The Bill Cosby Admission

[gingerhobbit]

Bill Cosby has admitted that he bought Quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with. His lawyer stopped him just short of admitting that he raped them, but the implication is pretty obvious.

(Quaaludes were big in the 70s and 80s and were kind of a cross between Ambien, Xanax and Ecstasy.)

As you can imagine, the women who accused him are now feeling a bit vindicated...and their lawyers are all sporting massive hard-ons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/bill-cosby-whats-next/

Best part about this is how the Associated Press persuaded a judge to unseal the 2005 deposition. The AP argued that Cosby has made himself a public moral arbiter by lecturing black people on their behavior, so anything reflecting on his own behavior should be fair game.

The judge agreed.

 

[Sevrin]

 

[Teagan]

Yeah their defense of it would make him look bad is so ridiculous. That's not a defense at all. Im glad they unsealed it cause really it never should have been sealed at all IMO. It should have been open all along. Every case involving this type of stuff if you are found guilty or make a plea deal should be available publicly. I also really dont get why the judge did not make him answer the question of whether or not he gave the drugs to women who didnt know it. He should have had to answer that. Yes he could of lied but he shouldnt get to get away with not saying anything after admitting he had them and used them. Judge dropped the ball on that one. I get he didnt know all this would happen now but it still was a question that should have been given an answer.

The thing that kills me though is people still defending him. "Well that's not the Cosby I knew." Well dears, you didnt know him ! You knew characters he played on TV. Who he really is takes nothing away from TV shows but thinking you know someone cause you seen them on the idiot box is insane thinking. Thinking it must make them not guilty after 40+ women say he is is insane logic.
And the 2 people from the Cosby show who are defending him (Olivia and his wife on the show) need to stop standing up for him and stand up for the women he abused. This is an opportunity for them to speak out about how you can know someone in person and work with them and never really know what they are doing and they could have used this as a platform in a great way. They just look terrible for defending this rapist. They would have been better off staying silent. I get they pretty much owe him their careers but there comes a point where you stop owing that person.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I also really dont get why the judge did not make him answer the question of whether or not he gave the drugs to women who didnt know it. He should have had to answer that. Yes he could of lied but he shouldnt get to get away with not saying anything after admitting he had them and used them. Judge dropped the ball on that one. I get he didnt know all this would happen now but it still was a question that should have been given an answer.

Judge probably didn't bother because he knew a nasty little thing like the law would get in the way of him forcing an answer out of Cosby.

Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5.html#sthash.D83DqxGn.dpuf

 

[gingerhobbit]

Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Your response is a little simplistic.

Cosby's statements were made in a civil deposition, not a criminal case (and judges don't always attend depositions, just the attorneys.) You can assert your 5th Amendment rights in a civil proceeding, but that doesn't necessarily mean you don't have to answer.

You have to show that your answer will actually incriminate you, meaning an actual violation of the criminal statutes that puts you in legal jeopardy. For example, admitting to a crime for which the statute of limitations has expired does not incriminate you, which could have been the case with Cosby's answer since the question referred to other victims in the past.

However, if a defendant refuses to answer a question during a deposition, the attorney can file a motion to compel with the judge, asking him to order the defendant to answer. If the judge determines the answer to the question could be germane to the case and would not result in a 5th Amendment violation, he can issue an order to answer. If the defendant still refuses to comply, the judge can issue sanctions.

I don't know if the attorneys filed a motion to compel in this case, but it doesn't really matter. If you are asked in deposition if you committed a crime, and you assert your 5th Amendment privilege, you basically answered the question anyway. Remember, the standard in a civil case is 'preponderance of evidence,' not the higher criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Any jury seeing a 5th Amendment answer to that question is going to draw the conclusion that yes, you did it. I know Cosby's admission seriously damaged his defense in the civil suit, which might explain why he settled with the plaintiff in 2006 and had the terms sealed.

But legalities aside, Jerry, I'm curious, are you this passionate -- large, bold font and all -- about the rights of the victims in this case as you apparently are about Cosby's rights?

 

[Teagan]

It didnt apply to the case in question though as the women willingly took the drugs they said. So it wasnt pertinent to the actual case sadly. Its why he wouldnt be forced to answer it. (I just wish he had cause it would make a lot of his defenders shut the fuck up.) Itd be like asking him what his fav color was. Its a non issue. Regardless a person on drugs cant consent to sex so it was still rape which is why he settled cause he wanted the case sealed.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

But legalities aside, Jerry, I'm curious, are you this passionate -- large, bold font and all -- about the rights of the victims in this case as you apparently are about Cosby's rights?

Cosby has the same rights as the alleged victims in a court of law. The fact you seem to think one's persons rights should be ignored when it suits you scares me.

 

[dilligaf0]

I think his defenders are like the people you see interviewed after a mass shooting. "He was always such a nice guy, I never expected him to do this".
There are always a few people that don't / won't / can't see the real person. Whether that's from a good cover by the culprit (yes, I've been looking for an excuse to use that word ) or denial by the friend is unclear.

 

[Sevrin]

It didnt apply to the case in question though as the women willingly took the drugs they said. So it wasnt pertinent to the actual case sadly. Its why he wouldnt be forced to answer it. (I just wish he had cause it would make a lot of his defenders shut the fuck up.) Itd be like asking him what his fav color was. Its a non issue. Regardless a person on drugs cant consent to sex so it was still rape which is why he settled cause he wanted the case sealed.

You can consent to accept drugs, but that does not mean that you consent to being sexually assaulted while under the influence of those drugs.

 

[Teagan]

Thats what I said Sevrin. The sex was not consensual.

 

[ACFFAN69]

Love the chart, but it's because of the movie "Wolf of Wallstreet", not due to Cosby (you can find the same chart in articles from Feb 2014). It's still funny/interesting none-the-less.

For those that haven't seen it, check out his interview on CNN in 1991. It's kind of surprising no one questioned it back then. Pretty disgusting.

 

[gingerhobbit]

Cosby has the same rights as the alleged victims in a court of law. The fact you seem to think one's persons rights should be ignored when it suits you scares me.

The fact that the first thing so many men do when they hear about this case is to remind us all of Cosby's rights is equally terrifying to me. Because what it really means, under the guise of fairness, is that you're rushing to cast doubt on the victims.

This isn't the UNC rape case, with one shoddy Rolling Stone article to support the victim's claim. This is 40+ women telling the same story over several decades. Anyone who is still denying it at this point has some other agenda.

 

[gingerhobbit]

It didnt apply to the case in question though as the women willingly took the drugs they said. So it wasnt pertinent to the actual case sadly. Its why he wouldnt be forced to answer it. (I just wish he had cause it would make a lot of his defenders shut the fuck up.) Itd be like asking him what his fav color was. Its a non issue. Regardless a person on drugs cant consent to sex so it was still rape which is why he settled cause he wanted the case sealed.

I can tell you definitively that intoxication on the victim's part is not a legal defense to sexual assault, either in civil or criminal cases.

In a criminal case, a jury would be instructed not to consider that factor at all (although they probably will, at least a little.) In a civil case, the jury can apportion blame (and often does) by assigning some of the blame to the victim, which reduces the monetary award. But simply saying 'she willingly took the drug, drank the alcohol, etc' does not legally imply consent.

 

[ACFFAN69]

The fact that the first thing so many men do when they hear about this case is to remind us all of Cosby's rights is equally terrifying to me. Because what it really means, under the guise of fairness, is that you're rushing to cast doubt on the victims.

This isn't the UNC rape case, with one shoddy Rolling Stone article to support the victim's claim. This is 40+ women telling the same story over several decades. Anyone who is still denying it at this point has some other agenda.

I disagree completely. It's vital all accused have a viable chance defending themselves. If the same fifth amendment argument was made about an accused murderer, would you believe he's only casting doubt on the murder evidence? In fact I'm glad JBB brought up the fifth amendment because that's the first thing that came to mind after reading Teagans respond. Because he brought it up I learnt it's not a valid argument in a civil case.

The evidence in this case is preponderantly showing him as guilty. We all know he's guilty, It's not victim blaming saying he shouldn't have the right to defend himself, it's being a fair and just society, and it's important we withhold that virtue.

Giving him as much benefit of the doubt as possible only will further reinforce how guilty he is when the sentence comes. The fact that he failed to answer the question about giving it to them without their knowledge basically just gave him more rope to strangle himself by creating an impressive headline and reinforcing discussion.

 

[gingerhobbit]

I disagree completely. I actually think JBB is correct. It's vital all accused have a viable chance defending themselves. If JBB made the same statement about an accused murderer, would you be saying he's only casting doubt on the murder evidence? In fact I'm glad JBB brought up the fifth amendment because that's the first thing I thought of and because he brought it up I learnt it's not a valid argument in a civil case.

The evidence in this case is preponderantly showing him as guilty. We all know he's guilty, It's not victim blaming saying he shouldn't have the right to defend himself, it's being a just society and it's important we withhold that virtue.

This is completely disingenuous and flat-out ignores what has historically happened to rape victims in this country, which is that their rape allegations often are not taken seriously.

Here's an example: When I was first starting out as a crime reporter in Miami back in the 90s, cops were still referring to the sexual assault unit at Miami PD as the 'Pussy Posse.'

More recently, Philadelphia cops were caught reclassifying sex crimes as lesser offenses so they wouldn't show up in crime stats. Those reclassed crimes were then not investigated as sexual assaults.

And remember the allegations of rape against Jameis Winston, quarterback at Florida State University? Cops didn't take the complaint seriously and botched that investigation so badly, the prosecutor couldn't do anything with it. The people who crow about how he was exonerated should re-watch the news conference with State Attorney Willie Meggs.

That's just the cops.

Take a run through Twitter, Redditt or any other social media and see how rape victims are treated and discussed. Here's a hint: The victim usually catches the blame, and the suspect usually gets all the benefit of the doubt.

Even in the news media sex crime victims are placed under enormous scrutiny. Just look at what happened to Emma Sulkowicz at Columbia University.

There is NO other crime where so much burden is placed on the victim. Equating rape and murder cases is laughable. I personally have covered more than 100 murders, and off the top of my head, I can think of only a handful where people were as quick to defend the rights of the suspect as they are in rape cases.

Usually those were so-called 'crimes of passion' where a man found his significant other cheating with someone and killed them both. Funny, as I recall, the people saying they could understand how that happens were usually guys, too.

Don't get me wrong, here, I firmly believe that everyone deserves a fair trial and strong defense. I'm also pretty distrustful of the way that the criminal justice system treats the accused. And don't get me started on cops.

But we can't pretend that sex crimes are treated the same way as everything else.

With the Cosby case, specifically, he will likely never see the inside of a criminal court. But it's been clear for months now that he abused a large number of women, and I stand by what I said...anyone who is still casting doubt at this point has an agenda.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The fact that the first thing so many men do when they hear about this case is to remind us all of Cosby's rights is equally terrifying to me. Because what it really means, under the guise of fairness, is that you're rushing to cast doubt on the victims.

This isn't the UNC rape case, with one shoddy Rolling Stone article to support the victim's claim. This is 40+ women telling the same story over several decades. Anyone who is still denying it at this point has some other agenda.

defending Cosby's rights ≠ defending Cosby's innocence

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This is completely disingenuous and flat-out ignores what has historically happened to rape victims in this country, which is that their rape allegations often are not taken seriously...

You can do the exact same thing with the flip side of that coin, and dwell on the innocent people who were convicted of sex crimes they did not commit.

 

[gingerhobbit]

defending Cosby's rights ≠ defending Cosby's innocence

If you want to champion the rights of the accused, good on ya. But I suggest you find some young black kid charged with a capital crime based on shitty circumstantial evidence, and not a guy with a busload of women all accusing him of the same thing over a period of 30 or 40 years. A guy who has now admitted to buying sedatives to give to them.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

If you want to champion the rights of the accused, good on ya. But I suggest...

Or how about this?
1. The old guy who has left a trail of victims in his wake...
2. The young black kid accused on shitty circumstantial evidence...
When it comes to championing their rights -- por que no los dos?

I think Cosby is guilty as sin, have thought this for a while now. But the minute you start differentiating between people who get rights and people who don't, you are headed down a bad road. .02

 

[gingerhobbit]

Or how about this?
1. The old guy who has left a trail of victims in his wake...
2. The young black kid accused on shitty circumstantial evidence...
When it comes to championing their rights -- por que no los dos?

At this point, if you don't get it, there's nothing I can do to explain it to you.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

At this point, if you don't get it, there's nothing I can do to explain it to you.

Oh no, no need to explain. I understand where you are coming from. When I am emotionally involved, I feel the exact same way. But now I am in a little more of an analytical mood, and I come down on the side of Cosby's rights.

Read up on this guy, and let me rant about the rights I would be willing to strip him of...
http://murderpedia.org/male.C/c/compton-jesse-caleb.htm

 

[yummybrownfox]

In his book CHILDHOOD, he recalls an old conversation with buddies about wanting to find "Spanish Fly" to slip into a girl's drink.....

 

[Poker_Babe]

The fact that the first thing so many men do when they hear about this case is to remind us all of Cosby's rights is equally terrifying to me. Because what it really means, under the guise of fairness, is that you're rushing to cast doubt on the victims.

I don't think that's what Jerry was doing though. He's just pointing out that the protection to everyone's right to a fair trial is vital to everyone. Victims, perps, accusers, and the accused. Once we start cherry picking who we think should get to assert their rights and who shouldn't, it's all over for everyone one of us (if that makes any sense... it's late and my brain is having a hard time getting the words out properly)

 

[Poker_Babe]

Read up on this guy, and let me rant about the rights I would be willing to strip him of...
http://murderpedia.org/male.C/c/compton-jesse-caleb.htm

My God!!! Never heard of that piece of shit before, feel so bad for the little girl. So sad.
I feel the same way about this monster here, as you do about your guy.
ETA, it doubtful that he'll ever get put to death though, in Calif, most death row inmates die of old age before they actually get executed. Don't know what the stats are for Oregon though

 

[justjoinedtopost]

My God!!! Never heard of that piece of shit before, feel so bad for the little girl. So sad.
I feel the same way about this monster here, as you do about your guy.

Oh yah, I know about this guy. It has been several years (god only knows where I read it), but there was a bit somewhere about people writing him in prison to get his autograph with the nickname "Pliers". Disgusting. (edit: see it now, it's on the bottom of the murderpedia entry).

The Jesse Caleb Compton story was shared with me by someone who was related to the mother. She only got life in prison, but she should have got the death penalty too imo. She just kept tweaking and turned a blind eye to what was going on. Can't wrap my head around it.

Love to read true crime, but this story...
And from what I have read, Compton will likely never be executed. But that's just based on memory. May be wrong.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I don't think that's what Jerry was doing though. He's just pointing out that the protection to everyone's right to a fair trial is vital to everyone. Victims, perps, accusers, and the accused. Once we start cherry picking who we think should get to assert their rights and who shouldn't, it's all over for everyone one of us (if that makes any sense... it's late and my brain is having a hard time getting the words out properly)

You nailed it. At no point did I say anything about the victims or their rights. I merely commented on why the judge couldn't outright 'force' cosby to answer the question of did he use the drug to rape women.

It's his right to not answer it. It's one of the fundamental rights American's have had since the country was founded. And the women in question have the same rights. If we start letting them slide just because someone is accused of something deplorable the whole system becomes meaningless for the next person. And that might be you or me.

So I don't really care what he's accused of, I also don't care that the victims are women; he still has his rights. And for the record, yes. I actually would fight for his rights more in this case over those of the women. But it has nothing to do with being a man or a woman like so many here would jump to that conclusion. It has to do with being a defendant versus a plaintiff. Forget about it being a rape related case. Put in any other crime you can think of. I'd still argue for the defendant's rights not being infringed. Cause it would suck to ever be personally involved in a criminal system where they are.

There's a reason William Blackstone wrote "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

 

[dilligaf0]

For what it's worth, many times child abusers (and other depraved convicts) are dealt with by the other prison inmates.
For example, Jeffery Dahmer.
Sometimes the convicts have their own justice system.

 

[gingerhobbit]

I don't think that's what Jerry was doing though. He's just pointing out that the protection to everyone's right to a fair trial is vital to everyone. Victims, perps, accusers, and the accused. Once we start cherry picking who we think should get to assert their rights and who shouldn't, it's all over for everyone one of us (if that makes any sense... it's late and my brain is having a hard time getting the words out properly)

No one is cherry-picking who has rights and who doesn't. No one's saying Cosby shouldn't have a chance to face his accusers in court and defend himself vigorously.

That just should not be our focus.

It's sort of like if we were having a conversation about the need to help the poor, and the very first thing out of somebody's mouth was a reminder that CEOs who make $10 million a year sometimes need help too.Technically, it might be true...but is that really the main thing you focus on?

And there's no doubt in my mind that the whole 'Cosby has rights' knee-jerk response is really just a cover for animosity toward his accusers. Otherwise, his rights wouldn't be the main thrust of the discussion, it would be a side note.

Clearly, his rights are not in jeopardy here. He's been drugging and raping women since the 60s, has never spent a day in jail for it, and it's looking extremely likely that he never will. I'd say his rights have been pretty damn well protected.

Like I told @justjoinedtopost, if people are so concerned about the rights of the accused, there are much better examples to focus on. There are men on death row all over this country who were wrongfully convicted. And every day, young black men (striking out 'black' and trying to pretend the justice system treats everyone equally is ignorant) are convicted and sent to prison on weak evidence and the false testimony of cops.

But c'mon, this really isn't about anyone's concerns over equal rights for the accused.

This is about people whose first instinct is to doubt any woman who says she was raped.

They'll say "Remember, Bill Cosby has rights," but what they really want to say is "That bitch is probably lying."

Is that the case with Jerry? I don't know him and I can't say because only he knows. But when you make that position your first priority and defend it so passionately, you put yourself in some really dubious company.

Think about it like this: We're all adults here, we've all had quite a bit of experience of the world. When a person starts a sentence by saying, "I'm not racist, but...." haven't you learned to usually expect some really racist shit to follow that?

Replace "I'm not racist, but..." with "I feel bad for the women who say they were raped, but....Bill Cosby has rights." Sorta makes you doubt the sincerity of the first part of the sentence.

When a high-profile rape case comes up, anybody who's ever watched TV knows that the person accused has certain rights. Focusing on his rights first and foremost sends a message to rape victims -- and not a good one.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

(striking out 'black' and trying to pretend the justice system treats everyone equally is ignorant)

Let me correct you here. I did not strike out "black" because I am so ignorant as to believe there are no disparities in the way our justice system deals with different groups. I am well aware.

I struck it out for this reason: you can take the defendants in the West Memphis Three case and the Central Park Jogger case, lump them all together, and I will say "These young men met with injustice." I do not care in the least that some were black and some were not. And if you feel the need to start pointing out the fact that some of these young men were black, in my mind I will immediately mark you as a potential simpleton.

Clearly, his rights are not in jeopardy here. He's been drugging and raping women since the 60s, has never spent a day in jail for it, and it's looking extremely likely that he never will. I'd say his rights have been pretty damn well protected.

I am appalled that Cosby has been able to rape for so long and get away with it. But the fact that he has does not constitute a protection of his rights.

I find your use of the ad hominem attack unwarranted in this thread, and your reliance on straw man arguments laughable (but I understand that you may not have realized that is what you were doing). Furthermore, I do not disagree with you on many of the things you have brought up; but I am in opposition to your overall message.

 

[Poker_Babe]

No one is cherry-picking who has rights and who doesn't. No one's saying Cosby shouldn't have a chance to face his accusers in court and defend himself vigorously.

That just should not be our focus.

It's sort of like if we were having a conversation about the need to help the poor, and the very first thing out of somebody's mouth was a reminder that CEOs who make $10 million a year sometimes need help too.Technically, it might be true...but is that really the main thing you focus on?

And there's no doubt in my mind that the whole 'Cosby has rights' knee-jerk response is really just a cover for animosity toward his accusers. Otherwise, his rights wouldn't be the main thrust of the discussion, it would be a side note.

Clearly, his rights are not in jeopardy here. He's been drugging and raping women since the 60s, has never spent a day in jail for it, and it's looking extremely likely that he never will. I'd say his rights have been pretty damn well protected.

Like I told @justjoinedtopost, if people are so concerned about the rights of the accused, there are much better examples to focus on. There are men on death row all over this country who were wrongfully convicted. And every day, young black men (striking out 'black' and trying to pretend the justice system treats everyone equally is ignorant) are convicted and sent to prison on weak evidence and the false testimony of cops.

But c'mon, this really isn't about anyone's concerns over equal rights for the accused.

This is about people whose first instinct is to doubt any woman who says she was raped.

They'll say "Remember, Bill Cosby has rights," but what they really want to say is "That bitch is probably lying."

Is that the case with Jerry? I don't know him and I can't say because only he knows. But when you make that position your first priority and defend it so passionately, you put yourself in some really dubious company.

Think about it like this: We're all adults here, we've all had quite a bit of experience of the world. When a person starts a sentence by saying, "I'm not racist, but...." haven't you learned to usually expect some really racist shit to follow that?

Replace "I'm not racist, but..." with "I feel bad for the women who say they were raped, but....Bill Cosby has rights." Sorta makes you doubt the sincerity of the first part of the sentence.

When a high-profile rape case comes up, anybody who's ever watched TV knows that the person accused has certain rights. Focusing on his rights first and foremost sends a message to rape victims -- and not a good one.

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't feel like it's comparable to the CEO example you gave. I've always been big advocate for the Constitution (do a simple search for some of my past posts here on acf, and you'll come across many examples of this). I think Cosby is guilty as sin, in fact, I made the first Bill Cosby/Rape accusations thread here on this forum a while back, and I compare him to Jimmy Savile. So I can honestly say that I don't have any pro Cosby agenda behind me saying that it's absolutely important that he has the right to due process. I have a, pro constitution agenda behind me saying that! Protecting Cosby's rights, as well as a poor young black kid facing murder charges, or anyone for that matter, is protecting ALL OF OUR RIGHTS!
And though I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.