You guys always so deferential to the judiciary? Never form your own opinions, just wait until the jury/judge's decision and accept it 100%?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
Cosby Allegations
- Thread starter NHHEMI
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: pbm
I still think there is something to these claims.
I just can't imagine so many unrelated woman lying.
Looks like I may have been right afterall....
Cosby in a stand-up routine made jokes about drugging women. One written account by an alleged victim stated that she would have willingly slept with him, but that he drugged her anyway. Her belief is that he enjoys raping women and I believe that.
So why are so many people willing to believe him instead of her and her and her x18? Do you not understand the power dynamic at work?
Sexism. Most men will believe that she ("they", in this case) "deserved" it.
To say that most men will think a woman deserves what she got is sexist in and of itself. It is a total load of BULL! Not just believing a claim of rape without some proof does not make a man a sexist nor does it mean he thinks the woman got what she deserved. Wow!
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: pbm
I still think there is something to these claims.
I just can't imagine so many unrelated woman lying.
Looks like I may have been right afterall....
Cosby in a stand-up routine made jokes about drugging women. One written account by an alleged victim stated that she would have willingly slept with him, but that he drugged her anyway. Her belief is that he enjoys raping women and I believe that.
So why are so many people willing to believe him instead of her and her and her x18? Do you not understand the power dynamic at work?
Sexism. Most men will believe that she ("they", in this case) "deserved" it.
To say that most men will think a woman deserves what she got is sexist in and of itself. It is a total load of BULL! Not just believing a claim of rape without some proof does not make a man a sexist nor does it mean he thinks the woman got what she deserved. Wow!
Originally Posted By: greenjp
You guys always so deferential to the judiciary? Never form your own opinions, just wait until the jury/judge's decision and accept it 100%?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
I have my own opinion formed on what I know about a particular case. I defer to the judicial system however because the lawyers, judges, and jury know a lot more about what went on then I do. Also, that is how it works in our country. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I try not to form my opinion on the biased and/or limited info I get from our circus like news media.
As to the OJ trial I think the jury got it right. I actually watched a LOT of the trial on TV so I base that on what I actually saw and heard. While he may well have had something to do with it, I don't know for sure, what I do know( believe )is that the Police tried to frame him and/or manufacture evidence. THAT alone is enough for the not guilty verdict. Once the evidence is tampered with the whole case is a non starter.
The missing mil's of blood and the bloody sock ultimately are what lead to the not guilty. At least for me it would have when you factor in Police with a bias. There was missing blood and then the sock wasn't there in some photos of the bedroom( or whatever room it was - been a long time )then magically appeared later. The blood soaking pattern on the sock showed that the blood got on it on one side and soaked through in a manner consistent with no ankle/foot being in it. IMO, someone planted blood on it and it soaked through from one side to the other as the forensic expert for the defense testified to. If OJ was wearing it as the prosecution claimed the ankle/foot would have blocked the blood from going through to the inside of the opposite side of the sock. The missing blood was equal to the blood planted on the sock. To me that is a done deal for a not guilty.
People in this country are just too willing to believe any claim. As said before I would rather guilty men go free than for just one innocent man to go to jail. Proof needs to be irrefutable and concrete. Not circumstantial and not based on emotion or hysteria whipped up by the media.
You guys always so deferential to the judiciary? Never form your own opinions, just wait until the jury/judge's decision and accept it 100%?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
I have my own opinion formed on what I know about a particular case. I defer to the judicial system however because the lawyers, judges, and jury know a lot more about what went on then I do. Also, that is how it works in our country. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I try not to form my opinion on the biased and/or limited info I get from our circus like news media.
As to the OJ trial I think the jury got it right. I actually watched a LOT of the trial on TV so I base that on what I actually saw and heard. While he may well have had something to do with it, I don't know for sure, what I do know( believe )is that the Police tried to frame him and/or manufacture evidence. THAT alone is enough for the not guilty verdict. Once the evidence is tampered with the whole case is a non starter.
The missing mil's of blood and the bloody sock ultimately are what lead to the not guilty. At least for me it would have when you factor in Police with a bias. There was missing blood and then the sock wasn't there in some photos of the bedroom( or whatever room it was - been a long time )then magically appeared later. The blood soaking pattern on the sock showed that the blood got on it on one side and soaked through in a manner consistent with no ankle/foot being in it. IMO, someone planted blood on it and it soaked through from one side to the other as the forensic expert for the defense testified to. If OJ was wearing it as the prosecution claimed the ankle/foot would have blocked the blood from going through to the inside of the opposite side of the sock. The missing blood was equal to the blood planted on the sock. To me that is a done deal for a not guilty.
People in this country are just too willing to believe any claim. As said before I would rather guilty men go free than for just one innocent man to go to jail. Proof needs to be irrefutable and concrete. Not circumstantial and not based on emotion or hysteria whipped up by the media.
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Bill Cosby was kind of a TV hero for me. I am old enough to remember the 'I Spy' series with the stars Robert Culp (I think was the name of the white actor) and Bill Cosby. 'I Spy' was actually considered a pioneering TV series because of a white and black actor starring together and acting together.
Cosby became a bigger star over the years than Culp. I was very impressed with Cosby for several years.
Well, over the past few years all of this stuff has been coming out. Cosby is of course innocent unless and until proven guilty.
My personal opinion is that Cosby is probably guilty. Something like 40+ women have come forward. Based on what I know about women I doubt that many women would come forward with allegations against Cosby unless they were telling the truth. Sure, there may be a few women that just are out for money or publicity or revenge in some way or whatever, but I just do not think that many women would accuse a man unless most of them were probably telling the truth.
In addition, Cosby actually has made some statements in court that are very [censored] of him.
Once again, a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty. But my best guess at this time is that he is guilty. And if he is guilty, he loses my respect. And I respected Cosby very, very much.
I too grew up with "I Spy," Cosby and Robert Culp, whom I also respected quite a bit; he was a good actor, a solid writer, and did everything he could to help Cosby along at a time when Cosby was only a stand-up comedian, and had never done any serious acting. As for BC, one of the first albums I bought was his "Why Is There Air?" comedy album, and I can still quote bits from it.
I don't know what to think of this. The sheer numbers of women coming forward who can no longer profit by naming him . . . well, it doesn't look good.
I'm glad Mr. Culp isn't around to see this.
Robert Culp himself was a very accomplished actor. He even wrote some of the scripts for 'I Spy' and I think he directed at least one show. He did help advance the career of Bill Cosby. But probably relatively few people remember Culp as compared to Cosby. Culp died of a heart attack.
I wonder what Culp would have thought of all of this concerning Cosby?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Bill Cosby was kind of a TV hero for me. I am old enough to remember the 'I Spy' series with the stars Robert Culp (I think was the name of the white actor) and Bill Cosby. 'I Spy' was actually considered a pioneering TV series because of a white and black actor starring together and acting together.
Cosby became a bigger star over the years than Culp. I was very impressed with Cosby for several years.
Well, over the past few years all of this stuff has been coming out. Cosby is of course innocent unless and until proven guilty.
My personal opinion is that Cosby is probably guilty. Something like 40+ women have come forward. Based on what I know about women I doubt that many women would come forward with allegations against Cosby unless they were telling the truth. Sure, there may be a few women that just are out for money or publicity or revenge in some way or whatever, but I just do not think that many women would accuse a man unless most of them were probably telling the truth.
In addition, Cosby actually has made some statements in court that are very [censored] of him.
Once again, a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty. But my best guess at this time is that he is guilty. And if he is guilty, he loses my respect. And I respected Cosby very, very much.
I too grew up with "I Spy," Cosby and Robert Culp, whom I also respected quite a bit; he was a good actor, a solid writer, and did everything he could to help Cosby along at a time when Cosby was only a stand-up comedian, and had never done any serious acting. As for BC, one of the first albums I bought was his "Why Is There Air?" comedy album, and I can still quote bits from it.
I don't know what to think of this. The sheer numbers of women coming forward who can no longer profit by naming him . . . well, it doesn't look good.
I'm glad Mr. Culp isn't around to see this.
Robert Culp himself was a very accomplished actor. He even wrote some of the scripts for 'I Spy' and I think he directed at least one show. He did help advance the career of Bill Cosby. But probably relatively few people remember Culp as compared to Cosby. Culp died of a heart attack.
I wonder what Culp would have thought of all of this concerning Cosby?
I have to say I don't find that funny in the least. Rape is not funny nor is a false accusation of rape if he didn't do it. I don't think we will ever know the truth behind the Cosby situation but I do know that making jokes about it is not funny and just classless.
Nobody asks themselves how a man can be a rampaging rapist and everybody keeps it a secret for half of forever? If 40 have come forward, there must be 200. Serial rapists don't stop or regulate. So why exactly would THIS many people keep it under wraps? Even if it is just 40+?
20+ years ago, doing a Fatty Arbuckle to a black celebrity for sexual assault would have been about as hard as closing a door.
That's the real thing I don't understand. These were not children. Now, 20+ years after the fact, when nobody can do anything anymore, it's time to go to war?
At this point,,there are still more dots to be connected.
20+ years ago, doing a Fatty Arbuckle to a black celebrity for sexual assault would have been about as hard as closing a door.
That's the real thing I don't understand. These were not children. Now, 20+ years after the fact, when nobody can do anything anymore, it's time to go to war?
At this point,,there are still more dots to be connected.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
You guys always so deferential to the judiciary? Never form your own opinions, just wait until the jury/judge's decision and accept it 100%?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
A lot of people who have seen the judiciary on TV only are deferential. Interact with the system a little bit, and they would see that a lot of the cases are won by who can afford the better and more creative lawyers.
You guys always so deferential to the judiciary? Never form your own opinions, just wait until the jury/judge's decision and accept it 100%?
What'd you think of the OJ trial?
A lot of people who have seen the judiciary on TV only are deferential. Interact with the system a little bit, and they would see that a lot of the cases are won by who can afford the better and more creative lawyers.
Wow, NHHEMI is pro Paula Deen, Bill Cosby and OJ.
That is a very strange set ofcell mates bedfellows.
Oh, but anti- what's the white trashy girl who gets his feathers ruffled? The one who self admitted to doing weird things; that one. Yeah, but 40+ accusers can't be believed or DNA evidence.
That is a very strange set of
Oh, but anti- what's the white trashy girl who gets his feathers ruffled? The one who self admitted to doing weird things; that one. Yeah, but 40+ accusers can't be believed or DNA evidence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
