What about the other 13 allegations............

I don't want it to be true............ Won't be surprised if it is though, just disappointed..... once again.

I also don't want it to be true...

Was anyone else here in Los Angeles in the 1980's? I was and sex, drugs, and rock n roll was more than just a song.

I'd like to think he was a good guy who meant well. He was super funny without being vulgar. Good clean fun
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mdWD0ZPQHqA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It sure seems like everyone who worked with him (kids from Cosby show, etc) all say he was like a second father, made sure they were schooled, smart with their money and grew up "right".

I understand there are people who can do while hiding a dark side but it just doesn't seem to fit with Cosby. Who knows but 30 years seems like a long time to wait.

One thing life has taught me......... And i was stubborn about learning it.....

Every man has his demons............... I have never met a man (or woman) who didn't. Most times, it takes a LOOOOONG time to figure out some of them, but they are ALWAYS there.

So I am never surprised, merely disappointed.

agree - thank Gawd I wear some on my lapel, keep a few in my front pocket, been known to embrace them from time to time and typically know all by name and rank.

Question though, why him? If you were gonna pin a fake rape rap on someone wouldn't you go for a Mick Jagger or Warren Beatty? Someone more believable in the court of pubic opinions?

hey hey hey i better talk to herman caine on how to get out of it for 999

Could be because he has spoken out against thug & drug culture..

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

All those women who thought they could get Bill Clinton to leave Hillary. Same thing. Bill got what he wanted from them and when he went home to Hillary they suddenly found their moral compass. Perfectly happy to be home-wreckers but righteously outraged when it fails.

Cosby has been screwing around on his wife for most of their marriage. These rape allegations are nothing new, either. He's not the classic rapist you read about in the newspaper but the kind of man that uses his wealth, power and influence to get whatever he wants, regardless of the effect is has on the other party. Call it date rape, acquaintance rape, whatever you want.

Why his wife put up with this as long as she has is anybody's guess. I doubt it has to do with money, since she could have had plenty of that if she divorced him.

He's admitted to the adultery, made amends with his wife (more or less) and is now ducking the rape allegations. Anybody that thinks he's innocent should consider his recent refusal to comment on the allegations. If he believed them to be false, he'd say so. He knows they are not, so he's sidestepping the issue. Nothing will come of it, in the end. He's too old now and too much time has passed.

Not a nice guy, but that can be said of far too many rich and powerful men in the world.

JR

Agreed.

Let us not forget that wealth, power and influence are a very strong aphrodisiac to many women. Women seek these men out and often attempt to seduce them because they have wealth, power and influence. The men often take advantage of this dynamic as well, sleeping with these women and then going home to their wives. The wives stick with these men, usually, because a divorce would be both an admission of failure but also, possibly, reduce her access to the wealth should the estate be divided up. That's why women who seek (married) men of wealth, power and influence are called home wreckers. In many cases the wives were content long before the husband's philandering began and are willing to remain content as long as the security system, the wealth, stays put. Besides, if the wife leaves and gets the divorce the husband is now free to possibly marry the woman who wrecked their home. (She's probably pregnant.) Wives stick with the marriage because they aren't going to allow some ambitious home wrecker to steal their man and their livelihood.

The bottom line in such situations is that there are women who absolutely throw themselves, practically naked, at men of wealth, power and influence. The smart man knows when this is happening and proceeds with great caution. JFK was pretty cautious and had the advantage of a complicit press. Bill Clinton was an uncontrolled horn-dog who got tangled up with ambitious women and got himself impeached.

"Absolutely essential." --Donald Trump when asked by the 'money honey' on CNBC about the importance of strong pre-nuptial agreements.

In the UK, there have been many recent cases of celebrities finally being exposed as
sex pests after many decades.Some have gone to prison ,for long sentences even though they are in their eighties now, a few have been found not guilty( hopefully justifiably), but in the meantime their legal fees and being prevented from working whilst under suspiscion have ruined them financially..

He was on NPR and didn't respond verbally to the question - later his lawyer said he would not dignify the question with an answer. OK, thats one way to deal with it but wouldn't most folks deny the heck out of it?

Cosby would be nuts to engage his accusers. No good can come of it. His refusing to jump into the public debate and name calling in no way constitutes guilt. I have no idea if he did it, but, after 30 yrs., the burden of proof isn't on him.

+1....still a damn shame either way

I disagree. He has previously denied the claims. Doing so again would end the matter. No explanation needed, just a denial. A simple "No".

The fact that he is not denying them this time is interesting. Only he knows his reasons, perhaps his conscience is bothering him as he nears the end of his life, but he has to realize that he will be judged by his inaction and his public image will be severely damaged. Given his ego, I expect that would be hard for him to accept. It would be so much simpler to just deny the allegations again.

Note also his numerous talk show appearance cancellations. He apparently doesn't want to face that question in front of a camera.

Note also his attorney's carefully worded statement that doesn't deny his guilt. It reflects the knowledge that no legal action is possible, so nothing can be proven in a court of law.

Note also that he hasn't threatened legal action against the comic that started this whole mess again, although an innocent person would probably pursue that, given the likely damage that his reputation will suffer. Not that he needs the money, but if this continues, expect any deals he has in place for future work to come undone. Companies like NBC will not want to associate with him. He will become something of a recluse.

JR

I was under the impression that this sort of thing was de rigueur in Hollywood, at least in the past. http://financede.com/apple/images/75.gif http://elifeinsuranceweb.com/huuk1.jpg

Unfortunately, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of legal procedure. In this court, the evidence by the accusers has already been presented as well as the factual information that one accuser withdrew a civil suit following a settlement with Cosby, and that a second accuser was asked to testify for the plaintiff by relating her similar rape experience. He can choose to ignore the evidence if he chooses, but in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof does not lie solely with the accuser. Unlike a legal proceeding, your right to remain silent is, in itself, a piece of evidence--in this instance, a piece that supports guilt. The public's verdict is only an opinion, and like an individual's opinion, it will be based on information that is filtered through their own perspectives and experiences rather than legal rules of evidence.

It is interesting to note that the lawyer's statement is very clearly worded to avoid denial, it only attacks the accusers. Were the charges discredited because they were dropped due to a settlement? Were they discredited because the police never file criminal charges? What exactly discredits the accusations other than the fact they have never been brought forward in a court of law? No accusation has been discredited by any evidence that the accusation is untrue.

There is nothing he can say that will make this go away. Call the accuser a liar in any form and it just keeps the story alive. Flatly deny it and they'll ask for details. Sue the accuser for defamation and it stays in the headlines for years, even though it would likely get settled out of court.

Lots of celebrities settle suits out of court because it makes the problem go away faster than fighting it out, regardless of who really said or did what. And when you can just sign on a dotted line to make a problem go away while also legally binding the other guy to keep quiet, that's mighty tempting for someone who has a ton of money and doesn't want to get dragged into a years-long, bruising PR battle.

Remember when Bill O'Reilly settled with a former staffer for an undislosed sum after she accused him of all kinds of bad behavior? He never mentioned it on his show, kept totally quiet about it, wrote a check and it went away.

You are absolutely correct^^.

Unfortunately, for Cosby at this time, he doesn't have the option of writing a check and making it go away as none of the accusers are interested in a settlement. The only silent accuser is the one who reached a settlement in 2006. If an accuser is motivated due to the need for public recognition, he must put up with it for as long as the public is interested in the claims. Sooner or later, if the accusations persist, the public will have to decide the credibility of each accuser in more depth. If their credibility and motives appear to be authentic, Mr. Cosby is in for a difficult time.