Bill Cosby Rape Allegations

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Honestly, who gives a ####? We know he's likely done it enough that even if there are a few false allegations in there, they're pretty much inconsequential at this point. Alluding to them just seems like a weird way of either trying to evoke sympathy for Cosby or remind everyone that women are gold diggers.

I'm playing devils advocate here, but how do you know that there are for sure some real claims in there? Sheer volume of the claims is not a good thing, but hardly proves anything legally. The guy has been deemed guilty by the media, sure, but that doesn't mean all the claims made against him are true.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I'm playing devils advocate here, but how do you know that there are for sure some real claims in there? Sheer volume of the claims is not a good thing, but hardly proves anything legally. The guy has been deemed guilty by the media, sure, but that doesn't mean all the claims made against him are true.

Sheer volume of claims is part of it, but it is all the detailed information - specific accounts of what he did, when and how. Hard to imagine that at least most of that isn't true.
Let's use the same standard the law applies - reasonable doubt. Do you have resonable doubt that Cosby didn't commit rape against some number of women?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sheer volume of claims is part of it, but it is all the detailed information - specific accounts of what he did, when and how. Hard to imagine that at least most of that isn't true.
Let's use the same standard the law applies - reasonable doubt. Do you have resonable doubt that Cosby didn't commit rape against some number of women?

Neither you, nor I have that information. I could read through the evidence presented in the one indictment against him, but even then, we have no idea if it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a reason (besides statute expiring) that only one charge has been pressed thus far.

I'm just getting at the fact its all just speculation right now, lets see what happens at trail. He likely did some shady stuff, but acting as if he is 100% guilty just based on media reports and cases coming forward isn't how the justice system in our countries is setup. He is afforded the presumption of innocence, even though the media has rendered him guilty.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Neither you, nor I have that information. I could read through the evidence presented in the one indictment against him, but even then, we have no idea if it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a reason (besides statute expiring) that only one charge has been pressed thus far.

I'm just getting at the fact its all just speculation right now, lets see what happens at trail. He likely did some shady stuff, but acting as if he is 100% guilty just based on media reports and cases coming forward isn't how the justice system in our countries is setup. He is afforded the presumption of innocence, even though the media has rendered him guilty.

I agree he deserves his date in court. But with all the information out there I'm comfortable saying there isn't reasonable doubt that he raped women. At least for me. You are welcome to have a different viewpoint.

I fully understand how our justice system works - but that doesn't mean we can't draw our own conclusions.

I think you are taking an odd stance in this debate, unless it is being done to be intentionally contrary. I think terming all of this as "speculation" is minimizing all the information available. Just as it is to say he did some "shady stuff".

You can have your opinion though.

[Ducay]

Like I said, I was presenting as devil's advocate in this case. Given his admitted use of Qualudes, etc, I bet there is some truth to some claims. But I do hate how the media damns people for ratings because it makes a good story before they've seen a day in court.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Like I said, I was presenting as devil's advocate in this case. Given his admitted use of Qualudes, etc, I bet there is some truth to some claims. But I do hate how the media damns people for ratings because it makes a good story before they've seen a day in court.

Where has the media damned him apart from reporting the allegations? The media can't deem someone guilty....there are huge consequences for that. Plus in this case he seemingly has gotten away with this for decades so the fact the alleged victims are getting a voice seems like a good thing

[zamler]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I agree he deserves his date in court. But with all the information out there I'm comfortable saying there isn't reasonable doubt that he raped women. At least for me. You are welcome to have a different viewpoint.

This is very dangerous thinking. We've seen many times "incontrovertible" evidence against person(s) which turned out to be completely false. But that didn't stop the court of public opinion from condemning the accused and seeking to destroy their lives. BTW you could never be a juror with the above attitude, in fact if everyone had your attitude no one would ever get a fair trial by jury.

I fully understand how our justice system works - but that doesn't mean we can't draw our own conclusions.

You can draw your own conclusions after the person(s) are put through the legal system. Making definitive conclusions before this happens, well see above.

I think you are taking an odd stance in this debate,

It's a logical stance. Patrick Kane was thought by many to be guilty and when the "evidence" bag fiasco happened that was further proof that he was guilty and the police department was corrupt and part of the good ol' boy club and a man with enough money can get away with anything. Turns out that was all nonsense and Kane did absolutely nothing, the allegations were completely false and the woman was lucky not to be prosecuted.

Yes it looks like Cosby is a complete monster, but I am going to withhold final judgement until he has his day in court.

[JiriHrdina]

You are comparing the Kane case, with a single accusations against the Cosby case with dozens of women involved over decades?

And no I couldn't be a juror for the Cosby case because I have formed an opinion. Doesn't mean I couldn't be a juror for a different case though.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

And no I couldn't be a juror for the Cosby case because I have formed an opinion. Doesn't mean I couldn't be a juror for a different case though.

This statement alone discounts your from ever being a juror on any case.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

This statement alone discounts your from ever being a juror on any case.

Haha ok sure

[zamler]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Haha ok sure

It's amazing you can't see how this is so.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

This statement alone discounts your from ever being a juror on any case.

Haha someone doesn't know how jury selection works.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

You are comparing the Kane case, with a single accusations against the Cosby case with dozens of women involved over decades?

And no I couldn't be a juror for the Cosby case because I have formed an opinion. Doesn't mean I couldn't be a juror for a different case though.

You are forming your opinion based on number of claims, not merit. If 12 more girls laid false claims against Kane, that would somehow make him guilty of a few?

Your prejudice (pre-judging) is what would stop you from being on a jury, where you need to come in with an open mind to any/all cases and both sides. It wouldn't stop you from being on a jury unless you were vocal about it.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Haha someone doesn't know how jury selection works.

You're right, Juri would be the perfect juror for a prosecution looking to push through a conviction he's already made up his mind.

[rubecube]

Newsflash, guys, we're not on a jury. This forum is not the legal system, and therefore we're not beholden to the same standards of innocent until provenance guilty that the court system is. Let me ask you guys this, if you were a betting man, would you be more likely to put your money on the women lying or Cosby being a rapist?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's amazing you can't see how this is so.

It's amazing that you think it is true. One of the reasons you can be excluded from a case is if you have formed a pre existing opinion about the parties involved but it doesn't mean you are biased for ALL cases.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Newsflash, guys, we're not on a jury. This forum is not the legal system, and therefore we're not beholden to the same standards of innocent until provenance guilty that the court system is. Let me ask you guys this, if you were a betting man, would you be more likely to put your money on the women lying or Cosby being a rapist?

I don't think anyone would put their money on Cosby being wholly innocent. I think we're just arguing people shouldn't be convinced of guilt based on media or claims alone.

Kane is a great example of how everyone had written him off as guilty, but in fact, it was a false claim. Not saying Cosby's case is the same, but we need the legal system to work through it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

You're right, Juri would be the perfect juror for a prosecution looking to push through a conviction he's already made up his mind.

Give it a rest. I admited that I have formed an opinion about Cosby, that I wouldn't be a fair juror, and he should have his day in court. Doesn't mean I'm biased towards all cases. What are you on about?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

I don't understand how anyone could go into any case without some kind of pre-formed opinion unless you were just hearing about it for the first time right when the trial started.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It's amazing that you think it is true. One of the reasons you can be excluded from a case is if you have formed a pre existing opinion about the parties involved but it doesn't mean you are biased for ALL cases.

Come on, Jiri, we both know that if you hold an opinion on a case where several major factors have been discussed by the media and exposed by Cosby's own deposition, it means you have an opinion on all cases, including the ones you've never even heard of. That's just basic legality, man.