Bill Cosby

[jp1]

These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence.

Accusations ≠ evidence. Probability ≠ evidence.

Actually, both accusations (i.e., testimony accusing someone of committing a crime) and probability (i.e., testimony regarding the probability of a fact being true in light of the circumstances) are evidence, and both would be admissible in a court of law to prove guilt...

Along with other (real) evidence. Right? I'm serious here, not being a smart ass. Because if not, that is some scary shit.

I know a persons character can be called to question to further credit or discredit their testimony, which I believe is bullshit as well. There are honest hookers and lying sack of shit priests...your stage in life and somebody else's belief of what it means has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. I believe, and I really hope I'm not wrong, that this is why hard evidence is also a requirement.

[Flake]

That's disappointing coming from you Flake. I say that as a compliment. Calling a man a rapist with nothing more than speculation is pretty ugly. It might not be likely that all those women are liars, but it is most certainly possible.

EDIT: Not trying to condescend here. I realize it could be interpreted like that...the comment just seemed out of character for you. I usually find your posts more thoughtful. However, your opinion is what it is.

The alternative is to assume a liar of every single woman than has claimed to have been assaulted by the man, claims that come from women who stand to gain nothing financially, who don't know each other, who were allegedly attacked in separate instances over the span of several decades, many of whom were already settled with out of court by the Cosby lawyers in exchange for dropping either testimony or lawsuits.

I can only suspend disbelief so far. I am either required to think it is impossible that this man is a rapist or I have to assume that every single woman (we're up to at least 13 now) is completely and utterly lying.

13 women who don't know each other, each with detailed accounts and (due to either lack of evidence or statute of limitations) stand to gain nothing but a little sympathy and a lot of scorn. I do not think it's possible they are all lying.

[jp1]

That's disappointing coming from you Flake. I say that as a compliment. Calling a man a rapist with nothing more than speculation is pretty ugly. It might not be likely that all those women are liars, but it is most certainly possible.

EDIT: Not trying to condescend here. I realize it could be interpreted like that...the comment just seemed out of character for you. I usually find your posts more thoughtful. However, your opinion is what it is.

The alternative is to assume a liar of every single woman than has claimed to have been assaulted by the man, claims that come from women who stand to gain nothing financially, who don't know each other, who were allegedly attacked in separate instances over the span of several decades, many of whom were already settled with out of court by the Cosby lawyers in exchange for dropping either testimony or lawsuits.

I can only suspend disbelief so far. I am either required to think it is impossible that this man is a rapist or I have to assume that every single woman (we're up to at least 13 now) is completely and utterly lying.

13 women who don't know each other, each with detailed accounts and (due to either lack of evidence or statute of limitations) stand to gain nothing but a little sympathy and a lot of scorn. I do not think it's possible they are all lying.

I see where you are coming from, but they do gain attention, and along with that attention come financial gains in some instances. I'm not saying that is the case here, but I'm saying it could be. It isn't that hard to grab the M.O. and run with it once you hear something, and people are more likely to believe you because...

a) It's rape, it seems wrong not to. (See Dave's dilemma)
b) There are now multiple accusations so it must be true. (See your conclusion)

Can you be certain that these women knew nothing of the details of the first rape accusation when they too made their claims? How does a rape case "settle" out of court? The prosecutor decides to drop founded charges because Cosby pays the defendant? It doesn't seem likely. I'm not saying I know it isn't true, but I certainly won't claim to know it is.

Stranger things have happened, look at some of these cases that finally get thrown out after someone serves 15-20 years based on DNA that wasn't available at the time. The evidence was overwhelming in some of those cases, but it simply wasn't true.

[Flake]

I see where you are coming from, but they do gain attention, and along with that attention come financial gains in some instances. I'm not saying that is the case here, but I'm saying it could be. It isn't that hard to grab the M.O. and run with it once you hear something, and people are more likely to believe you because...

a) It's rape, it seems wrong not to. (See Dave's dilemma)
b) There are now multiple accusations so it must be true. (See your conclusion)

Can you be certain that these women knew nothing of the details of the first rape accusation when they too made their claims? How does a rape case "settle" out of court? The prosecutor decides to drop founded charges because Cosby pays the defendant? It doesn't seem likely. I'm not saying I know it isn't true, but I certainly won't claim to know it is.

I don't claim to know anything either. But when every day more women come forward to accuse the man, like these two did today, my capacity to extend the man the benefit of the doubt is further diminished.

You see it as unfair for me to think it likely that Bill Cosby is a rapist. Fair enough.

I think it is unfair that you see all those women as liars because of the off chance that they might gain some type of financial benefit (they won't, you can't settle if you go public) or fame (they won't, the pool is too large).

[prfsnl_gmr]

Along with other (real) evidence. Right? I'm serious here, not being a smart ass. Because if not, that is some scary shit.

I know a persons character can be called to question to further credit or discredit their testimony, which I believe is bullshit as well. There are honest hookers and lying sack of shit priests...your stage in life and somebody else's belief of what it means has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. I believe, and I really hope I'm not wrong, that this is why hard evidence is also a requirement.

I edited my post to provide an example of a case where a jury could convict someone based solely on testimony. While it may be scary to think that you can be convicted of a crime based solely on testimony, our system of laws is structured to prevent wrongful convictions. Certainly, they do occur, and people have been wrongfully convicted and even sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit, but they are quite rare (and increasingly rarer) in light of the number of crimes actually perpetrated in this country. (Our judicial system really is, at its base, structured on Blackstone's formulation.)

With regard to your second point, I think that using character evidence is generally helpful in determining whether a person is testifying truthfully. If someone is a habitual liar or con-man, a jury should know that fact when evaluating a person's testimony. Likewise, if a person is strictly adhere to the tenets of a religion where lying results in eternal damnation, a jury should probably know that too. the jury is, of course, still free to accept or reject the testimony, but absent a compelling reason to keep information from a jury (and there are plenty of them), I generally favor airing out all of th facts. Finally, and in my experience, lawyers are very good at revealing (and a 12-person jury is excellent at recognizing) when someone is lying.

How does a rape case "settle" out of court? The prosecutor decides to drop founded charges because Cosby pays the defendant? It doesn't seem likely. I'm not saying I know it isn't true, but I certainly won't claim to know it is.

Criminal rape charges cannot settle out of court. Once a prosecutor decides to pursue a case, no settlement between the defendant and the prosecuting witness can stop the proceeding. Here, however, many of the allegations are barred by various statutes of limitations, and even if they were not, a prosecutor probably would not act because the facts and circumstances underlying the cases are too old. (There would be too many issues with procuring corroborating witnesses and evidence, memories fade with time, etc.) Nonetheless, you can pay a person not to tarnish your reputation by making his or her rape allegations public, and that is what people are alleging Bill Cosby has done with respect to many of his accusers. Any such contract would be enforcable under tenets of contract law (i.e., if the person later went public with his or her story, you could sue them to recover the amounts paid under the contract, liquidated damages, etc.). Interestingly, you could not, however, obtain a court order preventing them from speaking because any such order would run afoul of the First Amendment.

[jp1]

I don't believe it is unfair for you to believe anything Flake. I believe it is unfair for you to state it as if it were a fact when it is based in speculation. It may very well be unfair of me to believe those women are lying (I never said I did, but I'll roll with it), those women have far less to lose as well.

There are people in this world who will throw another person's reputation or life under the bus for an opportunity at a $500 appearance fee on a talk show. I'm not willing to forgo all disbelief that it is possible that thirteen people are liars either. I'm also not willing to say they are, but if I did, I could make arguments all day long to speculate why I think it's true. It wouldn't change the fact that none of us know anything.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just think that it is all too easy to make assumptions when it isn't your own ass on the line. Imagine in the small off chance that Cosby is not a rapist, it is reasoning such as yours that will ruin his life and reputation. I'm not prepared to make that leap on hearsay. It is, of course, up to you to judge what conclusions you draw for yourself. I just think that they should be clearly stated as opinion and not presented as fact. That was my point.

I don't claim to know anything either.

In light of this comment, that is kind of a moot point anyway. So now, it is my explanation.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I don't believe it is unfair for you to believe anything Flake. I believe it is unfair for you to state it as if it were a fact when it is based in speculation. It may very well be unfair of me to believe those women are lying (I never said I did, but I'll roll with it), those women have far less to lose as well.

There are people in this world who will throw another person's reputation or life under the bus for an opportunity at a $500 appearance fee on a talk show. I'm not willing to forgo all disbelief that it is possible that thirteen people are liars either. I'm also not willing to say they are, but if I did, I could make arguments all day long to speculate why I think it's true. It wouldn't change the fact that none of us know anything.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just think that it is all too easy to make assumptions when it isn't your own ass on the line. Imagine in the small off chance that Cosby is not a rapist, it is reasoning such as yours that will ruin his life and reputation. I'm not prepared to make that leap on hearsay. It is, of course, up to you to judge what conclusions you draw for yourself. I just think that they should be clearly stated as opinion and not presented as fact. That was my point.

This is pretty much how jurors argue with each other when they are asked to render a verdict. (You two are just doing it on the Racketboy forums.) It also illustrates why our justice system requires a unanimous verdict to convict someone of a crime. If even one of the twelve people sitting on a jury does not think a guilty verdict is warranted, it is likely the accused will go free.

[Jmustang1968]

Yeah my last jury summons, one of the questions was could you convict someone without physical proof, i.e. in this case a weapon (it was aggravated robbery). The defendant was accused of robbing with a knife, but the knife was not found afterwards by police. The victim claims he had a knife, defendant says he didnt.

So yeah, there doesnt need to be physical proof to convict, that evidence just makes it easier to do so.

I am with Flake on this one. There is a difference between going to jail for a crime, and being considered innocent/guilty in court of law, and the being considered guilty in court of public opinion. None of us know 100% if he did or didnt do it, but dont try to shame those who think someone is guilty of something based on accusations and circumstances. We all make decisions and or judgements on those who we think lie to us without physical proof all the time.

[Flake]

I just think that they should be clearly stated as opinion and not presented as fact. That was my point.

My only assertion was that if any of the women were telling the truth, he's a rapist. My impression of the situation is that I am inclined to believe such a large number of women who tell similar, seemingly credible tales.

There is a larger issue and that is our reluctance to weigh the accusations of the women equal to Bill Cosby's (oddly subdued, almost non-existent) denial because Bill Cosby has so much to lose. If Bill Cosby were a fry cook at the local greasy spoon diner and 14 women came forward and claimed they were victims of sexual assault by the guy, this would be a completely different situation - and that's wrong.

If Bill Cosby is a rapist, it was his fame and money (the things he stands to lose, but don't worry, he won't) that insulated him to continue attacking women. Because if a woman claims a rich/famous man assaulted her, she must be trying to get something out of it.

[jp1]

Along with other (real) evidence. Right? I'm serious here, not being a smart ass. Because if not, that is some scary shit.

I know a persons character can be called to question to further credit or discredit their testimony, which I believe is bullshit as well. There are honest hookers and lying sack of shit priests...your stage in life and somebody else's belief of what it means has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. I believe, and I really hope I'm not wrong, that this is why hard evidence is also a requirement.

I edited my post to provide an example of a case where a jury could convict someone based solely on testimony. While it may be scary to think that you can be convicted of a crime based solely on testimony, our system of laws is structured to prevent wrongful convictions. Certainly, they do occur, and people have been wrongfully convicted and even sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit, but they are quite rare (and increasingly rarer) in light of the number of crimes actually perpetrated in this country. (Our judicial system really is, at its base, structured on Blackstone's formulation.)

With regard to your second point, I think that using character evidence is generally helpful in determining whether a person is testifying truthfully. If someone is a habitual liar or con-man, a jury should know that fact when evaluating a person's testimony. Likewise, if a person is strictly adhere to the tenets of a religion where lying results in eternal damnation, a jury should probably know that too. the jury is, of course, still free to accept or reject the testimony, but absent a compelling reason to keep information from a jury (and there are plenty of them), I generally favor airing out all of th facts. Finally, and in my experience, lawyers are very good at revealing (and a 12-person jury is excellent at recognizing) when someone is lying.

How does a rape case "settle" out of court? The prosecutor decides to drop founded charges because Cosby pays the defendant? It doesn't seem likely. I'm not saying I know it isn't true, but I certainly won't claim to know it is.

Criminal rape charges cannot settle out of court. Once a prosecutor decides to pursue a case, no settlement between the defendant and the prosecuting witness can stop the proceeding. Here, however, many of the allegations are barred by various statutes of limitations, and even if they were not, a prosecutor probably would not act because the facts and circumstances underlying the cases are too old. (There would be too many issues with procuring corroborating witnesses and evidence, memories fade with time, etc.) Nonetheless, you can pay a person not to tarnish your reputation by making his or her rape allegations public, and that is what people are alleging Bill Cosby has done with respect to many of his accusers. Any such contract would be enforcable under tenets of contract law (i.e., if the person later went public with his or her story, you could sue them to recover the amounts paid under the contract, liquidated damages, etc.). Interestingly, you could not, however, obtain a court order preventing them from speaking because any such order would run afoul of the First Amendment.

And this is why I won't argue the law with a lawyer.

Thanks for clearing it up. I still hate the idea that a person can be convicted on testimony alone though, that is wrong in my opinion.