Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 to drugging women for sex

@commander That's absurd...he did either rape them or not...as bystander not privy to all the facts there is absolutely no way anyone here can claim to know for certain...that's true. However, when I say something is likely, it simply points to the fact there is quite a large amount of evidence that seems to point in that direction. Most of it is hearsay, but some of it is not and there appears to be enough corroboration where one can def think that it's likely.

To be clear, I would not say Bill Cosbey absolutely is a rapist, however, given the amount of evidence and corroborating accounts I think it is highly likely he is.

You see you're doing it again. You're saying 'there is quite a large amount of evidence that seems to point in that direction'

There is no evidence, 30 women saying that they were raped is no evidence. How the hell do you think people got flayed in the middle ages , because a group of people accused someone that they were a witch, a heretic, a thief or whatever. The number of accusations was never evidence in a developped country and it never will.

Actually, verbal or written testimony *is* evidence. It's not infallible, and certainly not (usually) enough to convict someone, but it is evidence. There is also depositions, police transcripts with Cosby, and other corroborating evidence.

Being objective is good, and to that end we both agree at this point no one can know for sure, but don't go to the other extreme and pretend there isn't any evidence at all...that's clearly not true.

It's funny, I remember thinking a few years ago how Bill Cosby was one of those black icons who seemed to have his shit straight. He was calling out rappers for their bad behavior years ago.

And now... Well, I guess he wanted to have his Jell-o jigglers and eat them too.

Yes but accusations are not evidence. Testimonies are but there are no testimonies since there was no court. Even then, it's still not proof which only proves how far off you are with your term 'he's likely a rapist' .

That case from 2005 was settled, so no conviction.

What you're doing now, since everything can read this on the internet, is commiting some form of slander.

And i know, it's very tempting but it's not responsible. Imagine this man is innocent. The future will forbid opinions like that ont he internet, because it's no longer an opinion, it's a judgement.

That's wrong, police reports and interviews with witnesses/victims is evidence. Some of the women even passed lie detectors, which are (depending on circumstance) also admissible in court.

"What you're doing now, since everything can read this on the internet, is commiting some form of slander."

What a joke.

That's not evidence since there was no case. I may be used as evidence but it hasn't since again there was no court hearing.

"What you're doing now, since everything can read this on the internet, is commiting some form of slander."

That last sentecne may be a joke to you, but if we printed this discussion in the eighties in a news paper, you could have been sued for slander. At least where i live. If i would talk about a celebrity like this in my country i could be sued, all depends on the situation of course. I won't risk it though, i live in belgium btw.

Either way when you're saying 'he's likely a rapist' you're not been objective

Anything that can be used in a court of law as evidence is evidence. And that last statement is a joke...someone saying the believe something is likely is simply stating their opinion and not a fact.

I am being objective, I recognize there appears to be a large amount of corroborating evidence and think it's likely, however, being objective I also realize this is not fact and I could never claim it as such.

This, I never really watched much and got into The Bill Cosby show, or any other works of his. Seeing a thread like this makes me all the more glad I never got into his stuff.

Well there you say it yourself 'anything that can be used in the court of law as evidence is evidence'. The court has never allowed this as evidence since there is no case but yet you're using it to form your opinion and your judgement.

Again, when you're using the word likely you're implying he's a rapist. That's not being objective. He was never convicted of rape.

Likely means probable/possible/plausible...that's not implying he's a rapist...that's saying based on what we know it's probable. If he was convicted likely would be the wrong word, if he was convicted it means he is a rapist beyond reasonable doubt.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/bill-cosby-admitted-sexual-pursuit-of-women-using-power-pills-and-money

Bill Cosby admitted paying women off after persuading them into sex, having pursued them by using his powerful position in the entertainment industry and affecting a concern for their future, as well as offering them sedating drugs.