Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault cases

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BillCosbyMugshot2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BillCosbyMugshot2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The photo is available at http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Bill-Cosby/420c5215c8114330a163787635187f7c/19/0

Other photos are available at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/Cosby-Photos.aspx

I do not know is any of these can be used. I am not sure we should have his mugshot in the article anyways. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

In the Tamara Green, et al. section, in the third paragraph, please change the first two sentences from:

“On November 13, 2015, it was reported that four more women—Bowman, Tarshis, Moritz, and Leslie—had joined the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. Bowman, Tarshis, and Leslie are co-represented by Chicago attorney Michael Bressler.”

To include an additional sentence (in between the first two sentence) so it reads:

“On November 13, 2015, it was reported that four more women—Bowman, Tarshis, Moritz, and Leslie—had joined the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. The amended lawsuit, filed by Attorney Joseph Cammarata and co-counsel, brought the total number of plaintiffs to seven women, and added new claims against Cosby for false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bowman, Tarshis, and Leslie are co-represented by Chicago attorney Michael Bressler.”

This addition (no change to the first or third sentence) provides more accurate details about the number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit, as well as important information about new added claims made in the case against Mr. Cosby.

The source for this information can be found directly on the Third Amended Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which can be viewed here:

Lawforalllawforone (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. This request has been stale by 2 years and 7 months, though, lock actually ended on Dec. 25, 2018. TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

In regards to how the article is presented

Recently I've seen fewer wiki mods put their politics before the truth, which is a nice change. It's good to see more integrity. Anyway, with that in mind, thought I'd suggest a slight reworking of the page. Especially the most recent update to his case. Everything else aside, there needs to be more there. It certainly was more than a "technicality". Two confirmed major violations of Cosby's constitutional rights. The prosecutor who ended up getting him convicted was close friend of judge. Judge btw, was known to be openly hostile to the original prosecution, which also brings into question why the judge would both A: Overturn the original DA's promise of no charges to be pressed, and B: Refusing to allow said DA to testify on Cosby's behalf with statements that other than the admission he supplied drugs during party at the civil trial, there was zero evidence. He judge declared the DA to be a hostile witness, and had him removed from the courtroom. Eh, I could go on but this is getting bit winded. Short of it is even if you believe the trial was somehow fair, as we are all entitled to opinions, it is pretty clear this was much more than a "technicality irrelevant to facts of case". I know it's a quote, but most of the article paints Cosby in a pretty severe light, so itd be reasonable to assume many readers would see that paragraph and assume Cosby got away with rape because of some minor technicality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.88.3 (talk)

• (Side note unrelated to editing, does anyone still think Cosby was actually guilty? Especially when considering the "victims" that have history of fraud n the ones that keep contradicting themselves, as well as the large number that immediately sued, as well as the admitted bias of DA, and evidenced bias of judge, as well as the poor faith behavior of media, as well as fact the only evidence was an illegally obtained confession of drug use, oh and not to mention there was accusation by 1 juror of another stating cosby was guilty, prior to trial starting, an accusation the judge ignored without explanation. . Sry, again whats in these parenthesis isn't pertinent to editing. I'm just wondering what other people's views are on subject while trying to make mine clear) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.88.3 (talk)

Temporal Paradox Problem?

Quite apart from the statutes of limitations concerning rape and sexual assault, there seems to be strange temporal issue concerning the allegations made against Bill Cosby as they span several decades. In principle, we should not prosecute an individual for committing an action which was legal at the place and time it was originally done. E.g. we don't claim that the Nobel-Prize winning writer Eugene O'Neill broke the law for his drug consumption and addiction to opium because he lived at a time when opium and morphine could be legally obtained over the counter. In other words, we can perhaps extend statutes of limitations of crimes going forwards but not (retroactively) backwards (quite apart from e.g. the real-life consequences of E.g. O'Neill's destructive addiction). Now, I have heard the audience actually laugh during a recording of Bill Cosby making a joke about the use of Spanish fly back in the 1960s. This joke comes back to haunt Bill Cosby but there was no reaction of shock or outrage from the audience at that time. These were the days of the "sexual revolution"; the concept of slipping a Mickey into a woman's drink to seduce her was considered immoral, it was not considered a case of rape per se. In Cosby's day, the mores were quite different: conservative families warned their daughters that if they entered a single's bar and woke in the morning sleeping next to a stranger, that the responsibility was on them. Thanks in part to feminism, these mores have changed dramatically. Now, the responsibility and the blame has apparently shifted entirely to the man as explained below. Qualuudes were considered an aphrodisiac back in the 1960s and 1970s and were perfectly legal until the mid-1980s. For that matter, Date rape drugs and Drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) are not acknowledged as a serious problem until the mid 1990s and the adjustments in legislation are mostly in the current century: Bill Clinton's Date-rape drug Prohibition Act does not appear until the year 2000. Now you have this "Table of accuser's allegations" but is the "alleged offense" column backed up by specific charges at the time and place these crimes are alleged to happen? This requires a lawyer or legal expert but If the answer is no, I suspect that most of the DFSA allegations are hallow at the very least. Moreover, DFSA is part of the "Rape in the Third Degree" charge, which varies from state to state. In New York law, it is stated that the victim can be someone "who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than 17 years old", which is rather vague because the term "factor" is not precise, or "who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated". The Louisiana version is worse: "[even] when the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause and the offender knew or should have known of the victim’s incapacity." I submit that a man experiencing a night stand from a bar encounter can be hit by this charge even if the partner gave apparent consent for both the alcohol and the sexual encounter. There are good reasons for statues of limitations and these current laws look like the faulty outcome of a revisionist desire to improve legislation concerning rape. I submit this Temporal issue from Cosby's case, as presented in this site, is an untenable paradox and he has been made to pay a terrible price for it.TonyMath (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Without evidence"

Hello

 This edit is neither disruptive or vandalism multiple RS cite the lack of or no evidence standards of the ‘approximate’60 accusers…perhaps the edit is better placed in the Cosby ‘defenders’ section. Also cosby must now be again be given the status of innocent unless retried at this point in time as a legal matter and by wiki biography living persons policy. Here is the edit…. 

He has been accused without evidence by approximately 60 women of rape, drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual battery, child sexual abuse, and sexual misconduct [1]. Cheers24.113.155.134 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying that he has been accused without evidence is factually incorrect. There was evidence presented. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu With all due respect you failed to read the content of the RS cited. Other RS make the same point as does Cosby’s attorney and his various defenses/defenders and the original prosecutor in the criminal case, again Cosby’s current legal status is presumed innocent unless retried and convicted‘allegations’ are not evidence. You are wrong on this matter and the edit is neither vandalism or disruptive as you claim. The suggestion here is perhaps the edit is better presented in the Cosby defense section. Cheers24.113.155.134 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not present a reliable source. You presented an op-ed written by Kathleen Parker. Her statement that it is "without evidence" does not mean that it is so. The prosecutors presented evidence in the trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu

The Chron is an RS Cosby’s conviction was vacated meaning there currently is no evidence only allegations. Cosby legally has the right to presumption of innocence and Wikipedia biography of a living person must stand by that status. It is not the place of Wikipedia administration to determine what constitutes ‘evidence’ when only allegations remain, which is the current legal status Mr. Cosby has obtained through the courts. Cheers 24.113.155.134 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that's the opinion of the op ed writer. I doubt that's a consensus view. Op eds aren't automatically RS because they're in a reliable publication. See WP:RSEDITORIAL: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu

Again you fail to properly examine the Chron RS content the commentary states the facts of the rule of law in relationship to evidence vs allegations. You can not dismiss the facts of the rule of law and the undeniable vacating of the Cosby conviction by the courts. Cosby has the right of presumption of innocence and not have Wikipedia declare what constitutes ‘evidence ’ when legally there is none…only allegations remain at this time …as cited by rule of law…not you. Cheers 24.113.155.134 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a court of law. Saying "without evidence" in a Wikipedia article makes it appear that there is no evidence, because of a legal technicality that nullified the trial. He's innocent in the legal system, but the facts are the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New comments

I agree with Muboshgu. "Without evidence" is an extraordinary claim. Even if it were a less contentious factual matter, I wouldn't rely on the source in question, per WP:RSEDITORIAL/WP:RSOPINION. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu

Please cite any ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ that are not just allegations of he said/she said as is stated by multiple sources though out the article such the original prosecutor , Cosby’s various attorneys and defenders have stated. You acknowledge Cosby’s presumption of innocence but then claim ‘facts‘ there are no ‘facts’ cited in the article only allegations. Cheers 24.113.155.134 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are proposing the addition of “without evidence” to the article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to verify that claim using reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fire

Actually you are giving undue weight to he said/she said allegations and declaring those allegations as factual evidence of Cosby being guilty when in fact he has presumption of innocence. That you want such an undue weight of allegations seems to display a lack of neutrality. Cheers 24.113.155.134 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers back! I think I understand part of where you're coming from. If I'm reading you clearly, you believe the article is making a claim that Cosby is guilty. I would like to know which part of the article you're referring to. In response to your WP:DUE concerns: I am confused. Are you suggesting this article should mention sexual assault allegations less? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fire

The greater amount of content of the article came into existence as originally covering the Cosby ‘scandal’ and some editors rushed to add every allegation they could find some from non RS sources so the article is actually is a hybrid of the ‘scandal’ phase and gradually morphed as the legal issues emerged culminating in actual criminal trial. The result is a blurring of the lines between the actual legal content of the article and the scandal content it originated out of. The result is a steady drum beat of allegation redundancy such as the rather ridiculous ‘allegations chart’ as an example. The article is bloated and should be edited down to the actual legal procedures such as the lawsuits, criminal trials and vacated conviction as an editing suggestion. The redundancy of allegations is the undue weight in an article focused on legal cases…not the earlier scandal focus it morphed out of. Cheers PS ‘Allegations’ are not ‘facts’ they are stories. 24.113.155.134 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fire

Apparently this discussion is at an end before it even begins. Muboshgu has made clear his sole judgment on a good faith edit is enough to accuse a fellow editor of vandalism and disruptive editing with the promise of banning a person for an edit he refuses to see as added in good faith. He is clear that is how Wikipedia conducts such matters so with that in mind I withdraw the edit. You can see for yourself (or anyone else) Muboshgu’s statement below.

I don't see how adding "without evidence" to an article about the claims made against somebody can be perceived as a "good faith" edit. It was an attempt to obscure the allegations. I did not "bully" by any definition of WP:BULLY. Pointing out that disruptive editing leads to blocks is not a threat, it's a promise. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers 24.113.155.134 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is at an end because it's tiresome to go around in circles. Now you're attacking my integrity here rather than acknowledging that adding "without evidence" is problematic or providing any constructive feedback on the article. Stick to discussing content, not contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I admit I had not read your previous comment before my response, just your baseless personal attack on me. There are surely ways to trim the content of this article, like perhaps that "allegations chart". Where are other redundancies? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And now that I've looked at the table, it's clearly not redundant because there are some accusers in the table that are not mentioned in the prose. If we deleted that table, we'd need to majorly expand the prose to include them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

People: Your comments would carry more weight if you showed the vaguest comprehension of how to use punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C082:2EA0:308E:F234:DD89:50A8 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nouns Verbs Adjectives

Hello Fellow Editors

Here is a suggestion that with ‘allegations’ connected to it’s Wikipedia definition in the matter of law other key words should be similarly connected for proper context in the text . For instance ‘allegation’ is a noun however ‘allege’ as an example is a verb (see example below).

al·lege

/əˈlej/

verb

claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case.

It seems important for Wikipedia to highlight these key definitions in their legal content in an article primarily about the legal cases involving Cosby.

Another factor to improve the article is to reduce the gossip component of the article such as the how persons ‘reacted’ to Cosby or ‘encountered’ or commentary such as ‘psychopath’ comparisons and other pre-legal cases material .

All the best 107.115.33.20 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This article really needs to be split

At 267K, with an intro that I recently marked as being too long, and with the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will now hear the case, I propose that it be split into one article about the criminal case, to be named Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Cosby or, if the Supreme Court does take it, Pennsylvania v. Cosby, and another, Bill Cosby sexual assault civil lawsuits or something like that, about ... well, it's self-explanatory.

The background section on the allegations could probably stay with the civil-case article, as an article about the criminal trial wouldn't need all that, just the circumstances of the criminal case with a link to the longer section.

Anybody got anything to say about this? Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you get 267K. It says that Wiki text is 261K. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, it's "readable prose size" that we go by. That said, the article has 98K of readable prose, and that's just below the "almost certainly should be divided" line. I agree with splitting off the court cases from the non-tried allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it says "267,453 bytes" next to my name on the latest revision on the history page. That's the usual way of assessing it.

Really, 6K is quibbling. It's unwieldy and bloated IMO, and as I said if SCOTUS takes it (I think they should), even if they come back with a unanimous per curiam opinion it would still merit a separate article as a SCOTUS case (I think you could argue that even now, as a PA SC case that other defendants in that state have relied on (can't find link right now, but I recall reading about it over the summer) in their appeals.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your distinction as to what should be split ... the same as I? Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm chiming in months late but I do support the split(s).LM2000 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree also,the article needs to be split and redundant material reduced.

The greater amount of content of the article came into existence as originally covering the Cosby ‘scandal’ and some editors rushed to add every allegation they could find some from non RS sources so the article is actually is a hybrid of the ‘scandal’ phase and gradually morphed as the legal issues emerged culminating in actual criminal trial. The result is a blurring of the lines between the actual legal content of the article and the scandal content it originated out of. The result is a steady drum beat of allegation redundancy such as the rather ridiculous ‘allegations chart’ as an example. The article is bloated and should be edited down to the actual legal procedures such as the lawsuits, criminal trials and vacated conviction as an editing suggestion. The redundancy of allegations is the undue weight in an article focused on legal cases…not the earlier scandal focus it morphed out of. Cheers PS ‘Allegations’ are not ‘facts’ they are stories. An Editor 24.113.172.49 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support split. This page is bonkers large.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if ...

It would be very helpful if there were one section where one could find out about the status of any pending or ongoing trials or lawsuits.

At the end of the introduction might be the best place for such information, which ought to be kept as current as possible.

As things currently stand, it is necessary to scan through a very long (and thorough) article, quite possibly missing the latest information, if any.

If there are no cases pending, perhaps that should be mentioned as well.

Looking for info re Court Reporter ethics statement

The article properly repeats the reporting in sources that allege impropriety with respect to the court reporters' code of ethics in having made the release of transcripts without first "contacting" or "running it by" all involved parties. I tried to find information about this code of ethics, having identified the federal E.D.Pa. as the relevant jurisdiction (https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/local-rules/Local%20Civil%20Rules), and found that federal court reporters are governed by the National Court Reporters Association (https://www.ncra.org/home/the-profession/NCRA-Code-of-Professional-Ethics).

However, I see nothing there (or anywhere I came across) that addresses the issue. I realize this may not be critical as the point in this article is simply to describe what was publicly reported, but I am curious and it may be relevant. Does anyone have a suggestion or specific citation to a particular rule that states that the reporter was required to do so? Al Begamut (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)