Braveone99 wrote:

needtosay wrote:

No I don't think it explains why they didn't come forward then.  If they had come forward back when it happened there would have been evidence of it.  They wouldn't have had to count on people believing them. Some of them even kept seeing him after the rapes.  They would travel with him and accept money from him.Now they are saying they are so traumatized by the rapes.  So much of it just doesn't make sense.

I'm with you on this need. While I do believe Cosby is guilty of 'drugging' and having sex with many women back then, I question the claim of rape after all this time. Fact is sex on quaaludes was not uncommon in the 70s and we don't know if these woman consented or not, other than what they are claiming now. Nothing explains to me why this many women waited until now to come forward. 

I have actually met Cosby on several occasions at music venues in Western MA and am not a fan. He is a 'player' and pretty disgusting imo. He is also easily put in his place and will back off when asked to. This is common knowledge of those that know him.

The statute of limitations has long past and Cosby cannot be charged criminally. There is the possibilty that he can be charged civily where the burden of proof is based on a preponderance of the evidence. Even in civil court cases the plaintiff has the burden of proving his/her case. It will be interesting to see how many of these women will file civilly or not. 

JMO
 

I believe he may still be charged criminally for the alleged assault that took place in 2008. It is still being investigated.

MamaSqu wrote:

Much like several of you, I didn't really think that if drugs were involved that it was necessarily rape, because the idea of consent becomes a blurred line, or at the very least it did back in the day. It was a police chief that explained to me that once a woman has been drugged and she is unconscious, consent flies right out the window and any interaction becomes an automatic rape by the inability to reject or decline the advances. In the letter of the law, this actually becomes a case of forceable rape because of the woman's unconscious state. Regardless of her intent when she entered the room/building, because a date rape drug was used, automatically renders it an assault, at the least and a rape at the worst.

There ya go!!! Bottom line,they did not consent ,no matter what their intentions might have been! Why are these college kids being arrested for rape when the girl is drunk! She was not in a state to consent! Can't have it both ways! If the kids were wrong ,Cosby is wrong!  Question is ,why did they have to be unconsious for him to perform his disgusting acts??? That's  a sick man! As I said before his perfect job would have been at the funeral parlor!   
 

Indeed they are! As is Cosby, the only difference is Cosby's victims were breathing ,but I'm sure that went unnoticed! l Then that thought leads me to wonder ,,did all of them survive?   While reading the comments on an article I was reading about this serial rapist ,someone brought that up,and never thought about it since ,until the comparison was brought up !But then again ,thats ludicrous,right??

I like that term, MamaSqu, Cosby survivors.

You do make a good point. Calling them survivors instesd of victims, changes a negative term to a more positive one.

MamaSqu wrote:

Dori wrote:

Indeed they are! As is Cosby, the only difference is Cosby's victims were breathing ,but I'm sure that went unnoticed! l Then that thought leads me to wonder ,,did all of them survive?   While reading the comments on an article I was reading about this serial rapist ,someone brought that up,and never thought about it since ,until the comparison was brought up !But then again ,thats ludicrous,right??

I have to encourage you to slightly rethink one word there. Could you call them Cosby's survivors instead of victims?
I am not real enthusiastic about using the term victims for anyone who lives to fight another day, in my head they are survivors. Victims are the dead ones. 
I understand what people mean by the word, but it drives me crazy to endorse the victim mentality. Sorry, you know you are entitled to write however you want, and it is not my place to correct you, but I would like for you to see inside my head when you use that word.
Ludicrous? Seems reasonable to me to make that comparison.

 Of course your right!   Mama!  Thanks for pointing that out to me! its also a term I dont normally use! Its is a term they are always described as being whenever its discussed! I know exactly how you feel and I totally agree! It sure won't happen again! Said one survivor to another! 
 

MamaSqu wrote:

Much like several of you, I didn't really think that if drugs were involved that it was necessarily rape, because the idea of consent becomes a blurred line, or at the very least it did back in the day. It was a police chief that explained to me that once a woman has been drugged and she is unconscious, consent flies right out the window and any interaction becomes an automatic rape by the inability to reject or decline the advances. In the letter of the law, this actually becomes a case of forceable rape because of the woman's unconscious state. Regardless of her intent when she entered the room/building, because a date rape drug was used, automatically renders it an assault, at the least and a rape at the worst.

MamaSqu,

What if there was consent to drugs by both parties? Is it considered permission for something to happen or agreement to do something? A drug used with mutual agreement does not automatically render an assault and even worse a rape. 

The allegations of so many women years later is extremely troublesome on many levels. Not saying that Cosby is innocent, just saying that we have rushed to judgement with absolutely no proof. If only one woman came forward within the statute of limitations perhaps others would have done the same if true and this would be a different story.

I recognize and respect the opinions of most on this board, I am just thinking for myself. Disagree with me, but it has yet to be proved that Cosby is a rapist. A not very nice person (scum bag!!) for sure but a man that most women avoid and would hold him accountable if in fact they were victimized by him. 

I also recognize that my opinion could be dead wrong, However aside from anecdotal information based on hearsay, I need more solid proof.   

Braveone99 wrote:

MamaSqu wrote:

Much like several of you, I didn't really think that if drugs were involved that it was necessarily rape, because the idea of consent becomes a blurred line, or at the very least it did back in the day. It was a police chief that explained to me that once a woman has been drugged and she is unconscious, consent flies right out the window and any interaction becomes an automatic rape by the inability to reject or decline the advances. In the letter of the law, this actually becomes a case of forceable rape because of the woman's unconscious state. Regardless of her intent when she entered the room/building, because a date rape drug was used, automatically renders it an assault, at the least and a rape at the worst.

MamaSqu,

What if there was consent to drugs by both parties? Is it considered permission for something to happen or agreement to do something? A drug used with mutual agreement does not automatically render an assault and even worse a rape. 

The allegations of so many women years later is extremely troublesome on many levels. Not saying that Cosby is innocent, just saying that we have rushed to judgement with absolutely no proof. If only one woman came forward within the statute of limitations perhaps others would have done the same if true and this would be a different story.

I recognize and respect the opinions of most on this board, I am just thinking for myself. Disagree with me, but it has yet to be proved that Cosby is a rapist. A not very nice person (scum bag!!) for sure but a man that most women avoid and would hold him accountable if in fact they were victimized by him. 

I also recognize that my opinion could be dead wrong, However aside from anecdotal information based on hearsay, I need more solid proof.   

I asked the same question when the Chief told me about the way the law is written, as it stands, in most if not all states (That part I'm not sure about if it's all states), regardless of alcohol or drug consumption, voluntarily or unknowingly, on the part of the "victim", once the state of mind to have the ability to say "No" has been eliminated, in order to stop an unwanted advance or potentially brutal attack from taking place, when the "victim" could have otherwise fought back had they had the clarity of mind to do so, the encounter becomes a prosecutable offense. So if a woman or man for that matter gets p!ss @ss drunk, on their own and blacks out, and someone takes advantage of them, it is still rape, no matter how docile it may appear. Even if, by all accounts that person is still functioning despite their own inebriation, any sexual contact that they have at that time, can be deemed as a rape, by the letter of the law.

If you aren't sure about this law in your state, you can call the rape crisis hotline for more information and they can give you the websites and fact checking info you are looking for. 

Dori wrote:

Hi Braveone,You know I love ya ,so I'm asking this because I'm seriously interested. What sort of proof are you looking for? Many people are convicted and sent to jail on witness testimony and /or circumstantial evidence! Why would he need the drugs if they consented? Its a sure bet that Beverly Johnson didn't consent to using drugs!She recalled him putting her in a cab ,but didn't know anything after that ,If indeed the drugs were that potent ,what would they tell the police?I remember one saying she did go to the police and they said there wasn't enough proof!

Hi Dori,

You know I love ya too and recognize that you are seriously interested so I will try to answer your questions. 

The sort of proof I would look for is a rape kit done on at least one or two of the alleged victims and/or multiple police reports filed immediately or soon after by the alleged victims. 

You are right that many people are convicted based on witness testimony proved reliable but not many based solely on circumstantial evidence, at least criminally. 

Why would he need the drugs if they consented? Perhaps he did not but we don't know if they consented or not. If it is really a 'sure bet' that Beverly Johnson did not consent, why did she not come forward sooner? And why is she coming forward now? 

In my opinion Cosby is a sexual predator and perhaps a 'power rapist' as alleged. However, there is no proof other than allegations 20+ years later made by multiple women not coming forward within the statute of limitations.