Legally Competent, Ethically Bankrupt: The Zealous, Despicable Monique Pressley, Esq.

cosby-women-new-york-magazine-w724

Bill Cosby’s lawyer Monique Pressley decided to become a hybrid attorney-publicity agent yesterday, and in doing so provided an impromptu seminar on why people hate lawyers, and often should. She was carefully spinning and dissembling on behalf of her client without breaching the ethics rules against lying, parsing words and phrases with skill and deftness, all in the service of a serial sexual abuser and perhaps the greatest hypocrite pop culture has ever produced.

Brava!

Also, Yeeccch!

The impetus for her media spin tour, for that is all it was, is the New York magazine issue that features the stories of 35 of Cosby’s accusers. First Pressley told CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield that the women were comparable to a lynch mob:

“Through the decades, we have seen what we used to call lynch mobs, where people turned and pointed the finger at one person and accused that one person of doing something that they did not do, and they were filed into the court, one after another, to say, ‘He did it, he did it, she did it, she did it’ when it was not the case…That happened often in the ’60s and ’70s in this country.”

Clever! Good lawyering! First, “lynch mob” suggests black lynchings in the Jim Crow South, and playing the race card is something Bill has probably not done enough, seeing how effective that tactic has been in recent years. There is a technical problem, however, in this comparison. First, what Pressley describes is not what was ever called “lynch mobs,” since lynch mobs did not appear in court, but actually, you know, lynched people. Second, if there was ever a court case in which 35 (or more) women testified under oath that one man sexually assaulted them and presented credible accounts that were remarkably consistent with those of other witnesses with whom they had not coordinated, I venture to say that the guilty verdict was well-supported. In fact, I will bet my head that there has never been a case with 35 corroborating victim-witnesses to multiple sexual assaults by one man where the defendant has not been convicted, and correctly so. Therefore, Pressley is simply using a straw man argument and a false comparison to cast aspersions on Cosby’s victims for the beneficial confusion of CNN’s easily confused audience.

Zealous representation!

Also astoundingly scummy.

Then Cosby’s legal beagle visited the Huffington Post, and really hit her shameless stride:

“The only way for a woman to get the justice that she seeks — and that, if her allegation is true, that she deserves — is to come forward. And even if the reasons that the women did not do that are legitimate ones, what cannot happen — in my opinion, in the United States — is that 40 years later there is a persecution tantamount to a witch hunt where there was no prosecution timely and there was no civil suit timely. And there’s not any testimony or any accusation from any of these women that Mr. Cosby in any way bound them, gagged them, prevented them from coming forward and saying whatever their truth was at the time. That’s not what happened…I’m not speculating, I’m not thinking, I’m not opining, I’m not waxing poetic, but what I’m saying is women have responsibility. We have responsibility for our bodies, we have responsibility for our decisions, we have responsibility for the way we conduct ourselves.”

Note the term “witch hunt.” By this the lawyer is suggesting—dishonestly, but not sufficiently to trigger professional discipline—that Cosby is factually innocent, not just innocent in the eyes of the law. What she is doing is rhetorical and legal jargon sleight of mouth, playing on the public’s less-than-secure understanding of what “innocent until proven guilty” and “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” mean to mislead them into believing there is one chance in a billion that Cosby is not guilty of one, two or dozens of sexual assaults. Yes, it is true, because the statute of limitations have all expired, he cannot be found guilty of rape in a court of law. Thus, acting as if a crimes that cannot be proven in court don’t occur—did you know Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman are still alive?—Cosby’s lawyer compares those crimes to witchcraft in Salem in the 17th Century—a crime that never existed and couldn’t exist.

The result, Pressley says, is entirely the fault of the 35 (the real number is higher) women. They had an obligation to come forward earlier, she says, though we know that 1) none of them knew about the others until it was too late; 2) by drugging them, Cosby had created a plausible defense and 3) when the incidents occurred, the women, most in the entertainment industry, young, and without resources and influence, knew that he had the power and resources to squash them like bugs, employing the talents of pricey, soulless legal assassins like Monique Pressley to do so.

“And there’s not any testimony or any accusation from any of these women that Mr. Cosby in any way bound them, gagged them, prevented them from coming forward and saying whatever their truth was at the time.” Oooh, good lawyering! Some people who were unconscious for the last, say, 75 years really might believe that the only way a powerful celebrity or politician can stop his victims from coming forward is to physically bind them and gag them.

“..[W]e have responsibility for the way we conduct ourselves.” Really nicely slipped in there,  Monique! Bill should give you a bonus for that one. So many reflex enablers of powerful men who abuse women immediately hold the women responsible. Remember Rep. Maxine Waters in the Clinton impeachment debate in the House, complaining about how Monica Lewinsky and “these young girls” seduce and trap innocent, helpless middle-aged men, like poor Bubba? These women conducted themselves in such a way that they share culpability: after all (to paraphrase Otter to Flounder in “Animal House”), they fucked up! They trusted America’s Dad not to drug them and rape them!

Here is the problem with Monique’s logic and this line of defense, however: Cosby’s victims didn’t start this. They aren’t seeking Cosby’s imprisonment, they aren’t seeking money, and if he hadn’t continued to denigrate, accuse and debase one of their number, they wouldn’t have rallied to her defense. Waiting until it is too late to bring charges or file lawsuits to make a serious accusation of wrongdoing can be unfair, but not when the wrongdoer is publicly misrepresenting himself and his character, posing as a role model, lying, and quite possibly still hunting for victims. Like too many lawyers, Monique Pressley has either forgotten, or has been paid to talk like she doesn’t know, that the law and the truth are frequently not the same. Even when the law can’t assist in revealing the truth, the truth still has value, and those seeking to reveal it should not be attacked or compared to lynch mobs and witch hunters.

Except by lawyers defending their sick and reprehensible celebrity clients, however; then it’s good lawyering and zealous representation.

But it’s still disgusting.

I wouldn’t do it.

53 thoughts on “Legally Competent, Ethically Bankrupt: The Zealous, Despicable Monique Pressley, Esq.

  1. What Miss Pressley seems to be doing is tapping in on the natural disinclination of Cosby’s long time friends and supporters to abandon a man whom they had admired as a humorous, family friendly figure and principled advocate. To do so, she offers glib phrases and excuses on his behalf in public settings in the manner of a Hollywood publicist doing damage control on a seriously tarnished client. God knows, I’ve seen THIS before. When image clashes with reality, ramp up the image, provide simplistic leaps of logic… and keep it coming.

  2. Jack, aren’t you out of order in judging Miss Pressley as ‘despicable’? I guess you don’t know anything about her own opinions? Seems to me she is doing her job as best she can and at least deserves our respect? If you don’t like the advocacy system, how would you alter it? Even if you’ve been the biggest sh1t on the planet, some lawyer will take on a professional duty to defend you.

    • What does advocacy have to do with it? She’s not even practicing law! What is despicable is her intentionally dishonest and misleading characterization of the women and their complaints.

      Representing Cosby as any kind of victim in this is despicable. Calling 40 victims supporting each other against Cosby’s well-funded smokescreens and evasive tactics a “lynch mob” and a “witch hunt” is despicable. What are you missing?

      • Miss Pressley is being paid by Crosby to be his advocate, not to express her opinion or any sort of balanced view. She looks to have a poor hand to play. Of course she will do all she can to make her client look like a victim and his accusers look crazy, if she thinks that will benefit him. Blame Crossley to the extent that she is bad at her job or steps outside the law or relevant codes of professional practice. But please don’t blame her for being ‘going in hard’ for her client; that to my mind is quite unfair.

        • She’s paid to be his legal advocate, not his PR flack. She nicks legal ethics by engaging in misrepresentation, dishonesty and deceit. All she needs to say is that the alleged offenses occurred too long ago to be tested in court, and absent such a tst, it is unfair to her client to regard him as guilty of anything. That’s bullshit, but it doesn’t suggest that the actual victims are harassing Cosby because of race (lynch mobs), that they are making up their stories, or that this is some kind of deluded mas hysteria, all of which she knows for a fact are not the case.

      • Maybe it’s what you are missing. According to the Collins Dictionary, a lynch mob is defined as “a group of people who condemn and punish a person without a fair trial”. This is exactly what’s happening to Bill Cosby. The statute of limitations makes a great excuse for the actions they are doing against him while not having to be legally responsible for it. Are you missing the attacks against him? The cancelling of TV shows, radio broadcasts, statues, awards, degrees he’s received at universities, and on and on? Is this not lynch mob mentality at work?

        And what about “witch hunt”? Using social media to not only condemn the man, but to make him be the most prolific serial rapist of all time by using a lot of women and not using any evidence but their word. Sounds like a perfect example of witch hunt.

        There are various reports around the web that you can find that dispute the stories of many of these women.

        • I’m not missing anything, my friend. Glad you could cheery pick a definition—I know I always sprint to the “Collins Dictionary” whenever I need a definition. Hey, I can play that game: Here’s what the Macmillan Dictionary says—I actually own one of those—

          1. “a group of people who lynch someone who has not been proved guilty of any crime

          2 “any group of angry people who want to take action that is not officially allowed.”

          You will not that neither of these definitions fit Cosby’s accusers in any way, and that they key word in the first definition is “lynch,’ as in hang, as in kill. Moreover, any time an African-American invokes lynching, there is a presumed intent to argue that racism is involved.

          Sorry: that part of your argument doesn’t even get off the ground. In fact, it burrows.

          “The statute of limitations makes a great excuse for the actions they are doing against him while not having to be legally responsible for it. Are you missing the attacks against him? The cancelling of TV shows, radio broadcasts, statues, awards, degrees he’s received at universities, and on and on? Is this not lynch mob mentality at work?”

          Sorry, this is nonsense. Excuse? There are over 40 women who can tell the exact same story, and everything we have found out since people were claiming Bill was an innocent lamb has supported their accounts. He purchased, using a quack doctor and fraudulent prescriptions, a hypnotic drug for the purpose of gulling women into sexual vulnerability. Even if everything he has claimed is true, there would still be a valid issue of consent. Of course, it is almost certainly not true: he has minimal credibility.

          Are you from another planet? “The cancelling of TV shows, radio broadcasts, statues, awards, degrees he’s received at universities, and on and on” follows naturally from the FACT that the image he projected as a kind, funny, fatherly man who stood for family values and moral conduct was a sham! What college would want someone like this on its board? Who would watch a new TV show with a man within this history as its star, other than you, perhaps? I have written, if you check, that removing past honors he has received for his undeniably fine work as an entertainer is wrong, but this is organizational self-preservation at work, and has nothing to do with your “lynch mob mentality.”

          I have news for you: victim testimony IS evidence. Social media is opinion: Bill used it to his advantage while he could. he’s not being burned at the stake, and he’s no metaphorical “witch”—there were no witches. There are celebrity sexual predators. Bill Cosby, for example.

          “There are various reports around the web that you can find that dispute the stories of many of these women.”

          The Collins Dictionary may have this statement as its definition of “lame.” Yes, there are also reports on the internet that Obama is a space alien. Not persuasive.

          • Actually racism can play a big part. Have you heard of “white supremacy”, it’s a real thing and it’s the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society. So when a black man becomes successful and powerful, what do they do? That’s right, discredit him and trash his reputation just like they attacked Bill Cosby. Look at what happened with Michael Jackson. It’s not a far fetched idea that racism can be behind it, especially when you have a successful black man who success almost went into his 80’s.

            And these 40 women have very little interest to push their accusations any further than social media. Where is due process here? You have party drugs and women willing to do anything for success. You want to believe these women were sent to Cosby for “mentoring” but who’s going to back up that story? No one. Modeling agency closed, agents are dead, and records are garbage. They have no evidence to back that up. Waiting 40 years gives them freedom to create their own story and they will never see a court room to tell it. Convenient because you can always blame the statute of limitations.

            And what world do you live in where it’s appropriate to trash a person’s reputation due to a crime you can’t even prove? These women should not be praised, they should be arrested! He worked hard for his awards and his fame and regardless of what he did, he deserves those credits.

            And it’s funny that these reports are lame – you would rather believe women with a criminal past then a well-known, well respected entertainer. I certainly hope that Ms. Pressley calls their bluff and sues them for all they are worth. We shall see.

            • Let me be blunt and clear: you are deranged. I know all about white supremacy; it has nothing to do with Bill Cosby.

              There is no question that he is guilty as hell of extreme sexual harassment, sexual assault, and probably rape. There is no precedent for that many unconnected women making similar accusations about similar misconduct from the same man and the man being innocent. Nobody was out to get Bill Cosby, and his deposition shows that the conduct alleged was not out of character for him. None of these women have a thing to gain from subjecting themselves to attacks by celebrity-addled fools like you, who won’t be rational about how Cosby has lived a lie despite overwhelming evidence. This is typical of male sexual predators and sexual harassers, especially powerful ones: they intimidate, threaten and cajole their victims out of reporting them, then one persists, and the dam bursts. Your hero has lied and paid lawyers who have lied on his behalf. He is scum, and it is obvious.

              What alternate universe do you live in where someone can’t relate that harm was done to their person without having to prove it in court? Cosby is lucky, that’s all. He can keep his money and his freedom: what he’s losing is his fake reputation as a nice guy and a moral role model. Well, the public has a right to know, and if they still find a lying sexual predator funny, as some do, then great, he has an audience.

              Fact: there is no way Bill Cosby is not a despicable, criminal, indeed dangerous individual. All that is in reasonable question are the details: was it rape, or just harassment, adultery and assault? Was it just 40 women, or hundreds? Have a few of the women…disappeared? How many did he pay off? How complicit is his wife? How many of those who worked with him knew, and let this happen?

              His lawyer will not sue, because that would open the door for everything to come out. The only question is whether some of the women have a good lawsuit for slander. He’s been careful—I doubt it.

              You are deranged, as I said. Seek help. There is life after Bill Cosby, but he has corrupted you. You are not alone.

              • I think you have been corrupted by your friends Brandy Betts and her company. Unconnected? That lie seems to be spreading around but it’s far from the truth. Many of the women worked at JF Images at the same time, many worked at Playboy together, and they all found their way into Allred’s office to come out in waves of 2 or 3 at a time. How is this not connected?

                They don’t have anything to gain? Then why did Allred propose that Cosby give up $100 million to a victim relief fund? What about all the media publicity they have received? The TV shows, the interviews, the modeling sessions? Google their name and they are only known as the person accusing Cosby of rape. Besides Cosby articles, some of them have no online identity whatsoever.

                You have been subjected to lies and believed them like many others. For such a “dangerous individual”, he’s not been charged with a crime or even been kept an eye on by government agencies. Certainly someone who has more victims than your most dangerous criminals of all time like Ted Bundy, you would arouse suspicion – but yet there’s nothing. It’s interesting that you think 1 man could possibly outwit an entire nation and the police force but a group of people conspiring together couldn’t possibly have an ulterior motive.

                Maybe you should talk with your friends Brandy Betts and get the real scoop. She’s leading the charge against Cosby via social media. And yet she’s not been raped and who knows what her true agenda is.

                • What happened to the first women to come out as victims? They were slandered and attacked, called ladder climbing sluts, and generally dismissed. It took the total to get to DOZENS before it broke through to the mainstream.

                  Your suggestion of widespread connection is also bullshit. There are contemporary sources of the various women mention to individuals at the time that they were assault be Cosby, but not coming public with the accusations. Years later, people who had heard overlapping stories put victims in touch with each other here and there…or someone told a story to someone else who had the same story. Coming out in 2’s and 3’s is too be expected. Also, the overlapping work locations are to be expected, as they were great farming grounds for people to assault.

                  Should I go into your ridiculous claim that Cosby has been outwitting the public and police? Your Defense of Cosby in the face of overwhelming evidence shows this for the bullshit it is. Cosby’s powerful position over his victims and method of attack made legal action extremely unlikely.

                  • Bill’s position over his victims? How? As an actor? An actor is untouchable from the law? Especially when he wasn’t even at the height of his career? He was still 20 years away from trying to buy NBC.

                    It took dozens of them to come forward now, but what about then? You have all the evidence and proof you need to convict, but you don’t proceed? Why? Because the public doesn’t agree with them? Bullshit!

                    Allred has been pulling the strings of these women and using them to make planned, strategic assaults on Cosby. What lawyer actually shows up at their comedy show just to heckle them after months and months of abuse? That women is a monster and should not be practicing law. Don’t worry, once the Huth case goes forward – we’ll see the real picture. I personally can’t wait for the Dickinson case, that one will be a hoot!

                    • Bill’s position over his victims? How? As an actor? An actor is untouchable from the law? Especially when he wasn’t even at the height of his career? He was still 20 years away from trying to buy NBC.

                      I never claimed he was untouchable from the law. What he was was powerful in Hollywood. He was a major star as far back as the 60s. And, as I said, what happened to the women that first came out against him? They were dismissed and called names. There’s the case of Barbara Bowman who went to a lawyer in 1985. He didn’t believe her. Even in more recent years, there’s that horrible small town rape case. The town rallied around the rapists because they played football!

                      It took dozens of them to come forward now, but what about then? You have all the evidence and proof you need to convict, but you don’t proceed? Why? Because the public doesn’t agree with them? Bullshit!

                      Because sexual assault was dealt with badly back then. It’s much better now, but it’s still not good. Law enforcement still refuses to follow up on rape cases for all sorts of horrible reasons. If you can’t get your publicist to care, or back you, what chance do you have getting law enforcement to do anything? For a struggling, wannabe actress, what’s the cost benefit analysis of going to the police with the first rape accusation of Bill Cosby? Probably ignored, or told it was consensual or you were a slut for sleeping with a black man, while also losing out on any chance of a career.

                      Allred has been pulling the strings of these women and using them to make planned, strategic assaults on Cosby. What lawyer actually shows up at their comedy show just to heckle them after months and months of abuse? That women is a monster and should not be practicing law. Don’t worry, once the Huth case goes forward – we’ll see the real picture. I personally can’t wait for the Dickinson case, that one will be a hoot!

                      Allred is pretty bad, but I don’t see any evidence that she’s pulling the strings of these women. I can’t even find that she’s council for most of them. I can find a few, but that’s it. Can you link me to sources that show she’s the council for all the women?

                    • Because sexual assault was dealt with badly back then. It’s much better now, but it’s still not good. Law enforcement still refuses to follow up on rape cases for all sorts of horrible reasons. If you can’t get your publicist to care, or back you, what chance do you have getting law enforcement to do anything? For a struggling, wannabe actress, what’s the cost benefit analysis of going to the police with the first rape accusation of Bill Cosby? Probably ignored, or told it was consensual or you were a slut for sleeping with a black man, while also losing out on any chance of a career.

                      So law enforcement bends over backwards to cover for rapists?

                      Tell that to Grant Snowden, Gerald Amirault, and Timothy Cole.

                    • @Michael

                      So law enforcement bends over backwards to cover for rapists?

                      Tell that to Grant Snowden, Gerald Amirault, and Timothy Cole.

                      Didn’t say that. That police rape victims are often not believed does not imply that police and prosecutors don’t go crazy the other way as well.

                    • Since when did the quantity of accusations constitute proof? I have never heard of such a principle in American jurisprudence.

                      They do not allege they were victims of a single criminal act, but independent criminal acts.

                    • In sexual harassment cases especially, the number of alleged victims is always a strong indicia of guilt.

                      You don’t consider multiple accidents as evidence that someone is a bad driver?

                      Remember Scott Peterson?

                    • This isn’t a case though so anything they say is not evidence or testimony, it’s just a rumour they want to spread around.

                  • It really doesn’t matter if they were in different parts of the country when you are connected through Playboy. PJ Masten used their own private Playboy chat room to pull these women together. She had always claimed there was 12 more that were too afraid to come forward. I would like to be a police investigator and look into those chat logs.

      • Careful Jack…phrases such as “intentionally dishonest” implies you have proof to substantiate that statement. Again – complete and total awe.

        • Uses of straw men and false comparisons—like witch hunts—is, beyond question, intentionally dishonest, designed to deceive, unless the lawyer in question is both incompetent and an idiot as well. Is that your argument? If not, then your comment is worthless. I don’t have to “be there” to know that over 40 independent accusers do not constitute a “witch hunt.” There are many facts that do not require eye witnessing to verify…or do you dispute evolution too?

      • There are practical reasons for having statutes of limitations.

        Consider a case where a survivor of the Auschwitz death camp accuses a particular person of being a guard that had sexually abused him on numerous occasions. (note that there are no statutes of limitations for war crimes) Such a case would have been viable for adjudication in the 1950’s or even early 1960’s. But how would a prosecutor manage to assemble a case in the late 1970’s (let alone today, when almost all possible corroborating witnesses would be dead)? I suspect the vast majority of prosecutors thirty years ago (let alone today) would not press forward with such a case.

        To be honest, I never heard of another time when there was am media campaign to judge misbehavior alleged to occur over thirty years ago.

        • There are practical reasons for having statutes of limitations.

          The practical reasons are based mainly on the the awesome power to incarcerate people that the government has. Don’t apply.

          Auschwitz example
          Horrible example for two reasons: 1) State action. That’s not happening here. 2) A Nazi actor was prosecuted and convicted within the last year.

          To be honest, I never heard of another time when there was [a] media campaign to judge misbehavior alleged to occur over thirty years ago.

          First, the alleged behavior spans 1965 to 2008. It’s not all “30 years ago”.

          Second, Bob Barker. He didn’t attack his accusers in the press, so it didn’t blow up as much.

          Third, JFK. That did blow up, and was partially about the media hiding his indiscretions. He was also dead at the time.

          Fourth, for your point to have any point, you’d have to have a counterexample of famous people who got away with repeatedly horrible behavior for years and years, and were not ever roasted on it. I’d also say, like Cosby a year ago, they may still have it coming.

  3. Excellent article. We’ve reposted this on our Facebook page “Believe Women” where several of Cosby’s victims are members. They will appreciate reading it, I assure you. Thanks!

  4. Wow…I’m utterly and completely in awe of anyone who “knows” anything without any factual basis (uhh…were you there?). I don’t know whether Cosby is innocent or guilty of these allegations – we as mere mortals have only our legal system to arrive at a fair, just and humanly ENFORCEABLE outcome. Unfortunately the cumulative outcome of our legal system will be infinitely flawed because as humans we have limitations and biases that creep into every thought we have and decision we make. So in my humble opinion – words such as “seems” and “appears” would go a long way in giving credibility to someone with an OPINION who was not there (uhh…that’s you Jack). If you don’t like the legal process (including those attorneys you abhor) petition and advocate change. No blog in and of itself will get this done – in my opinion :-). So in closing (with hope that my insomnia will lose to sweet dreams) – TOTAL AND COMPLETE AWE…

    • I am fairly sick of explaining to cynical and or dim defenders of Cosby, OJ, and John Wilkes Booth that one does not have to “be there” to reasonably conclude that some miscreants “did it,’ and all the legal system does is, hopefully, formalize the guilt so that punishment can be enacted. So I won’t for you—go search for “innocent until proven guilty” in the blog search engine. Or better yet, try thinking. I work in the field of sexual harrassment, and there is no case, none, ever, when a man accused by double-figures worth of victims turned out to be innocent. Never. N-E-V-E-R. Got that? Neveroni. Neveramundo. Uh-uh. Nada. The same goes for sexual assault and rape. Now, the fact of so many identical accusations is circumstantial evidence at best as it applies to any one accusation. Any single accusation could be, conceivably, false. Nearly 50 of them? No. Statistically, logically, impossible. And I don’t have to be there to say so.

      But by all means, enjoy enabling a criminal. At least Monique is doing her job.

      • Jack Marshall, surely you are just blocking out the Michael Jackson allegations am I right?

        And I’m curious now to see what your thoughts are on Chloe Goins. This woman was disproved by TMZ back in January 2015 but only now a full year later that they finally dropped the charges against him because they just confirmed what we all knew about for a year. As you can tell, people can and will lie against famous celebrities for money and fame.

        • What do you mean, “blocking out”? Jackson’s case was sui generis. We still don’t know the truth. His conduct with young boys was beyond question inappropriate. He paid off one accuser. He was weird and ill enough that normal calculations don’t apply. Most men who behaved like Jackson did with young boys would, in fact, be child molesters. The conduct is not normal.

          Any single accuser may be falsely accusing Cosby or any other harasser. One false accusation out of 50 demonstrates nothing. I would be surpised if out of 50 there were not some false accusations.

          • But we do know the full truth. Michael Jackson was tried and ultimately not convicted of molestation. The young man’s father later shot himself to death over the guilt of lies and the young man who charged him fully admit that it was his father’s lie to extort money from the pop entertainer.

            Yes, he led an extraordinary life that included a huge amusement park in his own backyard for the children but he always loved and respected them. Maybe that’s because Jackson didn’t really have a childhood because his father pushed them into show business at such a young age. Who knows. But Michael had always been looking to improve the lives of people not destroy them but many people look past the real person and just see a super rich celebrity.

            With Cosby you already realize it’s a numbers game. Throw enough accusations out there to confuse the women and their stories and they’ll have to be believed because it’s such a big number. Common tactic to confuse the masses, the media do it all the time. Maybe 1 doesn’t convince you but look at the characters and their stories. These women have horrid reputations and I have no doubt they would do anything for money or fame to fix it. Janice Dickinson is one of my favorite characters. This woman is just so profoundly shady.

            • Who, exactly, is “throwing” all the women at Cosby? You can’t be serious. Nearly 50 women, from different backgrounds, unrelated, tell different versions of the same assault or rape, and Cosby admits buying and using drugs on women. The women do not have “horrid” reputations, and I repeat: in matters of sexual harassment and assault, nobody has ever had that many accusers and not been, not just guilty, but guilty as hell. Cosby, meanwhile, has lived a lie, and attempted to vilify the women through agents, and has never directly denied their accusations. His credibility is so much less than theirs. I can’t conceive of how people like you decide that there is something to defend there. When you drug women, you are not allowing them to consent to sex. It’s pretty obvious. You know, when all plausible explanations have been eliminated, the one remaining is the answer. The answer: Cos is a serial, premeditated predator. That’s common in Hollywood, indeed…but few of them claim to be a moral exemplar off camera and America’s dad on camera. That’s why he’s been outed so vigorously…he spit in the wind.

              • Oh, as for Jackson, who is irrelevant, you don’t know anything. Would you, knowing what you know, let your, say, 12-year-old son have a sleepover with the King of Pop? Suuure you would. It is notoriously hard to convict celebrities of anything, largely because of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Your description of poor Michael’s reasons for sleeping in the same bed with young boys defines desperation. And has no value or validity in any consideration of Cosby’s guilt.

                • Do you have children? I’m going to guess no. Grown adults can do things with children that don’t have to be sexual in nature. As a parent, I can wipe crotches and butts for the health and safety of my child and still not be a child molester. Sleepovers can be people sleeping in the same bed. Are they automatically a child molester just because they are unrelated and one’s an adult? Get real. You can still have sleepovers and have non-sexual contact. Michael Jackson explained all this. I remember the interview with Oprah quite clearly.

                  • Boy, almost all of your suppositions and guesses are wrong. But that goes along with the rest of your analysis. Grown men of normal, trustworthy sexuality do not induce young pre-teen boys to slepp with them, or young girls either. It creates a rebuttable presumption of illicit motives.

              • I can tell by the words “different backgrounds, unrelated, tell different versions of the same assault or rape, and Cosby admits buying and using drugs on women” that you haven’t really researched this issue in detail. Many have a lot of common ties – same modeling agencies and links to the Playboy mansion, etc. And yes, you have not researched their horrid reputations – women who have been prostitutes, convicted for dealing drugs, have been bankrupt, convicted of false allegations of assault, and my favorite – pathological liars (not just your standard breed of liars).

                “His credibility is so much less than theirs.”? Why? Because you say so? Because it was questioned for one year of his 78 year life? What about all his accolades, donations to schools, his influence to other comedians, the art donations, the contribution to entertainment? That’s not credibility to you because a bunch of women said it ain’t so in the media?

                And yes, you hook-line-and-sinkered when you heard that he drugged all these women. The truth is no where does it admit that it applies to ALL these women. It applies to A woman…back in the 70s when this Quaaludes was a huge recreational drug. And yes, people mixed alchohol and that drug before they had sex (and any of this information is available to anyone with access to Google). They had to ban in the mid-80s to prevent its widespread abuse. All you read was this little 4 lines they gave you, not anything before or after that. You probably didn’t even read the full deposition.

                • Those are connections to you? It’s Hollywood. It’s show business. Any record of them coordinating stories, meeting, even knowing each other? Your categories of horrid reputations apply to a few, in several cases only allegedly. What does bankruptcy have to do with truthfulness? Drug use? Prostitutes can still be raped. This is classic attack the victim stuff—and shame on you. Cosby has validated the main details of the accusations by his own admissions under oath. And, of course, he depends on just such arguments as enablers like you are making. You really believe Bill is just being coincidentally accused by randomly deranged and greedy women without ever using those drugs for an illegal purpose, right? The right wing, in its silliest dark corners, think they have to defend the indefensible because of rape-baiting on campuses, and because they hung their hopes on Cosby as a conservative values advocate in the black community. Yes, it’s tragic that his excellent message was undermined my his miserable character. But conservatives are embarrassing themselves by defending this creep. So are you.

                  You’re ridiculous. Before the deposition was released, Cosby refused to admit drugging anyone. The various women’s allegations about drugs preceded the publication of the deposition. Got it? They said he drugged them before any drugging was publicized or admitted. He admits to buying drugs to give to women. Of cours he didn’t admit drugging ALL the women…he wasn’t asked about all the women. He says the sex was all consensual. But sex with women drugged by date rape drugs wasn’t consensual sex in the 80’s, and isn’t now. Bill was such a babe magnet that young, beautiful women agreed to let him drug them helpless and masturbate on them. Sure, makes sense to me. Everything about the guy is a lie, a mask, or hypocrisy? How can you say anyone has more credibility?

                  You will not find anyone in the field of sexual assault or harassment who will agree that there is an appreciable chance that Cosby isn’t guilty as hell, maybe not of 50 assaults, but of many.

                  • If a person goes bankrupt in Hollywood, they become desperate for cash. And what’s the fastest way to get money in the US? Sue a celebrity! That’s right, you don’t need a valid story just a convincing one. Aim for the “good guy” celebrity who is willing to settle to make it all go away. Happens all the time in Hollywood. And the settlements are for hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions. If you see a celebrity being attacked with the same story, it’s so easy to just say yes that was me too. I’m talking about Janice Dickinson – one is so good at lying, she’s been known as a pathological liar.

                    Drug use really? You really think you need to give drugs to a drug addict? Why don’t I just give money to a known bank robber so he can do my investments? Prostitutes can be raped just like pedophiles make good babysitters. Sure it can happen but why would you do it? Makes no sense. He could of bought an entire bus of prostitutes for the night if he wanted to and they would do anything for him even be submissive if he wanted to.

                    Quaaludes wasn’t a date rape drug – it was a recreational drug in the 70s. They called it disco biscuits. The term for getting high off Quaaludes was called ‘luding out. It was so big they had to ban it in the mid-80s. Lots of famous Hollywood celebs did it too.

                    And you don’t think that any of these women would do their research? They know more about Cosby than the public does. They know everything about Constand’s case and knew all about the drugs. They all piggy backed off that case – that’s why the release of the deposition was key to their success. Stop trying to pretend this is about rape. We already have one confirmed lie by the LAPD, we have been watching day after day after these women go after the honorary degrees, tv shows, movies, and anything else with his name on it. They are even invoking congress to create a law to remove a presidential medal. What more do you need to convince you that they are out to trash his reputation? Yes we have no idea why they are doing it because no one is investigating the women. They are being protected by people like you. People who have no idea who these women are but believe them because there’s lots of them.

                    • Yes, that’s because, as I have said before, but you choose to ignore it, lots and lots of women make the same accusations against the same predator because he is fact is a predator, predators attack lots of women, there are no one-off harassers (it’s a habit), and one of the best ways of confirming a single accusation in this area is whether lots of other victims reveal themselves once one goes public.

                      Most of these women have nothing to gain from coming forward, and much to lose, like putting themselves in line for your kind of disparagement. The only law suit is the defamation suit because Cosby had his lackeys make the same accusations you are making—he, however, knows they are lies. You don’t, because you are gullible, ignorant, and a sexist celebrity worshiper.

                      There is no question, none, that when it is all sorted out, there will be no doubt that Cosby sexually assaulted most of these women if not all, raped some of them, and that there are more we haven’t heard about yet. I;m equally certain that there will still be biased and deluded people like you, close kin to those who believe that Oswald was innocent and Elvis lives, who will refuse to accept facts and logic. Bill says thanks, and future celebrity rapists are similarly grateful. You are their salvation.

      • Now, the fact of so many identical accusations is circumstantial evidence at best as it applies to any one accusation.

        I never heard of a principle of jurisprudence where the mere quantity of accusations constituted any sort of admissible evidence. If a person is accused of robbing a bank, is it relevant that another person accused the defendant of robbing a different bank?

        Would a rape victims alleged sexual history be relevant in a rape trial? If not, why would independent accusations of different acts be relevant in a rape defendant’s trial?

        • The fact of past related crimes is regarded, in most cases, as too prejudicial to be admitted into evidence. There’s a reason why it’s prejudicial, though: it stands to reason that a previous bank robber is more likely to be guilty of an alleged bank robbery than someone who never broke a law in his life.

            • But we aren’t talking about trials. We’re talking about reasonable conclusions from known facts. I don’t care if someone has 27 child molestation accusations and or arrests but no convictions. I’m still not using him as a babysitter.

  5. Evidently you have some serious mental issues and do not even realize that you do its in your very nature ,you very Dna . It is evident that you hate all black people I cannot even scratch the surface of what your people have done and are still doing to us but guess what there is a true God and he says VENGANCE is mine one atom of evil will not escape his punishment.

    • Good post Michael! It’s always a good idea to remind people that there are dim bulbs who think this way, if you can truly call it thinking. It is unusual for one of said dim bulbs to do the reminding, however.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.