Glossing over the OJ question?

There is proof.


Interesting. Nowhere in that definition does it mention a court of law. Hmm. Guess one can have proof without it being adjudicated legally?

Not when it is going through the legal process, no.
As for Simpson, he remains innocent of that crime because that was the verdict. It was not proven.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proof


I find it extremely unfair to call claimants liars (unless proven in court) and also to call accused people rapists. (unless proven in court)

Drugs or no drugs, doesnt mean he is guilty

I have no doubt in my mind many of these women are opportunists..its a shame because there might be some genuine cases

Not being able to have a fair trial does no favours to either the accused or the accusers. They are disbelieved all round!

Evidence exists independent of a trial. There are plenty of reasons that "proof" isn't aways enough to hold a trial, and if fact in this case it's an antiquated concept in the US called "statute of limitations". Something being beyond the statute of limitations and unable to be tried doesn't magically remove the proof or un-make a rapist. It simply stands in the way of putting them in jail for it.

There has been no trial because there can't be a trial due to the length of time since the crimes were committed.

And in fact the Cosby case is a reason the whole concept of statute of limitations is likely to be re-examined in a lot of US states (it's a state by state rule).

Basically that the notion of statute of limitations is somewhat ludicrous when there's this kind of preponderance of evidence. Time can effect individual instances, but when you start getting into the double digits with instances then you can't simply say that too much time has elapsed for the evidence to be usable. Repeat offending BECOMES evidence, and that's why statute of limitations shouldn't apply in cases like Cosby's. But for now? It does.

Yes, We use the term proof but of course it isn't really.


I agree that being unable to be tried doesn't magically remove the proof and unmake a rapist, but nor does it mean that that the accusers are lying.
I understand why the USA has the statute of limitations, because the accused must be in a position to defend themselves, but it unfortunately means that everyone involved in the case is in limbo for ever more.
(although it seems they are taking steps to have the trial in this case)

Yes, therefore we can not know for sure. (even if we strongly suspect)

thanks for understanding

Lol. Yeah, I guess the "Legal dictionary" is going to use the legal definition of the word.

Last I looked, this wasn't a court of law here.

And anyone who thinks OJ is innocent, is deluded. He just wasn't convicted. Of that crime.

Just wanted to add I thought she had said before that it was his friend that raped her, I was sure I had read that somewhere. So I am glad I read this and it has cleared it up that it was another woman who said it was a friend. I really don't like Janice she is a major pain in the backside but I don't for one minute believe that she is lying about this..

Having seen her manipulative behaviour in the house, I wouldn't be surprised if she did make it up.

You would think so, when people declare that fifty women are liars and Cosby a rapist without knowing the details.

He wasn't convicted of it because there simply was not enough evidence that he was able to carry out the crime as described.
He is, officially, innocent.

As Blackstone said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,"

I think the confusion is because in Janice's case there was someone else present too, but she only remembers Cosby climbing on top of her.

I dont think celery stealing indicates that someone would invent such a terrible thing.




Apologies for the separate posts. My multi-quote isn't working at the moment.

A woman did try to take him to court, many years ago. did you not read the court transcripts, where he pretty much admitted to drugging women? Cosby's lecherousness has been an open secret in Hollywood for decades.

He has certainly been shown to be quite repulsive, but he has not (yet) admitted to raping anyone.
I am not defending Bill Cosby, but pointing out that calling someone a rapist before trial is as bad as calling all the complainants liars.

I actually think we saw quite a dark, sinister side to Bobby last night. He must have known of Janice's claims if he has been following the story. It's too much of a coincidence to bring up that conversation with probably the highest profile in the case sat next to him.

Oh, I am confused. I thought it was Chris? I noticed that Janice was visibly upset.
Could Bobby/Chris really have not know? It seems very unlikely, doesn't it?

Oh maybe it was Chris, I actually can't remember for sure now. I'm probably wrong, I keep mixing Bobby and Chris up!

Either way, yes it does. It's a strange conversation to bring up, and it's not like there has been loads of media attention about it here in the UK. I think Bobby/Chris knew exactly what they were doing.

Did Bobby Davro really not know that Dickinson was one of the women that has made accusations against Cosby or is he playing a game?

I assumed Bobby Davro didn't know Janice was one of the women accusing Cosby of rape. If he did do it deliberately, that shows a pretty nasty streak.

I knew about Cosby but didn't really read beyond the headlines, that was all I needed to know. I bet a lot of people are like me, so I wouldn't be surprised if, when talking celebs with an American, I made a similar sort of gaffe.

However he did say he'd been googling all the HMs so

I thought his reaction and that of Chloe were quite wrong though. He made a couple of cracks before apologising - whether to try to lighten the mood or not he should have said a sincere apology straight off. Then when he'd said 'we shouldn't go there then?' daft Chloe (I think) piped up with 'were you raped?'

Apart from BB stuff, it is the first thing to come up if you google Janice. What a nasty thing to do! And I cant see what he would gain from it?