Originally Posted By: greenjp
I'm not sure what "proof" you're after. Opinions (and indeed court cases) are often settled with something short of prima facie evidence. People typically use a preponderance of evidence approach to forming opinions, in this case by the time there were a half dozen accusations and the corroborating evidence from his former assistant it was pretty clear what the truth was. If this latest news isn't enough to convince you, what would?
Many of you guys are hung up on the amount of time it took for them to surface (being ignorant, willfully or not, of what would have been involved in the 70s and 80s for a young girl to make such allegations against Cosby), the fact that he's rich (if a rich dude did something awful to me you better believe I'd be going after his money!), and general suspicion of rape accusations. That's all causing you to set a much higher bar for this subject that I suspect you use for others.
jeff
The same proof I would want if you were being accused of these things. DNA evidence, hospital reports, Police reports, eye witnesses, video evidence, etc... He said/she said does not cut it for me with allegations of rape. I don't care when a woman grew up and/or had the alleged attack take place nor do I care who the alleged perp is. Those are excuses IMHO. If she decided to stay silent then she needs to live with that decision. Coming out about it decades later, following claims by others, applies a certain stink to it that can't be ignored. Show me something concrete and I will consider the claims. Just saying he did such and such to me but I couldn't say anything about it because of who he was or the time does not cut it with me. If you can't stand up for yourself in a time like that don't expect me to fight for you.
If a criminal case is settled without real evidence then it is a travesty of justice and should not stand. Convicting on circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it for me. Show me facts and hard proof someone did something if you want a guilty verdict from me. If someone is convicted without that real concrete proof then it tells me the jury and/or judge allowed emotion to sway their decision and that is not how it works in this country( or how it is supposed to work ). Civil cases have a lower burden of proof( I don't think that is right FWIW )and I have said he now faces problems in a civil case. I don't see where his admission allows for any criminal case if the statue of limitations has not expired on any of the claims against him though.
I would rather 10,000 guilty men go free than to have 1 innocent man go to jail. I don't think celebrities should be given any more benefit of the doubt than a regular citizen. However, with that said, I can't help be mindful of the fact that they are targets in our society for greedy folks seeing them as an easy meal ticket. That has to play into it to some degree when a celebrity is involved IMO.