More and more stories are emerging that are contradicting Bill Cosby’s reputation as a genial and avuncular person. It has been hard for most people to swallow, given the overwhelmingly positive public image he has had. I had never watched his hit TV shows or seen his comedy routines so perhaps had not fallen under his spell as much as others and so the allegations did not seem as unbelievable to me.
In Cosby’s case, none of the allegations have been proven in court and many have passed the time when they could be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations. But one case was settled out of court and its terms not revealed. But the sheer number of allegations and Cosby’s patronizing attitude of ‘I will not deign to talk about it’ and his use of his celebrity power to intimidate reporters does not look good at all.
People are complicated and many people can have a positive and friendly personality on most things but also possess a dark side that is carefully hidden from public view. It is not uncommon for people who commit horrific crimes to have others close to them be completely shocked by a side of their personality that no one suspected existed.
There was an unpleasant side of Cosby that was public and that was his smug condemnation of young people, hectoring them on their appearance and behavior and holding himself up as some kind of role model for them to follow. This is never attractive in old people but he seemed to revel in it and on occasion showed himself to be very cruel.
Of course, not everyone has given up on him. A couple of days ago he gave a sold-out performance in Florida and received a standing ovation. And while TV networks and some venues have canceled his shows, many other venues are continuing to schedule his appearances.
It’s never attractive in anyone, but your point made me realize something: It has been several years since I found him funny, and I realized that the change came about the time he apparently decided he was old and wise enough to begin lecturing “the youngsters” on how to behave and straighten themselves up. Between his attitude (as you say) and his supremely simplistic “solutions” to complicated issues, he morphed into a caricature of the crabby old man down the street.
It will be interesting to see how the latest news shakes out. I have my suspicions (not favorable to him) about these accusations. I just wonder whether things will continue to grow, with someone investigating, or suddenly vanish the next time a kardashian (or other desperate “reality” star) does something stupid.
I despise these media crucifixions. I don’t know whether Cosby is guilty or not but there has not been any proof offered so far that he is. I find the seething venom and rancid self-righteousness of the media lynch mobs that gather whenever someone is merely accused of something sickening. They have already decided he is guilty and started attacking him as a “sociopath” for dismissing the slimebag media with the contempt it deserves.
Cosby must have done something to piss someone powerful off for all this to suddenly erupt after all these years. Get back to me when the mass media denounces the sociopathic mass murderers running our country and their lackeys in the media who promote their lies. If he is guilty, his victims will have their day in our court system, which is the best possible court system in the best of all possible worlds.
I never had anything against Bill Cosby, but starting all the way back with his early 1970s Saturday morning cartoon show, I could never understand what was supposed to be funny about his “comedy”. Even hearing clips of his stand up routines left me baffled.
I can post as someone who was taken with Cosby. His show “Himself”was, for a very long time, my all-time favorite comedy show. I had never laughed as hard at something. From his musings about drinking and drugs to giving his children chocolate cake and grapefruit juice for breakfast, it was just amazing.
I actually was never all that aware of the “pull up your pants” shtick, but unfortunately, back when I was an idiot libertarian, I did often quote his thing about buying expensive shoes.
This has soured everything, though. I went ahead and watched “Himself” a few days ago. In the past, it didn’t matter how many times I watched it… I laughed my ass off. This time, I couldn’t even get through it. I need to find a way to get rid of that DVD.
Sean @ #2… how many women are going to have to come forward before you start to question Cosby’s innocence? Seriously. One is bad enough, but we’re up to… what… 15? 20? And the stories are all very frighteningly similar. I’m sorry, but at this point I don’t think Cosby would survive in a court of law, just on the number of accusations alone.
@Sean:
I don’t know whether Cosby is guilty or not but there has not been any proof offered so far that he is.
That’s rather bizzare. A whole bunch of different women coming forward and telling surprisingly similar stories is not “proof”?? What kind of “proof” do you demand, that someone go in a time-machine back and videotape each assault? I mean, seriously, get the fuck real will you? Are you really trying to say that all those women are part of some bizzare plot? Because, if that were the case: a) they’d have done it before the statute of limitations ran out and b) they’d be coming after him for … something. Given that they’re not standing to benefit in the slightest and taking a tremendous risk of backlash, why on earth would you assume anything other than that they’re telling the truth. I.e.: that’s as good “proof” as you get.
rancid self-righteousness of the media lynch mobs
Wow, so you are in favor of drugging women and raping them, then? I suppose you’re going to say that you think the justice system was unduly rough on poor Roman Polanski, too. Or, for that matter, every other criminal who wasn’t caught in the act, being caught in the act being the only “proof” that you’d accept?
Cosby must have done something to piss someone powerful off for all this to suddenly erupt after all these years
Maybe he raped a bunch of women and they’re pissed off about it. Did that ever occur to you?
Minor quibble: It’s “statute” of limitations.
I’m not sure what a “statue” of limitations is, but it sounds like an unfinished art piece.
How many “surprisingly similar” accusations were there at the Salem Witch trials, not a one of them with any proof? Accusations do not become proof simply because enough people jump on the bandwagon to make them, particularly when those people stand to gain financially from book deals, publicity etc.
I have myself been subjected to multiple false allegations at the VA after I filed a complaint against an abusive doctor. Everyone knew about this guy, and even his colleagues urged me to file a complaint against him. But when push came to shove, they all joined together to lie about me and make false claims in an effort to destroy my credibility and sabotage my medical care. I was effectively blacklisted after that and had tremendous trouble getting many doctors to treat my medical problems. This was the notorious “White Wall of Silence” in action.
By your reasoning, it would seem that I must have been guilty, what with all those people making the same or similar claims against me.
I am sorry you find the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” to be “bizarre.” I have no way of knowing whether any of these women are telling the truth or not. People with money are often the targets of blackmail and extortion plots. Sometimes they are guilty, sometimes not.
Rape can be a difficult crime to prove, especially years after the fact. As far as I know all of these women have come forward to the media, but none has come forward to the police, which is the proper place to go when you’ve been raped. Coming forward to the media suggests a search for publicity and an automatic conviction in the court of public opinion before any of the facts are known or evidence examined. If you fail to take the proper steps then unfortunately, your quest for justice may be thwarted due to lack of evidence.
Your accusation that I am somehow in favor of drugging women and raping them is disgusting. If you have to sink to this level you have no argument. Someone could just as easily accuse you of wanting to lynch a black man on nothing more than a white woman’s word, something this country has an ugly history of. But let’s stick to reasoned arguments, shall we?
I am opposed to stigmatizing someone as a rapist until it has been determined in a court of law that he is guilty. Roman Polanski was found guilty and admitted his guilt. I have no problem with him being imprisoned for his crime or excoriated in the media for it. But note the difference between the outpouring of support for a convicted white rapist vs the demonization of a black man who hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.
You’re very confidently telling each and every victim what they should have done. Your own story about not being believed stands opposed to that.
Quoted for unintended irony.
Oh, you mean the other Roman Polanksi, the one who admitted his guilt, went to prison, and was excoriated.
#6,
Thanks for catching it. I’ve corrected it.
@EigenSprocketUK
Don’t quote me out of context when the context is right there. I am not “confidently” telling the victims anything, nor is the irony unintended. My comment about the “best of all possible worlds” is a reference to Voltaire and mindless optimism, as I have little confidence in the court system to produce justice for either the victims of rape or the victims of false rape accusations. The best that can be said about the system is that it is better than a lynch mob exacting vengeance with no concern as to rights of the accused. What we see in the media right now is a lynch mob mentality.
Nevertheless, if you want to prove rape, going to the cops is what you have to do. You have to go to the ER and get a rape kit done. They may or may not take you seriously. They may be sympathetic or abusive. You are certainly right to be fearful of how you will be treated by the cops and doctors if you are a rape victim.
But if you want justice, it is what you have to do, unless you want to take the law into your own hands. I can understand and sympathize if you say the prospect is daunting for you. But if you say you were afraid to report the rape to the cops, but then open yourself up fully to the mass media and conduct interviews, that does tend to damage your credibility.
Beyond that I make no claim as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. I simply presume innocence until such time as the accused has been proven guilty. Assumption of innocence and certainty of innocence are not the same thing. It is you who are convinced of guilt here, without an examination of the evidence or benefit of a trial.
I am not sure what you mean by your comment about the “other” Polanski. He is an admitted and convicted rapist. No one, not even his supporters, claims he was innocent. He never served out his sentence but fled justice.
Sean @7:
Yes, but according to you, he’s innocent until proven guilty. Why should we take your word? Actually, I do take your word. See how that works?
Why is it that rapist supporters always, and I mean always claim that alleged rapists are facing a “lynch mob”? Don’t rapist apologists like Sean (I am not an imposter) recognize the difference between someone being publicly accused of rape and someone being hanged?
@Grigjanis #12
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but the fact is you know nothing about my case, not even the nature of the “abuse” that I allege. Are you prepared to see that doctor’s life and career destroyed based on nothing but weak allegations by someone whose honesty and motivations you know nothing about?
Much as I would love to see that arrogant barbarian reap all the public disgrace he has earned, I recognize that he has rights, and the protection of those rights are more important than my desire for justice.I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything unless I can back it up with evidence.
@Al Dente #14
The term “lynch mob” is a metaphor used to describe a particular mindset, just as “witch hunt” is often used to describe the McCarthy trials. The lynch mob mentality exists when a group of people, convinced of their own righteousness and certainty, are willing to destroy the life and reputation of another person without so much as considering the possibility he might be innocent.
Why is it people with a lynch mob mentality often deploy terms like “rape apologist” to anyone who accepts the possibility an accused rapist may be innocent? Not only can they not accept the possibility the accused is innocent, they cannot accept that anyone can have a different opinion than their own without being a supporter of the vilest crimes. The need to demonize the “other” here is obvious, hence the self-righteousness. This is no different than those who accuse anyone who questions Obama’s drone assassinations of being “terrorist supporters” for questioning the guilt of the alleged “terrorists,” or the evidence used to condemn them.
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article on this mindset that says what I am trying to get across here more eloquently than anything I can write.
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/05/lynch_mobs/.
@ Sean
Dude, don’t even bother this blog is a heaven for indignation addicts
How many “surprisingly similar” accusations were there at the Salem Witch trials, not a one of them with any proof?
Are you freakin’ kidding me? Did you just try to equivocate “confessions” elicited under threat with people coming forward and making accusations?
With regard the standard of proof, you’re completely barking up the wrong tree, there. At this point, since the statute of limitations has run out, it’s not going to trial. Rather than concluding, as you do, that the accusers are lying because they didn’t come forward, I see it as strengthening their assertions because Cosby is no longer as powerful a figure as he used to be, and some of the people involved are less concerned with protecting their careers now that they are older.
Since you appear to be saying that “without proof, it’s nothing” then why don’t you accept the counter-position that “without a court case, let people say whatever the fuck they like?” After all, why isn’t Cosby suing these people for libel and taking them to court and dismantling their claims with proof? (what is the probability that if 15 accusers all said I commited rape on this day, or that day, or did this or that, that I’d be able to poke holes in what they were saying if they offered up any specific dates/times/details? but, no, oddly, what we hear is other people coming forward with evidence that they facilitated Cosby’s crimes)
I suspect you’re engaging in motivated reasoning. What’s your dog in this fight?
Someone sure doesn’t read this blog or Dispatches on any regular basis if they think the United States has the “best possible court system in the best of all possible worlds.”
And that’s even before factoring in the abomination of elected prosecutors and judges.
Are you freakin’ kidding me? Did you just try to equivocate “confessions” elicited under threat with people coming forward and making accusations?
Stop lying I said no such thing.
Rather than concluding, as you do, that the accusers are lying because they didn’t come forward,
Stop lying, I said no such thing. I specifically stated I make no assertion one way or the other as to guilt or innocence.
Since you appear to be saying that “without proof, it’s nothing” then why don’t you accept the counter-position that “without a court case, let people say whatever the fuck they like?”
I don’t appear to be saying any such thing. I said that accusations are not proof in and of themselves. They are not “nothing” which can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. They do need to be taken seriously and investigated to see if they have merit. Claiming your are reluctant to go to the DA while opening up to the mass media suggests you have no case and hope a mass media lynching will either force Cosby to settle or you might get book deals and publicity out of it.
After all, why isn’t Cosby suing these people for libel and taking them to court and dismantling their claims with proof?
Cosby is under no obligation to prove anything, his accusers are. It is almost impossible to prove that these women are lying until they start making contradictory statements, since the events were so long ago and any evidence or argument that might exonerate him is likely lost or forgotten. This is why we have a statute of limitations. Where were you on the night of June 13, 1975? How can anyone provide proof for their whearabouts at a date so long ago?
(what is the probability that if 15 accusers all said I commited rape on this day, or that day, or did this or that, that I’d be able to poke holes in what they were saying if they offered up any specific dates/times/details? but, no, oddly, what we hear is other people coming forward with evidence that they facilitated Cosby’s crimes)
We now know that Cosby was paying women for sex, and all you have to do to turn a consensual sexual encounter into a “rape” is just alter the details of what happened slightly, like claiming you were drugged. All other details are factual and can remain the same. Cosby can’t deny he was at the scene of the alleged crime, only that no crime occurred there.
I suspect you’re engaging in motivated reasoning. What’s your dog in this fight?
Please, you’re lying, making strawman arguments and accusing me of being a “rape apologist” who favors raping and drugging women, but you have no dog in this fight? You think this qualifies as “reasoning,” emotive or otherwise? I am standing on a well-established principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and people should not have their lives and reputations destroyed by unproven allegations. I suspect most honest people without a psychological need to dogpile on others or treat allegations as facts agree with me.
That said, I usually don’t waste my time with lies and strawmen. if you want to have an honest debate based on what I actually said, then fine. Otherwise, I am done with you.
“Someone sure doesn’t read this blog or Dispatches on any regular basis if they think the United States has the “best possible court system in the best of all possible worlds.”
If you can’t understand the sarcasm in a phrase like “the best of all possible worlds” I don’t where to begin. It is a famous reference to the character of Pangloss in Voltaire’s Candide who was a bubbleheaded optimist, though the phrase itself comes from Leibniz who Voltaire was mocking with the character.
I have very little faith that justice is possible in a Federal Court system that in 2012 had a 97 percent conviction rate. That is higher than notorious Nazi hanging judge Roland Freisler who presided over one third of the court-ordered executions in the Nazi era, but had a 90 percent conviction rate. If our Federal courts get more convictions than a Nazi kangaroo court, that is depressing indeed.
What the hell?!?! You go on a rant insisting that the victims should have gone to the police and they would have had their day in court, then you get pissy because someone didn’t catch your oh-so-obvious sarcasm about the system where they’d be doing exactly what you said they should be doing? Again, what the hell? Perhaps I didn’t understand the sarcasm because it made no friggin’ sense as sarcasm in the context in which you used it.
Once again, Mano Singham proves himself a very patient and lenient man in the face of disgusting views. PZ Myers immediately banned one…individual who made an appalling claim about Michael Brown. (Saying “person” denigrates the word. “Individual” is the most polite I’m willing to be.)
I came back to this thread because of the new post, “When people try to be heroes”. Above in this thread some individuals (that word again) are trying the “benefit of the doubt” argument for defending Cosby’s criminals acts. Cosby defenders are no doubt perfectly okay with Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman spending four decades locked up based on a false accusation, but are against accusations against someone they actually like. (They may try to claim otherwise, but I won’t believe them.)
Cosby goes without trial because he made sure there was no evidence (e.g. ex-NBC security guard Frank Scotti coming forward to admit covering up Cosby’s crimes). The others went to prison despite there being no evidence. I guess “the benefit of the doubt” only applies to famous…individuals.
How many “surprisingly similar” accusations were there at the Salem Witch trials, not a one of them with any proof?
You actually think that allegations of rape are in any way comparable to allegations of supernatural malevolent action? That alone shows you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Here’s a hint, little man: rape is known to be physically possible; the actions alleged in the Salem trials were not, and the alleged perpetrator, Satan, had never been shown to even exist at all.
Why is it people with a lynch mob mentality often deploy terms like “rape apologist” to anyone who accepts the possibility an accused rapist may be innocent?
You’re not just “accepting the possibility an accused rapist may be innocent,” you’re trotting out the same tired old discredited excuses for discounting the information in front of you, and sticking to them even after it’s been shown how wrong they are. That’s kinda what rape-apologists do; so if you don’t like being called a rape-apologist, you should stop acting like one.
Also, Sean, you seem to have missed the bit where a former associate of Cosby’s came forward and explicitly described how he actively participated in the silencing of victims and the covering-up of Cosby’s actions. If the words of 15 women (so far) aren’t good enough for you, perhaps that one man might be?
We now know that Cosby was paying women for sex…
No, moron, he DRUGGED them and FORCED them to have sex, then PAID them for their silence AFTERWORD. That’s not the same as prostitution.
You actually think that allegations of rape are in any way comparable to allegations of supernatural malevolent action?
I think that accusations without evidence are comparable to accusations without evidence. I never claimed supernatural events are comparable to rape. A false accusation of rape is no more real than the devil.
Even though belief in the supernatural was real in those days, there is conjecture the accusations themselves were fake and based on long-standing feuds, ethnic bias and alleged deviation from Puritan controls. If a standard of evidence had been in play, there would have been no convictions for witchcraft. The Spanish Inquisition is not known to have executed many if any witches due to the lack of evidence for witchcraft.
If the self same people in the witch trials claimed they were raped without evidence, that would be proof enough for you?
Also, Sean, you seem to have missed the bit where a former associate of Cosby’s came forward and explicitly described how he actively participated in the silencing of victims and the covering-up of Cosby’s actions.
I’ve already debunked this claim in the other thread. From what I have read, Scotti never claimed he was paying hush money to these women, and some of the women have already repudiated the claim the money was for nefarious purposes.
No, moron, he DRUGGED them and FORCED them to have sex, then PAID them for their silence AFTERWORD. That’s not the same as prostitution.
There is no evidence for this claim whatsoever, and Scotti is not making this claim. What he said was:
“I was suspicious that something was going on,” Scotti alleged. “I suspected that he was having sex with them because the other person he was sending money to [Shawn Thompson] he was definitely having sex with,” he alleged. Why else would he be sending money?”
One of the women who received checks has stated they were for her kid, another was from a woman who was convicted of trying to extort money from Cosby, and a third was from a woman who claimed Cosby raped her in 1992, but the check was dated 1990.