Accusing for fame and fortune: what a great business concept!

[Guest]

At least some of the media are doing their job and actually investigating instead of just trying to print a story that sound juicy. Here's the latest from one of the Cosby accusers:

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/05/cosby-accuser-also-testified-against-marv-albert/21003699/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D576885

 

What a great business model. No money down! Just accuse and sue. I can't see a down side!

 

Albert was originally charged with assault and sodomy after a longtime lover claimed that he bit and attacked her in a hotel room. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charges.

Albert maintained after the trial that Masten's accusations were a "complete fabrication." He said in a November 1997 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC's "20/20" that he had a hair stylist ready to testify that he was wearing a hair weave that would not have come off.

He said in the TV interview that he did not have a sexual relationship with Masten, who was a VIP representative for the Hyatt hotel chain at that time

[bigvalboy]

http://www.people.com/article/navy-strips-bill-cosby-title

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/bill-cosby-temple-trustees_n_6250686.html

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/19/nbc-cancels-on-bill-cosby

 

And 20 women and counting....

 

A witch hunt? Perhaps. Only time will tell.

[Frequentflier]

35 or so years ago when they were adults and should have reported what happened. If Cosby did what's being alleged, he was wrong and he should have been held accountable then, and before he could (if he did) perpetrate the crime on other women. Come forward now and I'm not reading the news reports from the first sentence - if that far.

[+ WilliamM]

Come forward now and I'm not reading the news reports from the first sentence - if that far.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/business/media/calling-out-bill-cosbys-media-enablers-including-myself.html?_r=0

 

Fine. Here's an article in The New York Times, "Calling Out Bill Cosby's Media Enablers, Including Myself" by a writer who interviewed Bill Cosby and did not ask him about the allegations. He includes links to long ago articles about Mr. Cosby, especially in Philadelphia Magazine, that people ignored at the time.

[+ deej]

Come forward now and I'm not reading the news reports from the first sentence - if that far.

 

Ah, so if you can intimidate (or pay off) your victims for long enough you get a free pass? Convenient! What other crimes should this apply to?

[Frequentflier]

Ah, so if you can intimidate (or pay off) your victims for long enough you get a free pass? Convenient! What other crimes should this apply to?

 

IF payoffs were accepted or they allowed themselves to be "intimidated" (cough, cough bullshit) they weren't victims any longer, but IF what they say happened actually did subsequent women paid a price (or accepted a price) for their silence. The more women that speak up the harder it is to believe they were all "intimidated" or "paid off". There are good reasons for statutes of limitation.

[+ deej]

So he does get a totally free pass. Nothing to see here.

[N13]

35 or so years ago when they were adults and should have reported what happened. If Cosby did what's being alleged, he was wrong and he should have been held accountable then, and before he could (if he did) perpetrate the crime on other women. Come forward now and I'm not reading the news reports from the first sentence - if that far.

 

Here is a response I made to another thread that I think is still relevant.

 

"I am surprised that nobody has pointed out that "Hollywood" is an insular community where power is commiserate with the level of success. When someone is at the top it is very difficult for someone to 'out' them without ruining their own prospects or even the ability to find work in the industry. This does allow the star to get away with improper behavior and insulates them against accusations. I somehow don't think that an unconnected group of women decided that they would 'stick it" to Cosby. Rather I am inclined to think that once the dam was broken, abused sources came out in support of the brave women that finally spoke out. Also remember that according to many, rape is not necessarily a crime of sex as much as it is a power manifestation. Whoever told you that celebrities are no different then us, has never met a major celebrity."

[MiamiLooker]

Ah, so if you can intimidate (or pay off) your victims for long enough you get a free pass? Convenient! What other crimes should this apply to?

 

If they were being paid off due to terms of a confidentiality agreement, would that contract even be enforceable? Is it legal to pay someone to not report a crime?

[bigvalboy]

Here is a response I made to another thread that I think is still relevant.

 

"I am surprised that nobody has pointed out that "Hollywood" is an insular community where power is commiserate with the level of success. When someone is at the top it is very difficult for someone to 'out' them without ruining their own prospects or even the ability to find work in the industry. This does allow the star to get away with improper behavior and insulates them against accusations. I somehow don't think that an unconnected group of women decided that they would 'stick it" to Cosby. Rather I am inclined to think that once the dam was broken, abused sources came out in support of the brave women that finally spoke out. Also remember that according to many, rape is not necessarily a crime of sex as much as it is a power manifestation. Whoever told you that celebrities are no different then us, has never met a major celebrity."

 

+1

[Guest]

Ah, so if you can intimidate (or pay off) your victims for long enough you get a free pass? Convenient! What other crimes should this apply to?

 

What a crock of bull. Do you really think he could have intimidated and/or paid off ALL of those women, and there be no record of it? Even if it were true (which I seriously doubt), then the women's decades of silence would have just allowed these (probably imaginary) crimes to continue, so their maintaining silence for personal gain at the expense of other women doesn't have them smelling like roses either. And how was he supposed to have intimidated Janice Dickinson (whose story has holes in it, by the way)? Did he have the power to ruin her modeling career?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cDnFsOkCOgw/TdKnHBML4RI/AAAAAAAABiA/1Df3aRHRXQk/s1600/excuse-me-im-calling-bullshit.jpg

[rvwnsd]

35 or so years ago when they were adults and should have reported what happened. If Cosby did what's being alleged, he was wrong and he should have been held accountable then, and before he could (if he did) perpetrate the crime on other women. Come forward now and I'm not reading the news reports from the first sentence - if that far.

 

What a crock of bull. Do you really think he could have intimidated and/or paid off ALL of those women, and there be no record of it? Even if it were true (which I seriously doubt), then the women's decades of silence would have just allowed these (probably imaginary) crimes to continue, so their maintaining silence for personal gain at the expense of other women doesn't have them smelling like roses either. And how was he supposed to have intimidated Janice Dickinson (whose story has holes in it, by the way)? Did he have the power to ruin her modeling career?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cDnFsOkCOgw/TdKnHBML4RI/AAAAAAAABiA/1Df3aRHRXQk/s1600/excuse-me-im-calling-bullshit.jpg

 

Would you say the same thing to your mother if she was raped or sexually harassed several years ago and first now spoke of the assault?

[bigvalboy]

CNN special tonight at 9pm..."A legend under fire"

 

http://cnncommentary.com/2014/12/05/the-cosby-show-a-legend-under-fire/

 

5 of his accuser come forth and speak out.

[Diverdan]

If any of these stories are true, why have almost all of them waited years to accuse him of things that happened so many years ago? I know that these things happen, but I tend to get cynical when folks try the crime in public, go on news programs, seek publicity and try to portray themselves as innocent pawns in an elaborate scheme. I smell money at a major incentive to come forward now. I am not justifying rape, and have friends who have been raped, both men and women, but they headed to a hospital, were examined had documentation of what happened and helped the police in the process. Some later filed civil suits, but the main benefit of the tragedies that some of these individuals got the prison time they deserved, and if the stories are true, prisoners enjoy finding rapists to enjoy. That is true justice IMHO.

[+ quoththeraven]

If they were being paid off due to terms of a confidentiality agreement, would that contract even be enforceable? Is it legal to pay someone to not report a crime?

 

Confidentiality agreements are perfectly legal and enforceable even if the underlying behavior is criminal. No one is under a legal (as opposed to moral) duty to report a crime, just as no one is under a legal duty (as opposed to moral) to rescue someone else in need.

 

Besides, the confidentiality agreement will specifically state that the person paying does not admit wrongdoing but is doing this to avoid the cost and inconvenience of, or to settle, litigation. In most cases it takes at least $10,000 to answer a legal complaint properly and $50,000 to take it to a resolution without trial, and that's only if the facts are undisputed. To try the case? More like $100,000 each side, and the American rule is that each side pays its own attorney's fees, though negligence plaintiffs generally pay contingency fees (i.e., a percentage of the recovery; if there's no recovery, there's no fee). So there's plenty of reason to settle even a non-meritorious case, which gives those with economic power cover for settling cases that are meritorious while still denying the underlying facts.

[+ quoththeraven]

Here is a response I made to another thread that I think is still relevant.

 

"I am surprised that nobody has pointed out that "Hollywood" is an insular community where power is commiserate with the level of success. When someone is at the top it is very difficult for someone to 'out' them without ruining their own prospects or even the ability to find work in the industry. This does allow the star to get away with improper behavior and insulates them against accusations. I somehow don't think that an unconnected group of women decided that they would 'stick it" to Cosby. Rather I am inclined to think that once the dam was broken, abused sources came out in support of the brave women that finally spoke out. Also remember that according to many, rape is not necessarily a crime of sex as much as it is a power manifestation. Whoever told you that celebrities are no different then us, has never met a major celebrity."

 

I tried to say much the same thing in a much longer comment on the same thread, but I didn't put it nearly as pointedly.

 

The cynicism some here demonstrate is appalling. Do you think as poorly of men, or is it just women who are golddiggers who can't be believed? It is the nature of human memory to protect itself from trauma by running away from it. This isn't just opinion; it's been demonstrated via rigorously conducted research.

 

Every woman who makes a public rape accusation, in court or out, criminal or civil, is vilified and questioned by somebody to some extent. My first and lifelong reason for believing that same-sex attraction is not people generally have control over is why would someone willingly choose to be subjected to the kind of harassment same-sex attraction has historically drawn. The same can be said about rape accusations. What do you want, especially in cases that prosecutors aren't willing to touch? For them to go away and shut up?

 

Some of you want women to report right away when it often takes a long time to come to terms with what happened (or even realize that it's rape -- something that's difficult as a practical matter when alcohol or other drugs have been involved, as they often are), past outcomes for others have been lousy, and victims know they're going to be dragged through the mud. If a prosecution has been ruled out or in unsuccessful, a civil case is the only alternative, as unsatisfactory as money damages are as a solution. Putting the rapist away isn't very satisfying, either; it doesn't undo the rape (in fact, testifying will be like being raped all over again). That's why so many victims don't press for prosecution.

 

Why is it okay (and not golddigging) for Nicole Simpson's family to resort to a civil suit but not okay for rape victims? If the answer is "rape victims are not believable" (and some here seem to think they're all lying or are lying unless they report contemporaneously, to which I respond the two well-known cases I know of that involved false rape accusations were reported contemporaneously, so that's not a very good measurement), then there's something wrong, because as a matter of probability they aren't all lying.

 

There's sympathy for victims of scams in the course of hiring escorts, but not rape victims?

 

This is me calling bullshit.

[N13]

+1 with a bullet!!

[Rod Hagen]

Memory is crap. Everyone thinks that their memory is infallible, but it's crap. Paraphrasing Carl Sagan, Some of my best memories never happened. Same is true of the worst. There's too much solid research supporting how bad our memories are, especially regarding the important things, to trust it.

[bigvalboy]

As always QTR, a brilliant and well stated synopsis.