Bill Cosby sued for alleged underage sexual abuse

[Lite Beer]

Bill Cosby sued for alleged underage sexual abuse

Bill Cosby is being sued for sexual assault by a woman who says the US comedian molested her when she was 15.

Judy Huth's lawsuit alleges that Cosby molested her at the Playboy mansion in Los Angeles in 1974 and told her to lie about her age.

Cosby's lawyer had no immediate comment on the accusation.

Cosby, 77, has faced a series of renewed allegations that he drugged and sexually assaulted more than a dozen women.

He has not been charged in connection with any of the allegations, which his lawyers have described as "discredited" and "defamatory".

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30305435

-- The Nation 2014-12-03

[Jingthing]

There goes the ToysRUs contract!

[Chao Lao Beach]

Can someone explain USA law?

If there was evidence, wouldn't he be charged with a criminal offense and then if guilty then they could sue, <deleted> are they doing just sewing when there has been no offense as far as the police are concerned anyway?

[ThaidDown]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

[RichinThailand]

Can someone explain USA law?

If there was evidence, wouldn't he be charged with a criminal offense and then if guilty then they could sue, <deleted> are they doing just sewing when there has been no offense as far as the police are concerned anyway?

Most sex offense laws are State Laws in the USA. Therefore it would depend on the state. Nearly all have some statue of limitations, and limit how long after the crime a person can be charged and processed. This may well be a case where the statue of limitations has been reached, but yet allows a civil action to take place.

[hawker9000]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

[nithisa78]

They'll investigate. When they determine there is more industry to prosecute this sick creature, there will be charges that are within the statute. He is guilty of something more than giving women he has nothing to do with, money. We'll see.

[aboctok]

Can someone explain USA law?

If there was evidence, wouldn't he be charged with a criminal offense and then if guilty then they could sue, <deleted> are they doing just sewing when there has been no offense as far as the police are concerned anyway?

Can you explain why criminal proceedings should be a prerequisite for civil action, and where on Earth this is the case? Why would the right to sue somehow depend on a criminal prosecution?

[Nuddy]

Do not ever look at a child in the USA

Do not ever look at porn on your computer if you are a citizen of USA

The mind boogles.

[F430murci]

Do not ever look at a child in the USA

Do not ever look at porn on your computer if you are a citizen of USA

The mind boogles.

Yep, those laws against child porn are really disconcerting to some. If you fit into that category, well . . .

[lungbing]

If she has said nothing for 40 years then I believe she has lost the right to say anything.

If he was not a very wealthy man would she have come out with this complaint?

[Globeman]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

"But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway..." ... This invalidates her case?

It matter not at all if she was there willingly and was keen for a shag. If anyone - Bill Cosby or otherwise - had sex with her, she was underage and it was therefore statutory rape because she was below the age of consent. This is just one of the ways society tries to protect its children - even if they are a bit wayward. Do you think it shouldn't count unless the girl was there to sell girl scout cookies?

But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

Why would that stink more than if it went through the court procedure? Usually, it is the defendant who comes forward with the offer in such cases to spare themselves the humiliation - whether they are guilty or not. The alleged victim often takes the offer - usually lower - because it is traumatic... or just generally sucks going through such cases in a courtroom. Whom are you saying looks more guilty in the event of an out of court settlement? I believe Bill has settled before, hasn't he? So did Michael Jackson.

[Ulysses G.]

I bet Bill Cosby is starting to wish that he had kicked the bucket when he was 76.

[Doc46]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

Well every one knows That if it's settled out of court The dirty old prick is GUILTY

[Seastallion]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

Well every one knows That if it's settled out of court The dirty old prick is GUILTY

No, not at all. Gold panners, as has been mentioned, will make an accusation for the sole purpose of getting money. They work on the principle that the defendant doesn't want the mud slinging that will happen in a court case, even if he is absolutely innocent. Some people are ruthless when it comes to money.

[Ulysses G.]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

Well every one knows That if it's settled out of court The dirty old prick is GUILTY

No, not at all. Gold panners, as has been mentioned, will make an accusation for the sole purpose of getting money. They work on the principle that the defendant doesn't want the mud slinging that will happen in a court case, even if he is absolutely innocent. Some people are ruthless when it comes to money.

This may be the first one of your posts that I've ever agreed with, but you are right. Settling out of court is common for innocent people who don't want the hassle of a court fight - especially very wealthy people.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Having a hard time thinking of the Cos as a big creep but I guess maybe I'll join the club.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Suradit69]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

Yes, remember in the endless soap opera criminal trial of OJ Simpson, he was not found guilty. But then in the civil trial ...

This time, the venue was the courthouse in Santa Monica. Before a jury of one black, one Hispanic, one Asian, and nine whites, a civil trial began to lay judgment again on him for the murders of Ronald Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

In this civil suit filed by the Goldman and Brown families, Simpson could not invoke the Fifth Amendment and, unlike the criminal case, was forced to testify. Also, the standard of proof was a lot easier than in the criminal case. There, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, guilt had only to be proven according to the "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words its purpose is to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime.

On February 4th, 1997, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Fred Goldman and his ex-wife Sharon Rufo for the loss of their son's love, companionship and moral support. A few days later, they brought in punitive damages of $25 million to be shared between Nicole's children and Fred Goldman.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html

[steven100]

Disagree that someone can sue 40 years later. Why wasn't it mentioned after it was suppose to have occured or even up to 1 year which may be reasonable , but not 4o years. ??

Media brought up unfavourable news from other suspected victims recently and as such this person has decided to jump on the band wagon.

Of course it's money !!! in the US it's all about sueing & money ..... she's probably thinking 10 million ......

[rotary]

1974.......is she joking or is she a joke?

[The stuttering parrot]

Some men and women who have been abused when they are children live with this all their lives without saying a word!

It takes a lot of guts to come out and face your molester.

Once someone either man or woman makes a stand it seems that others get the courage and say no this person is not getting away with this.

Rolf Harris is a recent example of this!

[CarlTyson]

There goes the ToysRUs contract!

I thought it was, WeBeToys?

[CarlTyson]

Having a hard time thinking of the Cos as a big creep but I guess maybe I'll join the club.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Around 20 victims have had the courage to admit this celebrity pig slipped them drugs and were raped.

A few may be in it for the money or attention? Probably.

There is most likely many more that won't want to talk about it (and get their names plastered all over the WWW)

He was doing this for years so what do you think? 100 more? 200?

[Bakeman]

He has already paid off a few which raises suspicion but the numbers when I last counted were 8 women. Hard to make that up. They may not win anything but he is losing everything. Especial if he is found to be culpable. You also have to think about his untouchable reputation during those days and that many of the girls wanted future acting jobs. Its like accusing someone with immense power. If he is not guilty I hope that he will win back his contracts but if he has done what they say then let the bodies hit the floor.

[bendejo]

I bet Bill Cosby is starting to wish that he had kicked the bucket when he was 76.

I was thinking that a few weeks ago, a downside to longevity.

Edited December 3, 2014 by bendejo

[bendejo]

If there was any doubt that this would turn into a legal circus, that doubt is gone. Gloria Allred is getting involved. She first gained fame during the OJ Simpson spectacle As far as lusting for face time in the media she’s up there with Donald Trump and US senators.

Maybe Cos’s lawyers have a gambit: with the tally growing by the day (looks like everyone took a break for the Thanksgiving weekend ), they could put up a knowingly false accuser and this is the one who takes the case to court. The case, of course, gets the full attention of the news cycle and eventually gets defeated, and thereby all other claims get flushed down the toilet. Further mention of Cosby antics will popularly be met with groans and eye-rolling (“oh not, not that again!”). Maybe they’ll tap Karl Rove as a spin advisor.

[Phil Water]

I am surprised and shocked at all these alagations about Bill Cosby; but in retrospect, I should not be. He was always a little too "Fred Flinstone" for me.

[CarlTyson]

I'll bet there is 10X more ladies he raped that won't come forward.

Not many would want their name instantly spread around the WWW?

Maybe the biggest serial rapist ever.

[spidermike007]

In criminal cases 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the requirement for conviction. In civil cases ' on the balance of probabilities ' is usually the benchmark.

And the mere existence of a witness or person claiming to be a victim who's making a public statement doesn't necessarily meet either bar. Right now, this seems like it could be anything from a digger panning for gold to a genuine case of multiple underage sex abuse. Wait & see. (But what WOULD 15yo girls be doing at the Playboy Mansion other than delivering girl scout cookies anyway...) But if it gets to the "settled out of court" with details "undisclosed" stage, it'll truly stink.

While what you are saying has some merit to it, usually where there is smoke, there is some sort of fire. The fact that so many women have come out, separately, and independently, against this man, at this time, suggests he has committed alot of offenses against women, in my book. I doubt dozens would be making up these stories. He does appear to be a pathetic predator. And a guy like that, with his fame and fortune does not need to prey on women, as there are plenty of supermodels, and super fine babes that would do it for free, just to be able to say they did.

[Jingthing]

I am surprised and shocked at all these alagations about Bill Cosby; but in retrospect, I should not be. He was always a little too "Fred Flinstone" for me.

I was still shocked by all this. I think most people were. It was probably that Dr. Huxtable character that really fooled people. Also the morality preaching to the African American community. Growing up I actually bought his records (quaint!) and went to his live shows ... he filled large stadiums. Normally I don't think the smoke there's fire logic is really fair but when you've got such large numbers of accusers like this, that changes things.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Jingthing