Bill Cosby what have you done

floggg wrote: »

That's a tough one.

In principle I agree that an accused should have anonymity in sexual assault/rape cases given the enormous damage a false allegation can do.

However in recent years we have seen so many celebrities use their fame and power to squash or deflect sexual assault cases and get away with it.

They used their fame as a sword against their victims. I would be uneasy about now giving them a shield against the victims right to have their stories told.

There are some cases like R Kelly, Woody Allen etc where it seems patently obvious they have committed wrong doing and have gotten away with it for years.

At the very least we should have the ability to ensure that they can't bury the accusations, and that their victims can't be silenced.

Not to mention that said celebrities have perhaps exponentially more money to spend on a legal defence. An author was interviewed on The Last Word this Friday about a sort of "rape culture" in sport, citing the case of a couple of Australian footballers whose team's legal team stepped in to defend them. The accuser had nowhere near that amount of resources.

Wompa1 wrote: »

There allegations have hung over him for years. Also allegations that he has paid a few women off

Heck, Tina Fey was joking about the allegations on Saturday Night Live back in 2005:

Breadcrusts wrote: »

Whether he's guilty or not, I don't see how this is really relevant at all? Suggesting her background should influence how we perceive her accusation has serious echoes of a victim-blame mentality.

Quite the opposite. An accuser's credibility is the biggest factor in the absence of any actual evidence.

Breadcrusts wrote: »

Whether he's guilty or not, I don't see how this is really relevant at all? Suggesting her background should influence how we perceive her accusation has serious echoes of a victim-blame mentality.

It has echoes of some of the RCC's (and their apologists') more callous responses to the clerical abuse scandal. It sounds like "they're just money-grubbing sluts!" to me.

Well, I think the point to be made is that just because someone claims to have been raped does not necessarily make it so. While victims of rape should be protected, issues with evidence and witness reliability should not be ignored on the assumption that its not possible the claim is false. In as much as there is a victim of rape, the accusation needs to be taken very, very seriously. Even a false allegation can destroy someone's life - you cant mess around. If there's discrepancies in the evidence, they need to be investigated. Cosby is entitled to be presumed innocent.

There was a lot of drama last month about a story published by Rolling Stone magazine which stated that a student called "Jackie" was gang raped by members of a fraternity in the University of Virginia. That fraternity, and all its members were immediately painted as either rapists, or people who enabled rapists. The gang rape was described by Rolling Stone as being part of an initiation ritual - something all members would go through. The University administrators were painted as people who either ignored or hindered the victims attempt to report the alleged rape. In response to the article and widespread outrage, the fraternity house was picketed by angry protesters, all fraternities were suspended, police were called in, and a full investigation begun. Reputations of all concerned were smeared.

Rolling Stone published this story without ever seeking the other side of the story. The alleged rapist was never contacted. The fraternity was never contacted. The university administrators were not contacted. It was widely assumed that there was no need - the requirement to protect the victim meant it wasn't important to protect the alleged wrongdoers.

Now Rolling Stone are rowing away from the story and their claims as fast as they can. It turns out the fraternity in question didn't have any party or social event on the night the rape is supposed to have happened, didn't induct any new members in the fall semester, and the only person who fits the description of the ringleader is actually in a *different* fraternity to the ones named by Rolling Stone, and claims he has never met "Jackie".

At this point, people in contact with "Jackie" continue to believe something traumatic happened to her but are doubting her account of what, who, where and when.

ColeTrain wrote: »

Like I said, he could very well be innocent but there's no doubt it doesn't look good for Bill.

Bill is bollixed

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Really?, well if you can't see how it's relevant then I can't help you. Please wake up from this 'victim blame' nonsense. You've bought into the trial by media scenario, where every woman who makes an accusation of rape is believed to be telling the truth and anyone who questions that accusation or the motivation behind the accusation is a monster. Very naive.

Haha I didn't ask you to help me but thank you. I'm not in anyway suggesting that accusations should be believed without further probe, but suggesting that we disregard her accusation because of potential past promiscuity is the exact same as a "well she has a reputation" or "she was wearing a short skirt" ideology when it comes to rape accusations.

And this is unacceptable.

It's been widely linked before but if person was mugged it is highly unlikely that this would be allowed to impact on perceptions of their accusation - what were you wearing, do you make a habit of giving your belongings away, do you enjoy giving your money away etc etc. It would be seen as ridiculous, but we still make this connection when it comes to rape (between being suspicious of rape victims and the fact that women do occasionally have and even enjoy sex)

Piliger wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. Reputation is important when evidence is absent. This is what you do not seem willing to grasp.

If there is no evidence of any attack then yes, reputation matters a lot ! and should matter a lot ! Your attempt to trivialise it by trying to use that old short skirt rubbish doesn't obscure the simple facts of life. Previous behaviour is the essence of someone's reputation and when people are asking and indeed expecting to be believed on their work ...then reputation is the ONLY thing that matters.

Reputation amongst many other more significant things. The "old short skirt nonsense" that you reference has its origin in cases where the statements or accusations of victims of abuse were trivialised in similar ways based on stereotypes or supposed reputation, similarly to what you are doing if you refute claims made by this woman based on her previous sexual experiences.

Just as Bill Cosby shouldn't be condemned until proven guilty, his accusers shouldn't be denigrated because of trivial or unrelated information from their past.

Piliger wrote: »

No. You can try to twist the argument as much as you like but the fact remains this woman has offered absolutely no evidence to back up her accusation except her word. And your attempt to gloss over her reputation smacks of desperation to support a woman's accusation irrespective of her lack of one.



No one is denigrating her anywhere. She is being described as being without a credible reputation. That is a simple matter of fact, and something that the law, and society should pay attention to.

What is it exactly that suggests she is without credible reputation? And how would this be reimagined if her own circumstances were different? Say for example if she was a nurse or a teacher with no history of playboy antics. Just out of interest?