I don't really have an opinion here, but consider the case of British DJ Dave Lee Travis...

In the interests of fairness Mr Travis was later found guilty of a minor indecent assault by a 10-2 majority verdict and given a 3-month suspended sentence. On two further charges he was found not guilty on one and no verdict on the other.

Another lawyer (lol) told me there's a likely bandwagon for allegations. Based on that logic, if the # of accusations hits triple digits he should be fully cleared!

I mentioned the Michael Jackson trial earlier in this thread. If I remember correctly, he was charged with like 15 counts of abuse from numerous children and was cleared of all charges. The court couldn't find a single credible claim from any of the witnesses.

I think it's certainly possible that the same type of scenario could be happening here. Everybody thought MJ was guilty too but the prosecution witnesses were a complete joke and all deemed to be liars.

except BILL PAID THEM OFF and now they HAVE to be silent

Michael Jackson was acquitted and the outcome of the trial was in serious doubt up until the announcement. It's not as though his case went away on a motion to dismiss, motion for directed verdict, anything like that. A jury deciding that evidence was insufficient just means that the prosecution didn't meet their burden to get him convicted criminally.

None of the above is me giving much of an opinion on the Jackson case since I didn't really pay attention to it. But I'm under the impression that it isn't correct to say that the claims against him were proven false. He, too, settled civil claims out of court...which is not a smoking gun proving guilt, granted, but seems like a relevant fact anyway.

I didn't pay close attention to it either, but I remember the media reporting it as if it was likely a slam dunk guilty verdict. I mean, everyone thought he did it. It wasn't until years later that I read legal analysis of the case and saw what an absolute joke it was. It was arguably the worst set of witnesses ever compiled in a high profile case. I've subsequently began to doubt if he even did anything to these kids.

I haven't been following the Cosby case either, but it seems like every time I pop in this thread I see people saying "if 17 people say the same thing it has to be true". I don't think that's enough. People have been known to come out of the woodwork and pile on in these instances when they see huge payoffs and smell blood in the water. And the MJ case is what makes me skeptical. I invite anyone to research that case and see what you think.

There's a massive difference between a Not Guilty verdict and someone being proven innocent. It's quite possible that Michael Jackson was guilty as hell while the evidence presented at trial still didn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's quite possible that Cosby is guilty as hell while there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.


IIRC, Michael Jackson was only tried for molesting one kid. He paid off previous accusers (in one case, he paid them $20mil or so). You don't pay an accuser 9 figures to go away unless you're guilty as ****ing hell.

As a general rule, if there are multiple accusers getting paid off to go away; then I'm inclined to think the ****er's guilty.

Surprised people would walk out, because the thing's got such an unreal air (somebody called it 'screwball violence') it's not disturbing. You kind of know that nasty Mr Gandolfini won't make it to the end credits and Patricia Arquette will. Even when Dennis Hopper gets shot, it's a punchline -- and Hopper wins, because he makes Walken blow his cool and Walken won't get any information from him.

Mind, I used to really like Hickey & Boggs, but I think Cosby may have ruined it for me now.

Clearly a not guilty verdict does not equate to innocence.

But although the MJ case involved a single kid, the prosecution was allowed to subpoena witnesses in order to establish a history of prior abuse.

So after decades of allegations, this case was all the prosecution could put together. And they couldn't get the jury to bite on any of it, not even the lesser counts.

The payouts look incriminating, but I wonder if it's just a simple EV calc for someone like MJ. $20M could be worth it to make it go away when you have the earning power MJ does.

re: does paying off settlements indicate guilt

I used to listen to a guy named Bruce Williams on the radio, he had a call-in show where he gave folksy, home-spun, common sense advice to people. One guy called and said he owned a small business, and an employee that he had fired was now suing him for racial discrimination. The business owner, of course, claimed innocence. His question for Bruce: the employee's lawyer reached out with a settlement offer--as much as I hate to do it, am I better off just paying off the settlement to make this go away?

I'll never forget Bruce's answer (paraphrasing here):

"I was in that spot once. I had a small business, and I had to fire a young man, who was just terrible at his job, couldn't be relied upon to show up every day, etc. And just as you describe, he filed such a suit, and his lawyer approached me about a settlement. I set up a meeting with that lawyer. He gave me a number, the amount that would make all this go away. I told him, "I am prepared to spend ten times that amount, to fight these scandalous charges...because I'm not going to let anyone think that maybe I'm guilty of what your client alleges....and that's exactly what they will think if I settle."

And that's a small business owner. Change that to "multi-bazillionaire superstar", and I've got to think that would be someone prepared to spend some real money on protecting their reputation, if they felt they had done nothing wrong.

I guess the problem I have with convicting Cosby based on his settlements is that he had this super-wholesome image, and even hiding from admissions to consensual sex with women that weren't his wife could be +EV to do in his spot even if he wasn't guilty of any sexual assault.

I still believe there's likely guilt here, but I'm unconvinced that the settlements are a smoking gun for him. I do think they're worse for Michael Jackson since that's a situation where there's no chance for it to be a matter between consenting adults.

ytf big companies settle out of court on frivlous lawsuits all the damn time. it pisses me off because it sends a huge signal to our society that anyone could do this and if they put in enough work get paid for the con

A settlement would be a big indication of guilt imo. Not just for the reason youtalkfunny said, but also because it would encourage others to extort you (assuming you are in fact innocent). Like how the US and other countries generally don't pay ransoms.

Also, even if you are guilty it might not be wise to settle, assuming you have the financial wherewithal to fight it. For instance WalMart is notorious for vigorously defending itself against all lawsuits to deter ppl from suing them.

I think it's pretty clear Cosby is guilty, if he settled (sorry haven't been following) then it's just more proof.

I assume that the story Cosby would tell, if he were to tell a story, is:

1) it was a different time
2) I liked to eat pills
3) the women I hung out with liked to eat pills too
4) sometimes we ate pills together
5) sometimes we had sex (always consensual) while we were both under the influence of very strong pharma.

I'm not saying that I buy that story at all, but I assume that would be the story.

You guys need to listen to Jim here. 17 women sounds like a lot, if you take it out of context. But in a planet of 6 billion people, that is less than a rounding error. You are ignoring the 3.5 billion women who have said nothing about being raped by Bill Cosby. Who hears their voice?

Just because ~17 people claim something happened, it doesn't mean it's true.

McMartin Preschool Child Abuse Allegations

Dom,

Wasn't that case pretty much investigators asking super-young children leading questions? "He touched your privates, didn't he?", and pressing on until they got the answers they wanted from kids who wanted to make the adults in the room happy. I'm asking, I don't recall (and don't have time right now to read the link), but if so, I don't think it's a fair comparison to the adults who have come forward (and it's been a steady supply of adults over the decades, it's not a sudden bandwagon thing).

KP,

Let's make a distinction between slip-and-fall claims, and scandalous claims ranging from bigotry to rape to sexual abuse of children. Yes, large corporations pay out the first type of settlements all the time, for obv reasons. But do they handle the second type the same way? I imagine it varies. But whether they do or don't, the decision is driven strictly by the bottom line, when we're talking about companies. Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, these guys aren't just a brand, they're men, too. I realize not all men value their reps over their money.....

...I'm just droning now. Bottom line: life is often too complicated to sum up in a three-paragraph internet post.

Probably some of the allegations are untrue. Probably some of the true ones are exaggerations. But Cosby can't go into detail refuting them because once he does that he has no excuse for not talking about the ones that are in fact true.

It's exactly the same, except for the alleged victims being adults who did not know each other in the one case and extremely suggestible little kids (with parents who did know each other) in the other case.

Oh yeah, almost forgot why I opened this thread:

Cosby once leaked daughter's drug abuse to kill sex scandal

If this is true (and it sure seems to fit!), the dichotomy of his public persona vs his true colors is even more outrageous.

Oh yeah, almost forgot why I opened this thread:

Cosby once leaked daughter's drug abuse to kill sex scandal

If this is true (and it sure seems to fit!), the dichotomy of his public persona vs his true colors is even more outrageous.

I don't see any reason either of those things are "probable". Possible yes, but unless you're inclined to disbelieve women who make rape accusations why is it more likely than not?

I just figured they thought it would take off in horrible fashion, like it did, so they can play the alienated jury angle. Though I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that would even work.

I think it's a human nature thing, not a misogynist thing.