Bill Cosby Rape Accusations

The 2005 case was one woman not 7. Cosby has denied any wrong doing in regards to the 50 plus women who have come forward so far.

The reason he is counter-suing only 7, is because those 7 women filed defamation of character claims in addition to the sexual assault claims.

 

My bad it was one woman whom he had paid off.Cosby himself admitted to giving these broads pills he could have sex with them.When did Cosby, not his lawyers working in his favor, say he didn't rape these 50 women allegedly?

 

I'm familiar with countersuits, however my point regarding his countersuing is that he did not sue intitially for "defaming his honorable character"...He only countersued because they sued him for defamation.

 

lnterestingly, 13 women he had allegedly sexually assaulted were supeoned to testify in the civil trial, when Bill settled with Andrea just before the trial was to begin..

 

Or it would have been easier than dealing with a public trial
Michael Jackson did the same thing. After his death I remember one of his accusers admitted his parents made him accuse Jackson for the money.

 

Ironically, he went to trial and was acquitted.

I remember you and l being on opposite sides of MJ in an unrelated thread.(long after his death)
I defended his innocence, you opposed it.

 

Really? Well positions can change I guess. I don't recall the argument.
And he had to go to trial since the allegations were more recent.

 

It wasn't an argument, just a position in passing, and the only reason it sticks out for me is l am usually an advocate for kids, but felt he was railroaded (l saw him as a perpetual child incapable of pedophilia).
I'm at a point now however where l just don't know if he molested young boys or not. I've become so jaded the last few years with human behavior in general.

 

Well to me he had mental illness and people took advantage of it. Dude built an amusement park on his property and did sleep overs. That's a big kid not a pedophile.

 

Well yeah, he was physically abused and controlled as a child. He was denied a child hood. Possibly 're living it his way.

Yet others call what you describe as grooming.

 

Well, many people are in denial and refuse to recognize the complexity of rape allegations regardless of when they happened. When one woman stepped forward, the flood gates opened! There is no way more then 50 women are lying. NONE HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN BY PUTTING THEMSELVES OUT THERE. It's difficult to fathom why some people think all these women are lying. It makes no sense. Why did many of the young boys and teenagers who were molested and sexually abused by priests decide to talk about their experiences as adults? If a male was molested at age 10, why would he wait until he was 25 to report it? The reasons are complicated but the time lapse between the rape and molestation does not make it false nor diminish the fact that it did happen....

 

Defining countersuits speaks to legal process, i'm sure his lawyers were advising him not to sue for defamation when there were only accusations and no legal actions being taken against him, it would make him look like a bully and with so many women coming forward the logistics would have been a very expensive legal nightmare. When the 7 filed a civil suit with the defamation claim, that suit, legally has to be responded to, and provided the legal basis for a countersuit, so the timing of the countersuit is not suspicious due to legal process.

 

Right-O. That makes complete sense.
Also, given the fact that multi-defamation suits initiated by him would have opened the door to details to prove it, a door l'd imagine he'd prefer to keep closed (for as long as possible, at least.)

 

At least this one is fresh enough for criminal proceedings and can be investigated fully and punished appropriately if found guilty of the crime.

Civil cases about something as serious as rape just aren't enough imo, perpetrators should pay with prison not money.

 

Agreed, well said. From a legal point of view the prosecution will have a very difficult (but not impossible) case to make. The alleged crime is over a decade old with no physical evidence, the initial complaint was not filed until after a year had passed, and Cosby's lawyers will argue that the only reason the DA brought charges was for political gain, Kevin Steele who took office at the end of 2015, based a lot of his platform around Andrea's case against Cosby.

It also seems that his competitor in the DA race, Bruce Castor, held the DA position in 2005 and rejected the accuser's initial case because her credibility was supposedly questionable.

These are very serious obstacles to overcome for the prosecution, what they have in their favor is the weight of the 50 other women with the same claims, the fact that Cosby has admitted to procuring illegal drugs and using them for sex, the testimony of the accuser which will be heartfelt and persuasive in court, and the general negative public sentiment against Cosby which will be in the minds of the selected jurors and judge. It will be interesting to watch.

 

I should imagine they will have something other than his admittance to using drugs and these other women.
If the others are civil cases can they be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding, unless he has admitted guilt like the drugs thing?
Discussion with others about the crime who have no connection with Cosby themselves or other corroborating evidence about the effect on her and when and where it happened etc..etc I should imagine it's gonna be in the details to get a decent outcome.

 

Usually DA's are very loathe to bring charges unless they are very sure they have at least a good chance of winning, (they run for office on their conviction success rate) so I would imagine that the prosecution is holding back evidence from the public that can be used to their advantage, although sometimes politics, arrogance and over-optimism can cloud their judgement. It seems Cosby's accuser is also suing the former DA for dismissing her original claim and not prosecuting, so this gives Cosby's defense even more fuel to try to muddy the waters, which is exactly what defense attorney's are paid to do, create reasonable doubt.

As the other civil cases are not yet litigated, they will take a back seat and they will have no legal bearing on the criminal case, although the civil cases will undoubtedly be in the minds of the jurors and the judge, this too might be a tactic that Cosby's lawyers will use, the "tainted jury pool" argument.

I could be wrong, but to date I have heard that this is a 'he said, she said" case, with no third parties with first hand knowledge as to what happened between Cosby and his accuser that night, which is (unfortunately) aggravated by the fact that she waited a year to report her claims to law enforcement.

 

Wow, I didn't even know that was possible. I always figured that prosecutorial immunity was pretty much absolute and would extend until even after he left office. I can't wait to see how far that once goes.

 

It's a civil claim for defamation, not criminal that she is pursuing against the DA.

 

Well said! An since you mentioned the the boys who were alleged to have been molested by priests, I can't recall any public sentiment or outcry suggesting that they were lying or trying to profit/benefit by making false allegations against those priests...and the Catholic Church is loaded. Same thing with the Penn State scandal a few years back; I don't remember anything close to the level of outrage towards those victims that we're seeing towards Cosby's victims.

Oh, okay. That makes much more sense. Gotcha!