Big Question: Is Bill Cosby still considered a rapist?
Or is Cosby considered innocent?
shareI don't know how the courts work with an overturning like that. I would assume if the verdict/case is overturned he should be able to have all his rights back. But that doesn't mean it will change public opinion. Those who still think him guilty will still see him as guilty.
shareYeah, the Court of Public Opinion doesn't have much use for "overturned on a technicality".
It knows Rich Man's Justice when it sees it.
In this case I do not think "overturned on a technicality". A technicality is his trial should have still happened but a cop brought evidence home instead of the station because it was late at night and he did not want to drive in to the station.
This is more along the lines of a trial that never should have happened in the first place. I hate it but it is true.
The law is the law, that's true. Cosby is a free man.
But the public knows that there can be a big difference between the law and justice, and that there can be a difference being declared "not guilty" by a court and not actually having committed a crime. Well, Cosby is free to live out his days, but knowing the the whole world knows that he isn't the man he pretended to be.
Agree with Otter. OJ Simpson's first case was not convicted on a technicality, and Simpson was free. However he was not as fortunate the second time around and he was convicted and did spend time behind bars.
The possibility that Cosby had drugged women still reasonably exists. And that changes the clean-cut upstanding academic image he had worked to build. His own testimony was not in doubt. What the cop brought home or not was. So yes, I do think his reputation is permanently altered by this.
He really was "America's Dad" for a while there, everyone loved him and "The Cosby Show", and everyone took him seriously. Dr. Cosby was thought of as wise and intelligent and generally awesome, and was invited to write books on parenting and op-eds, and be a talking head who'd comment on every subject. That's all gone, I'd heard rumors about him being a creep with women for years and years, and now I think he's a mega-creep.
His career was in crap shape before the accusations started to snowball and the authorities got interested, a few months before the first turds hit the fan he'd played an Indian Casino near me, and not a big one. He'd already fallen from "America's Dad" to doing comedy for retirees at Indian Casinos, before all this.
The possibility that Cosby had drugged women still reasonably exists.
The possibility of anybody having drugged women still reasonably exists. The possibility of you having murdered somebody still reasonably exists. That's why 'presumption of innocence' is essential: it's impossible to prove you didn't do something.
You can't prove you have murdered somebody. The possibility you did still exists.
The question is 'how likely'. Here we have a series of accusation with zero evidence. You could argue that all those accusations occurred independently, and it's unlikely that different people who know nothing about each other make the same accusation. That's a strong point that supports an accusation even without evidence.
Is that the case here? I'm afraid not. All that series of accusations rained once the political witch hunt and defamation against Cosby was already started. None of them had been pressed before then, not even talked about it to their circles of family and friends.
So it's not only that the accusations are not proved. What's more: they're not even likely to be true. share
Sigh,
"The possibility of anybody having drugged women still reasonably exists"
This is, of course, ridiculous. Even without getting into the semantics of the term "reasonably," blanket statements like this are generally insupportable. They're *especially* problematic in a court of law.
" it's impossible to prove you didn't do something"
Also ridiculous. I could prove quite easily that you didn't flap your arms and fly to the moon last night. I could prove you've never tattooed the phrase "quis custodiet" on my forehead. I could prove you weren't the one who got Meghan Markle pregnant. Etc, etc, Et Cetera.
"The question is 'how likely'."
EXACTLY. Which is where evidence, attorneys, judges and juries come in.
"All that series of accusations rained once the political witch hunt and defamation against Cosby was already started."
Absolutely false. No idea why you're bruiting such falsehoods, but it was an open secret in entertainment circles for a LONG time. ESPECIALLY amongst comedians. Look up some of the comments by Buress, O'Neal, Attell and others. . .the idea that nobody was talking about it is simply untrue.
"not even talked about it to their circles of family and friends"
Another falsehood. Again, no idea why you're saying this. . .there's no Way you know what ANY of these women talked about to their inner circles.
"So it's not only that the accusations are not proved. What's more: they're not even likely to be true."
Again, "proved" is a tricky word, unless you apply context. Legally, his conviction means it WAS "proved." Court of public opinion? That (obviously) depends on who you ask. "Not likely to be true" is, on balance, yet another ridiculous statement. . .the preponderance of evidence, and his admissions under oath, imply exactly the opposite.
Absolutely false. No idea why you're bruiting such falsehoods, but it was an open secret in entertainment circles for a LONG time. ESPECIALLY amongst comedians.
Well, if that's the case, I'm sure you can link some of it.
In the Weinstein case, for example, which really was an open secret, there were quite a few references. Here you have a young Gwyneth Paltrow making a subtle joke about it in the 98.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I3VUxiyaSE&t=23s
In 2004 there was a character called Harvey Weingard in a series called Entourage, which was a joke and a reference about Weinstein.
https://entourage.fandom.com/wiki/Harvey_Weingard
Could you provide something similar about that statement you've made about Cosby?
Another falsehood. Again, no idea why you're saying this. . .there's no Way you know what ANY of these women talked about to their inner circles.
Actually, it's quite easy to know whether they talked to their inner circles.
We know that if they talked to them, the accusation would have called those people to the witness stand. The accusers would have had a real strong point there. That didn't happen. Either the accusers were secretly self-sabotaging or... well, they had nothing.
Legally, his conviction means it WAS "proved."
Sure. And so was proven the existence of a witches flying in their brooms some centuries ago. Because, you know, they were declared guilty, and legally, their conviction means it was proven. share
Those who still think him guilty will still see him as guilty.
I think that will be most people - including me. share