shumacker wrote:
Oh, he's guilty alright. I can't understand why his wife remains in tow. She has to be fully aware of his perverse predilections and disgusted by him.
Actually, he is not guilty. Try to keep up.
shumacker wrote:
Oh, he's guilty alright. I can't understand why his wife remains in tow. She has to be fully aware of his perverse predilections and disgusted by him.
Actually, he is not guilty. Try to keep up.
Not guilty alright wrote:
shumacker wrote:Oh, he's guilty alright. I can't understand why his wife remains in tow. She has to be fully aware of his perverse predilections and disgusted by him.
Actually, he is not guilty. Try to keep up.
At a minimum, he is guilty of being a boorish philanderer with extremely poor judgement and almost zero impulse control. It's hard to imagine that all of the 20+ complaints of molestation/rape are completely baseless.
now, in your world, admitting to drugging them, and 48 accusations that he raped them while under the drugs, is not guilty.
Does this answer Donald Trumps question - 'Who's doing the raping?'
At what point does innocent until proven guilty become guilty, when the foreman reads the verdict, when the judges gavel smacks down and he say guilty? When exactly is that moment?
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable to believe
Probable cause for arrest
Some credible evidence
Substantial evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond reasonable doubt
Since I'm not bound by the rules of the legal system and my opinion carries no actual penalty some thing approaching substantial evidence is enough for me to conclude guilt. When you have some credible evidence from dozens of sources and you add an admission to buying drugs with the intent to use them for sexual purposes and you add ample evidence that those drugs can and have been used in the surreptitious manner those creditable sources state they have I think we have basis for an opinion that is strong enough and valid enough to support a guilty as charged conclusion.
have heard enough wrote:
At what point does innocent until proven guilty become guilty, when the foreman reads the verdict, when the judges gavel smacks down and he say guilty? When exactly is that moment?
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable to believe
Probable cause for arrest
Some credible evidence
Substantial evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Beyond reasonable doubt
Since I'm not bound by the rules of the legal system and my opinion carries no actual penalty some thing approaching substantial evidence is enough for me to conclude guilt. When you have some credible evidence from dozens of sources and you add an admission to buying drugs with the intent to use them for sexual purposes and you add ample evidence that those drugs can and have been used in the surreptitious manner those creditable sources state they have I think we have basis for an opinion that is strong enough and valid enough to support a guilty as charged conclusion.
At this point, nobody could honestly believe that he is innocent. It's just not possible.
blacker than in most photostoo wrote:
ScaryStuff wrote:Mr. Jello pudding pops is being used as a verb now.
Blonde white girl (notice the accusers are all white women): "I think he bill cosby'd me last night!" Definition: To drug and rape young women.
Thank goodness Whoppi Goldberg has got your back, Dr. Huxtable.
Bev Johnson accused him of drugging her. She is black. I do not know about the racial identification of all the other accusers
Johnson's father was Native American, she admits, so she is mulatto.
As for the Coz, who prefers to be called "Doctor" Cosby: I'm sure he didn't benefit from affirmative action at that Joke college UMass-Amherst: In 1976, Cosby earned a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His dissertation discussed the use of Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids as a teaching tool.
More questions arise?
Who wrote his thesis for him as he was performing in Vegas the whole time?
How many co-eds did he bang while there?
jjjjj wrote:
now, in your world, admitting to drugging them, and 48 accusations that he raped them while under the drugs, is not guilty.
My world is reality. Which world are you in?
He did not admit to drugging them, did he? He admitted to buying drugs in one instance with the intent of using them to having sex with one girl in a 2005 deposition, right? That doesn't mean he raped them. Especially considering that THEY ADMITTED TO KNOWINGLY TAKING THE PILLS.
There's a scene out there where girls like to or don't mind being drugged during sex. As a high profile rich celebrity, you'd be risking a lot to go after these types of women (because it's easy to make it look like rape at worse, or to look like a weird embarassing fetish at best), but there are plenty of them.
You guys seem to think that it's impossible for 48 people to lie about someone. It's cited several times that the accusers have come out after hearing about other accusers coming out, so they didn't all come out independently.This could happen to any promiscuous celebrity.
Think about yourself. Every girl you slept with at a bar could easily say (after hearing you became rich and that other people are accusing you) "oh yeah he got me drunk and then raped me. I remember waking up and he was on top of me". They would indeed all be telling the same story. It's not that hard to create.
I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that there's not enough evidence or testimony to be sure either way. He could easily just be guilty of associating himself with low-quality (lying, shallow, money hungry, etc) women that is now coming back to bite him.