grainy photo of the back of the vehicle, and forensics can enhance it to produce what appears to be a license plate number belonging to the accused, there's still no hard evidence, but the circumstantial is then so strong that it can't be ignored, because it puts him/her at the scene. That's why it's actually against the law to witness a felony but not report it - because you could be involved.

This is where smart prosecution comes in. If they lead in with weak charges a murderer could walk in a few years. If they lead in with over strong charges, a murderer could walk free if all you have is circumstantial evidence (Casey Anthony). They have to weigh (A) getting a murderer off the street at all costs against (B) going for broke and risking letting them walk. But our country goes for blood regardless of the fact that they can almost never make high profile cases WITHOUT SOLID EVIDENCE.

Why do you think the Menendez Brothers got put away? Solid evidence.

Why do you think OJ didn't get put away? NO solid evidence, just a bunch of tainted, tampered, planted evidence, which would only be present if cops felt that the real evidence wasn't strong enough to convict in the first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
As for the poster who thinks bill cosby, scott peterson, o.j. simpson , casey anthony, etc are not guilty because all the authorities had was circumstantial evidence: you would be emptying the prisons if you wanted CLEAR evidence of crimes being committed. Even eyewitnesses get it wrong more times than not, and short of a police officer actually seeing somebody committing a crime and there being filmed footage of it nobody would be found guilty of crimes.

Do cops sometimes plant evidence? of course. Do innocent people sometimes get found guilty? Of course. Do guilty people sometimes get off? Happens more than we want to think. While all this is true, I still have some confidence in our legal system and believe it is far superior to most around the world.

I believe most of the women. I'm sure there are a few in the group who just want the attention but I think more women are coming forward because they are encouraged by the previous victims to speak their own truth.
Emptying the prisons isn't a bad thing if statistics are telling the truth that a large percentage of those locked up, don't deserve to be locked up or are serving longer-than-normal sentences. America wants to complain about overflooding prisons yet we're quick to throw people in prison without true evidence and without following the spirit of the law unilaterally, which is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Not, "well, you wear a skirt so there's no way you could be a criminal".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
And this explains why even today, women may not come forward if they've been raped. People ignore logic, ignore experts, and blame the victim.

What a sick world.
Women don't come forward because they blame themselves for getting in that position in the first place. The problem isn't not coming forward, the problem is when you know something has been done wrong, DO SOMETHING. It doesn't matter what that "something" is, so long as it isn't illegal. But DO SOMETHING. Why are you going to a hotel room or whatever alone with a guy? I don't want to hear "but women should be able to do that!" sure, but it's never a good idea unless you implicitly - and I mean IMPLICITLY - trust a person. That means, not when you first meet them. Why? Because society is going to brand you as "loose" and your credibility is tainted. Good, bad, right or wrong, it is what it is. That's why they're not believed now - we're talking DECADES after the fact, reputation be damned.

None of these women went to see a therapist? A doctor? None of these women talked about it with anyone? They just kept it to themselves? For this long? Is that because they were traumatized, or because they didn't want to discredit or ruin Cosby at the time?

The thing is, I don't know. Nobody here knows. And "I don't know" means Cosby is still fundamentally innocent of at least what's being claimed until we see something proving otherwise OR stronger circumstantial evidence that can't be ignored, even if that's a doctor that comes forward with a medical record showing at least one of these women coming to them to report a rape shortly after they claim Cosby raped them. Even then it still doesn't prove Cosby did it, only that someone did, but that's for the detectives and the state to pursue at that point.


I'm not blaming victims, and I'm not absolving Cosby. I don't know the truth. But I'm not going to persecute a man when there is no direct evidence that he did anything, simply because a group is verbalizing such.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 02:01 PM
 
477 posts, read 375,373 times
Reputation: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
Oh, please. Sammy Davis, Jr. married a blonde woman and nobody batted an eye because he was Sammy Davis, Jr. In the late 60's and 70's blacks were not being killed for simply whistling at a white woman. You're off with your timeframe.
I don't know how old you are, but you are most DEFINITELY the one who has the wrong idea about conditions for black people in the 60s and 70s.

Civil Rights Martyrs - the tip of the iceberg

Unsolved murders of blacks at the hands of the KKK reopened

People most certainly DID "bat an eye" when Sammy Davis Jr married a white woman - he got tons of death threats. CREDIBLE death threats. He was even banned from the White House.

Even before that, his OWN STUDIO had him kidnapped by the Mafia, beaten, threatened with being blinded in his good eye and having his legs broken if he didn't stop rumors about an affair between him and (white) actress Kim Novak and marry a black woman within 48 hours. He was terrified enough that he paid a (black) woman he barely knew $10,000 - a CRAPton of money in the early 60's - to go through a sham marriage.

I lived in Huntsville, AL in the 90's. Six months after I moved away, a black man in a nearby town was dragged behind a car until he died and subsequently had his hands, feet, and head cut off. I don't know if they ever found the culprits, or if they even bothered to look.

While still working in AL, a coworker - an engineer, for cryin' out loud, in a technical firm that existed solely on government contracts - came in to work one day to find a hangman's noose on his desk. His crime? Talking to me - a white woman.

Same place - a female co-worker takes me aside and in honeyed southern belle tones warns me of the danger to my reputation should I continue to lunch IN A GROUP of my coworkers because one of my coworkers happened to be a black man (not the same one as above). He was a good 15 years younger than me. When I realized what she was on about, I told her - loudly so all could hear - that IF anybody thought I was getting some of that handsome young man, I could only consider my reputation to be IMPROVED, however, much to my regret, such was not the case so they could all go back to minding their own business.

You think racism and the danger to black people from white creepazoids was over BEFORE the 60s???? You are living in a dream world, pal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top