Bill Cosby’s first interview since being locked up

[Loch121]

Convo is exhausting ,but Bill been accused and rumored to be a perv and rapist for decades

Ppl were saying he was a rapist back in the 70's

I do think he did that shit.

And he admitted some weird shit in his deposition.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

To the bold as Joe Buddens said "or it could just be a cigarette"

No I would question if Brady was racist and just cause I wouldn't question if he racist doesn't mean I would even contemplate that he loves black people either. Skipped a lot space in between to get that far.

Everything is just accusations and he said she said shit unless someone can prove what they saying.

I never said Cosby didn't do it. I just said based off what I've seen and read I will never say he a sexual predator.

With everything said the bold underlined is all that matters.

What proof do you want? The truth is that rape cases are hard to provide airtight proof for. Even if a dude is caught in the act, he can claim it was consensual and then it becomes "he said she said" shit. How do you guys think people were put on trial before cameras and DNA came along. "Proof" was mostly testimony from witnesses and victims. I don't know why you guys think victim testimony isn't considered proof. You can't possibly believe that a jury should just dismiss testimony from 60 people claiming to be victims.

 

[DMorgan]

Y'all do know black women accused him too right?

Sure do with Beverly Johnson and the dr. on law and order being 2 of them. What's your point?

It's still all accusations.

 

[DMorgan]

What proof do you want? The truth is that rape cases are hard to provide airtight proof for. Even if a dude is caught in the act, he can claim it was consensual and then it becomes "he said she said" shit. How do you guys think people were put on trial before cameras and DNA came along. "Proof" was mostly testimony from witnesses and victims. I don't know why you guys think victim testimony isn't considered proof. You can't possibly believe that a jury should just dismiss testimony from 60 people claiming to be victims.

Something that will convince me to take their word.

It's not that I believe Cosby. It's just that what has been presented ain't good enough for me to say he actually did it.

If it's good enough for you OK so be it not for me though.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Something that will convince me to take their word.

It's not that I believe Cosby. It's just that what has been presented ain't good enough for me to say he actually did it.

If it's good enough for you OK so be it not for me though.

Like I said, I don't know what you want. If Cosby drugged and raped a chick 15 years ago, all you're really going to have is her word on that. If 60 chicks come along and make that claim with some sounding credible and others sounding like BS, all you can really do is make a judgement call on whether the victims are believable or not. Again, if you're comfortable rarely ever prosecuting rapists because you don't think victim testimony alone is enough then that's fine, but I don't think most people are cool with that.

 

[DMorgan]

Like I said, I don't know what you want. If Cosby drugged and raped a chick 15 years ago, all you're really going to have is her word on that. If 60 chicks come along and make that claim with some sounding credible and others sounding like BS, all you can really do is make a judgement call on whether the victims are believable or not. Again, if you're comfortable rarely ever prosecuting rapists because you don't think victim testimony alone is enough then that's fine, but I don't think most people are cool with that.

Never said anything close to the bold being the case for me. You can keep repeating that shit till you blue in the face but that don't make it my stance or true of my opinion in regards to rape trials.

When I don't know the character of people involved in shit like this personally and neither side distinguishes themselves are very credible.

I ain't to just say someone is guilty just because of high number of accusers have come forward especially when a number of them have been proven to be lying.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Never said anything close to the bold being the case for me. You can keep repeating that shit till you blue in the face but that don't make it my stance or true of my opinion in regards to rape trials.

I'm confused bruh.

We have victim testimonies that Bill drugged and raped them along with some circumstantial evidence. Some of those people sound credible, some don't. You've said that the testimonies alone is not enough for you and that you need more proof. How exactly am I misrepresenting your stance? I'm telling you that it's a fact that in most rape cases, the amount of evidence available isn't much more than what you see in the Cosby case especially for old incidents. That's why prosecutions and convictions for rape cases is so low. So if you think cases built mostly on victim testimony is not enough to warrant a conviction, how is that not the same thing as saying you're cool with not prosecuting most rape cases due to lack of proof?

 

[DMorgan]

I'm confused bruh.

We have victim testimonies that Bill drugged and raped them along with some circumstantial evidence. Some of those people sound credible, some don't. You've said that the testimonies alone is not enough for you and that you need more proof. How exactly am I misrepresenting your stance? I'm telling you that it's a fact that in most rape cases, the amount of evidence available isn't much more than what you see in the Cosby case especially for old incidents. That's why prosecutions and convictions for rape cases is so low. So if you think cases built mostly on victim testimony is not enough to warrant a conviction, how is that not the same thing as saying you're cool with not prosecuting most rape cases due to lack of proof?

I've never said this. I just said where is the proof. That proof can be in their testimonies. Like I said before what's been presented just ain't do it for me to say Cosby is guilty. Just like I've said multiple times that I ain't saying he didn't do it either.

You're inferring shit in my comments and you're wrong that's why you're confused.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I've never said this. I just said where is the proof. That proof can be in their testimonies. Like I said before what's been presented just ain't do it for me to say Cosby is guilty. Just like I've said multiple times that I ain't saying he didn't do it either.

You're inferring shit in my comments and you're wrong that's why you're confused.

Can you give an example of the proof you expect to come out of testimony that you would have wanted to see but didn't see? I think that's where I'm confused. If a nigga drugs and rapes a chick. Her testimony is pretty much going to be "I lost consciousness when I shouldn't have and woke up to find that he had sex with me without my permission." If you don't think that's good enough, that's fine. I'm not judging your stance, but what could a chick say under those circumstances that would make her more believable to you?

 

[DMorgan]

Can you give an example of the proof you expect to come out of testimony that you would have wanted to see but didn't see? I think that's where I'm confused. If a nigga drugs and rapes a chick. Her testimony is pretty much going to be "I lost consciousness when I shouldn't have and woke up to find that he had sex with me without my permission." If you don't think that's good enough, that's fine. I'm not judging your stance, but what could a chick say under those circumstances that would make her more believable to you?

Fuck if I know some shit like that off the top of my head. But I would know it if I heard it.

That's the best you going to get from me on that.

 

[5th Letter]

Who remembers that story of that woman who tried to get a bunch of women together to corroborate a story about how Dame Dash sexually harassed/assaulted these women? But one of the women told Dame what was happening and foiled the plan? So the idea that if __ are saying it then it has to be true is not always valid. Secondly a lot of the Cosby accusers were outted as liars anyway like Janice Dickerson.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Fuck if I know some shit like that off the top of my head. But I would know it if I heard it.

That's the best you going to get from me on that.

lol Ok

Who remembers that story of that woman who tried to get a bunch of women together to corroborate a story about how Dame Dash sexually harassed/assaulted these women? But one of the women told Dame what was happening and foiled the plan? So the idea that if __ are saying it then it has to be true is not always valid. Secondly a lot of the Cosby accusers were outted as liars anyway like Janice Dickerson.

Again, I don't believe all those chicks that accused Cosby either. One of those chicks basically said that Cosby walked in her dressing room and slapped a dick in her mouth and she had no choice but to suck it. Stuff like that sounds ridiculous, so I can definitely believe that a substantial number of those accusers just wanted to be part of piling on. However, some of the chicks gave reasonable stories and there was some consistency between several of those stories. Plus, Bill basically admitted to giving chicks those drugs in the past and kinda defended it by saying that's how they partied back then. So I don't think it's crazy that he got convicted.

That said, if people say they simply don't feel comfortable convicting someone of rape based solely on an accusation and recounting of an alleged event, that's fine. I'm not judging. I get why people feel that way because we know for a fact that some women do lie about being raped and attacked. I'm just pointing out that if you're taking that stance, you have to be comfortable with most rapists never being convicted because in most rape cases, the victim's accusation is all that really exists.

 

[5th Letter]

lol Ok



Again, I don't believe all those chicks that accused Cosby either. One of those chicks basically said that Cosby walked in her dressing room and slapped a dick in her mouth and she had no choice but to suck it. Stuff like that sounds ridiculous, so I can definitely believe that a substantial number of those accusers just wanted to be part of piling on. However, some of the chicks gave reasonable stories and there was some consistency between several of those stories. Plus, Bill basically admitted to giving chicks those drugs in the past and kinda defended it by saying that's how they partied back then. So I don't think it's crazy that he got convicted.

That said, if people say they simply don't feel comfortable convicting someone of rape based solely on an accusation and recounting of an alleged event, that's fine. I'm not judging. I get why people feel that way because we know for a fact that some women do lie about being raped and attacked. I'm just pointing out that if you're taking that stance, you have to be comfortable with most rapists never being convicted because in most rape cases, the victim's accusation is all that really exists.

Cool. So where’s the proof? I can’t accuse you of something without proof. If Cosby did it then fuck him but I just need proof. Makes sense?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Cool. So where’s the proof? I can’t accuse you of something without proof. If Cosby did it then fuck him but I just need proof. Makes sense?

We've been over this. If a dude just takes some pussy, there often is no tangible proof. All you have is the victims account, maybe traces of DNA or markings (which all can be explained through consensual sex, and testimony from people who can speak to the victims' mind state after the incident. That's it. There typically is literally no other proof that can be obtained. If that's not good enough for you, then just say you're not comfortable with convicting anyone in the vast number of rape cases. There is no point in continually asking for something that doesn't and sometimes can't exist.

 

[5th Letter]

We've been over this. If a dude just takes some pussy, there often is no tangible proof. All you have is the victims account, maybe traces of DNA or markings (which all can be explained through consensual sex, and testimony from people who can speak to the victims' mind state after the incident. That's it. There typically is literally no other proof that can be obtained. If that's not good enough for you, then just say you're not comfortable with convicting anyone in the vast number of rape cases. There is no point in continually asking for something that doesn't and sometimes can't exist.

Well then if there is no proof then you can’t convict someone am I right?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Well then if there is no proof then you can’t convict someone am I right?

Technically, no, which is why rape cases often aren't even prosecuted.

However, prosecutors can build cases based on circumstantial evidence like the kind you guys are rejecting, and juries can choose to convict based on how much they believe the people making the accusations. It's not a good solution, but neither is letting rapists run free. Either way somebody would be fucked.

 

[5th Letter]

Technically, no, which is why rape cases often aren't even prosecuted.

However, prosecutors can build cases based on circumstantial evidence like the kind you guys are rejecting, and juries can choose to convict based on how much they believe the people making the accusations. It's not a good solution, but neither is letting rapists run free. Either way somebody would be fucked.

So basically with no evidence you can’t convict? Got it.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

So basically with no evidence you can’t convict? Got it.

You're trying to be condescending and purposely ignoring the point and that fine. Once again, victim testimony IS evidence and paired with other circumstantial evidence, it is and has been enough to convict in certain cases. The fact that you don't consider victim testimony to be credible evidence is your own thing.

 

[5th Letter]

You're trying to be condescending and purposely ignoring the point and that fine. Once again, victim testimony IS evidence and paired with other circumstantial evidence, it is and has been enough to convict in certain cases. The fact that you don't consider victim testimony to be credible evidence is your own thing.

So allegations are evidence? Got it.

 

[SeaSnake]

View attachment 194748



Either prosecute everyone, or free Bill and Rob...

...no in between.

David Blaine not black?