I assumed everyone had read this thread and saw the accusation.

Rape experts itt

Was the legal definition of rape in the 70's broad enough to include date rape?

Was there a statute of limitations against rape accusations at that time?

this

not sure why the **** im admitting this but when I used to watch the surreal life...

Janice did say there was an event/incident with a famous actor that she couldn't name that "ruined" her life and it brought her back into a "deep depression. problem is she was and always always has been a mess. I just remember her talking about it on the show and I was like just out the guy

To me True Romance hits just the right notes of "screwball violence" as you call it and screwball everything else. IE – just over-the-top enough to be entertaining and let you know you're in a slightly alternate reality. But not so clownishly over-the-top that you feel like you're watching a cartoon – or an exercise in graphic imagery - which is how I feel about most of Tarantino's movies.

Easily in my top 10 movies.

We're not talking about convicting him in a court of law based on the allegations, we're talking about using basic common sense to just conclude he's almost certainly guilty simply based on the number of accusers.

And pointing to one or two other bizarre edge cases where there were multiple accusers and the whole thing turned out to be phony doesn't mean anything. As I stated earlier, the accusations alone don't "prove" anything.

The accusations alone are not PROOF he's guilty, but I'm not a juror and this isn't a trial, we're not trying to throw him in jail, we don't need absolute proof to say this dude done did it.

The whole problem with most rape trials is that it's almost impossible to definitively prove, which is why the trials and accusations and arguments around it are always such clusters.

And yes, women have and do make up rape allegations for a variety of reasons, however just use some simple logic here.

Odds of a single woman making up rape allegations against someone = X%
Odds of dozens of women making up rape allegations against someone = many orders of magnitude lower than X%

People always love to nit up the legal standard of proving someone of something vs. just basic logic that says they almost certainly did it even though there's not enough proof to convict them of a crime in a court of law.

Then again, you got people up in here trying to argue OJ was correctly acquitted, so I think alone that says enough about any legal arguments they put forward.

When your whole legal system is based on "reasonable" doubt, the whole thing falls apart when you're talking with unreasonable people.

But again, discussing the legal standard of guilt is a gigantic exercise of non-sense. Bill Cosby will never be tried for anything in relation to this, so it doesn't ****ing matter if there's enough legal evidence to convict him of anything.

The fabric of space time is not determined by trials and convictions.

Based on what I have read it is almost certain that everything is beyond the statute of limitations. But more importantly, who cares what the legal definition of rape was in the 70s?

It is completely irrelevant to the fact that this guy took advantage of god knows how many people, often if not always by drugging them, and he ruined countless lives. I grew up watching the Cosby Show and I simply cannot get the bad taste out of my mouth now.

The guy should certainly be pilloried in all public forum for his behavior, which continues to just be abhorrent, look at the AP video where he tries to pressure the journalist into not releasing the part of the tape that is relevant to this...and while you are watching that video look at the plastic smile on his wife's face. She knows she is married to a monster.

Johnnie Cochran with a HoF performance in the Simpson case.

truth

Does anyone actually disagree with this?

bill cosby will never be tried i agree; i am not sure if there is a statute of limitations for a civil suit though

There are definitely statutes of limitations for tort claims; it would go state-by-state as to what they are.

http://www.people.com/people/archive...059561,00.html

this was in People in 2006. and nobody cared

so so weird

Janice Dickinson unloading on "monster" Cosby on CNN

Pretty intense interview.

That song has creeped me out for a long time.

I certainly don't disagree with it -- it's a good summary. But, even though it appears by the numerous accusations that Cosby is "guilty," I just can't consider him, and call him, a rapist, based on allegations alone.

So 90% likely he did it? Or 95% likely? Yes. But, without a trial, and there won't be one, I can't make the leap to: Bill Cosby is a rapist.

I can.


Need a trial to establish legal guilt and institute legal punishments.


Don't need that to convince myself.

People sure have a ton of faith in the legal system. It's really quite touching.

I hope you use that same standard of proof in your personal life.

"Well, 17 different guys who've never met one another all say they've ****ed my girlfriend since we've been a couple. But those are just accusations. There's no proof, so I just cant call her a cheater."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/p...sues/19818457/

Story of woman who was 15 when Cosby took advantage of her in the 70s. Front page material. Also saw him on the cover of I think it was US magazine. Good to see this is finally getting some mainstream coverage.

AS if we needed more, this one is also pretty compelling

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...social_twitter