What About Bill Cosby?

[Jules Troy]

Haha in highschool I was invited to a toga party.

Turns out I was the only guy there!

Oh the trauma!?

[william.scherk]

[Adam is quoting from an article "Jian Ghomeshi: Rough Sex, Sexual Assault and the Criminal Law," at Torontodefencelawyers.com]

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.

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.

I find it hard to square Tony and Adam's comments with an aspect of Objectivsm I call 'do not use force' ... do not lay on hands without invitation ... do not punch without invitation ... do not jam fingers into a vagina without invitation.**

Most facts about Ghomeshi will be encountered at trial, but the CBC's statement on why Ghomeshi was fired referred to digital photographs Ghomeshi showed to his bosses. If you aren't already in possession of this info, Google 'ghomeshi bruise' ...

What is to be decided in court are the actual charges brought. I am quite surprised to see such derision for Canada's sexual assault laws, and such wholesale boys club assumption that charges against Ghomeshi are specious because of a defect in law or definition.

It is striking to me that Objectivish folks bias toward the male and thereby approve a putative Ghomeshi aggression in sex, complainants be damned.

A little reminder from the TO defense lawyer site that Ghomeshi's charges have not yet been tested in court, that the presumption of innocence is accorded him -- that is of course necessary, and sobering. A note and link to the criminal code is also necessary -- it makes the matters at law come into focus. The TOdl material points to the issues of consent and violence that will be decided.

From there to smirking about murky-on-the-details hot stuff acts (with obvious consent and pleasure) is a jump for me.

Is that the best an Objectivish guy can offer on R v Ghomeshi? To go blank on consent?

-- re the notion that all that hot stuff the hardy men folk wished did not happen (Oh, but the acts were welcome and pleasurable, d'oh) has somehow become an assault in the eyes of the law, it isn't good enough to posit some murky analogous encounter. You need to argue that Ghomeshi invoked the same pleasure principle as did the person/s who 'assaulted' you.

The other irrational assumption is that general instances of 'Tony's Encounter' are prosecuted under Canada's criminal code. This needs facts to back it up. You need to show the courts are clogged with frivolous Tony's Encounter trials ...

I cannot otherwise explain the derisory comments by reference to Rand -- not while the comments assume facts not in evidence. A generalized sneering at victimology seems malicious rather than objective. What purpose does it serve to assume that the Crown is utterly mistaken to bring charges? What rational purpose does it serve to denigrate the actual claims of the complainants?

______________________

** do not slap me ... push me to my knees, etc.

^† I give you access to my body, I invite you to touch me, I want you to strike me with passion, I enjoy to be slapped and punched, I consent to you hurting me, I enjoyed the bruisings you inflicted on me. I want to be choked into submission in my fantasy play with you.

-- here I also assume facts not in evidence. Which is why I generally stay out of the Cosby/Ghomeshi/rape discussions.

By Tony's hop and skip past the plain qualifier 'consensual,' he drops the most important standard at issue and mistakenly concludes that he too, and most men must have had the 'pleasure' of being sexually assaulted ...

It is quite possible to rationally argue -- even forcefully -- in Ghomeshi's defence. Several arguments of this type have appeared already. They discuss the fraught issues that underly the case, the bias against him, the trial by media, the overwhelming social punishment already inflicted upon Ghomeshi. I can recommend Shannon Kari's analysis in the Globe and Mail, as well as Drew Hasselback's article in the National Post. It is important to consider the serious matters at law and consider the actual state of jurisprudence, previous cases, limits to consent, all concerning real-life harms.

There's gotta be a better way to discuss a pending case that involves serious charges than a lazy attack on the usual suspects. I mean, without argument by analogy and vague anecdotes of pleasures to be had via 'sexual assault.' Without belittling or denigrating the unnamed bad actors ...

Edited December 29, 2014 by william.scherk

[Jules Troy]

No I think Ghomeshi is guilty as hell and he is going to get nailed(rightfully so). It seems to me he used his position at work as a shield against being held accountable and thought himself untouchable.

I have a very good friend that was abused as a child by catholic priests. It has coloured his entire life. Needless to say as an adult he is not someone anyone would consider messing with..

He has finally turned his life around but as a younger man he was self medicating a lottttt!

[Brant Gaede]

Haha in highschool I was invited to a toga party.

Turns out I was the only guy there!

Oh the trauma!

Can I use my imagination?

--Brant

[Selene]

I find it hard to square Tony and Adam's comments with an aspect of Objectivsm I call 'do not use force' ... do not lay on hands without invitation ... do not punch without invitation ... do not jam fingers into a vagina without invitation.**

William. can you point to my statement wherein I implied any of the above?

A...

[anthony]

[Adam is quoting from an article "Jian Ghomeshi: Rough Sex, Sexual Assault and the Criminal Law," at Torontodefencelawyers.com]

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.

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.

I find it hard to square Tony and Adam's comments with an aspect of Objectivsm I call 'do not use force' ... do not lay on hands without invitation ... do not punch without invitation ... do not jam fingers into a vagina without invitation.**

...

From : "Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault".

To: "...fingers into a vagina..."

(After which I turned off this non-sequiturish sanctimony).

It so happens that I believe touch may be accidental**, friendly, innocent, habitual or warmly meant; or simply the gently attempted kiss of one's date.

It so happens I think that when Mother Grundy's distort the meaning of "sexual assault", the gravity of true sexual offences will be trivialised as a consequence. (Cry "Wolf!").

Women and men should be big enough to handle such minor instances themselves.

"Progressivist" laws undermine individuality and individualism, self-responsibility and free association. Mother Grundy's constantly assume the worst of people, there is little doubt, also try to make everyone a victim. All the more responsibility for the State to gladly take on.

The article I haven't read, and doubt I will. Those two lines caught my attention.

**(And who will determine what is "intentional" or unintentional?)

[Brant Gaede]

If you merely "touch" someone without their "consent" it's assault? I think we can baseline this out as (legal) stupid and not applicable to a discussion about any kind of assault. Sometimes the touch is a request for permission.

--Brant

ref. post 144

[Jules Troy]

Haha in highschool I was invited to a toga party.

Turns out I was the only guy there!

Oh the trauma!

Can I use my imagination?

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

? lol I was one happy man slut!

[Selene]

I find one aspect about the preachy to be really annoying.

I find the fact that they are not completely grateful that someone has not just wasted them for being annoying.

There you go William...what do you conclude about that sarcastic statement?

That I want to kill them with the initiation of force?

I have never initiated force.

I have never forced myself on a woman, unless it was agreed too.

In fact, there have been several particular situations wherein I looked the woman directly in the eyes and stated that, if anything was going to occur, she would have to initiate it..

Apparently, that is an extremely erotic path for some women.

A...

[william.scherk]

If you merely "touch" someone without their "consent" it's assault? I think we can baseline this out as (legal) stupid and not applicable to a discussion about any kind of assault. Sometimes the touch is a request for permission.

You are quite right, Brant. The excerpt from the Toronto defense lawyers's page on Ghomeshi did not accurately reflect the Criminal Code. What that brief article recounted is not true. Here is the text of the Criminal Code covering assault. I have underlined the phrases that are importantly different from the TO folks brief and misleading article:

265. Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

© while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

© fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused’s belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Now, I had the benefit of knowing that the Criminal Code does not reflect this line: "Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault." It's not at all accurate.

Tony did not know this, and so his argument was poorly grounded. He was and is still, apparently, basing his commentary on inaccurate information.

So, what does reaction look like in light of better information?

From : "Any person who intentionally touches another person without their consent commits an assault".

To: "...fingers into a vagina..."

(After which I turned off this non-sequiturish sanctimony).

It's the very definiition of sexual assault that includes -- you now know if you have read this far -- FORCE.

It so happens that I believe touch may be accidental**, friendly, innocent, habitual or warmly meant; or simply the gently attempted kiss of one's date.

This is an ocean away from what constitutes sexual assault in Canada, and it also trivializes the offences charged against Ghomeshi. What is 'gently attempted' about 'overcome resistance -- choking'?

What is the difference between your happily consented sexual contact and what sexual assault means in Canada, Tony? The very element dropped by TOdl in its brief notes -- FORCE and threat of FORCE.

It so happens I think that when Mother Grundy's distort the meaning of "sexual assault", the gravity of true sexual offences will be trivialised as a consequence. (Cry "Wolf!").

Who is the Mother Grundy in this thread? And who has distorted the meaning of sexual assault -- you, the defense lawyers of Toronto, or me?

It disturbs me that you throw in 'Cry Wolf' in relation to Ghomeshi's alleged crimes. What do you actually know about the case to have judged it so -- to have judged the complainants as crying wolf?

Women and men should be big enough to handle such minor instances themselves.

Does this have anything to do with the types of charges against Ghomeshi? 'Such minor instances' of a stolen kiss, a nice young man's hormonal grappling with a sweet lass, or a suite of nice, friendly, warm interpersonal touches -- are you contrasting this kind of behaviour with actual sexual assault as charged in re Ghomeshi?

"Progressivist" laws undermine individuality and individualism, self-responsibility and free association. Mother Grundy's constantly assume the worst of people, there is little doubt, also try to make everyone a victim. All the more responsibility for the State to gladly take on.

Jeepers. Now you are sailing on the wide Sea of Generalities. Can you apply these nostrums to Ghomeshi now that you understand the law better?

At root is that Ur-Objectivist redline on initiating force. The essential aspect of assault is force. It's in the law of my land and likely in your land South Africa too.

The article I haven't read, and doubt I will. Those two lines caught my attention.

That's a pretty feeble effort to ground your incantations in reality. I hope you understand now how the law actually stands up here, and that the Toronto Defense lawyers' two lines led you astray.

Edited December 29, 2014 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

What? No comments yet about Gloria Allred's generous offer to Bill Cosby? I guess the Ghomeshi case is a spellbinder....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/26/will_allred_offer_the_cosby_deal_to_the_clintons_125069.html

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What? No comments yet about Gloria Allred's generous offer to Bill Cosby? I guess the Ghomeshi case is a spellbinder....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/26/will_allred_offer_the_cosby_deal_to_the_clintons_125069.html

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Dayaamm!

Allred basically wants Cosby to admit guilt so he can be tried, or after a hundred million smackaroonies, she can generously waive trying him.

However, the clincher. Let me quote from that article:

Allred prides herself on "standing up for women."

When, however, another alleged victim of sexual battery, Kathleen Willey, sought her help, she says Allred turned her back on her. Willey, a former White House volunteer and self-described "good friend" of then-president Bill Clinton, appeared on "60 Minutes" and accused Clinton of sexually battery.

Willey said she went to ask Clinton for a paid job or any other aid he could offer. "I just told him that my husband was in financial difficulty and that things were at a crisis point," said Willey, "and that my volunteer days were over, that I needed a regular paying job and could he help me." But in a small room just off the Oval Office, she says, Clinton hugged and kissed her. When she tried to push him away, "he touched my breasts with his hand ... and then he whispered ... 'I've wanted to do this ever since I laid eyes on you.' ... He took my hand, and he put it ... on his genitals." Finally, says Willey, she managed to push him away.

Willie says she phoned Gloria Allred's law office twice, left her name and number, and never heard back.

Juanita Broaddrick, a former operator of nursing homes, claims that in 1978 gubernatorial candidate Bill Clinton, then Arkansas attorney general, raped her. Furthermore, she claims that two weeks following the assault, Hillary Clinton verbally intimidated her.

Will Allred offer the Cosby deal to the Clintons, more specifically to Hillary, the woman who would become president?

Verbally intimidating an alleged rape victim two weeks after the rape is not exactly presidential resume-building material.

Hillary deserves an opportunity to "defend herself" and clear her name.

If it's a good enough deal for Bill Cosby, it ought to be good enough for Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Allred should say she stands up for women of certain political beliefs, but doesn't care too much about the others.

I have a feeling if Hillary runs, this angle is going to be milked to death. It gives ideological legs to Bill's uh... indiscretions... All they have to do is get the victimization and moral crusader storytelling down (which the right sucks at).

Still, in my opinion, the Cosby persecution by the progressive left now has real potential to blow up in their faces like a trick cigar.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Of course Gloria Allred wouldn't go near Kathleen Willey.

Any more than the national leadership of NOW wanted their Los Angeles chapter out in the streets protesting the O. J. Simpson verdict.

Allred sees favorable publicity, not to mention previously undreamed of sums of money should Bill Cosby fall for her ploy.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to her how her tactic could be used against Bill Clinton.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

These people are walking in their own shit.

--Brant

[anthony]

At root is that Ur-Objectivist redline on initiating force. The essential aspect of assault is force. It's in the law of my land and likely in your land South Africa too.

The article I haven't read, and doubt I will. Those two lines caught my attention.

That's a pretty feeble effort to ground your incantations in reality. I hope you understand now how the law actually stands up here, and that the Toronto Defense lawyers' two lines led you astray.

Give the man one point for showing the Statute, actually, to read "force", not "touch".

But you didn't know that, originally, did you? In that earlier post? Even assuming you did - you were definitely aware then, that I (and others, here) took it as read: i.e. touch.

For conflating force and touch, and then gratuitously invoking 'initiation of force' to we (obviously insensitive, unempathic) libertarians and O'ists, points lost.

[william.scherk]

At root is that Ur-Objectivist redline on initiating force. The essential aspect of assault is force. It's in the law of my land and likely in your land South Africa too.

The article I haven't read, and doubt I will. Those two lines caught my attention.

That's a pretty feeble effort to ground your incantations in reality. I hope you understand now how the law actually stands up here, and that the Toronto Defense lawyers' two lines led you astray.

Give the man one point for showing the Statute, actually, to read "force", not "touch".

Thank you. Everyone gets prizes.

Seriously, I could have done better with my objections. It wasn't clear in my initial jeremiad that 'force' is in law, and that the Toronto defence lawyers mischaracterized our laws. Objections to blurring concepts, frivolous civil lawsuits, subsuming under 'sexual assault' what could be normal non-forced mutual pleasures ... these are all fine objections when made in reference to real practice or actual horror-stories of 'rape culture' hysteria. It is too bad that that two excerpted lines from the TO folk were accepted as accurate.

I apologize for turning on the rhetorical afterburners in my mad tendentious way ...

But you didn't know that, originally, did you? In that earlier post? Even assuming you did - you were definitely aware then, that I (and others, here) took it as read: i.e. touch.

I knew it was a misreading, but no -- I didn't immediately dial up the Criminal Code. I was definitely aware that Adam and you considered it proper -- and that each of you were apparently willing to assume the charges against Ghomeshi were some trivial 'sexual touch' confections. I assumed neither of you had checked the premise that Canadian assault laws were accurately described.

Now I see that your several conclusions could be true -- although not warranted by the Ghomeshi case or the Canadian Criminal Code, instances of egregious overreach on campus, or particular travesties of justice could provide support.

For conflating force and touch, and then gratuitously invoking 'initiation of force' to we (obviously insensitive, unempathic) libertarians and O'ists, points lost.

Everyone gets extra points for a better understanding of the law in Canada. If and when Ghomeshi comes to trial, we will all be better positioned to offer informed comment.

Decoupling the element of force from definitions of assault can happen when we accept a couple of inaccurate lines from a blog as good authority, nu?

But you hit upon a heretofore unspoken subject -- that of empathy. In the Ghomeshi case I have empathy for him, and I have empathy for the people who will testify against him. In the wider scheme of things, I bet each of us here does understand the general dynamics of sexual abuse and assault -- and thus has empathy for those forced or coerced into unwanted sexual activity -- be it extremely grave (torture, injury, bodily harms) or of lesser but still grave offenses against an individual.

We all of us here have empathy for the child who is subject to sexual interference by an adult. In that case, we do not attempt to redraw or reframe the motivation to 'empathize' with the adult. It does matter to us that the acts might be described as 'accidental,' friendly, innocent, habitual or warmly meant or simply a gently attempted kiss. IF the intent was to gratify the adult sexually, we can consider many 'gentle' acts to be crimes. As Jules noted above, the effects of child sexual abuse can be long-lasting.

With a different scope of interest, we can extend our empathy for the child. If the person subject to a sexual assault (by Canadian definition) is a relative, a daughter or son, a partner, our empathy is with them.

On the larger scale of 'what about possibly falsely accused men and women,' my empathy is also engaged. I am a veteran of the mid/late 90s 'memory wars,' and have always been sensitive to the very real effects of contamination, confabulation, moral panic, etc., which can give rise to false accusations. I am sensitive to the immense damage done to the falsely accused.

Back to where we agree, Tony. I don't like Mother Grundys (or defense lawyers) who distort the meaning of "sexual assault." But as to whether, as you suggest, "Women and men should be big enough to handle such minor instances themselves" -- we have to do the diligent work to separate 'minor instances' brought to court or the court of public opinion from serious criminal acts.

Which brings me to 'what about Cosby?' Here I only know that more than one woman has alleged that Cosby administered some kind of sedative or hypnotic in order to have sex with a compliant body. These allegations conflict with what I thought I knew about Cosby. I wish that the allegations could be disproved, and that the false allegations, if any, are repudiated.

In the possibility that Cosby actually did have a habit of administering drugs to women to make them compliant for sex, then I am sad for all. Why would anyone stoop to this behaviour?

I can't calculate any of the probabilities from the possibilities. I can simply adduce, however, that the worst way to deal with Cosby allegations is trial by media. As for Allred, her suggestion sounds insane.

Since the Cosby allegations will none of them likely end up in court, he appears to have no redress. This leaves everything unproven, and leaves a taint on Cosby. The women are also tainted, if only by an implication that they are all liars, extortionists, sluts/bunnies, or otherwise morally squalid creatures.

Edited December 30, 2014 by william.scherk

[Mikee]

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/video/phylicia-rashad-defends-bill-cosby-142408505.html

[Brant Gaede]

And here I thought plying women with booze was a legitimate seduction technique.

--Brant

now you need a notarized contract each step of the way--a chaperone to watch you go at it (and no under the covers) who will make a video you can sell later if you need some money--or just keep it to look at instead of doing it if a chaperone isn't available to watch you

the man might need some booze, too, you know--for mental lubrication--lubrication is what sex is all about--oh, wait; lust, especially lusty lust; you can't beat lusty lust unless you're comparing lusty lust with and without lubrication

I remember lust and I can't forget that lack of lube, I think it was that season I spent at the North Pole (owe!}--without covers, up there; you gotta be quick or you'll freeze your ass off, up there, not to mention the other stuff

[Brant Gaede]

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/video/phylicia-rashad-defends-bill-cosby-142408505.html

It's a lynching. Liberals lynching someone not liberal enough and who represents what they want to destroy. They once destroyed an Oregon Republican Senator accused literally and only (I think) of chasing his secretary around his desk. But did they destroy Bill Clinton?

--Brant

or Obama for being a fake (six days a week and twice on Sunday)?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/video/phylicia-rashad-defends-bill-cosby-142408505.html

Mike,

Here's another to complement it:

Phylicia Rashad defends TV husband Bill Cosby: ‘Forget these women’

Rashad, who played Cosby's wife for more than a decade on two TV shows, called the rape accusations against the 77-year-old comedian bogus and claimed they were a ploy to destroy his legacy.

By Philip Caulfield

New York Daily News

January 7, 2015

From the article:

"Cosby Show" actress Phylicia Rashad has spoken out in defense of her former TV husband Bill Cosby, saying he's being framed for rape in an "orchestrated" plot to destroy his legacy.

"Forget these women," Rashad told Showbiz 411. "What you're seeing is the destruction of a legacy. And I think it's orchestrated. I don't know why or who's doing it, but it's the legacy. And it's a legacy that is so important to the culture."

The 66-year-old actress, who played flinty lawyer and sometime Cosby comedic foil Clair Huxtable for eight seasons, was firm in her defense of her former co-star, telling Showbiz reporter Roger Friedman, "I love him."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with the elites:

 

 

 

At least this is a real court case with real trial lawyers, and one of them, Dershowitz, is livid with the others for being named in the suit. Man is he pissed.

 

For those who don't want to watch the video, a bunch of really famous and powerful people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and others are cited in a lawsuit for enjoying the sexual largess provided by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein at an island where he has a 78 acre estate. One detail. This largess was made up of underage girls. The media is charmingly calling this place "Sex Slave Island." Epstein was famous for promoting orgies there. In a recent development, it looks like even scientist Stephen Hawking is said to have gotten in on the action.

 

So far, the powerful have managed to keep this affair down to a distant inconvenience, but now some high-powered lawyers (Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards) are involved in a federal lawsuit against the US government claiming the civil rights of some female victims were infringed during Epstein's previous criminal trial where he was convicted as a sex offender.

 

Coulter says to keep an eye on this one because it has all the markings of a major scandal that will only get worse. So far, this thing has been growing and growing.

 

More women are coming out of the woodworks, too. But they're doing it in court.

 

We have to wait for the court and see before making any firm judgment, of course, but one thing is weird. All those mainstream journalists who were self-righteously pointing the finger at Cosby and denouncing him in the strongest moral terms day after day after day seem like they are reporting this Epstein stuff reluctantly. Kinda timidly. Very little opinion in their articles so far and lots of strategic omissions.

 

I wonder why, I wonder?

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Without comment.

Bill Cosby's Lawyer: Comedian Wasn't At Party During Alleged Assault

Michael

[Selene]

Without comment.

During Alleged AssaultBill Cosby's Lawyer: Comedian Wasn't At Party

Michael

Hmm looks like, smells like an ...

ALIBI...

Alibi is a Latin term meaning "in another place." It is an excuse supplied by a person suspected of or charged with a crime, supposedly explaining why they couldn't be guilty. An alibi may be posited by the accused, or they may produce a third person to supply an alibi for them.

An alibi generally involves a claim that the accused was involved in another activity at the time of the crime. It is a defense that claims the accused is innocent, as opposed to merely excused from blame.

So, that would make, by comparison, the alleged victim, a criminal by filing a false allegation.

A...

Is the worm turning?

[Brant Gaede]

Just because they lynched Bill Crosby doesn't stop his lawyers.

--Brant