Bill Cosby: America's Favorite Dad...and Rapist?

Yup, that's the question I asked. No 'should' implied. Thanks for answering.

On further review, I see there might be a 'should' in there.

True, person A doesn't have a right for person B, as a private citizen, to assume I'm innocent of anything, nor does B's opinion have any consequence outside itself.

If I did a better job of phrasing the question, it might be - and you're right, it's been asked before:

How much weight does fame/reputation/goodwill have, and how much weight does number of accusers have? And where does the tipping point lie, for each of us, between "I have no way of knowing" and "I bet he's guilty"?

Cyia said:

The problem is perception. On some level, people are judging the man by the characters he's played, including one of the most beloved family men of all time. This report is at odds with that.

Click to expand...

I think that's often a problem with celebrities, but I think it may be an especially big issue with comedians, who often perform as "themselves." The line between the person and their professional persona can be blurry at times, and I think a lot of people assume that comedians' comedic personas reflect their real personalities more than they actually do.

rugcat said:

To reiterate a point I've made before, the presumption of innocence is required only in a legal sense.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I am cautious about automatically assuming someone's guilt, because I want to be fair, and because I know that being falsely suspected of a crime can have serious repercussions on a person's life even if they're eventually proved to be innocent.

But "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept. There's a high burden of proof in our criminal court system because of what's at stake--it isn't right to put someone in prison and give them a life-changing criminal record if there was reasonable doubt of their guilt. Requiring a high burden of proof also makes it a bit more difficult for the government to prosecute people maliciously.

In everyday life, the standards are different. It's impossible not to form impressions of people based on what you see/hear. Doing so can even be wise, since it can help keep us safe. A man being accused of rape by thirteen women is a huge warning sign that merits at least being wary of the guy.

I would not want to see Cosby convicted in a court of law without sufficient proof, but the lack of proof doesn't make me doubt the possibility that the accusations are true. Sadly, it can be very hard to prove rape unless there are witnesses or a lot of physical trauma. Sometimes people are guilty, but can't be convicted because there isn't enough legal proof.

shadowwalker said:

I guess I don't understand why one shouldn't be expected to prove rape. Yes, when something is stolen it's missing - but you still have to prove a particular person stole it. Yes, you can convict without a body but you still have to prove a particular person killed. You can't say So-and-so stole it because "everyone knows he's a thief"; you can't convict someone of murder because "everyone" figures he had reason.

As to this idea of 'hush money' - how many civil suits are settled out of court, not because of guilt but because of costs and publicity and because juries are not perfect? It happens all the time. And yes, Cosby is wealthy - and sorry to say, that's a pretty good motive in my eyes.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm not going to convict anyone based on accusations and rumors.

Click to expand...

No one said you have to believe it. Some people will, though.

And it's not that one "shouldn't be expected to prove" rape. It's that the absence of proof doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Cyia said:

None of us have any idea what happened, but there comes a point when the sheer number of anecdotal evidence becomes a story too big to ignore.

The problem is perception. On some level, people are judging the man by the characters he's played, including one of the most beloved family men of all time. This report is at odds with that.

I was trying to explain this to someone earlier in terms of another performer. Assuming you've ever heard the name George Carlin, you'll likely know one of two versions of him. You'll either know the stand-up comedian, famous for his words that can't be spoken on television, or you'll know Mr. Conductor who never, ever think of using mean words at all. (Middle ground would be the dude out of Bill and Ted, but he's an outlier.)

Try to explain to a fan of the comedian that millions of children love Carlin for his work on a kid's show, and they might not believe it.

Try to explain to a kid that they can't watch "that video" of Mr. Conductor they found on YouTube, and they might not understand why.

Neither of those people were George Carlin. Only Carlin was George Carlin, and it's not likely that anyone in this thread actually knew him.

Cosby's exactly the same. We know his act. We know his on-TV persona. And we know the grieving father who lost a young son. But it's all 2nd hand information filtered through edits and camera lenses, and much of it involves other people's words being spoken in his voice from a script. None of us know what the man would or wouldn't do, because none of us know the man at all.

Click to expand...

This, like what DM said, though I think perhaps Bob Saget is a better example.

Back some years ago, people were routinely shocked if it came up how filthy and disgusting a comic Saget was. He is. Always was. It had nothing to do with his Full House shtick, but the Full House thing kind of took over the public perception of him (I suppose there really wasn't one before it, kind of), and the idea that the nice dad was a really gross, filthy guy blew people's minds. I don't mean he's a bad person, btw. I have no knowledge, but I've not heard any stories like that. He's just a really filthy standup.

People who knew him only as the Full House dad were just so shocked and disbelieving of that, though he'd been a standup before and after the show, and didn't hide it or anything.

Cosby's public persona was finely honed, both in fictional roles and in a lot of the standup, to come off as a particular thing.

cornflake said:

Cosby's public persona was finely honed, both in fictional roles and in a lot of the standup, to come off as a particular thing.

Click to expand...

It's not just about his TV persona, though. He was a trailblazer – after honing his standup comedy routine, he was the first African-American costar in a network drama, I Spy. And his character there, going against stereotype, was the cool intellectual smart one as opposed to Robert Culp's kind of off-the-wall playboy persona.

Again, defying stereotypes, he earned a PhD in education from UMass. He's a smart man, and a serious one. He has donated large amounts of money to charity including some $20 million to Spellman college.

And other words, he's not just a TV dad. he's a man with an impressive record of doing good in the world.

So when one hears stories about his being a sexual predator, it is disturbing and sad, no matter what one's opinion about the charges.

rugcat said:

It's not just about his TV persona, though. He was a trailblazer – after honing his standup comedy routine, he was the first African-American costar in a network drama, I Spy. And his character there, going against stereotype, was the cool intellectual smart one as opposed to Robert Culp's kind of off-the-wall playboy persona.

Again, defying stereotypes, he earned a PhD in education from UMass. He's a smart man, and a serious one. He has donated large amounts of money to charity including some $20 million to Spellman college.

And other words, he's not just a TV dad. he's a man with an impressive record of doing good in the world.

So when one hears stories about his being a sexual predator, it is disturbing and sad, no matter what one's opinion about the charges.

Click to expand...

He has an Ed.D, not a Ph.D, and it's been a source of controversy for years. A recent book by Michael Eric Dyson, about Cosby's comments on education and black Americans summarized the grumbling neatly -

[Cosby] dropped out of high school after he flunked the tenth grade three times. He enlisted in the navy, where he got his GED, and then enrolled at Temple University, where he dropped out to pursue a show business career. His unfinished bachelor's degree from Temple was eventually bestowed on him because of "life experience." Cosby enrolled as a part-time doctoral student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which awarded him the Ed.D. degree in 1977 for a dissertation on Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids.

But not even that degree was unsullied by controversy: A professor who served on Cosby's dissertation committee, Reginald Damerell, said that Cosby hardly took a class -- and that he got course credit for appearing on Sesame Street and The Electric Company, "and wrote a dissertation that analyzed the impact of his show." Damerell concluded that degrees like Cosby's "do not attest to genuine academic achievement. They are empty credentials.

Click to expand...

Also, again, that's an Ed.D. I'm not knocking them, but they don't have the same requirements as a Ph.D.

poetinahat said:

If it weren't Bill Cosby, but just some guy, and thirteen women accused him of rape, how contentious would this discussion be?

Click to expand...

Make "just some guy" a wealthy and famous guy, and then you're in the same ballpark. With nothing to gain (as in "monetary settlement"), yeah, I'd be inclined to believe that many women if it "just some guy". But let's face reality - women can be just a predatory when it comes to money as anybody else. They hear some stories, some rumors, and whoa! Money train!

I'm not saying they're lying and I'm not saying he's an angel - I'm saying I'm not automatically going to assume females are truthful just because they say "rape".

shadowwalker said:

Make "just some guy" a wealthy and famous guy, and then you're in the same ballpark. With nothing to gain (as in "monetary settlement"), yeah, I'd be inclined to believe that many women if it "just some guy". But let's face reality - women can be just a predatory when it comes to money as anybody else. They hear some stories, some rumors, and whoa! Money train!

Click to expand...

Not really. None of this has ever really been in the news until now.

Celia Cyanide said:

Not really. None of this has ever really been in the news until now.

Click to expand...

Several other posters mentioned that there had been stories over the years - I hadn't heard of it, but apparently they had, so it's not unreasonble to assume others had as well, especially those who would have been in the "Hollywood circle".

shadowwalker said:

Make "just some guy" a wealthy and famous guy, and then you're in the same ballpark. With nothing to gain (as in "monetary settlement"), yeah, I'd be inclined to believe that many women if it "just some guy". But let's face reality - women can be just a predatory when it comes to money as anybody else. They hear some stories, some rumors, and whoa! Money train!

I'm not saying they're lying and I'm not saying he's an angel - I'm saying I'm not automatically going to assume females are truthful just because they say "rape".

Click to expand...

That's something of a double edged sword. Famous men accused of rape have the easy out of "She's just money grubbing because I'm famous!" Yes, it happens (see Conor Oberst) but 13 women accusing the same guy of rape over the years is way too many to just dismiss, IMO.

I can't remember where I heard the allegations originally, but I'm going to hazard a guess that they were in the comments section of an article I read after he made some comments critical of the black community a few years back (which NT has referenced). I probably put about as much stock in them as I do anything else coming out of a comment section.

That said, as much as I believe Cosby is owed a presumption of innocence, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the notion any allegation of rape (whether or not against a famous person) should be viewed as overtly suspicious. Investigated, yes. But anything less than that essentially starts from the position that the victim herself is guilty of a crime.

What rugcat said. I'd be very much opposed to convicting someone solely on the basis of 13 accusations. But 13 accusations is enough to make me think that a serial predator is more likely than 13 lying gold-diggers.

raburrell said:

That said, as much as I believe Cosby is owed a presumption of innocence, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the notion any allegation of rape (whether or not against a famous person) should be viewed as overtly suspicious. Investigated, yes. But anything less than that essentially starts from the position that the victim herself is guilty of a crime.

Click to expand...

I never said "overtly suspicious" - I'm saying that just because the word "rape" comes in doesn't mean they should automatically be believed. Regardless of the type of accusation or the people involved, I withhold judgement until I see some kind of proof.

That wasn't directed at you, shadowwalker - was a general statement.

regdog said:

Not all rapes leave visible, bruises, cuts or scratches. How can a woman prove she said no, or did not say yes?

Click to expand...

So we are supposed to just accept the woman's word? There are a lot of crimes committed in which there is no proof, even though people "know" a certain person committed them.

I'm just not willing to join the lynch mob.

shadowwalker said:

So we are supposed to just accept the woman's word? There are a lot of crimes committed in which there is no proof, even though people "know" a certain person committed them.

I'm just not willing to join the lynch mob.

Click to expand...

Who has suggested lynching Bill Cosby?

We're only talking about personal opinions here, not legal verdicts. Do you really never form an opinion based on anything other than concrete, legally admissable proof?

No one is saying "We should assume all those women are telling the truth." It just seems equally a stretch to assume they are all lying.

An anecdote is not evidence.

However, multiple anecdotes about the same incident, given over time, from different points of view, from people who personally experienced said incident, and are not connected in any way to other people also offering anecdotes about the incident, where there is considerable overlap of facts not shared publicly... that creates a situation where the anecdote becomes something that is still unproven, but is worth investigating.

No, you don't condemn someone based on unproven facts and public opinion. But you also don't exonerate someone based on unproven facts and public opinion.

I think perhaps Bob Saget is a better example

Click to expand...

(I had actually forgotten about Saget, but you're right. I can remember one of the younger cast members saying how upset their parents would get about some of the humor behind the scenes. Not just from Saget, but Dave Coulier, and John Stamos, too. They'd feed off each other and get worse and worse, but not usually when the kids were around. However, on occasion, some of them would use kid-unfriendly-words when they flubbed lines and such. Cracked the crew up, but infuriated the kids' families.)

Celia Cyanide said:

Not really. None of this has ever really been in the news until now.

Click to expand...

It has been in the news but no one seemed to care until another male comedian (Buress) started mentioning it in his act earlier this year and encouraging his audience to Google "cosby rape". Where you find a string of allegations either settled out of court (so "some guy" would have to be very rich) or never prosecuted after a complaint was made (so we would have to believe "some guy" was also a person prosecutors set a high bar for going after).

Not sure if this has been posted, but it's an editorial from 1 of the alleged victims. She makes a good case, but nothing that can be proven, I'm afraid.

benbradley said:

I haven't heard anything about these allegations until this thread (perhaps I should watch Entertainment Tonight for what I miss on AW, Twitter and Facebook).


I find it interesting that quantity of accusations helps sway people... about this other famous person, I only count seven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton
...

Click to expand...

I know you are talking about counting accusations here, but I'm going to be rough. I don't count affairs like rape at all. 'Sexual misconduct' is a disgustingly mixed bag of a term when it throws in anything from cheating to rape. The consent of the women doesn't matter at all?

I think everyone knows Bill Clinton cheated, so they are swayed as to 'sexual misconduct' defined that way. Drill down to the actual situations for why folks don't find him a rapist.

As for whether he was ever a harasser, I could believe he was as gross that way as a lot of men of the time. Fortunately we've been through a lot as a society since then and it's not considered 'just fun' anymore (by most men). That really is the sort of thing that takes a ton of societal education on the subject, imho.

backslashbaby said:

I know you are talking about counting accusations here, but I'm going to be rough. I don't count affairs like rape at all. 'Sexual misconduct' is a disgustingly mixed bag of a term when it throws in anything from cheating to rape. The consent of the women doesn't matter at all?

I think everyone knows Bill Clinton cheated, so they are swayed as to 'sexual misconduct' defined that way. Drill down to the actual situations for why folks don't find him a rapist.

Click to expand...

Good point. There is a world of difference between consensual extra-marital sex and rape. For one, rape is a crime. For another, even the most date-iest of date rape isn't "sexual conduct"--it's act of forcing your body parts or other objects into the orifices of an unwilling or in the case of druggings (such as Cosby is accused of), unwitting victim.

You can't compare Clinton's consensual affairs to the Cosby allegations of drugging and raping.

poetinahat said:

just some guy, and thirteen women accused him of rape, how contentious would this discussion be?

Click to expand...

...and *thirteen times*, none of the alleged victims went to the police station or rape center, got a legally-traceable DNA sample, and let loose the Lawyers of War?

If the alleged victims do nothing, they're part of the problem.

Dave Williams said:

...and *thirteen times*, none of the alleged victims went to the police station or rape center, got a legally-traceable DNA sample, and let loose the Lawyers of War?

If the alleged victims do nothing, they're part of the problem.

Click to expand...

You're off to a great start here, I see.