What About Bill Cosby?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A couple of updates.
 
No charges for Bill Cosby in Playboy case
Ann Oldenburg
December 17, 2014
USA TODAY
 
From the article:
 

Los Angeles prosecutors say there will be no criminal charges against Bill Cosby relating to a 1974 Playboy mansion incident involving accuser Judy Huth.
 
An investigation was opened after Huth, who is suing Cosby for sexual battery, met with Los Angeles police detectives earlier this month.
 
She says Cosby sexually assaulted her at the Playboy mansion when she was a teen. She has filed a civil suit against him, claiming she has suffered severe emotional distress.
 
Earlier this month, Police Chief Charlie Beck urged anyone with accusations against Cosby to speak with detectives, regardless of whether their claims were outside the statute of limitations.
 
. . .
 
Cosby, 77, has not been charged in connection with any of the allegations from any of the women. A 2005 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania woman was settled before it went to trial.
 
The comedian's wife, Camille, and daughter Evin, have both spoken out lately in defense of Cosby.

 
At least the media's having fun.

 

Cosby has been reported to be upbeat. I wonder if he is contemplating the settlements from different media corporations for defamation of character and loss of profits. After the cancellation of 2 TV shows and his removal from several places of prestige, he definitely has a legal case--an airtight one in my understanding of the law. Several in fact.

 

According to the law, slander and defamation happen when a reputation-damaging assertion is presented to the public as a fact, there is no proof it happened, and the ensuing publicity results in proven damages. Check on all three. Note that proof means legal proof, not just someone saying something happened to me years ago.

 

I predict a world of legal pain is coming to certain people and companies.

 

On another note, Merisa Davis, Cosby's cousin came out in defense of him on Hannity recently (see the story here). Hannity grilled her just about as hard as I've seen him grill anyone, but she wouldn't budge.

 

She was loathe to call the accusers liars outright, but I didn't get the impression it was because she was hiding anything or was afraid of Cosby or anything like that. It felt to me more like she did not want to open herself to making allegations of fact on national TV when she did not have facts at hand. And it's just as obvious to me, as well as any viewer (in my opinion), that she did not believe the accusers.

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Since he's already metaphorically lynched, Cosby has nothing to lose if any civil redress is available to him. If he goes that way he might be able to make a new career out of it in his old age to replace the career he has lost. Since I've never been a Cosby fan--or dis-fan--my only real interest is the big media assault. Big media (medium) is controlled by envy appeasing leftists with implicit Marxist college education which delights in eviscerating any perceived cultural and extant political opponents. They foisted Clinton and Obama on the Presidency and now are gearing up to find a replacement for the incumbent. It's not old hat Hillary but that Senator bitch from Massachusetts. Obama's entre was he had enough black ancestry--never mind the Arab and white and that his ancestors never were American slaves--and now the mainstream media will work the feminist angle. This may not work for feminism as a moral force peaked in the 1970s and now hardly anyone cares. Scantily clad young women as sexual objects are plastered all over visual media including ads for a hamburger chain--Carl's Jr--that are practically orgasmic.

--Brant

[Selene]

Waterboarding is torture, and the CIA used a lot more than waterboarding, and also lied to the government about it. The torture did not make us any safer and now our international rep is shot to pieces. Good job.

Define torture.

And when you throw out your statement that the CIA used "a lot more than waterboarding," your lack of specificity makes your statement meaningless.

Apparently, it is difficult for you to get used to being specific when you post on OL.

However, give it a try.

What is a lot more than waterboarding?

A...

[Jules Troy]

The term torture should only apply to when used against humans and defensless animals. Terrorists have given up any claim to being considered human. They are monsters. Turn them thumbscrews bitchez!

?

[Mikee]

I think the author James Clavell described torture very well. The scum Taliban in Pakistan deserve worse.

[Brant Gaede]

It's not a question of how human these people are or what they deserve; it's getting information. From what I know of real torture, getting information is the least of it. Getting compliance or killing the tortured is what it's mostly about. It's also to scare the shit out of those on the other side not otherwise yet beaten down and subjugated. Saddam Hussein kept his entire country under his thumb that way. In this sense torture is terrorism in reverse. Comparatively, waterboarding is a joke. If we remove intent then we might call waterboarding "torture," albeit mild torture.

This creates a common principle and reduces non-torture interrogation to merely asking questions and nothing more. And do not lie. That is, if you say to someone his puppy will be killed if he doesn't answer truthfully, then that would be torture, but much milder than water-boarding. Remember Silence of the Lambs and the Senator's daughter gets a hold of the monster's little dog and threatens to wring its neck thereby torturing the monster? Shame on her! If that sort of thing is "torture," I say torture away, CIA.

Jack Wheeler of his ToThePointNews.com ($) doesn't have my nuanced sensibilities and he recently wrote an article on how to "torture" (to get information). He doesn't give a rat's ass if it's torture or not, only effectiveness for getting information. This leaves out the horrible tortures they use to use for more humane more effective tortures they can use today.

Consider this hypothetical: three people kidnap a small (and only) child of mine to revenge themselves on me and I have obtained private custody of two of them. These two know where my child is. The police don't torture and can't even interrogate if Miranda rights are invoked (after telling them they have a legal right to keep quiet), so I don't turn them over to the cops. Instead I have them tied up one behind the other stark naked with their legs wide apart and the toughest guy up front. I slowly walk up to him and ask him where my child is. Before he can begin to answer I blow his brains out. Then I slowly walk up to the remaining guy and ask him where she is as I cock the revolver again. If he doesn't answer--not likely--I won't kill him, I'll just tell him I'm going to start cutting pieces off him after opening up a straight razor and running it over his genitals. After I get the information I need I tell the guy I'm going to get my child and if I don't make it back in an hour--or whatever--with her, the vat of acid over his head would be released automatically. Any more information for me? Coming back with my daughter all safe and sound and not needing any more information--I may need more--I'd then simply kill him and dispose of the bodies.

Now, none of this ridiculous scenario will ever happen. It is likely it could never happen though Hollywood would make one think otherwise. (I got the basic story off a recent movie.) But I know what I'm psychologically capable of. I am already seasoned although not in torture. I know what can keep me from sleeping at night. I know about PTSD. All out of life experiences. I'm not speculating about what I could do; I already know. If my child is killed then I might really torture--to death--and take my time, but that's what I do not know. That's pure speculation. (I'd bet not.) What I do know is after my child is murdered everything will be horrible to me. That too I know from sundry experiences of varying intensity, but not that untranscendable scenario.

--Brant

the pussies should write a song and call it, Bad, Bad, CIA! (Let's do away with the CIA!)

could I ever be a professional interrogator or torturer?--no; I'm much too nice a guy, I couldn't even be a cop--I didn't even join the volunteer ambulance service in NJ because of all the blood and Vietnam gore from being a combatant combat medic (I'm extremely weak on negative re-enforcement [cop] and extremely strong on positive re-enforcement [teacher]--just don't poke me)

[Robert Campbell]

1. Let's start with a big picture view--in terms of power in the USA, the biggest. The Presidency. There is an event coming up that is going to seriously clip Obama's wings (which means the wings of the machine behind him). A Republican majority Congress is going to be sworn in starting January. Obama does not have much time to maneuver, but he is a master at orchestrating public opinion and playing dirty tricks backstage. Look up COBS-Consortium Of Behavioral Scientists, for example. The IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. Blaming the Benghazi fiasco on an anti-Islamic video because it interfered with his election narrative of having Al Qaeda on the run. And on and on and on. The point is, irrespective of whether he and his people are involved in the Cosby mess, they do these things. They've done a lot of these things. So it's not unreasonable to look at them at a time like this.

2. Big government politicians on the other side do these things, too. Look at what they did to Herman Cain during the Republican primaries. Suddenly there were white women coming out of the woodworks saying Herman Cain had sex with them. And they talked in graphic terms. I remember one image where a woman talked about how he pushed her head down into his crotch. Stuff like that.

This plays into an old painful fear-inducing archetype in the American psyche that is left over from Civil War days and before--the black stud or buck defiling a white woman. This apparently still resonates although, on a personal level, when I look inside myself, I feel nothing. However, I can't help but notice people tend to get a lot more emotional when this image is in front of them.

Ditto for noticing something else, too. Once Herman Cain declared he was no longer running, these women disappeared. Where are they now? Where have they been since then? Nobody knows. Their appearance-and-disappearance act was like an on-off switch.

Michael,

A couple of thoughts.

As far as your point 1 goes, now Barack Obama also has the North Korean attack on Sony to deal with, leading to the customary floundering and offloading of blame. All the more reason to promote distractions.

I realize that regarding Point 2, a rival Republican campaign has been "credited" for taking down Herman Cain. Heilemann and Halperin, the writers who loosen campaign operatives' tongues with booze and compile the results into post-election books, attributed the sudden public appearances by those women to the campaign of ... Jon Huntsman.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/11/04/it-was-huntsmans-camp-that-took-out-mitch-daniels-herman-cain

A couple of problems with that thesis. First, the stories didn't break until Cain was starting to rise in the primaries—and by then Huntsman's push for the nomination had definitely gone where it was always going to go: nowhere. Maybe Huntsman's people merely wanted to hurt someone, anyone, who got more votes than their guy? Or? Second, of all of the Republican primary candidates, who had the most connections within the Obama administration? Huntsman had served under Obama, and once it was clear to the Obami, as it must have been almost immediately, that he had no shot at the nomination, why not use his campaign as a conduit for a little useful dirt? During the primaries, so it would look as though Republicans were behind it. The whole thing still looks like an Axelrod operation to me.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The whole thing still looks like an Axelrod operation to me.

Robert,

I can certainly live with that.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Walter Russell Mead thinks that these kinds of media blitzes have, by and large, failed.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/12/19/next-up-in-america-the-liberal-retreat/

Doesn't mean there won't be more, between now and January 2017.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Seems like Sony's capitulation to North Korea and the assassination of two policemen in Brooklyn have swept the Bill Cosby and UVA rape allegations out of the news cycle.

For a week, maybe. Or two.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Seems like Sony's capitulation to North Korea and the assassination of two policemen in Brooklyn have swept the Bill Cosby and UVA rape allegations out of the news cycle.

For a week, maybe. Or two.

Robert Campbell

"News" is war. After one target is clobbered you engage the next. By now distancing themselves from their lynch victim they can distance themselves from their lynching--themselves as lynchers. They won't come after Bill again for they may lose the fiction of their objective impartiality and that they engage in competent journalism and that they weren't part of a lynch mob from day one.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

A testable prediction. You may be right.

My guess is that the UVA allegation may be consigned to the memory hole (every follow-up on it has made things look worse for it), but there will be another move against Cosby.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

I get the impression, Robert, you have some extra time on your hands. Likely something to do with these holidays. How would I know this? Well, I'm The Midnight Man.

--Jim Slade

(Brant: were they the same person or was one the baddie?)

[caroljane]

Would the Salem witch accusers have all decided to recall their wrongs, and attract even more afflicted victims, forty years after their initial traumas?

Women do not change so entirely over the centuries, Like men they care about their own well being and place in society, and generally about the truth.

just asking.

[Selene]

Would the Salem witch accusers have all decided to recall their wrongs, and attract even more afflicted victims, forty years after their initial traumas?

Women do not change so entirely over the centuries, Like men they care about their own well being and place in society, and generally about the truth.

just asking.

So, is this our Official Christmas present Carol?

Glad to see you.

A...

[caroljane]

Would the Salem witch accusers have all decided to recall their wrongs, and attract even more afflicted victims, forty years after their initial traumas?

Women do not change so entirely over the centuries, Like men they care about their own well being and place in society, and generally about the truth.

just asking.

So, is this our Official Christmas present Carol?

Glad to see you.

A...

Me too you too Adam.

Beats a lump of coal doesn't it?

[Selene]

Would the Salem witch accusers have all decided to recall their wrongs, and attract even more afflicted victims, forty years after their initial traumas?

Women do not change so entirely over the centuries, Like men they care about their own well being and place in society, and generally about the truth.

just asking.

So, is this our Official Christmas present Carol?

Glad to see you.

A...

Me too you too Adam.

Beats a lump of coal doesn't it?

Depends...coal could become a collectible with the militant marxists in our current regime.

A...

[caroljane]

And not only but also. I owe you thanks Adam, because of you I, Respectable Widow and Ancient Relic, understand the ethos of BDSM and was outraged when local criminal tried to use his devotion to consensual rough sex to justify his nonconsensual assaults. I leave the jokes for later, as needed.

[Selene]

And not only but also. I owe you thanks Adam, because of you I, Respectable Widow and Ancient Relic, understand the ethos of BDSM and was outraged when local criminal tried to use his devotion to consensual rough sex to justify his nonconsensual assaults. I leave the jokes for later, as needed.

This dude?

Jian Ghomeshi: Rough Sex, Sexual Assault and the Criminal Law

Is Jian Ghomeshi innocent?

In the media frenzy surrounding the allegations against Jian Ghomeshi, it is important to keep an open mind in spite of the number of women who are making allegations against him.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence has been referred to as the golden thread that runs through our criminal law. The presumption of innocence should work to protect each one of us from conviction of a criminal offence, not only in court but in the court of public opinion.

The Media’s Influence

In the course of a week, Mr. Ghomeshi has fallen from media hero to media zero. He lost his job as the CBC golden boy, the company that he hired for damage control has kicked him to the curb, his former bandmates have disassociated themselves from him, and the Toronto Police Services are collecting complaints from women who allege inappropriate contact with them.

The feeding frenzy is so furious that the only antidote will be a room without a view.

Has he broken any Laws?

The criminal law is very clear on the subject of sexual assault and rough sex. Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault.

If the touching is for a sexual purpose or is in a sexual part of the body like the breasts, the crotch, or the buttocks, the non-consensual touching constitutes a sexual assault.

There is nothing illegal about two (or more) consenting parties who choose to engage in rough sex, as long as the parties consent to the sexual activity and have the capacity to consent (meaning they’re not intoxicated, they’re above the age of consent, or they’re not intellectually challenged), the criminal law isn’t interested in their sexual behaviours.

Read more: http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/sexual-assault/jian-ghomeshi-rough-sex-sexual-assault-criminal-law/#ixzz3NANWIQqD

[caroljane]

Yeah, him.

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, what does "without their consent" mean? Not getting it in writing--notarized?

--Brant

poor Howard

[Selene]

Gee, what does "without their consent" mean? Not getting it in writing--notarized?

--Brant

poor Howard

Yes, the ole he knew she wanted "it" meme.

There are examples of female "rape." There probably always were, however with the electronic global village that we choose to reside in, we become aware of it more often.

[anthony]

The criminal law is very clear on the subject of sexual assault and rough sex. Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault.

If the touching is for a sexual purpose or is in a sexual part of the body like the breasts, the crotch, or the buttocks, the non-consensual touching constitutes a sexual assault.

By those standards most men have been sexually assaulted (ahh, I'll never forget the trauma!)

What a tediously proper world it's becoming. I think when words lose or blur definition, the genuine instances of assault and rape will lessen in significance by getting painted with the same subjective brush.

[Brant Gaede]

I still remember that hand on my--oh, never mind!

--Brant

traumatized to this day

[Selene]

What a tediously proper world it's becoming. I think when words lose or blur definition, the genuine instances of assault and rape will lessen in significance by getting painted with the same subjective brush.

Man, Tony, you are on a roll!

This is the marxist dream where they interpret the blur and worse than interpret, they indict you, try you, convict you and punish you.

This is the land of the Queen of Hearts trial procedure.

Look at the word "torture" and how "proper boy" Gary just throws all his agenda items into the cart of torture.

Racism is another perfect example of blurring.

A..