Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
I think you are still missing the point I wanted to make: even without DNA, etc, rape can be proven. Circumstantial evidence can be very persuasive.

But there are no circumstances in the Cosby case like this. No medical care sought. No outcry witnesses. No observable distress in the complaining witness immediately after.

The absence of these circumstances in ALL 50 allegations is (logically) suspicious.

Cosby just happened to choose to rape 50 unusually self-sufficient women?

The most persuasive evidence in the first priest pedophile cases was the damaged lives of the alleged victims.

Alcoholism, drug adfiction, suicide attempts, etc. in adulthood.

Because it was congruent with our own experiences of what child sex abuse usually leads to, for victims.
Several women had told others what had happened years ago, unknown to other women who did the same, I have been sexually assaulted and I did nothing because I feared I wouldn't be believed and I thought it was my fault because we were "making out" . Years later another woman I know who lived in the building told me about her assault...same guy, same MO , Some guys like Cosby get off on the assault, . But in those days we kept it a secret. I was luckier than my daughter who was raped. Y a boy she knew at 15 and a virgin We were so close and it took her 2 years to tell me. And yes, she was damaged but thanks to therapy and support, she is an amazing woman and produced the most amazing, intelligent, beautiful, wonderful granddaughters. (Yes, I'm objective
Bill Cosby was a powerful figure....I have worked with rape victims and their biggest fear was not being believed.
I have such a hard time believing that you as a woman believe that 50 women from all different places made this up and then we wonder why women don't report rape? What do you mean when you say he just happened to choose 50 unusually self-sufficient women? How do you know the effects he had on those women? You mean self sufficient women are different rape victims? What's the difference whether they were self-sufficient or not? Rape is rape. And many of those women needed him and therefore kept it a secret even though several had told others. Do you believe all of them are liars? You say rape can be proven by circumstantial evidence.. like what?
How would you feel if I said those boys who said priests molested them were all lying , after all priests don't lie and there's no proof that they did it. No DNA
Do you believe OJ killed those people? No DNA and a fair trial.