Given some people rely on ‘why didn’t they say something back in the day’ as evidence of false claims it’s interesting to explore what the two have in common - not least that what happened was of no interest then and yet is now.
I’m not sure if this is helpful, but this article has a blurb on a few of the women who have accused Cosby publicly. I’m not sure all of them have been named.
Most of them describe being drugged and then not remembering what happened next except that there was a sexual assault which is never described. One thing struck me about one of the statements was that she said that she didn’t go to the police because the police wouldn’t believe her without DNA evidence. I would think that she would have had DNA evidence on her if she had been sexually assaulted. [after looking up DNA profiling] I’m now wondering why she mentions DNA evidence when DNA profiling started in the 80’s and she claims her assault happened in the 70’s.
The other thing that struck me about either the reporting or the statements was just the vagueness. One person said that it happened in the 70’s. I would think that if something traumatic happened to someone, they’d remember at least the year, if not the date that it happened. Many of the details of the stories are very vague and fuzzy.
Yes. And that’s why I’m quite fond of going by “innocent until proven guilty”. But, hey, folks; don’t let me ruin your fun.
Starving Artist’s defense of Cosby seems to be “certain types of rape were acceptable back then… even guys I know did it! so it’s not a big deal”.
Eddie Murphy told a joke in which he said that Cosby once told him he shouldn’t cuss so much. Murphy asked Richard Pryor about it:
Pryor: “Do people laugh when you do it?”
Murphy: “Yeah.”
Pryor: “Do you get paid?”
Murphy: “Yeah.”
Pryor: “Well, tell Bill to have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!”
(The punchline is an allusion to the tagline for Cosby’s contemporaneous ads for Coca-Cola).
Or football scholarships even!
Yeah, same style of argument as the Penn State deal. (Which if he thinks we’ve forgotten about, we haven’t.)
If he’s innocent why can’t he say so? A defendant not taking the stand at his trial, is his right. But it doesn’t contribute to people thinking you’re innocent.
Much more importantly why would anyone do the kind of bending over backwards seen in this thread, to defend a man who refuses to even say he’s innocent.
I think it says a lot about the poster, and very little about BC or the case building against him.
Don’t be coy. What, exactly, do you think it says?
Looking at all that has risen up, there’s far too much smoke for there to not be some sort of combustion somewhere. That said…
… even if you suspect that, there’s no shame in having the “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” reaction, especially for a person with Cosby’s image. It’s a perfectly normal human response, and the expectation that the instant there’s reports of wrongdoing there is no reason for anyone to doubt or question it, is as unreasonable as the reaction of dismissing every possible accusation a priori without looking into it.
… the Court of Public Opinion is often the court of last resort when you find a “justice denied” situation. If you can’t get legal redress at least expose the person who wronged you. But:
… I’ve always been glad the Court of Public Opinion may ruin my business and social standing, but can’t actually incarcerate or execute me or seize my assets.
And at least for the cases back in the late 60s/early 70s he idea of “slipping something into her drink” was considered creepy and sleazy but the culture did not really take it always as seriously as it should be. Specially in that milieu there would be an undercurrent of thought along the lines of “oh, yeah, Hollywood types, they take their drugs and lose control; that’ll teach her to watch who she trusts”.
HOWEVER that does not impede that people may at some point say “you know what? That’s no excuse, it WAS an assault! The popular opinion of the time was what was wrong. If I wasn’t going to be taken seriously then, I sure am going to now.”
And if some of the allegations are true, he kept at it well after this was no longer a wink-and-nod thing, which would be outstanding hubris.
Y’know what? There surely are any number of old “swingin’ ladies’ men” in showbiz, business and politics breaking into a sweat right now over how this plays out, and I’m sure quite a few deservingly so…
Sure. But what you pose is an extremely difficult thing to achieve in the “Court of Public Opinion”: in the real legal system, evaluating whether a claim is or is not founded to begin with, in **both **facts **and **Law, IS after all a function of the investigators/prosecutors/courts when a charge or a lawsuit is filed. Public Opinion does not have that aspect, with the “any voiced doubt is blaming the victim” response coming up ever more often. It is a problem for victims who may feel they’re being lumped together with the attention whores but alas it seems a swing of the pendulum that was to be expected and it is still better than being dismissed and ignored.
Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe several of the women said Cosby drugged them, either with Benadryl or with an herbal sleeping pill. I have taken Benadryl, including after I had been drinking, and it did not knock me out to the point that I couldn’t function or remember. And I am not aware of any non-prescription “herbal” that has a similar effect. And I also have used melatonin, which also is not anything like Seconal or barbiturates in its effects.
Is this misreporting, or misremembering, or was Benadryl available in larger doses in the 60s and 70s? Or are there herbals that are actually as powerful as that?
It doesn’t mean the women are lying or not lying, but maybe I am missing something.
Regards,
Shodan
My understanding is that the women say that Cosby said that these pills were herbal medication. No way to prove now exactly what they were.
In general, these women were physically small, thin, young adults, not full grown men, so the effect might have been stronger.
The “herbals” may not necessarily have been the products you and I legitimately use to help us sleep easier. Same with alleging it was Benadryl. Person A says “here, have a Benadryl”; person B, entirely ignorant of pharmacology, takes A at their word that this is what was given. For all we know it may be a matter of having no way of knowing (by the complainants), or of seeking to deny (on the defense), that anything outright illegal or controlled was involved.
That’s different, right? Those were boys when it happened, then MEN when they made their allegations. Despite no corroboration of such long ago events, of course they’d be believed.
I’m trying to remain neutral on this, since all I know is what headlines have screamed at me, but when a new accusation (Carla Ferrigno’s) is that “he forcefully kissed me, when I was 17, in 1967” I can’t help but think there’s some piling-on here.
I believe that at least some of the cases are genuine, have claims worth full investigation and may have been suppressed by Cosby’s fame and money, but… “forcefully kissing” a pretty girl almost 50 years ago? Really?
Problem with “why did they wait so long?” as a reason for disbelief is that the obverse, reporting it immediately, gets you, “gold digging bitch is out for his money!” There’s just no way to win sometimes.
“No” what?
You seem to be assuming that I’m assuming something I’m not actually assuming.
To wit, I don’t think anyone is a misogynist for presuming Cosby’s innocence in the face of what is admittedly insufficient evidence.
Look, I agree with you, to some extent. I don’t think it’s necessarily misogyny to doubt the claims of these women, unless, as you so aptly put it, it is doubt simply because they are women.
But I’d still like to know exactly what part of **Anaamika’s **post **AK84 **thinks he’s calling “bull fucking shit” on in post #150.
[ul]
[li]Is it when she acknowledges that some women may indeed make false rape reports, but then points out that rape reporting can be a serious trauma itself?[/li][li]Is it when she points out that the credibility of even actual rape victims is often unfairly called into question?[/li][li]Is it when she expresses her distaste for the double standard of people who accuse women of sleeping their way to success. [/li][li]Is it when she suggested that the shame felt by victims of assault may prevent them from coming forward?[/li][li]Is it when she shoots down the claim that someone with Cosby’s wealth wouldn’t have to force himself on women?[/li]
[li]Or is it when she expresses her frustration at what she sees as displays of misogyny in this very thread?[/li][/ul]
I’m guessing **AK84 **just wanted to shout back at that last claim, but since he quoted Anaamika’s entire thesis, it kinda’ looks like he’s dismissing the whole thing. That’s why I asked him to clarify exactly what he’s taking exception to.
And to clarify my take, I’m with **Anaamika **on every one of those points. Including the last one.
Because . . .
. . . these chaps may *not *be misogynists (shit, for all I know they may be ladies), but the little brown nuggets they have dropped in this thread do have that aroma about them.
Good points, both of you. Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
One Benadryl makes my wife quite woozy – she takes just a half or even a quarter if she needs it. I think two could knock her out, or at least get her most of the way. Not that this tells us anything definitive, either way.
Firstly, what he said he gave them, probably wasn’t what he said it was, if he’s planning an assault. Secondly, almost all these women had drinks first. So now you have a combo of alcohol and unknown pharmaceutical. Pretty potent combination, wouldn’t you say?