Ship of Fools: Bill Cosby

Thread: Bill Cosby Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028813

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 18 November, 2014 13:55 :

For those who don't know, the American comedian and actor, Bill Cosby, has been all over the news lately, mainly due to two things: First, a comedian named Hannibal Buress called him out in his stand up routine, calling Cosby a smug old man who talks down to black people "because he had a sit-com in the 80's" and then saying basically, who is he to lecture anyone since "he's a rapist."

This routine went viral, prompting the second media event, an article by Barabara Bowman, a woman who had said, years ago, that Cosby raped her. She repeated her allegations and asked the question that keeps me thinking about this:

"Why didn't anyone believe me, before this (male)comedian's accusation?"

So I ask myself, why didn't/don't I believe her?

First, the comdeian had no influence on me other than dislike for him personally. Cosby has been a teacher all his life, before, during and after his entertainment career. His famous lecture directed toward young black people to, "pull up their pants," get an education, quit whining, etc. was typical of teachers and coaches across the board. They have always rallied all of us to step up to the plate and demand more of ourselves. He was not talking down to anyone but asking them to reach their full potential. It was a pep talk to the team.

As for calling him just "a guy who had a sit-com", how disrespectful of a trail blazer who did immeasurable good toward race relations in America. Does this guy call Oprah just some woman who used to have a talk show? His wholesome approachable image went a long way toward easing feelings, on both sides, that we were all so very different from each other.

I didn't watch Cosby's sit-com, (my father loved it) but he was influencing me as far back as the 1960's. His comedy album, "My Brother Russell, Who I Slept With," hit such a nerve of recognition with baby boomers who had siblings, strict fathers and even stricter mothers, that we memorized the thing. My husband and I still look at unexplained messes in the house and say, "The man came in." We loved Bill Cosby as much as we can love someone we never actually met. Stand-up comedy isn't as removed from the real person as acting or singing, they put some of themselves into every word they write.

So, in answer to Barbara Bowman's question of why we didn't believe her. Well, lacking any forensic evidence, it's her word against his and we don't "know," her as well as we think we know him.

Here's the big However. There are presently 14 women alleging the same scenario of drugged drinks and rape. Are they all just looking for money or attention? Hard to believe; almost as hard to believe as the accusations themselves.

Thoughts?

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on 18 November, 2014 14:03 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We loved Bill Cosby as much as we can love someone we never actually met.

I think that's the heart of it. When we love people, it's incredibly hard to believe that they could deliberately do harm to others.

Also, perhaps it's easier to wholly believe in people we love from afar. We simply don't see their small actions which are hurtful, cruel, or selfish, in the way we see the small actions of the people who we love and live closely alongside.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on 18 November, 2014 14:25 :

It is, in my opinion, far more believable that this is true, than that a group of 14 women picked Bill Cosby, America's Dad, to be their mark for a huge scam. There are so many more people who would be A) more believable as serial rapists and B) have more money and a higher profile.

I find it worrying that there is an immediate tendency not to believe these accusations. Few people want to be publicly identified as a victim. Few want to admit that they never reported a criminal because they wanted a career in Hollywood more than they wanted justice at the time. It never makes the accuser look good - ever.

As an aside I saw Hannibal Burress do stand-up in London a few years ago and it was one of the funniest shows I've seen. Good on him for calling Cosby out.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 18 November, 2014 14:28 :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
We loved Bill Cosby as much as we can love someone we never actually met.
I think that's the heart of it. When we love people, it's incredibly hard to believe that they could deliberately do harm to others.

Also, perhaps it's easier to wholly believe in people we love from afar. We simply don't see their small actions which are hurtful, cruel, or selfish, in the way we see the small actions of the people who we love and live closely alongside.

Spot on. I think it has something to do with our tendency toward celebrity worship and hagiography as well. All of that I think gets mixed up with America's sad history of race. Cosby in particular seems to represent for Americans the desire to skip ahead to the good part-- to be a "post-racial America" without the painful work of addressing our racial past or present.

Living in LaLa Land, I have heard these allegations for decades, including a somewhat parallel story from a friend in the industry. Not enough to convict a man, even in the court of public opinion, but enough to raise questions and confirm that these women deserve a hearing.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on 18 November, 2014 14:48 :

Two words from the UK - Jimmy Savile.

Didn't have the same race element, but was a very very very big media star. Various abuse allegations were made against him that never stuck whilst he was alive.

After he died a few years ago, a lot of people made more allegations, and it's now generally accepted that he was a prolific sex offender.

I have genuinely no idea about Mr Cosby, but here in the UK, people should now be far less likely to say "he's very famous, they are milking it" about potential victims.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on 18 November, 2014 15:01 :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

I find it worrying that there is an immediate tendency not to believe these accusations.

People think that they know celebrities whose acts they enjoy. Lots of people didn't want to believe the allegations against Rolf Harris when they came out - he was a beloved children's entertainer who almost seemed like everyone's uncle.

Bill Cosby, as you point out, has a similarly beloved persona. Who wouldn't want Dr. Huxtable as an uncle, or a neighbor? Plus, of course, in his case there's a healthy dose of racial guilt. Bill Cosby was the acceptable face of the black man - played a reliable family man on TV, funny, educated, told kids to pull up their pants: it was easy for white people to feel comfortable about liking him, and correspondingly difficult for them to consider that he might be guilty.

A single complaint against a celebrity could be the work of someone who was a bit unhinged, but once you have a group of women, all with traceable relationships with a single man, not obviously connected to each other, and all saying that they were sexually assaulted by that man, the odds of him being innocent start to look rather slim.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on 18 November, 2014 15:10 :

hosting/

Commandment 7 forbids the posting of libellous material, and we err on the safe side here.

The comments so far have been flagged to admins for review on this score.

If the debate stays on the general topic of accusations against celebrities, it might manage to survive. But expect posts making specific unsubstantiated allegations against named individuals to disappear and the posters to receive extra special attention.

Drive safely now.

/hosting

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on 18 November, 2014 16:05 :

I suspect that people who are inclined to believe that false rape accusations are rife will probably think that celebrities are falsely accused, and those who think that accusers are usually telling the truth will tend to believe the accusers. And then sweep it all into our memories as either "remember that celebrity who was a complete scumbag?" or "remember when all those attention whores came out of the woodwork looking for publicity?" as though the evidence - whatever it is - supports their point of view. Confirmation bias. Everyone has it. We'll never see most of the real evidence, and evidence doesn't have the mind-changing effect it should have anyway.

Did any particular celebrity do anything? I don't know, although I'm certainly more inclined to believe alleged victims than alleged perps. That's how my own confirmation bias rolls. But no, I don't know, and I'm okay with that, because I'm not involved in the justice system in any of these cases.

One thing I will say, though: anyone who falsely claims to have been raped/assaulted by a celebrity in order to get attention or money is an idiot. The attention they get will not be the kind of attention that will do anyone any good. I think that most people know that and are not stupid enough to do such a thing. Hence the aforementioned inclination to believe the accusers.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 18 November, 2014 18:36 :

ISTM, there are multiple factors at work when a beloved celebrity does wrong.
One is that many human cultures place a high value on celebrity. That value often eclipses the reality of the person.
Another is humans tend to be black and white in their thinking.
Person A has done good things therefore they are completely good.
It is perfectly possible to sincerely do things that are very good whilst simultaneously doing things that are very wrong. But it is more difficult for us to process this, especially in those we admire.

[ 18. November 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 18 November, 2014 19:33 :

(Eutychus , this is about a past court case regarding Cosby and others. Court case info is in the news link. Is it ok?)

I was listening to NPR's "Weekend Edition--Saturday" when Scott Simon raised the question--about as gently and respectfully as any journalist possibly could. I don't know whether or not Cosby raped anyone.

What soured me on Cosby, rightly or wrongly, was the 1997 court case against his alleged daughter for alleged extortion against him. He denied she was his daughter; but he'd had an affair with her mother, and paid a lot of money to help in the girl's raising, and he knew the girl. He refused to have a paternity test--and THAT last bit, in combination with the other things and with letting the case go forward, soured me on him.

YMMV.

ETA: Cos( Eutychus , this is about a past court case regarding Cosby and others. Court case info is in the news link. Is it ok?)

I was listening to NPR's "Weekend Edition--Saturday" when Scott Simon raised the question--about as gently and respectfully as any journalist possibly could. I don't know whether or not Cosby raped anyone.

What soured me on Cosby, rightly or wrongly, was the 1997 court case against his alleged daughter for alleged extortion against him. He denied she was his daughter; but he'd had an affair with her mother, and paid a lot of money to help in the girl's raising, and he knew the girl. He refused to have a paternity test--and THAT last bit, in combination with the other things and with letting the case go forward, soured me on him.

YMMV.

ETA: his son was murdered at the beginning of that year, and perhaps that was a factor in Cosby's reactions.

[ 18. November 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 18 November, 2014 19:39 :

[Tear]

Profuse apologies for massively screwing that post up.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 18 November, 2014 19:44 :

Rather like with the Michael Jackson allegations, I don't understand how you settle these allegations out of court.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 18 November, 2014 19:56 :

This is a guess, but I think they are referring to paying somebody in order to avoid having a civil suit filed.

You can't do that with a criminal case (tampering with a witness, that'd be) but rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute without physical or eye witness evidence, so if some time had passed, a civil suit would be the only realistic option. Other than trial in the press, I mean.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 18 November, 2014 20:07 :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

I find it worrying that there is an immediate tendency not to believe these accusations.

Wouldn't it be more worrying if we were all ready to believe accusations against someone for which there is absolutely no evidence?

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of that I think gets mixed up with America's sad history of race. Cosby in particular seems to represent for Americans the desire to skip ahead to the good part-- to be a "post-racial America" without the painful work of addressing our racial past or present.

Would it better address our racial past to say, "Oh yeah, black man and pretty young white girls? Sure, he raped them,"?

I don't know what happened in these cases. I think the accusations may well be true and I wouldn't say I have an across the board tendency to either believe the victim or believe the accused in this sort of situation.

What I do believe, is that in any accusation of crime, the accusers have a duty to bring more than their distant memories to the table. I think, if they made the decision, at the time, to say nothing for whatever reason, then it seems slightly shady to wait twenty or thirty years and jump on a band wagon, long after their careers are past being effected and long after witnesses for the defense are gone or have forgotten about the day in question.

I don't agree that no one wants to be seen as a victim in these situations or that there aren't fourteen, never quite made it, actresses in Hollywood who wouldn't see this as a way to make themselves seem much more interesting.

Rape is usually a crime without witnesses, that's why it is so important to go to the police immediately while forensic evidence is still viable and while a few circumstantial witnesses are still around. Waiting thirty years and still wanting your day in court seems to ask people to release you from any burden of proof and simply believe "a woman wouldn't lie about such a thing," when clearly they sometimes do.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 18 November, 2014 20:12 :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It is, in my opinion, far more believable that this is true

It reminds of the recent allegations against a CBC program host. Initially there was an outpouring of support and an acceptance of the denial. Now, some 10 women have come forward in that one, and police are investigation.

I recommend for an understanding of the difficulties women face with sex assault, lawyers and courts. Reform is obviously in order. Less rights for the accused and more rights for the victim? The balance is not balanced presently.

quote:
The Root of the Problem

Defence Attorneys

A successful Ottawa lawyer, speaking at a seminar said that “if you destroy the complainant in a prosecution…you destroy the head. You cut off the head of the Crown’s case and the case is dead. My own experience is the preliminary inquiry is the ideal place in a sexual assault trial to try and win it all… you’ve got to attack the complainant with all you’ve got so that he or she will say I’m not coming back in front of 12 good citizens to repeat this bullshit story that I’ve just told the judge.”[6] It’s no coincidence that the violent imagery in his words mirrors the violent nature of sexual assault, and the scenario he describes traumatizes many survivors and deters other victims from seeking justice. When a complainant is questioned by police and cross-examined on the stand, he or she is forced to relive the trauma of the assault and the feelings of shame and guilt are compounded. It would seem that while we have enshrined the principle of an accused being innocent until proven guilty, we have also enshrined the opposite principle with regards to victims of sexual assault.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 18 November, 2014 20:22 :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is a guess, but I think they are referring to paying somebody in order to avoid having a civil suit filed.

You can't do that with a criminal case (tampering with a witness, that'd be) but rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute without physical or eye witness evidence, so if some time had passed, a civil suit would be the only realistic option. Other than trial in the press, I mean.

But surely, reputationally, paying off allegations of this kind is problematic - it suggests you are not confident of winning your case in court.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 18 November, 2014 20:40 :

Well, yeah--OR else that you simply don't want to be dragged through the mud. I know that my husband and I have been advised to give certain assholes what they want (money, whatever) even though they were complete liars, because the damage associated with a public suit is so severe, and my husband is a pastor. Reputation is almost everything there.

No, we didn't listen. We told the assholes to "publish and be damned." At which point they slunk away into their holes like the liars they were.

We did it because we are naturally perverse, and hate hate HATE people trying to bully us, legally or elsewise; because we have no money; and because if you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. Plus the payoff would certainly be taken as a confession, as you mention.

But then, for a TV celebrity, I can see how s/he might weigh such matters differently.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on 18 November, 2014 20:47 :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But surely, reputationally, paying off allegations of this kind is problematic - it suggests you are not confident of winning your case in court.

Settling is usually a LOT cheaper than paying a lawyer to clear your name, and keeps you in control of private info (details about your daily life habits, details about your income, etc) that a court case exposes to public record and getting plastered all over the web.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on 18 November, 2014 21:16 :

I would always counsel caution when allegations are being flung around, aimed at either the living or the dead.

I say this as someone who can remember the madness over the 'Satanic Abuse' scandal; the craziness in Cleveland; the many Daycare scandals here and in the US in the 802 and early 90s; and the devastation caused by misplaced belief in Recovered Memory Therapy which has strayed beyond the bounds of detached professionalism into a crusade.

Bill Cosby is damned if he responds to the allegations and damned if he doesn't. As always, it is far easier to stitch together suggestion, innuendo and accusation than it is to prove innocence - after all, proving innocence is, in effect, trying to prove something that wasn't which is no simple matter.

In any case, surely the whole basis of UK and US jurisprudence is still a belief in innocence until guilt if proved, not the other way around.

Trial by media has caused enough devastation in the past few decades - surely we're not going to encourage the hounding of another victim?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 18 November, 2014 21:53 :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I would always counsel caution when allegations are being flung around, aimed at either the living or the dead.

I say this as someone who can remember the madness over the 'Satanic Abuse' scandal; the craziness in Cleveland; the many Daycare scandals here and in the US in the 802 and early 90s; and the devastation caused by misplaced belief in Recovered Memory Therapy which has strayed beyond the bounds of detached professionalism into a crusade.

Bill Cosby is damned if he responds to the allegations and damned if he doesn't. As always, it is far easier to stitch together suggestion, innuendo and accusation than it is to prove innocence - after all, proving innocence is, in effect, trying to prove something that wasn't which is no simple matter.

In any case, surely the whole basis of UK and US jurisprudence is still a belief in innocence until guilt if proved, not the other way around.

Trial by media has caused enough devastation in the past few decades - surely we're not going to encourage the hounding of another victim?

From the OP: "There are presently 14 women alleging the same scenario of drugged drinks and rape. Are they all just looking for money or attention? Hard to believe; almost as hard to believe as the accusations themselves."

The Satanic and daycare cases do not apply. Those cases imply "group think" where a group of associated people make allegations. The false memory stuff doesn't apply. This is 14 different women. Entirely different.

I would counsel instead strict non-support of the celebrity at the level of neutrality, and diligent but polite interviews with the complainants with proper support for them as they experience the secondary trauma of discussing what they'd rather forget. . Unless the preference is to scare them off. Which is the outcome of more versus less in sexual assault cases. (I wish I knew a lot less about all of this.)

[ 18. November 2014, 20:55: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on 18 November, 2014 22:55 :

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
I don't know what happened in these cases. I think the accusations may well be true and I wouldn't say I have an across the board tendency to either believe the victim or believe the accused in this sort of situation.

You don't have to know. Allegations have been made, presumably they will be reported to the proper authorities and, if they think there is a case to answer there will be an indictment, and either an acquittal or a conviction.

The thing is that at the moment there are large numbers of people who have obviously decided that Bill Cosby is a MAN and therefore is GUILTY. Or, alternately, that he who steals their purse steals trash but he that steals the good name of Cliff Huxtable ought to have their head nailed to a wall. Now we all have our prejudices but they are no way to determine guilt or innocence. The fact that Cosby is black and popular is not a defence in law. The fact that he is a man accused by women is not a proof of guilt. Leave that to the courts. If that means you feel conflicted until a verdict comes in one way or the other then you will just have to feel conflicted. Maybe your feelings compared to the issues at stake for Cosby and his accusers, aren't that important in the scheme of things.

[ 18. November 2014, 21:55: Message edited by: Callan ]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on 18 November, 2014 23:13 :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Two words from the UK - Jimmy Savile.

Didn't have the same race element, but was a very very very big media star. Various abuse allegations were made against him that never stuck whilst he was alive.

After he died a few years ago, a lot of people made more allegations, and it's now generally accepted that he was a prolific sex offender.

I have genuinely no idea about Mr Cosby, but here in the UK, people should now be far less likely to say "he's very famous, they are milking it" about potential victims.

I saw some of the Savile case as told by BBC. And was appalled . If the allegations made against Bill Cosby bear out I will also be appalled. Not cause of his race that's irrelevant but cause it's taken this long to get to investigation stage and that may not even work out if the statute of limitations have expired .
It is very sad when our heroes/stars turn out to be as human as the rest of us .let justice be done.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 18 November, 2014 23:35 :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
I don't know what happened in these cases. I think the accusations may well be true and I wouldn't say I have an across the board tendency to either believe the victim or believe the accused in this sort of situation.

You don't have to know. Allegations have been made, presumably they will be reported to the proper authorities and, if they think there is a case to answer there will be an indictment, and either an acquittal or a conviction.

The thing is that at the moment there are large numbers of people who have obviously decided that Bill Cosby is a MAN and therefore is GUILTY. Or, alternately, that he who steals their purse steals trash but he that steals the good name of Cliff Huxtable ought to have their head nailed to a wall. Now we all have our prejudices but they are no way to determine guilt or innocence. The fact that Cosby is black and popular is not a defence in law. The fact that he is a man accused by women is not a proof of guilt. Leave that to the courts. If that means you feel conflicted until a verdict comes in one way or the other then you will just have to feel conflicted. Maybe your feelings compared to the issues at stake for Cosby and his accusers, aren't that important in the scheme of things.

You're right. My feelings about this issue are not important in the great scheme of things and your feelings about my feelings are not very important in the great scheme of things, either. I'm surprised you bother with discussion boards at all considering the vast meaninglessness of it all.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 19 November, 2014 01:32 :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You don't have to know. Allegations have been made, presumably they will be reported to the proper authorities and, if they think there is a case to answer there will be an indictment, and either an acquittal or a conviction.

Would that things were that simple. Cosby has been held up for years as a role model for many, and -- regardless of what may eventually transpire in a court of law -- his reputation has effectively been wrecked, whether or not the allegations are true.

The roles he has played and the comedy he has produced depend heavily on that carefully-built public persona, so it's likely his career is over. What sponsor will sign on to a TV special which includes him, even if he's cleared? O.J. Simpson, after all, was acquitted of the murders of his wife and her lover.

If the allegations are true, perhaps Cosby deserves whatever ill follows. Even if the allegations are untrue, there will now always be doubt and scandal attaching to his name. But what of the disillusionment this visits upon the thousands and thousands of people for whom he represented something to aspire to?

It would be nice if, occasionally, a few of our social idols could prove actually deserving of whatever respect and admiration get aimed their way.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 19 November, 2014 01:37 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of that I think gets mixed up with America's sad history of race. Cosby in particular seems to represent for Americans the desire to skip ahead to the good part-- to be a "post-racial America" without the painful work of addressing our racial past or present.
Would it better address our racial past to say, "Oh yeah, black man and pretty young white girls? Sure, he raped them,"?

I don't think it's that simple. Just as it wasn't simple enough to say "the police must have framed OJ". But I do think the racial aspect of this particular case is significant, even as it cuts both ways.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 19 November, 2014 01:39 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

What I do believe, is that in any accusation of crime, the accusers have a duty to bring more than their distant memories to the table. I think, if they made the decision, at the time, to say nothing for whatever reason, then it seems slightly shady to wait twenty or thirty years and jump on a band wagon, long after their careers are past being effected and long after witnesses for the defense are gone or have forgotten about the day in question.

... Waiting thirty years and still wanting your day in court seems to ask people to release you from any burden of proof and simply believe "a woman wouldn't lie about such a thing," when clearly they sometimes do.

From the reports here in the US it doesn't seem as if the women waited 30 years-- iow, these aren't new allegations. It just is being restated/revisited 30 years later because another celebrity raised the issue. Now the fact that it was raised 30 years ago and then dismissed may be indication that there was nothing much to it 30 years ago, and Cosby is justifiably frustrated to never be able to get past this. Or not. But the fact that it's been 30 years cannot in and of itself cannot be taken as evidence one way or another.

[ 19. November 2014, 00:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 19 November, 2014 02:33 :

Before I say anything else, can I first say that I have absolutely NO opinion whatsoever on his guilt or innocence? I am very carefully avoiding any opinion for the reasons that follow. So don't flame me because you think I'm defending the guy--or accusing him, for that matter. I'm not, because I don't know jack-shit about the situation, only what's being said in the media.

Anyway--

My understanding is that there will be, and can be, no criminal indictment, as the statute of limitations has long since run out. Therefore there will be no criminal trial, no fact-finding, etc. etc. unless someone files a civil suit. That's what makes this mess so (additionally) sticky. You can't say, "We'll wait for the trial and see what comes out." Nothing's going to trial. And Cosby is doing the prudent thing for any man, innocent or guilty, facing such charges--he's not saying nothing to the media. So we can't draw conclusions from that either, because a wise man would do exactly the same thing in either case.

As for the sheer number of people--look, I know the whole "no smoke without fire" thing, and I tend to be swayed by numbers just as much as anybody else. But there's this one problem with saying "obviously guilty, look at the numbers." The problem is that nutcases DO in fact exist, and the bandwagon effect also exists, and when you're dealing with someone who has been a household name to millions for decades, it wouldn't be too hard to scare up a dozen or so nutcases. NOT THAT I AM SAYING THESE WOMEN ARE NUTCASES. I AM NOT. I DON'T KNOW.

All I'm saying is we can't conclude anything, one way or the other, on the data we currently have. And I thank God it isn't my duty to conclude anything. It's going to be hell on people like his friends, relatives, employers (sponsors etc.) as they will have to adopt SOME attitude to him, either positive or negative, simply because they interact with him. And it's so easy to get it wrong.

Really, it's a pity there can't be a criminal trial. Now there's going to be nothing but fog and distress for everybody involved, and no closure, and nothing to safely hang your personal opinion on. Mr. Lamb and I were very glad when our accusers forced an official investigation of us, because at least that established the facts--and, ultimately, our innocence. Which we could never have done without some official authority bringing the allegations to judgment.

If the man is innocent (which he may not be), I feel for him. Because I know what it's like to suffer from false accusations and the heartbreak that follows--lost friends, family, etc. And we were lucky enough to have an investigation. He won't be. Which sucks for everybody.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 19 November, 2014 03:07 :

Re Cosby accuser not reporting at the time: I've seen an interview with her. She says she tried, but was turned away because no one wanted to believe her.

Re murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman: They were friends, not lovers. IIRC, Ron was gay.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 19 November, 2014 03:10 :

Re settling out of court: it may be better in certain ways--but ISTM it makes the person look guilty.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 19 November, 2014 03:34 :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re settling out of court: it may be better in certain ways--but ISTM it makes the person look guilty.

No. You attach a "non disclosure" clause. I made a stupid lawsuit with no basis go away for $5000 of insurance money with no deductable. It costed me nothing except a hell of a lot of stress, and the insurance plan is such that there is no penalty for having a claim for what they consider "nuisance amounts". The person who got the money had to pay their lawyer 35%. If they ever speak about it, they pay the insurance company and me 10 times what they collected. These things are the cost of doing business in the 21st century.

There are probably people who file lawsuits just to get these nuisance amounts, and I know there are lawyers who absolutely jack-light with cyanide and dynamite for such cases.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on 19 November, 2014 03:55 :

From Luther's Small Catechism: (Smith Translation)

You must not tell lies about your neighbor.

Q. What does this mean?

A. We must fear and love God, so that we will not deceive by lying, betraying, slandering or ruining our neighbor's reputation, but will defend him, say good things about him, and see the best side of everything he does.

I can remember Bill Cosby doing stand up comedy when I was a teenager back in the 60's. People have talked about his show, but his stand up routines were hilarious. There is the Noah routine, the time he went to Seattle (where they have rain tans) and the time he went out to play football, just to name three of them. There is also the early TV Series "I Spy." And his Fat Albert stories (though some would wonder if they would be considered politically correct."

Does he have clay feet? I don't know. Many people do, though.

If and when these allegations can be addressed in a court of law, we have to presume a person is innocent until proven guilty.

But it is difficult to see the reputation of such a great man be tarnished at the end of his life.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 19 November, 2014 04:23 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re settling out of court: it may be better in certain ways--but ISTM it makes the person look guilty.
There are probably people who file lawsuits just to get these nuisance amounts, and I know there are lawyers who absolutely jack-light with cyanide and dynamite for such cases.

There are. Mr Lamb was accused of hit and run in IL although he could bloody well prove he'd been at court interpreting 30 miles away at the time. The filer wanted insurance money and had a relative on the police force colluding. Unfortunately we did such a good job proving fraud that our insurance co refused to pay, and we were left to battle the thing through the courts on our own cost. (Cop eanted revenge

[code]

[ 19. November 2014, 05:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on 19 November, 2014 09:36 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

I find it worrying that there is an immediate tendency not to believe these accusations.
Wouldn't it be more worrying if we were all ready to believe accusations against someone for which there is absolutely no evidence?

I think people should have an open mind and then judge based on the information available. Evidence? What does that mean in the case of acquaintance rape which almost always boils down to "he said, she said."

When 14 "shes" say something, we need to start listening.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 19 November, 2014 12:25 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I find it worrying that there is an immediate tendency not to believe these accusations.
Wouldn't it be more worrying if we were all ready to believe accusations against someone for which there is absolutely no evidence?

Not as worrying as your assertion that the testimony of women doesn't qualify as "evidence". I can understand the position that it's insufficient evidence, but the idea that it's not evidence of any sort seems downright dismissive.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on 19 November, 2014 12:59 :

It's difficult when someone you admire is accused of behaviour that you don't. This week there have been reports that a person who heads an agency in my city has sexually harassed one of the workers and he admitted to it at a press conference and apologised. The employing agency said it was serious, but they decided not to fire him, whereupon he resigned.

Support for him is running strongly here, and I understand that, he is a charismatic figure, and did achieve a lot of good, (including giving many of us our first laugh after the Feb 2011 quake), however there is a strong element of victim blaming going of too - How dare this woman ruin the life of someone who has done so much for our city?

Despite being sexually harassed at work myself, I initially didn't want to believe it either, but now I do. The trouble is that just because a person is admirable in some things doesn't mean they are totally without flaws.

I hope he gets some help in dealing with his behaviour now he no longer has the stress of his job, but even more I hope the woman who made the complaint gets whatever help she needs.

Huia

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on 19 November, 2014 14:52 :

Whatever the truth about the accusations against Bill Cosby, I assume that we can all agree that Don Lemon's little riff on "if you didn't want him to rape your mouth, why didn't you just bite him" on CNN is completely unacceptable.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 19 November, 2014 15:51 :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
From Luther's Small Catechism: (Smith Translation)

You must not tell lies about your neighbor.

Q. What does this mean?

A. We must fear and love God, so that we will not deceive by lying, betraying, slandering or ruining our neighbor's reputation, but will defend him, say good things about him, and see the best side of everything he does.

I can remember Bill Cosby doing stand up comedy when I was a teenager back in the 60's. People have talked about his show, but his stand up routines were hilarious. There is the Noah routine, the time he went to Seattle (where they have rain tans) and the time he went out to play football, just to name three of them. There is also the early TV Series "I Spy." And his Fat Albert stories (though some would wonder if they would be considered politically correct."

Does he have clay feet? I don't know. Many people do, though.

If and when these allegations can be addressed in a court of law, we have to presume a person is innocent until proven guilty.

But it is difficult to see the reputation of such a great man be tarnished at the end of his life.

I love you Gramps for the first part of your post. If only the world were as Jesus wanted it to be. We can only try and try try try again.

The second part is the problematic one specifically in cases of sexual assault. In the words of a lawyer in the link I post above in this thread "cut the head off [of the complainant]". In my words: make the complainant sorry she ever reported anything, and make her relive everything traumatic about her experience. The outcome thus is an example to all: women shouldn't come forward with sexual assault and abuse allegations because there is only trauma, and very limited support. My family's experience with Victim's Services is that they are underfunded, incompetent and self-centred, wanting to move along to a better job. I can only say thank God for honest and decent police officers (4 of them for us).

Lamb Chopped - your story is awful. My lawsuit was in a totally different area than the Cosby allegations as well. The stress of such things is unimaginable.

Back to Gramps: I really like honest and decent people and I wish for all of us that we could move things that direction.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 19 November, 2014 16:00 :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re settling out of court: it may be better in certain ways--but ISTM it makes the person look guilty.

I think there are cases where, if the person is wealthy enough, and the evidence suggestive enough, they'd pay the settlement just to avoid the hassle of having to explain embarrassing details, even if they're not guilty.

For reasons I won't get into, I personally think that Michael Jackson, while having highly irregular relationships with children, never crossed the line into outright molestation. But I think he paid off that one kid in the 90s because the details the kid could recount for the press would have been so off-the-wall that they would done serious damage to Jackson's reputation, possibly providing fodder for criminal charges.

Since Jackson was already a billionaire by that time, the money he paid out, while astronomical by most standards, was a drop in the bucket for him, a small price to pay for avoiding some serious hassles.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on 19 November, 2014 16:44 :

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
You're right. My feelings about this issue are not important in the great scheme of things and your feelings about my feelings are not very important in the great scheme of things, either. I'm surprised you bother with discussion boards at all considering the vast meaninglessness of it all.

Think of me as your own personal Total Perspective Vortex.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on 19 November, 2014 18:03 :

I think what is unsettling in this case is that we are dealing with a new kind of unfairness.

We are used to the old kind of unfairness - that which put the burden of these events on women. Buck up, wipe yourself off, avoid him, get a different job. Some measures of legal and then workplace processes were put in place to address these, but still, the focus and social burden remained on the (alleged?) victim's reaction.

Now the spotlight has turned on the (alleged?) male perpetrators. They now find themselves in the role where victims of the old unfairness used to be: the subject of gossip, subject to workplace ramifications without any investigative process having taken place, stuck in the old "he said, she said" but with now more credibility attached to the "she said" part of the equation.

Both kinds of unfairness suck. We're just used to the older model and don't quite know what to do with the new. Interesting that some people choose to revert to the older unfairness as a default response.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 19 November, 2014 18:34 :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Now the spotlight has turned on the (alleged?) male perpetrators. They now find themselves in the role where victims of the old unfairness used to be: the subject of gossip, subject to workplace ramifications without any investigative process having taken place, stuck in the old "he said, she said" but with now more credibility attached to the "she said" part of the equation.

Has Bill Cosby suffered any "workplace ramifications"? My understanding is that he was able to effectively silence or sideline his accusers until he's reached an age where most people are retired. He's even still getting job offers.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on 19 November, 2014 19:00 :

Not sure about the "job offers." His scheduled appearance on the David Letterman show was cancelled.

Yes, I understand that the victims of a sexual assault find it very difficult to come forward to tell their story. It would appear that the thirty four women who claim Cosby assaulted them until now did not want to go through that trauma. I certainly feel for them.

But this goes to show if someone does not speak up, the alleged perpetrator will continue the behavior. I see this so many times on the local college campus.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on 19 November, 2014 19:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
His wholesome approachable image went a long way toward easing feelings, on both sides, that we were all so very different from each other.

We loved Bill Cosby as much as we can love someone we never actually met.

So, in answer to Barbara Bowman's question of why we didn't believe her. Well, lacking any forensic evidence, it's her word against his and we don't "know," her as well as we think we know him. Thoughts?

Exactly the same as one Jimmy Savile here in the UK. No one thought he could possibly be guilty ... yet the evidence now proves otherwise: at least 30 hospitals were the places where he groomed and abused.

There will always be little evidence years down the line. 30 - even 20 perhaps 10 years ago - stuff went on that even if it was reported remained ignored, especially with the bigger stars.

Recent cases in the UK seem to suggest that the bigger the star, the greater the abuse. It may be that these people consider themselves untouchable - and it seems from current stuff in the UK that some people in high places actually are. Perhaps more significant is the "love" (more adulation) people afford celebrities in a vicarious relationship. It gives them a superhero complex which some exploit through abuse.

I'm always concerned when I hear "of course everyone loves [person]" No, they don't - and, it's not healthy to see them in that way. You don't know them.

[ 19. November 2014, 18:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 20 November, 2014 00:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

We loved Bill Cosby as much as we can love someone we never actually met.

I'm always concerned when I hear "of course everyone loves [person]" No, they don't - and, it's not healthy to see them in that way. You don't know them.

You're about the fifth person here to jump on that statement of "love," which I did qualify. I said we loved him in the same way I might say I loved Emma Thompson's acting or I loved Art Garfunkel. Of course, I don't really love him, I never even watched his sit-com, but we really enjoyed (is that better?) his stand-up routines and comedy records.

I have also said from the beginning that he may well be guilty and it looks more like it all the time, so people can quit saying I'm dismissive of the women's stories. There is no hard forensic evidence, like DNA, so it's difficult to say with absolute certainty.

Leaf is right. We've gone to the other extreme from the "she was asking for it," days. These days it seems that we are required to believe any woman who accuses a man of rape or else be accused ourselves of "blaming the victim." I'm reminded of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team whose young lives were ruined because of this new rule.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 20 November, 2014 00:31 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Has Bill Cosby suffered any "workplace ramifications"?

Netflix canceled his planned comedy special. NBC has dropped his new sit-com which was supposed to begin this month. TVLand cable network has dropped re-runs of his old show.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on 20 November, 2014 01:43 :

Well, if nothing else, this culture will teach men to take responsibility. Ironically, it could lead to more people practicing old fashioned courtship rituals, but for the protection of the men as well as the women.

Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.

And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.

[ 20. November 2014, 00:46: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 20 November, 2014 01:47 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wouldn't it be more worrying if we were all ready to believe accusations against someone for which there is absolutely no evidence?

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have also said from the beginning that he may well be guilty and it looks more like it all the time, so people can quit saying I'm dismissive of the women's stories. There is no hard forensic evidence, like DNA, so it's difficult to say with absolute certainty.

These are not remotely the same thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Leaf is right. We've gone to the other extreme from the "she was asking for it," days. These days it seems that we are required to believe any woman who accuses a man of rape or else be accused ourselves of "blaming the victim."

Right. It's just a simple case of he said / she & she & she & she & she & she & she & she & she & she & she & she said. Why attribute to bias what is much more easily explained by what seems to be a preponderance of circumstantial evidence?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on 20 November, 2014 01:59 :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.

And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.

And yet they seem to have gotten revenge (job offers being pulled, etc.). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and all.

Having been on the receiving end of sexual rumors (of the 'I slept with her' and 'We both had sex with her at the same time and there's two of us and only one of her' variety), I'm wary of accepting a thing as true simply because a bunch of people said it. Particularly as we seem to be in a distinctly odd moment in our cultural gender war.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on 20 November, 2014 02:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Leaf is right. We've gone to the other extreme from the "she was asking for it," days. These days it seems that we are required to believe any woman who accuses a man of rape or else be accused ourselves of "blaming the victim." I'm reminded of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team whose young lives were ruined because of this new rule.

That's not quite what I meant. I wouldn't say we've gone from one extreme to another, as if we've abandoned the old unfairness. Some people are very fond of it as the go-to narrative.

I meant that we've added another layer of unfairness to the pre-existing one. Both are equally supported by stereotypes and proverbs (gold-digger, no smoke without fire). It's just that the newer one now has more cultural significance.

I hasten to repeat that they are both unfair.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 20 November, 2014 02:26 :

Things have hardly changed. It is merely suggestion that things move. Interesting that the suggestions provoke as they do.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 20 November, 2014 02:27 :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.

And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.
And yet they seem to have gotten revenge (job offers being pulled, etc.). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and all.

30 years later. I know "revenge is a dish best served cold" but it's hard to think they've all collectively been sitting on this for 30 years waiting for the for proper time to hatch their evil plot. Especially since none of them were the ones who brought it up this time-- they are simply responding to interviews asking them about an old news story that someone else reignited.

Again, none of that means Cosby is guilty, of course. It's possible that the reason charges were not brought 30 years ago is because there simply isn't any evidence anything happened. But to suggest the women didn't come forward 30 years ago (when in fact they did) or that they are coming forward now in order to exact a long-delayed revenge simply doesn't fit the chain of events.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on 20 November, 2014 08:31 :

I believe that in all accusations of this nature the accused should be anonymous - as should the accuser - until charges are formally laid. Bill Cosby has already been tried by media and has suffered a significant blow to his reputation and his income - they've cancelled two projects on the back of this accusation which has not gone to trial yet - if it ever does.

Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.

It's not fair for the media to assume guilt simply because of an historical accusation.

What if the woman is lying?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 20 November, 2014 12:07 :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

What if the woman is lying?

Women. There are now multiple accusations from multiple accusers.

Of course, it's possible they are all lying.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on 20 November, 2014 12:11 :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on 20 November, 2014 12:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Well yes, but in effect he is treated as innocent until proven otherwise. The fact is that once in the media he is presumed guilty.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 20 November, 2014 14:21 :

AFAIK the only people obliged to presume innocence until a guilty verdict are the officials who dish out punishment (e.g. judges, corrections officers, etc. etc.) It's a safeguard for the legal system, but not binding on the social system of gossip, media, friendships, etc. etc. After all, how could you enforce it in those cases?

Still, it's a decent principle, and anyone who uses it for a social model is probably going to be a better person than one who assumes guilt every time an accusation is made.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on 20 November, 2014 14:32 :

Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 20 November, 2014 14:37 :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.

The victim in a court of law is not on trial. Presumptions of innocence or guilt do not apply.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 20 November, 2014 14:49 :

But we were discussing "verdicts" in non-judicial life--that is, what people say outside of the courtroom, to their friends, on Twitter, on other media, etc. etc.

This is why I feel sorry for those who DO know any of these people personally. Because you have to have SOME attitude toward the person you share a life with, and it's going to show up in the way you speak to him/her and the things you do as well. And attempted neutrality "because I'm not sure if you're telling the truth" is always going to read as "I don't trust you," in other words, "guilty."

It sucks.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on 20 November, 2014 14:52 :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
The victim in a court of law is not on trial. Presumptions of innocence or guilt do not apply.

But claimed victim who is judged to have lied under oath can become accused of a different crime. The victim is not on trial but it can become that.

As to whether the women would get anything out of such a late accusation, sometimes what a person wants is not money. To see their names in the news, the thrill of power in tearing down someone, to finally be believed. Lots of goals, good bad and weird.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 20 November, 2014 15:12 :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.

Yes. And when the people are distant from us it's possible to hold that in tension. To just "know that I don't know". But when you have to interact with those people the very gravity of those two possibilities-- one of which is true-- mean that one will naturally need to be cautious. If you believe the women are lying, you're going to need to be cautious about being in a romantic relationship or perhaps even certain sorts of social relationships. That's unfair, but it's a reality. If you believe the women are telling the truth, you're going to need to be cautious about the sorts of situations or trust you give to Cosby. Again, that's unfair, but it's a reality. Which is why he's lost work-- not because producers are mean-spirited judgmental gossips (although they may be) but because this is a business, and the producers are understandably wary about putting a project in jeopardy when the whole thing could blow up if more solid evidence emerges.

All deeply unfair, but a product of living in a world where there are unknowns. Our relationships and interactions are built on an assumed trust, when that breaks down, rightly or wrongly, there are consequences that simply can't be avoided.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 20 November, 2014 16:01 :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.

And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.
And yet they seem to have gotten revenge (job offers being pulled, etc.). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and all.
30 years later. I know "revenge is a dish best served cold" but it's hard to think they've all collectively been sitting on this for 30 years waiting for the for proper time to hatch their evil plot. Especially since none of them were the ones who brought it up this time-- they are simply responding to interviews asking them about an old news story that someone else reignited.

Again, none of that means Cosby is guilty, of course. It's possible that the reason charges were not brought 30 years ago is because there simply isn't any evidence anything happened. But to suggest the women didn't come forward 30 years ago (when in fact they did) or that they are coming forward now in order to exact a long-delayed revenge simply doesn't fit the chain of events.

My knowledge suggests you are right. It is far, far more difficult to be alone in reporting a sexual assault than it is if you know someone else has gone forward before you. Just like the penguins on the edge of the ice berg wait until one jumps in and tests the waters, showing if there are sharks, leopard seals or killer whales there. If the first one is eaten, the others do not jump in.

In the recent Jian Ghomeshi allegations (a former CBC announcer), one person came forward, and than another, and in several weeks, there was a sizable group (8 women I think). But still only two have approached the police, and I suspect that most of the group will never report to the police because as soon as you do, in the general case, you are open to the "secondary trauma" of first police scrutiny and reliving the attacks as questioned. Then really heavily reliving the attacks at a preliminary court hearings, and then yet again at trial. Plus, the defence lawyers want the trials to be about the victim, and everything about their personal affairs, sexual lives and they really want to scare them off by grilling them on the witness stand. It is far, far different to be asked about your driving, your home security system (for example) than about someone hurting you physically and sexually.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on 20 November, 2014 18:35 :

The emphasis is all wrong - it misses the point that unless people are brought up to really understand what empathy is through direct experience, things inevitably go wrong. I don't see society looking at itself - it's far too busy pointing fingers, being justifiably outraged and making a big noise.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 20 November, 2014 19:23 :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

This is why I feel sorry for those who DO know any of these people personally. Because you have to have SOME attitude toward the person you share a life with, and it's going to show up in the way you speak to him/her and the things you do as well. And attempted neutrality "because I'm not sure if you're telling the truth" is always going to read as "I don't trust you," in other words, "guilty."

It sucks.

I agree. At first I didn't find it hard to believe that some of the accusers were, not lying exactly, but mistaken. One woman in particular, who was known to have had an extended affair with him many years ago, was interviewed.
She said that as she read the details of the other women's accusations, "I thought, that happened to me, too!" As she said that, her eyes sort of lit up. She then told about one time when she had had a lot to drink and then woke up and knew she had, had sex but had no memory of it... etc. She honestly sounded pleased that she was able to include herself in the present scandal. That may be a horrible thing to say about someone but I don't mean it as a horrible accusation. What I mean is that when trying to report about something that happened long ago while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, we can honestly think something happened that didn't. And with all due respect to actors, most of whom are fine people who bring us entertainment and understanding as all artists do -- they do tend to love drama and being the center of attention more than most of us do. Most of the alleged victims were from this group. That's one reason I've been slow to believe it all and another reason is the "I can't really remember it, but I know it happened," nature of the reports.

Still, I finally went reluctantly over the edge with the latest report from the model/talk show host. I just can't give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. So now I'm thinking of the number of stories that begin with, "We were in his home," and so I wonder how much his wife knew. She's another one who would be hard for friends to know how to act around.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on 20 November, 2014 19:26 :

posted by Gwai

quote:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.

Actually no: there is the possibility of False Memory Syndrome (sometimes associated with recovered memory therapy) where people may partially recall events that actually happened but 'fill in the gaps'; where this gap-filling takes place it is very common for authority figures or people in the public eye to be named in the 'memory'.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on 20 November, 2014 19:33 :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Gwai
quote:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
Actually no: there is the possibility of False Memory Syndrome (sometimes associated with recovered memory therapy) where people may partially recall events that actually happened but 'fill in the gaps'; where this gap-filling takes place it is very common for authority figures or people in the public eye to be named in the 'memory'.

false memory is less of a problem than brainwashing so the person is deliberately confused

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 20 November, 2014 19:35 :

Logically speaking, yes; but most people are not very logical when it comes to their estimation of friends and relatives. And even those who are aware of false memory issues and charitable enough to apply that theory to the nasty situation--well, that's still going to be offensive to those claiming truth status for their accusations. It's not only "you don't believe me" but also "You think I'm not right in the head" (seriously, that's how I think most people would take it, right or wrong).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 21 November, 2014 14:58 :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Well yes, but in effect he is treated as innocent until proven otherwise. The fact is that once in the media he is presumed guilty.

Isn't unwillingness to form an opinion until a government panel tells you what to think an abdication of both reason and moral responsibility? From from Ta Nehisi-Coates' thoughts on the matter.

quote:
And one cannot escape this chaos by hiding behind the lack of a court conviction. O.J. Simpson was not convicted in court for murdering his ex-wife. The men accused of killing Emmett Till were found innocent. ("If we hadn't stopped to drink pop, it wouldn't have taken that long," mused one of them.) Police and government forces conspired to kill a Black Panther, Fred Hampton. They were never criminally prosecuted in any court.

Courts belong to the society, not the other way around. This is why many Americans scoff at the idea that O.J. was never convicted of killing his wife. And this is why many other Americans scoff at the idea that the government didn't kill Fred Hampton. Ducking behind an official finding is kind of cowardice that allows us the luxury of never facing hard questions. Cowardice can be insidious. Sometimes it is a physical fear. Other times it's just taking the easy out.

And of course there are the practicalities of requiring everyone to presume innocence until a court conviction is reached. The (alleged) victims are not presuming innocence by leveling their accusations. I'm guessing your standard would require them to remain silent until a conviction is reached, which begs the question of how charges would ever be brought in such cases if victims are forbidden to come forward. Similar problems would exist for prosecutors, whose jobs more or less require them to prove the guilt of people you insist are innocent by virtue of the fact that they haven't been convicted yet.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on 21 November, 2014 15:17 :

He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola. He has what he deserves -- ignominy.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on 21 November, 2014 15:35 :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola.

Given that OJ apparently has no problem getting dates, it would appear that is very much not the case.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on 21 November, 2014 15:50 :

False Memory Syndrome tends to follow a particular pattern though. Vulnerable patient - usually a young woman - goes to see a therapist complaining of depression / anxiety / eating disorder / general malaise. Patient has no memory of childhood abuse but therapist is convinced that it happened and tells patient that her psychological symptoms are a smoking gun, with or without actual memories. Therapist develops intense relationship with patient using aggressive techniques of hypnosis, leading questions, truth serums, and the power of authority, to plant the idea of abuse in the patient's head. It's almost always a close relative who is implicated - usually a father or stepfather. Patient starts having nightmares and intrusive thoughts which are taken as "evidence" of abuse.

This kind of allegation is heartbreaking but doesn't fit the pattern of allegations in this case. For one thing, these kinds of false memories pretty much always relate to childhood experiences, repeated experiences, often which could not possibly have actually occurred, with a particularly high level of sexual sadism. It's important to understand that this can happen, but it's also important to understand the pattern of how this occurs, so that FMS doesn't become another general "women are lying, crazy bitches" stereotype in cases where this pattern simply hasn't happened.

What these women are saying is that they, as adults, were in a room with Cosby, and he drugged them and had sex with them when they were unable to consent. That appears to be his modus operandi. That being the case, "I woke up and knew I'd had sex but couldn't remember" suggests to me that another woman's drink was spiked and she was raped, rather than that some dumb broad downed a bottle of vodka and refused to take responsibility for her own actions.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on 21 November, 2014 16:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
The victim in a court of law is not on trial.

Rape victims almost always are.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 21 November, 2014 18:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola. He has what he deserves -- ignominy.

Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of offence in USA? There isn't one in Canada. There is on at least some lawsuits, but none on such crimes as these would be if prosecuted.

I suspect that he probably will be arrested actually. Which is entirely different than actually getting to trial.

Knopwood is correct. Rape victims are on trial if they have to testify. I do not know how some cross-examining lawyers live with themselves. Victims are also traumatized by having to be ready to testify: a common scenario is that the trial is scheduled and the victim comes to court, waiting for the call to the witness stand. Once the defence lawyer understands that the victim is ready to testify, the guilty plea is pulled out. The victim is only saved from the actual courtroom experience, not from the immense stress of going to the court and all the anticipatory anxiety.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 21 November, 2014 18:54 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of offence in USA? There isn't one in Canada. There is on at least some lawsuits, but none on such crimes as these would be if prosecuted.

Like most things about the U.S. criminal justice system, the statute of limitations depends on what state you're in. Most states only exempt murder or attempted murder from the statute of limitations.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suspect that he probably will be arrested actually. Which is entirely different than actually getting to trial.

That seems unlikely, since the civil suit of ten years ago (from which most of our knowledge of the facts here is derived) was filed only after prosecutors refused to press criminal charges.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on 21 November, 2014 19:13 :

Hm.

Conceding what has been said about reserving opinion until proof is determined, I have been wondering if part of the reason for preemptive outrage at Cosby is not just due to his Dad image, but due to his habit of lecturing black youth on morality and positive image. A couple generations of young men were more or less told they should expect to be shunned and demonized if the didn't "pull their pants up." The considerable talents and insight of people like Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock were not as important to him as the fact they dropped the f-bomb and the n-bomb. So, if enough evidence mounts that he was using star priviledge to abuse women, the amount of preaching he has done about other black men's characters is gonna really whip back on him.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 21 November, 2014 20:24 :

Kelly:

Yes, Hannibal Buress, the comedian who brought the allegations back to centre stage a few weeks ago, explicitly cited Cosby's moralizing in his criticism.

AOL

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 21 November, 2014 20:31 :

Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...

Honest John

[ 21. November 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on 21 November, 2014 20:33 :

There it is. The only Buress quotes I have read so far have been out of context snippets, but it doesn't surprise me he went there. Cosby's derigatory comments about young black men have been angering people for a long time.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on 21 November, 2014 20:41 :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...

Honest John

I was trying to get the Eddie Murphy clip from "Raw" where Cosby phones Murphy to complain his son is being unfluenced by Murphy's filth and flarn. Murphy calls Richard Pryor for advice, and Pryor says, "Tell him he can suck my dick, too."

Tee-hee, but also it shows how invested Cosby himself was in his own status as moral Grand Poobah.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 21 November, 2014 20:43 :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...

Honest John
I was trying to get the Eddie Murphy clip from "Raw" where Cosby phones Murphy to complain his son is being unfluenced by Murphy's filth and flarn. Murphy calls Richard Pryor for advice, and Pryor says, "Tell him he can suck my dick, too."

Here ya go.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on 21 November, 2014 20:49 :

Thanks. My copy- paste function was crapping out on me.

[note to the faint of ears: language definitely NSFW and the point is made at " Tell him to have a Coke and a smile and to STFU." You needn't suffer through Murphy's recounting of his scatalogical Pryor imitations at age 14.]

[ 21. November 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 21 November, 2014 21:42 :

We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.

Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 21 November, 2014 21:54 :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.

Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!

I understand your first point, but I'm not sure how the example is supposed to back it up.

Assuming you are arguing for a presumption of Cosby's innocence, wouldn't a better example be someone who WAS tried and convicted, but turned out to be innocent?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 21 November, 2014 22:17 :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.

Except we're not talking about legal guilt. As has been pointed out numerous times, Cosby seems to stand in no legal jeopardy. What you're objecting to is private individuals coming to conclusions based on evidence available. In the current case that consist almost entirely of (alleged) victim testimony. What seems to be objectionable to most on the side against using our judgement and reason is a visceral reaction to the notion that a woman's word could, in some circumstances, be considered as credible (or even more credible) than a man's. Or that a woman's word should count for anything.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 21 November, 2014 22:17 :

Yup! Perhaps I was somewhat confusing!

My illustration was with regard to "guilt by accusation", lynch-mob mentality, and its central role in the gospel story, so that for Christians due process should be no light thing. I did not mean to suggest that Cosby would not get a fair trial. I hope, too, that his accusers will get a fair hearing.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 21 November, 2014 23:51 :

Here's the famous, "pull your pants up" speech. It was at a NAACP meeting about education where he was asked to speak.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on 22 November, 2014 05:06 :

Was waiting to see what someone who read it for the first time might think, but to me, whatever legitamate point Cosby might have had to make is drowned out by his cringeworthy use of some really godawful stereotypes. ( eight kids by eight fathers, for Chrissake?)

And the only way this pertains to the OP, as I said, is to explain some of the fury aimed at Cosby.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 22 November, 2014 06:33 :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!

Not if what he said was *true*.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 22 November, 2014 07:05 :

--Given the anger I've sometimes seen from Cosby: **if** he's guilty, it might be that all this pressure will make him angry enough to let at least some of the truth burst out.

--I loved his "Fat Albert" cartoon series, when I was a kid. Still do. It's in syndication on a local station, in the wee hours of the morning. If I'm awake, I'll watch it.

IIRC, someone speculated upthread that the show would be politically incorrect these days. (I hate that phrase, but I know what was meant.) The thing is, it was based on his childhood friends. The boys (and all the central characters were) all had issues--weight, stuttering, being a con artist, etc. They didn't always treat each other well; but they also worked together to solve problems. The show pioneered talking to kids about difficult subjects. And Fat Albert was the heart and soul of the group. He tended to have more wisdom and a more sensitive conscience than the other kids.

The show was and is a good influence. It will be a pity if it isn't aired any more. I'm not sure there's a way around that, though, unless someone edits out Cosby's live scenes. He did all the voices, though, IIRC, so...

Whatever the truth is, it needs to come out.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 22 November, 2014 07:42 :

Media 'trials' bother me. There's no real weighing of evidence, no judge to rule definitive on admissibility and relevance, and no real check on the difference between reality and a good sell.

In short, all the painstaking defences imported into trial law to prevent miscarriages of justice are replaced by the slim reed of ''so sue me then".

I can see the implication of hypocrisy from recent posts. So maybe Bill Cosby's private life was seriously at odds with some of his public pronouncement. But such stories about the famous seem to make such a good sell, don't they? Why do we think that is?

What is actually being fed by this kind of story? Curiosity, a kind of iconoclasm about the famous, a certain prurience?

It isn't due process is it?

Of course it matters if there have been real offences, real injustices, real abuse. But aren't questions like that too important to be distorted by media circusses? Free speech is a great principle and I'm not in favour of media censorship either. But in my gut I feel there is something wrong in principle, something unfair, something basically out of control in these kinds of exercises. However interesting or shocking they may appear to be, whatever value they may seem to have in bringing into the light things which may have been hidden.

Modern media circusses make me very uneasy. They often have a smell of mob rule and lynch law. I'm not sure they are doing a lot of good in support of the generally very useful processes of serious investigative journalism. Even if what is at risk is reputation and consequential earnings, rather than liberty, those aren't little things to toss about.

I've known and counselled victims of sexual abuse. That isn't a little thing. The effects are invariably devastating. The need for justice is real, a strong inner imperative. So is the need to be believed and heard. So I'm not writing out of any desire to minimise that either. But my unease remains. This doesn't seem a very good way of fairly pursuing the truth of things.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 22 November, 2014 11:23 :

Spot on, Barnabas62! You certainly speak for me. [Overused]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 22 November, 2014 11:34 :

Barnabas62, I agree about the potential for lynch law and media witch hunt, but the law bears responsibility for that by shutting off a legal outlet via statutes of limitations.

Multiple, independent accusations are more than sufficient probable cause to send someone to trial. When crimes like this are alleged, justice should be swift and public, starting with the catharsis of bracelets and a perp walk, ending in a speedy and public trial before a jury of their peers.

Some states, like New York, have abolished the statute of limitations for rape. All should followed their lead. There's no statute of limitations for murder. Neither should there be for molesters.

Deny righteous fury a legal outlet, and it'll go elsewhere.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 22 November, 2014 11:43 :

Great piece on this issue, including the powerful lobbies responsible for keeping rapists out the courthouse.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on 22 November, 2014 12:33 :

posted by itsarumdo

quote:
false memory is less of a problem than brainwashing so the person is deliberately confused

And you base that statement on?

The pre-suppositions in the story about Mr Cosby are amazing - everyone assumes that the number of accusers makes the accusations true, but this is not obvious, or fact, or even likely to make it true. The fact that the accusations have (re-)surfaced because of an outburst by an african-american 'humourist' doesn't make them any more true or credible.

Hell, on the basis of that you could say it was reasonable, credible and likely to be true that Lyndon LaRouche and David Icke are right and the Queen, Prince Philip, etc, are all giant lizards.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 22 November, 2014 12:44 :

It's not just multiple independent allegations, it's that they've reoccurred for years, and display a similar fact pattern.

Vox asks some hard questions about why, when it comes to victims accusing "respected" figures, there's an incentive to be skeptical beyond what the facts support.

In addition to abolishing statutes of limitations, prosecutors need to be bolder. All that's necessary for a conviction is that a single, credible witness convince a jury that they're telling the truth. It's one of the glories of the common law that it takes just one brave person to stand up and say, "No more." Insistence on corroboration and physical evidence is too often an excuse to be risk-averse.

With multiple witnesses making credible, similar statements, the person accused should be dragged out of bed before the ink's dry on the warrant. Anything less is a travesty of justice.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 22 November, 2014 13:32 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So maybe Bill Cosby's private life was seriously at odds with some of his public pronouncement. But such stories about the famous seem to make such a good sell, don't they? Why do we think that is?

What is actually being fed by this kind of story? Curiosity, a kind of iconoclasm about the famous, a certain prurience?

It isn't due process is it?

Of course it's not due process, it's not intended to be, it's not a court room. We have a right to freedom of the press, free speech and freedom of thought outside the courts. If I hear my neighbor yelling and my neighbor's wife screaming and see her with bruises on her face the next day, I have a right to think he's an abuser, and I don't have to wait for a court case to think that.

The media and the public opinion it promotes is a big part of what makes a person rich, famous and admired in the first place. If the press hadn't been there at the hospital, to take pictures of Princess Diana holding sick children on her lap would she have become "the people's Princess?" She often called the press herself when she knew she was going to such an event. She used the press to create her image.

If the press hadn't advertised, then praised, Bill Cosby's work thousands of times over the years, would we know who he was today? It's because he was famous and beloved that this story has created so much interest. I refuse to cop to charges of prurient interest. Neither do I think he suddenly has a right to privacy and a hush of silence in the media over these allegations when the media helped make his career in the first place.
--------------

Much of his work, like "Fat Albert," and "the Cosby Show," did have value. They effected the thinking of a whole generation in a positive way. That's why I think this is all such a shame. Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, MLK to some extent, have tarnished such good work, such excellence, because of a sick weakness in this area and it's just such a sorry thing. There's something in the Bible about men who have everything going for them but have not self-control. I can't find it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 22 November, 2014 13:55 :

Personal opinion isn't proof. And personal opinion can be manipulated.

Probable cause is a finding which constitutes a part of due process, isn't it? And aren't judicial controls in play before it can be found? Nor does probable cause mean that an accused is actually guilty, simply that they have a case to answer.

Of course one can argue that judicial processes have been watered down by various means, some of which may injure the pursuit of justice. I don't like statutes of limitations in these cases. But none of that makes trial by media or presumption of guilt good things in themselves, or some kind of legitimate response to judicial inadequacies.

These aren't pettifogging restrictions, or denials of the obvious. They are about trying to be fair and just.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 22 November, 2014 14:14 :

Specific allegations aren't, by themselves, a witch hunt or lynch law, although they can of course lead to it.

Probable cause simply means evidence that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a) a crime's been committed, and b) a particular person committed it. It's a flexible, common sense standard.

The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.

In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on 22 November, 2014 15:24 :

This is the ONLY way of pursuing the truth of things. We'll get better at it.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 22 November, 2014 15:49 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Specific allegations aren't, by themselves, a witch hunt or lynch law, although they can of course lead to it.

Probable cause simply means evidence that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a) a crime's been committed, and b) a particular person committed it. It's a flexible, common sense standard.

The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.

In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.

It is not trial by media except as courts are broken and unable to fairly decide. And from the link, expired their mandate in USA. Convergent evidence tells us Cosby is guilty of at least some of this.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 22 November, 2014 16:24 :

Byron

quote:
The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.

This looks like sophistry to me! To say: "It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent" is about as banal as saying "because he's found guilty by the jury doesn't mean he's factually guilty".

Furthermore, in countries where the rule of law prevails the executive (police and prosecution) and judiciary are separated. It is the task of the jury, guided by the judge, to impartially decide on the facts and credibility of the case against the accused brought by the executive authorities. Otherwise we have "hanging judges", don't we?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 22 November, 2014 17:35 :

I think you mistake the word and concept of "truth" with "conclusions of a court". Courts have never been about truth, only judgements about whether something has been proved according to the rules of the court.

Criminal cases are usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" and civil cases (law suits) are on "a balance of the probabilities". If one side of a case has a better paid arguer (lawyer) they may well be able to tip things away from the truth and win the argument. Politicians are masters of this in another context. They used to say in the time when Canada had a death penalty that 'no one with $10,000 ever was hanged', which points to the inequities. (I think OJ Simpson and Colin Thatcher both killed their wives, even though only one of them was convicted).

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 22 November, 2014 19:57 :

And -- we now have psychologists selecting juries with just the right set of prejudices for their side. They wouldn't even consider me for a murder trial in my state because I'm against the death penalty.

Anyone who thinks a conviction of guilt is The Truth should have a look at the number of life sentenced prisoners who are being released today because DNA evidence proves someone else did it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 22 November, 2014 20:39 :

A couple of points.

1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. We may think we have, but given the means by which information is mediated to "the court of public opinion", such a court is not a proper court within which to try offences, determine the guilt, innocence, or if you like "not provenness" of anyone. Basically because what we think is evidence may be tainted or slanted by various means, and we lack both the information and means of testing that ourselves.

2. So the process by which we arrive at our opinions is basically unsafe as a means of judging guilt or innocence. I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes. How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence? How do any of us know that our collective opinions are in any way superior to those produced by legal processes? I do not see how any of us can know that for sure.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 22 November, 2014 21:20 :

Kwesi--

Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?

Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 22 November, 2014 21:28 :

no prophet--

Re OJ: yes, he was acquitted of the criminal case, but not the civil.

NOLO.com has a good, short article on how the two systems worked in this situation.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 22 November, 2014 21:50 :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kwesi--

Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?

Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.

"Don't necessarily" is undoubtedly right. Power and money can bugger up anything of course. But that's an argument for legal reform, as the Innocence Project argues and lobbies, not an argument for placing more trust in media processes, which are also likely to be buggered up by power and money.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on 22 November, 2014 22:32 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned.

Do you apply this to all your consumption of the media? Do you intend to interview a bunch of scientists before you draw conclusions about climate change? When you pack your suitcase prior to a trip to a far-away place, do you look at weather reports for that place and believe them, or do you call up 12 people who live there and ask them what the weather's like?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on 22 November, 2014 23:02 :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned.
Do you apply this to all your consumption of the media? Do you intend to interview a bunch of scientists before you draw conclusions about climate change? When you pack your suitcase prior to a trip to a far-away place, do you look at weather reports for that place and believe them, or do you call up 12 people who live there and ask them what the weather's like?

Can't speak for Barnabas but wrt climate change it's actually possible to take steps to find out what scientists actually think, independently of how that is reported in the media. AIUI, the scientific consensus is that climate change is actually happening and that the debatable bit is what, exactly, we should do about it. If I were to take my views on the subject from the media in the UK then I would be obliged to hold that the existence of climate change is contested and that furthermore there is serious evidence to the effect that climate change scientists were in the business of rigging evidence and so forth before they were busted by the press. Having an IQ in triple figures and a functioning moral compass I don't, as it happens, take my view on climate change from Lord Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch and so, frankly, I don't see why I should regard them with much more seriousness when it comes to allegations of criminality which have not been tested in a court of law.

There have been a number of unfortunate cases where the media have decided that someone was guilty of a heinous crime only for the facts to emerge later that, in fact, they were entirely innocent. Based on your 'reliability of the media' thesis I would have been obliged to hold that Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough urinated on the dead, that Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell and so forth. Basically, there are an awful lot of people in the media who are sociopathic lying fucks. So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 22 November, 2014 23:47 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A couple of points.

1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. We may think we have, but given the means by which information is mediated to "the court of public opinion", such a court is not a proper court within which to try offences, determine the guilt, innocence, or if you like "not provenness" of anyone. Basically because what we think is evidence may be tainted or slanted by various means, and we lack both the information and means of testing that ourselves.

2. So the process by which we arrive at our opinions is basically unsafe as a means of judging guilt or innocence. I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes. How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence? How do any of us know that our collective opinions are in any way superior to those produced by legal processes? I do not see how any of us can know that for sure.

You seem to forget that we, the court of public opinion, do not have the power to send anyone to jail for even a day or fine them a penny. That's why it's perfectly okay for us to allow our brains to form opinions about the things we read in the news.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 22 November, 2014 23:51 :

RuthW

It would probably be true to say that I have more reservations about the media than I had before the advent of 24/7 news. I think that has led to a dumbing down and a trivialisation of news reporting. Mostly I use the BBC website in the first place, and supplement that by listening to Radio 4 for News broadcasts. So far as the printed media are concerned, the "sociopathic lying fuck" dimension (thanks Callan) has been pretty well evidenced in recent years in the UK.

The BBC website is also pretty good on local weather forecasts! That's an experiential finding by the way. And so far as climate change is concerned, I'm also with Callan.

I'm not sure about pond differences here. I think Fox News is a journalistic travesty, a perfect demonstration of how power and money can bugger up the media as a source of anything remotely approaching balanced information. But I'd say pretty much the same about the UK Daily Mail these days.

quote:
So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.

Seconded.

[ 22. November 2014, 22:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 23 November, 2014 03:01 :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... I don't see why I should regard them with much more seriousness when it comes to allegations of criminality which have not been tested in a court of law.

Sadly, on the US side of the pond. being "tested in a court of law" often carries little enough seriousness.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on 23 November, 2014 03:47 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. [...] How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence?

It seems to me that if you were really that cautious, it would be hard to justify having an opinion on most political matters. Would it be responsible to vote in an election in which you didn't know all the candidates personally?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on 23 November, 2014 04:44 :

I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column. In my opinion there are far more worthwhile topics to discuss.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 23 November, 2014 05:04 :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column.

You must read some pretty different gossip columns than I do. The last couple of pages of this thread have been taken up more with discussion and debate about how the media and the legal system treat criminal allegations in general, rather than lurid tales of one celebrity's misbehaviour.

[ 23. November 2014, 04:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 23 November, 2014 05:24 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kwesi--

Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?

Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.
"Don't necessarily" is undoubtedly right. Power and money can bugger up anything of course. But that's an argument for legal reform, as the Innocence Project argues and lobbies, not an argument for placing more trust in media processes, which are also likely to be buggered up by power and money.

Not saying we should trust the media, whether professional or social, more than the "justice" system. My point was simply that Kwesi's view of the system seems far more trusting than is warranted.

I'm not *at all* saying that if it's in the media, it must be true. I rarely think that way, and I surely am not in this case. While writing this post, OTOH, I started thinking about all the times the media has gotten it pretty right. Watergate comes to mind. Heck, even the National Enquirer broke some real stories.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where it's often not possible to know what's happened, nor why.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 23 November, 2014 06:51 :

@ Dave W

Who I vote for is a darn sight less important in the scheme of things than the liberty or reputation of any individual, famous or otherwise.

in my post to which you refer, I was using the word evidence in the technical sense that the media information has not been tested for admissibility or accuracy. So it is not, or not yet, evidence which has been tested sufficiently yet to be used to try a person's guilt or innocence.

Of course any of us is free to have an opinion on anything we read or hear. But we are not a jury and we are not direct witnesses of what may have happened. Repeating Callan's phrase, I try to keep an open mind.

When cases come to court in the UK, jurors are sworn in on the basis that they will try the case based on what they hear in court. I've been a juror in a case which had a lot of prior press coverage. It's pretty hard to put out of your mind things that you've read before, and this was a nasty case involving vicious abuse of a very young child. But you have to try to do that, when someone's liberty and reputation are at stake.

People deserve a fair trial. I don't think that trial by media is fair. Which is not to say that I think all legal trials are fair either. I'm as much against manipulation of due process as undue trust in media information. There are good grounds for concern about both institutions.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 12:35 :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[...] So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.

Couldn't agree more, but seeing the details, on what I know, I believe them. Open minds can close, if only provisionally. With more evidence, they can be reopened.

If Cosby has been falsely accused, it's a travesty, and hurts every survivor. He'd go a long way to convincing folk if he (or his counsel) issued an unequivocal denial, and filed defamation suits. His attorneys can provide evidence that contradicts the accusations. If this is wrong, a man with his resources is far from helpless, and he can get out in front of it.

Ultimately Twilight has it right: my belief isn't gonna jail him, or take away his fortune.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 23 November, 2014 14:57 :

Golden Key

quote:
My point was simply that Kwesi's view of the system seems far more trusting than is warranted.

Golden Key, I hope I'm not so naïve as you think me. My remarks related to a post by Byron and I stick by them. What I would say is that miscarriages of justice are usually related to a presumption of guilt, frequently associated with a close relationship between the police, prosecuting authorities and uncritical journalism combined with public prejudice. That said, a court of law in a state where the rule of law is an ideal generally offers the best way of settling criminal guilt or innocence. Rape, however, causes particular difficulties in establishing the facts, but guilt by accusation is no solution IMO.

Basic to the question is what I think the philosophers would say is epistemological in character: What do we know? And how do we know it?
Belief and revelation have their say in this, but systematic doubt has many advantages. Ultimately, as divine revelation informed Job and Socrates concluded, we know virtually nothing.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 16:24 :

Kwesi, how was it "sophistry" to say that a prosecutor failing to persuade a unanimous jury has no bearing whatsoever on actual guilt? I'd have thought it was a statement of the obvious!

Check out interviews with jurors (in those jurisdictions that allow it). Time after time, they'll say that they thought the defendant was probably guilty, but weren't sure.

Likewise, as others have said, a guilty verdict doesn't preclude actual innocence. Jurors are as fallible as the rest of us.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 23 November, 2014 16:53 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People deserve a fair trial. I don't think that trial by media is fair. Which is not to say that I think all legal trials are fair either. I'm as much against manipulation of due process as undue trust in media information. There are good grounds for concern about both institutions.

Although you were aimed at a somewhat different issue, your post raises the question "what constitutes a fair trial". The discussion in Canada about a radio host accused of multiple sexual assaults - not sure if the media hosts accusations in the UK have had the same effect - has led to much discussion and general understanding that sexual assault trials are anything but fair to the complainant. Thus the majority of complainants never report and the criminals continue to harm people. One wonders if Cosby had been made to face the allegations decades earlier, who might have avoided being harmed.

One of main problems is structural. The accused has a lawyer, the complainant doesn't. The general experience is that the prosecution communicates very poorly in all jurisdictions and countries, lacks resources and generally wants to dispassionately represent the Crown's case (State's case in USA). There is no advocate for the victim in the process. The prosecutor represents the Crown/State, and specifically does not represent the victim.

Further, the prosecutor may or may not be worried about the lines of questions defence lawyers put to the complainant, because they care more about the case and do not want or do not have the expertise to understand the grievous effects on the victim. They may also lack the professional training to support the victim or simply may not care.

This is why I am rather in favour of the current trials by media. It needs to happen. The trials by media push back against an unfair courts and prosecution system, and may, if we're lucky, provide for substantial revision. Sure accused have rights, but not, as the current system is structured, at the expense of victims having either no rights or rights they cannot exercise.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on 23 November, 2014 17:00 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Dave W

Who I vote for is a darn sight less important in the scheme of things than the liberty or reputation of any individual, famous or otherwise.

It seems to me that parallel comparisons would either be between national policies and an individual's liberty/reputation, or between your influence on the former (your vote) and your influence on the latter (comments on a bulletin board.)

I don't see that you really have any more influence over an alleged criminal's liberty or reputation than you do over national policies, so when you say this:

quote:
I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes.

I don't understand why you seem to think so much greater care is due when forming opinions about a crime than about politics.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 17:07 :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] One of main problems is structural. The accused has a lawyer, the complainant doesn't. [...]

Crucial point. This is a consequence of a system designed for one thing (accuser prosecuting the accused) morphing into another (state prosecuting citizen). Things like absolute prosecutorial discretion, and the absence of any duty to investigate, are remnants of the old system. State prosecutors are treated like private citizens.

An insane dogma's arisen that the complainant has no substantive interest in the prosecution of their attacker: it's done on behalf of society. This disempowers complainants, and turns accusers into victims.

Is there any reason we couldn't go back to a modified form of private prosecution? I don't see why. Criminal complaints still get vetted by judges and grand juries, preserving objectivity, but complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute, or even prosecute the case themselves. If they win, state covers their costs.

There'd still be DAs and prosecutors' offices for major investigations, or crimes that the victim declines to prosecute, but private prosecution should, at the least, be an option.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 17:13 :

And in contrast to the above, in civil law systems in which prosecution's always been a public responsibility, complainants do have advocates of their own.

In France, victims lawyer-up, and use their avocat to represent their interests before the investigating judge. Victims can take an active part in the investigation. They can press the judge to follow specific lines of inquiry, arrange confrontations with the person accused, suggest places to search, etc.

Just as importantly, there's also a duty to investigate and prosecute.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 23 November, 2014 17:14 :

I am guessing that would rapidly turn out to be an option for the rich, and to hell with anyone else.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on 23 November, 2014 17:19 :

Byron: I couldn't disagree with you more re private prosecution. It creates massive disincentive for victims to pursue legal remedies against their attackers.

Look at just this bit of your post:

quote:
complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute

Justice by and for the rich, indeed, as I see Doublethink has already noted.

[ 23. November 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 17:20 :

That's a danger, which is why I suggested the state covering the costs in some circumstances. There could also be free prosecutors for indigent accusers, and bursaries for those who can cover some, but not all, of the costs.

It's not about removing state support, but how that support is deployed. Even a saintly prosecutor has to juggle agendas. Empowering victims to prosecute their own cases could do much to help the marginalized.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 17:24 :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Byron: I couldn't disagree with you more re private prosecution. It creates massive disincentive for victims to pursue legal remedies against their attackers.

Look at just this bit of your post:
quote:
complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute
Justice by and for the rich, indeed, as I see Doublethink has already noted.

As I said, costs, and victim empowerment, are separate issues. Would you be more supportive if a victim with a strong case got a grant to prosecute?

At present, complainants, rich and poor alike, are at the mercy of the prosecutor. They can meet with them, and try to persuade, but ultimately, they get no say in whether the person who victimized them is held to account.

There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 23 November, 2014 17:34 :

@ Dave W.

Oh I see your puzzlement now. Sorry, a bit slow.

You make a fair point, but I think it is a good mental discipline to form opinions as though they did matter, rather than being some form of just shooting the breeze. Also as a matter of personal choice I tend to disregard derogatory gossip about anyone. Trying to keep a open mind about others is I think a good habit of mind, whether I know them or not.

Jesus observes in the Sermon on the Mount that we will be judged in the same way we judge. I'm slow to judge on principle. Avoiding jumping to conclusions seems a good ethical standard to apply in general.

Thoughts and values like these are the ones I bear in mind in these kinds of situations. And that being said, whether my vote counts or not, or whether or not I have a vote, forming an opinion on the character of a political candidate strikes me as of lesser importance than forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any individual. YMMV.

[ 23. November 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 23 November, 2014 17:48 :

Byron

quote:
There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.

Agreed, but I'm getting confused, Byron, given your jaundiced view of the efficacy of the criminal justice systems in the U.S.. No Prophet, for example, seems to suggest that trial by mass media is more reliable. What I would like to know is how Shipmates think the charges against Mr. Cosby should be dealt with.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 17:55 :

How would I like it dealt with?

Ideal world: complainant goes before a judge, swears out a criminal complaint, gets an arrest warrant, police and bailiffs dispatched. 6am knock, night in lockup, high bail. Grand jury, discovery, all that jazz. Speedy trial before a fair and impartial jury. Complainant gives their account, defense rebuts, goes to jury.

World as is: DA takes a chance on anything viable within the statute of limitations, remembers they don't actually need corroboration or all that CSI razzledazzle, and tries their best.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on 23 November, 2014 18:02 :

posted by no prophet's flag...

quote:
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.

I read the above many times: I'm as gobsmacked by it now as I was on first reading.

If you apply this 'logic' then we can dispense with a criminal justice system, all we'll need is newspapers (for a while), internet forums and gossip - oh, maybe someone to be a professional 'starter' for the rumour mill.

Once the rumour mill, chat-rooms, etc, have done their bit, we'll know who is guilty - because the number of people 'considering' them guilty means they must be - and can bang 'em in gaol.

Is that what you really believe?

Don't know about Canada but we've had some pretty spectacular miscarriages of justice in the UK where everyone knew that people on the receiving end of multiple 'credible' accusations were guilty - until it turned out they weren't. In the US they've had people found to be innocent - by virtue of DNA testing proving they couldn't have raped someone - who've been executed.

In these cases, 12 'good men and true' have known the accused was guilty, as have the multiple accusers (prosecution witnesses), so-called eye-witnesses, etc.

Innocent until proved guilty means exactly that: there must be proof - and wanting something to be so isn't good enough.

Hell, if you look at the Easter story you can see a whole crowd of people who, by your lights, mounted a 'credible' decision of 'guilt' when demanding that a certain prisoner be exposed to the full rigours of Roman law....

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on 23 November, 2014 18:19 :

Byron

quote:
World as is: DA takes a chance on anything viable within the statute of limitations, remembers they don't actually need corroboration or all that CSI razzledazzle, and tries their best.

Yup! I don't think there's too much between us, though I suspect your view is overly pessimistic. I guess it depends on where you live.

I like the idea of a trial in Mass. and the struggle between Cosby's millions and the feminist lobby. Rough justice, eh! Bring it on.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 23 November, 2014 19:37 :

I didn't post that. Misattributed. Link to post is here.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by no prophet's flag...
quote:
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.
I read the above many times: I'm as gobsmacked by it now as I was on first reading.

If you apply this 'logic' then we can dispense with a criminal justice system, all we'll need is newspapers (for a while), internet forums and gossip - oh, maybe someone to be a professional 'starter' for the rumour mill.

Once the rumour mill, chat-rooms, etc, have done their bit, we'll know who is guilty - because the number of people 'considering' them guilty means they must be - and can bang 'em in gaol.

Is that what you really believe?

Don't know about Canada but we've had some pretty spectacular miscarriages of justice in the UK where everyone knew that people on the receiving end of multiple 'credible' accusations were guilty - until it turned out they weren't. In the US they've had people found to be innocent - by virtue of DNA testing proving they couldn't have raped someone - who've been executed.

In these cases, 12 'good men and true' have known the accused was guilty, as have the multiple accusers (prosecution witnesses), so-called eye-witnesses, etc.

Innocent until proved guilty means exactly that: there must be proof - and wanting something to be so isn't good enough.

Hell, if you look at the Easter story you can see a whole crowd of people who, by your lights, mounted a 'credible' decision of 'guilt' when demanding that a certain prisoner be exposed to the full rigours of Roman law....

Though in reply to your idea in this post, you are posting about something else entirely. A single case is entirely different than a series of cases. Is it more than 10 now in this situation?

Thus both your attribution of who posted this, and your outrage are misplaced. The comparison of Cosby to Jesus seems a little odd in addition.

[ 23. November 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 23 November, 2014 19:38 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As I said, costs, and victim empowerment, are separate issues.

They are not and cannot be, short of a system overloaded with financial resource.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Would you be more supportive if a victim with a strong case got a grant to prosecute?

Who develops or determines that strength? Who investigates the case? Who administers those grants? These factors will be influenced by the same factors that make the current systems inequitable.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

At present, complainants, rich and poor alike, are at the mercy of the prosecutor. They can meet with them, and try to persuade, but ultimately, they get no say in whether the person who victimized them is held to account.

Ah, yes, affluence has no influence here. Right.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.

The American South has provided all the evidence one needs that a case prosecuted is not a case fairly resolved, nor inherently beneficial to victims.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 19:40 :

L'organist, I'm not suggesting that any extrajudicial punishment be applied to anyone: I'm saying that I consider it reasonable to believe the allegations on the available evidence.

Am I certain? No. Belief isn't certainty. My belief may change if rebuttal evidence comes to light. So far, there's been nothing.

No one should be punished without a guilty verdict in a court of law, with benefit of all the usual safeguards. I don't know which miscarriages of justice you have in mind, but if you think extra safeguards need to be applied, what d'you have in mind?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 19:45 :

LilBuddha, funding could be decided by an independent body, be it a judge, a panel of citizens, or something else. Yes, it'd be imperfect, but so is everything. If it denied a would-be citizen prosecutor, they'd at least have the chance to raise the money themselves, prosecute pro se, or seek an attorney to waive their fees. They'd be better off than at present.

As for the South, what does that have to do with anything? In any case, marginalized groups would be exactly the people who'd benefit from the right to prosecute their own cases.

Alternatively, introduce a duty to prosecute, as exists in civil law systems. Is this what you support?

[ 23. November 2014, 18:45: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on 23 November, 2014 19:52 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
No one should be punished without a guilty verdict in a court of law, with benefit of all the usual safeguards.

How odd that you would say that, since you just admitted that in your ideal world:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
How would I like it dealt with?

Ideal world: complainant goes before a judge, swears out a criminal complaint, gets an arrest warrant, police and bailiffs dispatched. 6am knock, night in lockup, high bail. Grand jury, discovery, all that jazz. Speedy trial before a fair and impartial jury. Complainant gives their account, defense rebuts, goes to jury.

A high bail means that only the rich will be able to get out on bail. The poor will be stuck in jail being punished indefinitely on trumped-up charges for which they'll probably eventually take a plea.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 23 November, 2014 20:11 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
LilBuddha, funding could be decided by an independent body, be it a judge, a panel of citizens, or something else. Yes, it'd be imperfect, but so is everything. If it denied a would-be citizen prosecutor, they'd at least have the chance to raise the money themselves, prosecute pro se, or seek an attorney to waive their fees. They'd be better off than at present.

A chance to raise what money? If you have never been poor, I suggest you make the acquaintance of poor people.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

As for the South, what does that have to do with anything? In any case, marginalized groups would be exactly the people who'd benefit from the right to prosecute their own cases.

Again, with what resources?

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

Alternatively, introduce a duty to prosecute, as exists in civil law systems. Is this what you support?

What I would support is one in which power was not privileged. I do not think there is a perfect system that can be created. I would settle for the systems we have being administered as they ought, as they claim.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 23 November, 2014 21:54 :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column. In my opinion there are far more worthwhile topics to discuss.

Except these news stories aren't about what designer's suit he wore to the Oscars, or whether he had consensual affairs, or drove drunk, or was in rehab.

It's about whether or not he's a rapist. I don't know whether he is or not, but it's not the same as chatty gossip.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 23 November, 2014 22:12 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
An insane dogma's arisen that the complainant has no substantive interest in the prosecution of their attacker: it's done on behalf of society. This disempowers complainants, and turns accusers into victims.

I may have missed something, but in the ordinary course of things, complainants are victims. That's precisely what complainants are complaining of: they've been victimized. The victim's home has been burglarized, or her purse has been snatched, or she's been assaulted (sexually or otherwise). And of course the victim has a substantive interest in prosecuting his/her attacker; in situations where s/he is the only witness, a refusal to testify essentially scuttles the case.

I have been the victim of sexual assault, and have also counseled many other survivors. The recovery rate among those survivors who elect to report and go through the criminal justice proceedings is just enough higher than the recovery rate of those who do not report and/or go forward to suggest that reporting and seeing the judicial process through has a favorable impact on survivors' mental health even when the case results in acquittal.

[code]

[ 24. November 2014, 05:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 23 November, 2014 22:44 :

Porridge, sorry, rhetorical device: I simply meant that, if the prosecutor refuses to proceed, victims ought to be empowered to pursue their own criminal complaints.

lilBuddha, I'm suggesting DAs be supplemented, not replaced. Victims would be no worse off than they are now: they'd simply have more options.

saysay, surety's variable based on means. I said high bail 'cause he's rich: an impoverished defendant ought to have a lower bail, or other means to secure them pretrial, like an electric tracker.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 24 November, 2014 00:53 :

You can't say to victims, "If you don't like the DA, go ahead and put it through the criminal court system on your own." Besides the financial inequities, you'll be handing nutcases and assholes a completely new way to damage the people they hate. Think for a moment--

hate your boss, neighbor, ex-spouse? Easy. Charge him/her with criminal assault, in spite of having no evidence whatsoever, and pursue it yourself through the criminal system. You'll create utter chaos in the person's life and destroy their good name without having to produce a shred of evidence. You'll also commandeer the judge and jury system to your own twisted uses, leaving those who really DO have a case that needs to be heard in your dust.

At present, with the state doing all the prosecuting, it is difficult to start a frivolous criminal case. You can do it in the civil courts, because all you need to start there is the money to file. As a result, we have a shitload of frivolous and downright abusive civil suits clogging up that system and making their victims' lives misery. But it would be far worse if you could easily abuse BOTH systems that way, especially when dragging someone into the criminal system can mean destroying their reputations for life. (Not every employer etc. checks to see if you were actually convicted of whatever you were arraigned for. The mere fact of your getting caught up in that system is often enough for them to say "Next candidate, please.")

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on 24 November, 2014 01:57 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that being said, whether my vote counts or not, or whether or not I have a vote, forming an opinion on the character of a political candidate strikes me as of lesser importance than forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any individual. YMMV.

To me it matters what your relationship to that individual is. It really doesn't matter what I think of Bill Cosby; I wasn't going to watch any of his new, now cancelled, projects anyway.

But it does very much matter what NBC and Netflix executives think about him. Bill Cosby isn't going to be tried in a court of law for the things he's been accused of, but folks at NBC and Netflix still had to make decisions about whether they would continue to work with him or not. Should they have withheld judgement about his character instead of cancelling the new shows? Is TVLand wrong to stop showing re-runs of his old shows?

17 women have now accused him of sexual assault. (See a summary of what they say here.) These accusations won't be examined in a court of law. All we have is the so-called "court of public opinion." It's all very well to say you're going to withhold judgement about whether Bill Cosby has sexually assaulted a number of women throughout his career, but it matters very much whether he did or did not do that.

And I think it's mistake to lump all the news media together. Some news media outlets are more trustworthy than others. Some of them in this case are reporting what the women said in police reports. Some women talked to TMZ -- and while TMZ specializes in gossip about celebrities and isn't exactly making a huge contribution to American arts and culture, TMZ vets its stuff. They mostly report about meaningless crap, but their standards for how they report it are very high.

The Washington Post has interviewed five of these women. Go ahead and withhold judgement, but what are show business decision-makers supposed to do? Should they try to interview for themselves all of these women and make their own determination about whether they're telling the truth?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 24 November, 2014 08:37 :

RuthW

Bill Cosby's reputation is in tatters so all re-runs and new shows will be cancelled as a matter of straightforward commercial sense. The advertisers will not want their products to be associated with his name. The presenters have their own reputations to think of.

Rape is a vile and damaging act and the proper investigation of accusations is very important. As is the investigation of any disregard of allegations made in the past, particularly if there is evidence that power and money have been used to frustrate them. I'm completely in favour of processes which encourage victims to come forward and treat them both seriously and sensitively. DNA evidence collected at the time and other evidence of assault (injuries, trauma) are powerful aids to prosecution in cases where the only human witness in most cases are the people directly involved.

As I said earlier, I've counselled victims of these vile crimes and seen the long term damage. It matters very much to me that justice is done, not just for the victims but for the sake of other potential victims.

From this side of the pond, the information which did surprise me was about statutes of limitations. The general prosecutorial standard in the UK is whether a case for conviction can be made.

Such evidence I have seen suggests that the risk of false accusation is low, but not zero. The risk of bandwagon effects is also low, but not zero. Victims have, historically, been reluctant to come forward immediately both because of what the offence has done to them and because of fears of the very processes they know they will have to face in coming forward. All of this is probably common ground between us.

But none of that makes me in favour of trial by media. If investigative journalism supports justice, that's in all our interests. I don't think it can replace the judicial process, nor does it help if it distorts it.

You are of course right that not all the media are the same. There are serious journalists out there, working for serious media organisations, who do not make common cause with the bottom-feeding sociopaths who are also out there, muck-raking and making money out of the pain of some and the prurience of others. They also cause a lot of suffering. How do we exercise judgment in distinguishing between media outlets? Could I suggest that one of the answers to that requires some critical self examination of the various aspects of our own curiosity?

All the more reason to have better judicial processes which do the job properly. One part of which is having jurors who are able to exercise open minds at trials. I've sat on juries. That's an issue I came across in the jury room.

[ 24. November 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 24 November, 2014 12:00 :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] hate your boss, neighbor, ex-spouse? Easy. Charge him/her with criminal assault, in spite of having no evidence whatsoever, and pursue it yourself through the criminal system. You'll create utter chaos in the person's life and destroy their good name without having to produce a shred of evidence. You'll also commandeer the judge and jury system to your own twisted uses, leaving those who really DO have a case that needs to be heard in your dust. [...]

If they have "no evidence whatsoever," how are they gonna launch a criminal complaint? You need a judge/grand jury (varies by jurisdiction) to find reasonable cause.

Yes, private prosecution can be abused, but so can the current system, with people filing false police reports, or prosecutors trampling on people's lives for personal or political ends. Why is there this assumption that individuals are worse than agents of the state? It makes us doubt ourselves way too much.

As for collateral consequences, many states seal arrest records, destroy fingerprints, etc. In any cause, it's a separate issue, as it can arise just as easily from a false report. The civil system, with its different procedures and levels of proof, isn't directly comparable.

Common law evolved around private prosecution. We should, at the least, reconsider if abolishing it (more through atrophy than design) is such a great idea.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 24 November, 2014 12:08 :

RuthW, couldn't agree more.

As Judith Herman said in Trauma and Recovery, abusers demand the least of us. Neutrality and indifference, that's it. Survivors by contrast, demand so much.

If I have reasonable cause to believe them, then yes, I will. Least I can do.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 24 November, 2014 13:19 :

Whew. I just read all seventeen accounts from Ruth's link. I'm struck most by the repeated mention of, "He asked me to wet my hair and pretend to be a drunk actress."

I didn't see that in any of the news articles I had read. That, to me, is the most convincing thing yet. It's possible that a woman would simply get too drunk to remember consensual sex but the wet hair thing sounds like a fetish that was unique to him. He wasn't just using the drug to have his way, but to create the scenario he liked best. Very sick.

This whole world of nineteen year old girls being privately "mentored," by men, taking non-prescribed drugs blindly from other people, seeing the man who raped them again to further their careers? Mothers don't let your daughters grow up to be actors.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 24 November, 2014 14:18 :

Look. If you're going to allow private prosecution and scuttle the DA-with-judge step (which acts as a kind of filter), you must be planning to run everything past a grand jury, no? And by everything I mean all cases, even those which are on the face of it unprovable due to lack of evidence and/or clearly maliciously motivated.

Okay, fine. But prepare to up the number of grand juries necessary (and find the costs for having them, too). Keep in mind that you're going to be taking a couple dozen people out of their daily lives and away from their work for months at a time in order to filter this greatly increased number of cases. Also keep in mind that quite a few of these private prosecutors are going to want to act as their own attorneys for financial reasons--which means added WTF as they haven't a clue how to put together and present a case. And you don't think the criminal justice system is going to get gummed up?

You say:

quote:
Yes, private prosecution can be abused, but so can the current system, with people filing false police reports, or prosecutors trampling on people's lives for personal or political ends.

Duh. We all know the current system can be abused (though the false police reports are not criminal prosecution, they are false evidence, which is a different thing). And media/movies aside, real evil overlord prosecutors rubbing their hands together and going MWA-HA-ha over destroying people's lives are not in huge supply.

The difference between what we have now and what you're proposing is one of scale--instead of a DA, suddenly everybody in the district is potentially a mini-DA, and permitted to at least start criminal prosecutions for no better reason than "I want to." See above for the likely results of this tsunami of unfiltered cases.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

As for collateral consequences, many states seal arrest records, destroy fingerprints, etc. In any cause, it's a separate issue, as it can arise just as easily from a false report. The civil system, with its different procedures and levels of proof, isn't directly comparable.

You're making my point for me. The two systems AT PRESENT are not directly comparable. But if you allow everybody and his brother to prosecute criminal cases privately, they will become much more so. Most noticeably in degree of gummed-up-ness and in the percentage of frivolous/malicious cases started. Don't want to go there.

Regarding sealed records etc--my understanding is that even if records are sealed, the fact that they exist (and are sealed) is still readily available to potential employers. Which leaves them guessing as to what went on back then, hmmmmm? Theoretically employers should not discriminate, and a sealed record ought to be as good as a "no record;" but this is reality here. In a country where you can be fired at will for no reason at all with no recourse, and refusal to hire is even easier, your blithe solution is no solution at all.

And no, damage to reputation cannot arise just as easily from a falsely filed police report, as those things are not readily available on the Internet for the click of a Google. Interactions with the criminal justice system are.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 24 November, 2014 14:57 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
RuthW, couldn't agree more.

As Judith Herman said in Trauma and Recovery, abusers demand the least of us. Neutrality and indifference, that's it. Survivors by contrast, demand so much.

If I have reasonable cause to believe them, then yes, I will. Least I can do.

Here is a link to book content and introduction.

Everything Judith Herman says in the introduction about supportive environments for trauma victims is right in my experience too. I believed the clients I saw. I had good cause; the events they painfully described provided a very good reason for the consequential traumatic effects from which they were suffering. They were credible witnesses to their present and past suffering. If ever asked, I'd have been happy to give testimony on their behalf.

But I don't think Judith Herman's book justifies a selective standard of legal proof, and from memory I don't think she was arguing for that in her book.

The real tragedy in this case is the apparent inability to get the allegations RuthW linked tested in a court of law, as the U.S. law stands. That would not be the case in the UK, as recent highly publicised cases have demonstrated.

But the publicity doesn't persuade me that the "court of public opinion" is a reliable court, suitable as some kind of substitute in this case. I'm not sure it will provide much by way of closure for the women concerned, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 24 November, 2014 15:46 :

The court of public opinion is fickle and unreliable. But it is also sometimes the only court there is.
Closure? Evidence, enclosed in one of the previous links, is that a true court date provides the most closure.
Public opinion can shine a spotlight which forces legal change (Rosa Parks, Emmet Till) or it can ignore legal outcomes (Roman Polanski).
It is good and it is bad.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 24 November, 2014 18:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] The difference between what we have now and what you're proposing is one of scale--instead of a DA, suddenly everybody in the district is potentially a mini-DA, and permitted to at least start criminal prosecutions for no better reason than "I want to." See above for the likely results of this tsunami of unfiltered cases. [...]

In the jurisdictions that retain private prosecution -- England, Canada, some states of the union -- far from a "tsunami of unfiltered cases," it's exceedingly rare, certainly rarer than lawsuits. Why? 'Cause it's a major undertaking, and since state prosecutors handle the strongest cases, many people know (or are advised) that it's a lost cause.

People should be allowed to put complaints to a grand jury, but if they want to trigger coercive measures like arrest, it'd first go before a judge, and could be tossed at first instance.

It wouldn't replace the current system. It would, however, be a safety valve. Most prosecutors aren't evil, but they are flawed people juggling agendas, agendas that often fail to align with those of the complainant or the accused.

Barnabas62, I'm not suggesting any change to the criminal burden of proof. I'm merely saying that we can, responsibly, choose to believe accusations in the absence of legal processes (especially when they're artificially barred by statutes of limitations). The presumption of innocence is a procedural hurdle in a courtroom. It's important, but it should never become a dogma.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on 24 November, 2014 20:21 :

So basically, you're saying it won't happen. I'm saying it will. Without a trial there's no way of proving it.

But you might consider I live in what is probably the most litigious country in the world. I don't see us checking our bad habits at the door, just because suddenly a new and exciting way to make asses of ourselves has opened up.

Apparently you have more faith in human nature.

As for this paragraph:

quote:
It wouldn't replace the current system. It would, however, be a safety valve. Most prosecutors aren't evil, but they are flawed people juggling agendas, agendas that often fail to align with those of the complainant or the accused.

You really think that untrained citizens who almost by definition are feeling angry and victimized (rightly or wrongly) are going to prove a better, safer alternative than experienced professional prosecutors under the additional cooling-down constraints of budget and supervision?

As for prosecutors' intentions not aligning with those of victims or accused--yes, that is precisely the point of having them. You want a third, disinterested party to cool things down and make it a bit more likely that justice will get play.

[ 24. November 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on 24 November, 2014 20:39 :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... I don't see why I should regard them with much more seriousness when it comes to allegations of criminality which have not been tested in a court of law.

Sadly, on the US side of the pond. being "tested in a court of law" often carries little enough seriousness.

As Blessed Geoffrey Fisher allegedly said to Pope John XXIII when he apologised for being late to a meeting: No-one's infallible.

But the courts are subject to criteria of truth and falsehood more serious than those which govern the media.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on 24 November, 2014 21:43 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
In the jurisdictions that retain private prosecution -- England, Canada, some states of the union -- far from a "tsunami of unfiltered cases," it's exceedingly rare, certainly rarer than lawsuits. Why? 'Cause it's a major undertaking, and since state prosecutors handle the strongest cases, many people know (or are advised) that it's a lost cause.

IANAL but AIUI there are no private prosecutions in the Criminal legal system in England; all cases are Defendant v Regina because breaking the criminal code is seen as harming the whole of society, not just the victim.

Surely the veracity of the women's claims could be tested in a court if Cosby were to sue for libel and loss of earnings? I can't believe that he has absolutely no legal recourse.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 24 November, 2014 22:11 :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely the veracity of the women's claims could be tested in a court if Cosby were to sue for libel and loss of earnings? I can't believe that he has absolutely no legal recourse.

Well, the current scandal come out of a civil suit against Cosby that he settled. (She initially filed a criminal complaint, but the prosecutor declined to pursue the matter.) The plaintiff was a woman who claimed Cosby had raped her, and after the suit was filed thirteen other women came forward and volunteered to testify that Cosby had done the same thing to them. (Shows a pattern of behavior, I guess). I'm not sure how easy it would be to sue for libel under those circumstances, given that perjury protections are theoretically already in place.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on 24 November, 2014 22:45 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... In the jurisdictions that retain private prosecution -- England, Canada, some states of the union -- far from a "tsunami of unfiltered cases," it's exceedingly rare, certainly rarer than lawsuits. ...

Yes, they're rare because they're expensive and difficult to put together, but aren't they available in most jurisdictions?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 24 November, 2014 23:32 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

Barnabas62, I'm not suggesting any change to the criminal burden of proof. I'm merely saying that we can, responsibly, choose to believe accusations in the absence of legal processes (especially when they're artificially barred by statutes of limitations). The presumption of innocence is a procedural hurdle in a courtroom. It's important, but it should never become a dogma.

My everyday life standards are drawn, no doubt imperfectly, from the "impossible possibilities" of Matthew 7 1-5, which speaks about the dangers of judging if we do not take proper account of our own blindspots and fallibility. No mention of a court scenario there. You can paraphrase the whole thing as "don't jump to conclusions", which works pretty well.

RuthW points, correctly, to the dangers of this principle sliding off into indifference re someone else's suffering (there's a lot in the NT and the OT about how wrong that is). I take that point on board as well. Not for the first time, I find that very good principles may sometimes point us in contrary directions. You have to work this kind of stuff out in particular situations, and it isn't always easy to do that. I'm happy to acknowledge that good people may come to different points of balance on those two principles. The absence of any possibility of proper legal redress in this particular situation is a real problem.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 25 November, 2014 01:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

Surely the veracity of the women's claims could be tested in a court if Cosby were to sue for libel and loss of earnings? I can't believe that he has absolutely no legal recourse.

Which is where the barrier begins. Tested in court = put the women on trial. That is terrible. Convergent accounts means it is believable. Full stop.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on 25 November, 2014 02:27 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely the veracity of the women's claims could be tested in a court if Cosby were to sue for libel and loss of earnings? I can't believe that he has absolutely no legal recourse.
Well, the current scandal come out of a civil suit against Cosby that he settled. (She initially filed a criminal complaint, but the prosecutor declined to pursue the matter.) The plaintiff was a woman who claimed Cosby had raped her, and after the suit was filed thirteen other women came forward and volunteered to testify that Cosby had done the same thing to them. (Shows a pattern of behavior, I guess). I'm not sure how easy it would be to sue for libel under those circumstances, given that perjury protections are theoretically already in place.

According to the Wikipedia article on US defamation law there's a lot of variation from state to state; in some places there's "the litigation privilege, which makes statements made in the context of litigation non-actionable" but I doubt that would apply to statements made to newspapers or TV broadcasters.

Cosby might not want to press his case in a venue in which, as the plaintiff, he would have the burden of proving that the charges are false.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 25 November, 2014 08:50 :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

Cosby might not want to press his case in a venue in which, as the plaintiff, he would have the burden of proving that the charges are false.

In the UK, because of our distinctions between criminal and civil law, particularly libel law, the burden of proof works rather differently in civil rather than criminal cases. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of that under US law, but I'm sure you're right that there is a shift in burden towards Cosby.

Plus there is the issue of keeping the notoriety in the news. The media will move on, the damage to reputation has been done and probably cannot be undone, even if there has been some measure of injustice in the trial by media.

Keeping your head down as far as you can looks pretty prudent, whatever the real position over guilt or innocence. And it would be a long trial, I should think; plenty of money for the lawyers, no doubt. Even if you're rich, that might be a consideration.

I'm not sure how statutes of limitation apply to some of the secondary issues, such as possible police or prosecutorial misconduct in not treating prior allegations seriously enough. Clearly there is a need to look seriously at any possible condoning or minimising. Maybe some kind of case can be made that way?

Considering the ordeal of trials generally, I agree with earlier comments that the trial of offenders is more likely to bring closure for victims than anything else. Some of that seems to be because the victim has found the extraordinary courage to tell the painful story in public, reveal the ordeal and what it has done to them, and stand up to both the media interest and the cross-examinations. No-one should underestimate how difficult that may be for the severely traumatised, nor should anyone who can't get that far be blamed for lack of bottle. Sometimes for abuse victims and the traumatised, achieving some measure of restoration of normal daily life is an achievement in itself. Unless you've walked the walk, known and seen the pain, it is very easy to underestimate the difficulties.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on 25 November, 2014 16:38 :

Lamb Chopped, yes, there's no guarantee against a spree of vexatious indictments, but given the evidence from other jurisdictions, that's just not likely. As for citizens not being impartial, of course they're not: neither are regular prosecutors. They want to get reelected, get that judgeship, look "tough on crime," launch a political career. Even the most saintly are looking for evidence to indict.

JoannaP, private prosecutions are legal in England.

Barnabas62, excellent point about conflicting principles. I put weight on judgments being balanced and reasonable, and open to change. For me, the motive behind the judgment is crucial. Is it to get one up, or to see justice done?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on 26 November, 2014 18:53 :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

JoannaP, private prosecutions are legal in England.

Gosh, I have learnt something today. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Keeping your head down as far as you can looks pretty prudent, whatever the real position over guilt or innocence.

Cosby himself may be keeping his head down but his lawyer is being very active, criticising the press for publicising the reports, sending journalists copies of one of the accusers' criminal record and generally trying to trash their reputations. It seems dishonest to me for him to do that if he is not prepared to repeat his claims in a court.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 03 December, 2014 12:56 :

[removed pending admin ruling]

[ 03. December 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on 03 December, 2014 14:20 :

Twilight,
The comments on ... cross our Commandment 7 lines. You know why we're cautious about that. Seeking advice from Admin as to whether your post should be deleted.

Gwaihir,
Purgatory host

[Edited to remove name of person who may or may not have been libelled - Tubbs]

[ 04. December 2014, 11:28: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 03 December, 2014 17:17 :

Oh sorry, go ahead, delete it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on 03 December, 2014 17:42 :

hosting/

Feel free to criticise your target in a non-libellous manner...

/hosting

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 23 December, 2014 04:56 :

And another one:

Sammy Davis Jr.'s Ex-Girlfriend Claims Bill Cosby Raped Her.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 24 December, 2014 17:39 :

Wow.

As one of the apparently very few women in these United States who has never been sexually assaulted by Mr. Crosby, I have to say this is all taking on an air of surrealism. How many are we up to now? Is there a "bandwagon" effect going on here? Could this guy really have attacked or at least tried to attack this many women over a period of decades without ever once facing actual charges?

Initially, I was skeptical when I first heard about this. Then sheer numbers persuaded me that he might well be a perp. Now sheer numbers are pulling me in the opposite direction; the whole business begins to look incredible.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on 24 December, 2014 18:17 :

I suggest you google 'Jimmy Savile'. [Projectile]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on 24 December, 2014 18:24 :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Wow.

As one of the apparently very few women in these United States who has never been sexually assaulted by Mr. Crosby, I have to say this is all taking on an air of surrealism. How many are we up to now? Is there a "bandwagon" effect going on here? Could this guy really have attacked or at least tried to attack this many women over a period of decades without ever once facing actual charges?

While there may be some sort of issue with people intending to sue, I don't think the numbers of people coming forward mean it is not credible. There is a study from 1994, National Institutes of Health by Gene Abel which I cannot find the text of with a search for the last 15 mins but I have read before, which discusses that 453 sexual offenders were responsible for 67,000 offences and 148 victims per offender. They offered the offenders immunity to disclose their full sexual offending history, they were all in jail at the time. It's not so hard to understand when you consider two things. First, that sexual deviance starts in the mid-teens. This specific study is about child-oriented offenders but the stats do suggest something. I would suggest that until we get a tally close to 148 people coming forward, we could probably consider the possibility. Second, the vast majority of victims never report the crime because they know the trial, if held, will often be a trial of them, not the offender.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on 24 December, 2014 18:52 :

Second the Saville reference.
As far as numbers, what number would be seen as credible? Why is one too few and a hundred too many?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 24 December, 2014 20:31 :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second the Saville reference.
As far as numbers, what number would be seen as credible? Why is one too few and a hundred too many?

"One" isn't "too few;" it's all-too-credible. My initial skepticism was based on the length of time that had passed and the fact that celebrities sometimes actually do get targeted by off-kilter-cases after money, their 15 minutes, or in pursuit of some fantasy or delusion.

I suppose, on consideration, I'm not taking into account the odd lifestyles which the performing arts impose on those who follow them. Constant traveling from locale to locale, living in hotels, frequent short-term associations with attractive members of the sex you're attracted to, having people cater to one's celebritude -- this must all make such a track record much easier to rack up.

Seems like a guy with regular rounds to make and a family waiting at home -- a more usual sort of lifestyle for many of us -- would be likely to get caught sooner, if only because someone would be asking, "Hey, where's Stanley? He was supposed to be here an hour ago."

[ 24. December 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 24 December, 2014 21:06 :

You know, it occurs to me that many of these accusations involve drugging the women. Seems like one or more prosecutors (must be several states involved) with interest in pursuing justice on complainants' behalf might try finding evidence of how, when, where, and from whom Cosby was obtaining this drug / these drugs.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 25 December, 2014 03:56 :

There's also one of Cosby's early comedy routines, where he joked about drugging women. Someone put the recording in the news, a couple months back.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0