The Cosby Confession Hoax

To understand the Cosby Confession Hoax, we have to distinguish between two documents. Both contain excerpts from Dr. Cosby’s 2005/2006 lawsuit testimony. One was widely circulated to millions of people through the mass media, and the other is only known to a few hundred people who have bothered to look up documents available on a Montgomery County website (https://www.montcopa.org/2312/Commonwealth-v-William-Henry-Cosby-Jr).

Document 1. A Confession Document, created by Andrea Constand’s lawyer, Delores Troiani, made up of excerpts from Bill Cosby’s Feb. 28 and 29, 2005 deposition and released to the newsmedia on July 6, 2015. By taking Cosby’s words out of context, it gives the appearance of Cosby confessing to things he did not confess to at all. The document appears to have been deliberately designed and arranged by Troiani to make Cosby appear guilty of hiding information and refusing to answer relevant questions, when his lawyer was trying to stop questions that he deemed irrelevant.

Document 2. A document containing more of his deposition testimony offered by his defense lawyers to the court on 3/30/2018. It is based on Bill Cosby’s Feb. 28 and 29, 2005, and March 28, and 29, 2006 deposition. It can be found on only on the Montgomery  County Website. It is under 3/30/2018 Def Response to Comm. Motion. – Comm. v. Cosby – CR3932-16 . It is on page 17 of the 18 page document under exhibit 2 on page 135 of the transcript. It gives us a more accurate picture of what Cosby actually did and did not confess to in his deposition.

The same information can also be found in an earlier 2016 defense document on the Montgomery country website. It is “Defendant’s Objections and Counter-Designations Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 106 Regarding the Testimony of William H. Cosby, Jr.” Document No.-CP-46-CR-0003932-2016, June 9, 2017. It is available here for download: https://www.montcopa.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3821

You can get this later document by clicking here: More Accurate Cosby Testimony

On July 7th, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, senior United States Judge of the Eastern court of Pennsylvania, illegally, unsealed a document written by Andrea Constand’s lawyer, Delores Troiani, and by so doing sealed Bill Cosby’s fate to be convicted of a crime he did not commit.

The document Robreno released was called “Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Concerning Conduct of Defendant at Deposition and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion.” Constand v. Cosby No- 05-CV-1099. You can find it here online – https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158445-cosby-deposition.html .

One can see numerous differences between the two documents.
When the document was released on July 6, 2015, news reports stressed a single answered and a single unanswered question from the Troiani edited document. The single answered question and single unanswered question has been mis-used  as evidence that Cosby had admitted to drugging women ever since.

Here is the Troiani document with the single answered and unanswered question:
Main false part of Troiani deposition version

1. The Fake “Answered Question.”
The supposedly “answered question” was “When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?
A. Yes.

2. The Misleading “Unanswered Question.
The “unanswered question” was “Did you ever give any of these young women the Quaaludes without their Knowledge?”
Cosby’s lawyer jumps in at this point and says, “Object to the question. Restrict it to the Jane Does would you please.”
Troiani responds, No I will not.
Cosby’s lawyer responds, “Do not answer it.”

Taken out of context, the answered and unanswered questions may be read as suggesting that Cosby was admitting getting a prescription to quaaludes in order to have sex with women and his lawyer did not want him to answer any more questions about it. That is how mass media news outlets generally read it.

1. What the Troiani document hides from the answered question.

The Troiani document doesn’t show you the whole answer that Cosby gave to the question. Troiani deliberately cut off and left out part of Cosby’s answer. Here is the Defense document showing the full answer –

Cosby Full Answer After Yes

Cosby’s full answer is not “Yes,” as in Troiani’s document, but “Yes…I misunderstood…Woman, meaning Theresa, and not women.”

Cosby immediately takes back his “yes” answer by saying that he misunderstood the question. It was only Teresa (noted as Theresa in the transcript) Pickering (later married name, Serignese) that he was thinking about when he got the quaaludes. Troiani then says “You have every right in the world to say, no, you’re misunderstanding me.” Cosby responds, “I just did”.

In other words, where the released document has Cosby saying “Yes,” to “Did he have it in his mind to give quaaludes to women when he got the prescription,” his real answer was “No, I had it in my mind to give it to Teresa.”

We don’t know what was going on with Teresa and Cosby. Did she ask him for quaaludes? Did she say that she wanted quaaludes to relax? Did she say that she would have sex with him if he got her some quaaludes? We do not know what their relationship consisted of and what was going on between them.

In truth, Cosby was trying to remember something that took place 30 years before. We can’t be sure that he was remembering it accurately. It is very possible that Cosby really got the quaaludes for muscle pain that he was suffering from at the time. Bursitis and torn fibres in his shoulder Aug 1975

Bill Cosby had an actual reason for getting quaaludes from his doctor. He had bursitis and torn fibres in his shoulder. There is no reason for Cosby to have remembered this 30 years later on the witness stand. When pain disappears we forget about it.

2. The unanswered question is even more misleading.

Troiani, upon hearing the word “Yes” from Cosby immediately says, “Did you ever give any of these young women the Quaaludes without their Knowledge?”

Troiani knew that this was an illegal question or probably illegal question. Judge Robreno had ruled that only questions about the Jane Does accusers in the case could be asked. Cosby’s lawyer, asks that Troiani obey the judge’s instruction and “restrict it to the Jane Does.” This was not done to stop Cosby from talking about women he drugged, it was to stop Troiani from invading Cosby’s privacy and asking Cosby about affairs with women who had nothing to do with the case.

Troiani immediately reacts as if the lawyer is stopping Cosby from confessing that he drugged women without their knowledge.

She says, “No I will not” meaning to the defense attorney that she won’t obey the judge’s orders and restrict the questions to the Jane Does. Cosby’s lawyer has no choice but to tell Cosby, “do not answer it.” If Troiani can break the court’s order and ask about women in general in Cosby’s life, she could go even further in invading his privacy and injuring him.

Taken out of context and without the knowledge that Troiani was not allowed to ask general questions about women in Cosby’s life, one could assume simply that the lawyer was stopping Cosby from incriminating himself.

This “unanswered question” which Troiani and later the news media made to seem so sinister, as if the lawyer was stopping a great confession from Cosby, was later answered. Judge Robreno allowed her to ask it in the follow up deposition on March 6, 2006. Here is the actual answer to the “unanswered question.”

Drugs without knowlege No

Cosby answered the unanswered question about giving young women Quaaludes without their knowledge by saying “No.”

Cosby did confess that in getting a legal prescription to the popular “love drug” quaaludes, that he thought about giving them to one woman he wanted to make love to  in 1975. (although the news article suggests he might have misremembered why he got the quaaludes). He also confessed to giving them to other women (number unknown) who wanted them at parties.

To the question of giving women quaaludes without their knowledge, the answer was “No.”

Cosby did not confess to drugging anybody, he confessed to sharing a prescription medication in 1975. Tens of millions of other people in the mid-1970s shared their quaaludes prescriptions. It is absurd to suggest that the crime of recreational drug use between lovers is similar to or the same crime that Andrea Constand accused Bill Cosby of on January 13, 2005.

More (written June 10, 2018)

Cosby, in his lawsuit testimony, is clearly suggesting that the only woman he gave quaaludes to and had sex with was Teresa (Serignese, then named Pickering). Cosby said this most likely because Serignese had already testified. She apparently had testified that, like Andrea Constand, Cosby had once given her pills. Cosby did not want to directly contradict her. This was 30 years earlier, so it is unlikely that he would remember what happened with her. He simply assumed that she was telling the truth and he had given her pills. This reaction was a repeat of the action he took when confronted with Constand’s drug accusation. Memories are reconstructed from new information and past information. In both cases, he created a false memory of giving women drugs.

At the beginning of the investigation against him started by Constand, Cosby was told by his lawyer that Andrea Constand had said that he gave her three pills. He knew that the only pills he had around the house were over the counter benadryl pills. He assumed that he must have given her three benadryl pills. He knew that he would not give her three because one or two is the normal dose. He assumed that he had cut the pills in half for her. The fact that he assumed this is evidence that he did not remember giving her any pills. Nobody would cut pills in half for an adult or not tell an adult that they were giving them benadryl. The story is ridiculous, as ridiculous as Constand’s story that she took pills from Cosby without asking what they were. She was a health conscious athlete who were very conscious of everything she put in her body.

Cosby apparently had a legal prescription of quaaludes. It is possible that he had given them to other women who wanted them as a gift, but it is more likely that he simply threw them out after they expired.

In any case, Cosby knew that Serignese had accused him of giving her pills. Just as he put his having benedryl in his house together with Constand’s accusation and assumed he gave her benadryl, Cosby did the same thing with his prescription of quaaludes. He assumed that she was telling the truth about him giving her the pills and he assumed they must have been benadryl.

Just as there is no evidence Cosby gave benadryl or any drugs to Constand, there is no evidence that Cosby gave quaaludes or any drugs to Serignese or any other women in the 1970s. He simply had a false memory of doing it based on Serignese’s probably false memory/statement about being given pills.

Cosby, in the lawsuit testimony, also vaguely suggested he gave quaaludes to other women. However, this may have been to forestall the accusation of other women that he gave them pills. The better defense to being accused of giving women drugs 30 years ago is to say that they were only harmless quaaludes that the women wanted, rather than saying he never did it or saying that he did not remember doing it. However, in an atmosphere where accusers are automatically believed and the accused in automatically presumed guilty, there is no defense.

March 19, 2018 Cosby Defense Emergency Request for a Continuance and Judge O’Neill’s Response.

. . . “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first–verdict afterward.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
“Who cares for you?” said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

On March 19th, 2018, Judge O’Neill gave The Cosby Defense Team just two weeks to prepare for five prior acts witnesses. Essentially this meant they had to prepare for five new trials. The Defense team asked for an Emergency Continuance of 90 days. This was an unprecedented burden on a defendant, perhaps never seen before in the history of Pennsylvania law.

Emergency Motion for Continuance of Trial-ilovepdf-compressed

This is Judge O’Neill’s response denying the motion. Click to read it.
March 19 O’Neill’s Response to Emergency Motion for Continuance

Here is an image of Judge O’Neill’s rejection

rejection of 90 day emergency continuance Continue reading March 19, 2018 Cosby Defense Emergency Request for a Continuance and Judge O’Neill’s Response.

When “Hearsay” Became the “Law of the Land”

Oprah Winfrey 635519860555079608-AP-IB0-OPRAH-WINFREY-24-LLINE

donald-trump-invokes-bill-cosby-and-monica-lewinsky-in-explosive-hillary-clinton-attack
Hillary Clinton and Bill Cosby

This article is in reference to what went on in Bill Cosby’s trial on July 7th, 2016. DA Steele argued and Judge O’Neill agreed that it was okay to use hearsay at a preliminary hearing against Dr. Cosby because it was “the law of the land.” This was an assault (sexual assault?) on the Sixth Amendment right of all Americans to confront their accusers at trial. This has been a right since 1791, at least until now.

Bill Cosby Returns to Court Seeking Dismissal of Sex Assault Charges

Bill Cosby Loses Bid to Get Criminal Case Dismissed

This is from the first “Daily Times News”article above: “While the state Supreme Court is currently reviewing the Superior Court’s decision in Ricker, Steele said “it is still binding precedent” and argued unless the rule is overturned, “this is the law of the land.”

Is the allowing of “Hearsay” testimony at preliminary hearings instead of readily available witnesses, really the “law of the land?” Have Sixth amendment  rights to cross examine witnesses really been eliminated from preliminary trial hearings?

This is what Steven F. Fairlie, the chair of the Montgomery County Criminal Defense Committee writes about the ruling Steele and Judge O’Neill cited. PA Superior Court: Hearsay Enough for Prima Facie Case?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is excluded from legal proceedings because it is deemed unreliable, subject only to explicit and carefully defined exceptions (i.e. a “dying declaration” is admissible to prove the identity of the assailant and a “present sense impression” is admissible because statements made simultaneously as the information conveyed is perceived by the declarant is more likely to be accurate).   Hearsay not otherwise considered reliable is excluded because a fact-finder cannot assess the credibility of the declarant through her own perception. In other words, the prohibition of hearsay prevents “he said; she said” situations from being given too much undue credence.

However, hearsay is admissible at preliminary hearings in Pennsylvania. The preliminary hearing is an initial stage of the criminal adversarial process whereby the prosecution must prove that it has the specific evidence necessary, if later proved true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial before a jury, for the defendant to be convicted of the crime charged.   Preliminary hearings are held in front of a magisterial district judge, an elected position that does not require a law degree.

The admissibility or inadmissibility of hearsay in a criminal case is an especially important decision for the reliability of certain statements to be considered. As anyone who has ever sat for jury duty will note, one of the first questions a defense attorney or a prosecutor may ask is whether or not the potential juror will be especially swayed (for better or worse) by the testimony of a police officer. Preliminary hearings are generally considered to be prosecution-friendly, where the Commonwealth has a low burden. Nevertheless, the hearing serves an important role in holding the prosecution accountable.

This reality is what makes the intermediate appellate court’s decision in Ricker all the more alarming, and, perhaps, suspect. As the decision in Ricker stands, a prosecutor can in essence “phone it in” by having some different officer read the notes of the investigating officer, or worse yet, an officer provide his version of what the complaining witness said. There are absolutely no safeguards to such a system.

Certainly, we should be “alarmed” at a system where “there are absolutely no safeguards.

This is from the 2010 University of Illinois Law Review article entitled “THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AND PRETRIAL HEARINGS: A DUE PROCESS SOLUTION” by Christine Holst (pg 1614). She is talking about a 1987 Supreme Court Decision in “Pennsylvania V. Ritchie,” the last Supreme Court Decision in a case such as this.

“Predictably, in navigating the muddled Supreme Court precedent laid out above, courts came to different conclusions about the applicability of the Confrontation Clause prior to trial. The analysis of these courts roughly falls into two categories: those that applied the Confrontation Clause to a pretrial hearing because it was a “critical stage” of the criminal prosecution process, and those that held the Confrontation Clause is only a trial right and does not apply to pretrial hearings.”

“Pennsylvania vs. Ritchie” seems to be the important Supreme Court Decision here: Hoist notes this about it:

“Some would say that Ritchie settled the issue: the Confrontation Clause applies only to trial. Once again, however, this seems to be reading the Court’s opinion too broadly. The first flaw in this reading of the Court’s opinion is that the key passage about the Confrontation Clause (Part III-A of the opinion) was signed by only four justices, making this section a plurality opinion and not part of the majority opinion.65 Justice Harry Blackmun, who joined the Court on the rest of the opinion, wrote a concurring opinion where he stated that he refused to join Part III-A because he disagreed with the plurality’s conclusion “that the Confrontation Clause protects only a defendant’s trial rights and has no relevance to pretrial discovery.”66 Instead, Justice Blackmun argued that “there might well be a confrontation violation if, as here, a defendant is denied pretrial access to information that would make possible effective cross examination of a crucial prosecution witness.” Because Justice Blackmun disagreed with this portion of the Court’s opinion, the conclusion that the right to confrontation is a trial right and only a trial right is not one endorsed by the Court.”

The last sentence is important here — “Because Justice Blackmun disagreed with this portion of the Court’s opinion, the conclusion that the right to confrontation is a trial right and only a trial right is not one endorsed.”

DA Steele is arguing that the right to confront a witness is a trial right and only a trial right and not applicable at a preliminary trial hearing as this one was. However Supreme Court Justice Blackmun and the majority of the Supreme Court said in 1987 it was a right in a pretrial hearing. He was therefore incorrect when he said that Commonwealth vs. Ricker was “the Law of the Land” The law of the land was expressed in Blackmun’s statement that “there might well be a confrontation violation if, as here, a defendant is denied pretrial access to information that would make possible effective cross examination of a crucial prosecution witness.”

Certainly, DA Steele, introducing a hearsay statement by accuser Andrea Constand, instead of introducing her was a violation of Dr. Cosby’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. Sadly, Judge McHugh and Judge O’Neil ignored the law of the land and went along with Steele’s false and mistaken interpretation of the law of the land. If Andrea Constand had taken the stand and given testimony and the defense given a chance to cross-examine her, she may have repudiated the hearsay evidence Steele presented.

DA Steele claimed that she would have been attacked under cross-examination. He says: “Defendant wants to cross-examine the victim that he is charged with sexually assaulting in 2004 and attack her credibility.” Steele makes a false and malicious statement regarding Dr. Cosby here. Perhaps, Constand now sees differently than she did nearly 12 years ago. Perhaps, she now remembers events that she had forgotten at the time. Perhaps, she was under the influence of drugs or other people and she now knows the things she said aren’t true any more. If this was the case, and she admitted her mistake, the defense would not have attacked her credibility at all. By not putting her on the stand, Steele denied her an opportunity to correct her old testimony, either to add or subtract things.

In the second article, Cosby’s lawyers noted that hearsay cannot be a substitute for a live witness:

“We’re talking about an allegation of assault that happened over 11 years ago,” said one of Cosby’s defense lawyers, Christopher Tayback, arguing to the court that the statement read during the preliminary hearing was taken so long ago that the officer who recorded it has no recollection of it. It should not stand in for the witness herself, Tayback argued.

“You know what a witness can do?” he asked the court. “A witness can recant.” He reiterated the point, saying that a witness can do and say all kinds of things that a piece of paper can’t.

Part 2 – The Re-traumatization Excuse

According to the second article above, DA Steele also said, “It’s our position that we’re not going to re-traumatize victims,”

It is amazing that he can bring up the idea that Andrea Constand could be re-traumatized talking about this event:

  1. Andrea Constand did worry about being re-traumatized when she again met with Cosby at four different times after the alleged incident and never talked with him about it.
  2. Ms. Constand did not seem re-traumatized when she gave an expensive sweater to Dr. Cosby as a gift after the incident.
  3. She did not seem re-traumatized when she asked him for free tickets to a concert Cosby gave in Toronto and took her parents to see him eight months after the alleged drugging and assault.
  4. She did not seem re-traumatized when her mother repeatedly called Cosby over a five month period after the concert in order to establish a friendship with him.
  5. In 2005, Ex-professional basketball player 31 year old Andrea Constand was not re-traumatized when she told her parents about the event.
  6. Andrea Constand was not re-traumatized when she told a set of lawyers about the event.Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she told a second set of lawyers, Troiani and Kivitz, about the event.
  7. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she told the Toronto Police about the event.
  8. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when her parents went to the Toronto Star and did an interview revealing her name just one week after she reported to the Police. Apparently her parents did not worry about her being re-traumatized by this.
  9. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she told detectives from the Montgomery Country DA’s office about the event.
  10. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she talked with detectives a second time from the Montgomery County’s DA’s office.
  11. 8. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she gave or sold an interview to the National Enquirer about the event, just a week after talking to the detectives.
  12. Ms. Constand did not worry about being re-traumatized when she filed a lawsuit against Bill Cosby in March 2005.
  13. Ms. Constand’s lawyers Troiani and Kivitz did not worry about 12 women they found to testify against Cosby that they would be re-traumatized by telling their stories.
  14. Ms. Constand did not worry about being re-traumatized when she sued Cosby’s lawyer Martin Singer for negotiating a newspaper interview for Bill Cosby.
  15. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she was deposed at the time of the lawsuit.
  16. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when Judge Robreno released bits and pieces of her sealed testimony and Cosby’s sealed testimony to the public in the Summer of 2015.
  17. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when the Washington Post and CNN and the N.Y. Times and hundreds of other sites released out of context bits and pieces of Cosby’s sealed testimony.
  18. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when DA Steele ran campaign ads reminding people that his opponent DA Castor did not prosecute Cosby in her case.
  19. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she communicated with a number of other Cosby accusers on the internet in 2015, if not earlier.
  20. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she decided to countersue Cosby in the Summer of 2015 for breaking his legal settlement with her.
  21. Ms. Constand did not worry about being re-traumatized when she agreed to help Montgomery County D.A. Steele reopen the case against Cosby that had been closed 11 and a half years before.
  22. Andrea Constand was not re-traumatized when she talked again about the case with Montgomery Country detectives in 2015.
  23. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when she talked a second time with Montgomery County detectives in 2015. That would be a total of four times, at least talking to the police.
  24. Ms. Constand did not worry about being re-traumatized when she sued DA Attorney Castor for not believing her in 2005.
  25. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when DA Steele released bits and pieces of her testimony about the event repeatedly over the last seven months.
  26. Ms. Constand was not re-traumatized when DA Steele released written statement by her from 2005 at the Preliminary trial hearing.

Only when taking away Dr. Cosby’s Sixth Amendment Rights does Steele express fears about her re-traumatization

Besides the amazing hypocrisy of this statement, one has to consider that a person has to be traumatized before they can be re-traumatized and no proof has been presented except her own claims that she ever was traumatized by the original incident involving a few minutes of mutual masturbation between a 30 year old college graduate and a 65 year old man who had been friends for over two years at that point.

Psychiatrists are divided about the nature of traumatization and if talking about something re-traumatizes a person. Rather, the whole basis of modern Freudian psychiatry seems to be that talking about traumas helps to cure them. That is why Freud’s technique was known as “the Talking Cure” and was not known as “the Talking Re-traumatization”.

Should we also close down all 1300 so-called Rape clinics in the United States, as they urge women to talk about rape and therefore could cause re-traumatization? Should we shut down all Woman’s Gender Studies courses as they talk often about rape and could cause re-traumatization.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will agree with the Supreme Court of the United States and not take away Sixth Amendment rights to its citizens. The life and liberty of not just Bill Cosby, but every citizen of Pennsylvania, and possibly the United States, is at stake.

 

 

 

Mathematical Proof of Conspiracy Against Bill Cosby


Time Magazine Cover

This is the outline for a deeper scientific study that needs to be done.

Saturday Evening Post

Bill Cosby is one of the most important civil rights leaders, educators, and entertainers in the history of the United States. In 2005, when he was 65 years old, five women publicly accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting them. One claimed it happened one year in the past [1], two claimed it happened about 20 years in the past[2] and two claimed it happened 30-35 years in the past [3]. Nobody accused him for the next nine years. In 2014-2015, when he was 77 years old, some 35 more women accused him on television and in the mass media of drugging and assaults, from 7-50 years in the past,  All of the public accusers in 2005 were part of a lawsuit against Cosby filed by attorneys Deloris Troiani and Bebe Kivitz.  Apparently six of the 2014-15 accusers were non-public accusers from the 2005 lawsuit.

Most of the new accusers in 2014-15 were clients of attorney Gloria Allred or her associates. Besides the 40 women accusing him of drugging and sexual assault, an additional 20 women went to the mass media and made other much less sensational accusations against him (ranging from “rough kissing” to “spreading rumors” to “touching a woman’s breast in a public restaurant”).

All of the accusers, with the exception of the first, admitted to seeing or hearing reports of Cosby drugging and assaulting women in the mass media before going public with their claims. This suggests that the mass media coverage was an important factor in their making these claims.

The one thing that all the drug and sexual assault accusers have in common is that at the time of the incident/incidents, none went to the police to file a report, or to a doctor, clinic or hospital to be tested after being drugged, none got a lawyer to file a lawsuit, and none went to a reporter to offer their stories. None wrote a letter or made a diary entry. None told a relative or a friend who wrote a letter or publicized it in any way.

What are the odds that all these woman are telling the truth about the drugging and sexual assault and none of them going to the police, or a doctor, or a clinic, or a lawyer, or talking to a reporter or writing a letter, (either signed or anonymous), or telling relatives or friends who did any of these things?  This article attempts to quantify those odds. While no scientific evidence exists for calculating the odds of an accuser not doing all of the these things, there is scientific evidence available to calculate the odds of an accuser not going to the police. Logically, not going to police does not preclude women from going to a doctor, clinic, lawyer, reporter, or writing a signed or anonymous letter about it, or telling relatives or friends who did any of these things. Thus we would expect women to be able to present more physical evidence than just going to the police and generating police reports.

The idea that one of the most well known, beloved, celebrated, and honored men in American history should also be a secret serial criminal suggests a fantastic breakdown in the American justice system for 50 years or a mass conspiracy against Dr. Cosby. For the purposes of this article, we shall define a conspiracy according to 18 U.S.C. 371: which makes it

a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a ‘conspiracy’ is an agreement or a kind of ‘partnership’ in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member. as any untrue accusation made public with the help of lawyers and the mass media[4].

Reasons for Not Going to Police that are Not Scientifically Backed

Accusers and others have given numerous reasons for not reporting the crimes in a timely fashion. For example, that the perpetrator was a wealthy, black man. There is no scientific evidence that victims of rape are less reluctant to go to the police when their attackers are wealthy or black than when their attackers are poor or white.

Frequently, the accusers say that they feared retaliation in their careers. There is evidence that sexual assault victims are more reluctant to go to the police when they fear physical or other retaliation. However, Dr. Cosby was a comedian and had never shown any significant indication of violent behavior, there is no reason to believe that any of the accusers felt physically threatened by Cosby. Because of his extreme gentleness and warmth, demonstrated in thousands of live concerts, hundreds of television shows, hundreds of well publicized charitable activities, and testimonies from hundreds of people who worked with Cosby, none of the accusers would have had any reason to expect any physical retaliation for going to the police. As far as retaliation to their careers, since Cosby was only one of hundreds of Hollywood producers, there was also no reasonable expectation that he could hurt their careers if they went to the police. One can question if there is any evidence of Hollywood or New York actors or actresses being blacklisted or seriously hindered from work over the last 50 years due to criminal reports or lawsuits. Other explanations, such as Cosby being too powerful to report to the police, lack any scientific evidence to back them up.

In fact, models and actresses, the vast majority of the accusers, are taught to act brash and bold, and often welcome publicity.  One can logically conclude that they are far more likely to go to the police than the average person

Reported and Unreported Rape Statistics
While not all rapes and attempted rapes are reported to the police, a great number are. Since 1973, the Department of Justice has been using annual surveys to scientifically determine how many rapes/attempted rapes are reported and go unreported. Based on these reports we can determine mathematically the odds that all these women were actually assaulted and did not go to the police.

By adding up the percentage of reported rapes each year from 1973-1992, and dividing by 20, we find that the average annual number of reported rapes was 52%. This means 48% went unreported annually on average.  (Note: all data can be found at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=2450 It is in “Criminal Victimization 1992”).

Criminal Victimizations 1992 Table 5 Reporting Victimizations to the Police
Total = 1044% / 20 years = 52.2% reported per year on average

Rape was defined this way in the surveys from 1973 to 1992. (Note: from “Crime Victimization in the United States, 1991.”)

Rape — Carnal Knowledge through the use of force or the threat of force, including attempts. Statutory rape (without force) is excluded. Both heterosexual and homosexual rape are included.

The Important Change in the Definition of Rape in 1993 in the Annual Crime Surveys
In the 1993 survey published in 1996, the definition of rape was drastically broadened. (Note: from “Crime Victimization in the United States, 1993”)

Rape — Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

The main and essential difference is that “psychological coercion” has been added. The term “psychological coercion” is extremely broad and can be interpreted in any number of ways. It is often impossible to distinguish between “coercion” and “offers.” For example, if a man offers a woman cocaine, or a mink coat, in exchange for sex, that can be considered coercion and therefore rape. If a woman offers a man sex in exchange for cocaine, or a mink coat, that is considered an offer and not considered rape. Yet the actions will be exactly the same in both situations.
The effect of broadening the definition of rape to include non-violent “psychological coercion” was to cause a jump in the unreported rape rate. In 1993, unreported rapes jumped from an average of 48% that it had been for the previous 20 years, to 71%. This was 12% higher than the highest previous one year number of unreported rapes (59% in 1980) in the 20 year period from 1973-1992. Over the next 18 years, from 1993 to 2010, the average number of unreported rapes was 66%.
Victimizations not reported to the Police 2006 to 2010
There is no evidence and no reason to believe that the police reports of violent rape/rape attempts went down from 1993 to 2010. Rather it is probable that the expansion of the definition to “psychological coercion” caused the increase in unreported rapes from 48% average per year to 66% on average.

None of the drug and sexual assault accusations against Dr. Cosby would have been reports for non-violent psychological coercion. Because they involved drugging, they would have been reports for actual violent rape/rape attempts. Therefore it makes sense to use the 52% reported violent rape/rape attempts that was established from the data from 1973 to 1992.Also, the majority of the incidents are alleged to have happened during this time.

This means that if a drugging and sexual assault did take place, there was a 52% chance of that person going to the police. Cosby would have had a 48% chance of the woman not going to the police. This means that the chances are 52% that any specific one of the accusers would have gone to the police. If  the first two accusers are telling the truth, Cosby would have had a .48 x .48 chance or a .23 chance of not being reported by one of these two women. There is thus a less than a one in four chance that any two of the 40 accusers selected at random are telling the truth.  If the first three women are telling the truth, Cosby would have had a .48 x .48 x .48 chance or an .11 or 11% chance of not getting investigated by the police. Another way of looking at it, is that the odds are 89% that at least one of the first three women are not telling the truth.
Assuming these women were normal assault victims and had a normal chance of reporting to the police, here are the odds of the chances that 1-40 of the women are telling the truth about assault  and no one going to the police:
One accuser accusations true – 48%, accusations false – 52%
Two accusers accusations true – 23%, accusations false – 77%
Three accusers accusations true – 11%, accusations false – 89%
Four accusers accusations true – 5%, accusations false – 95%
Five accusers accusations true – 3%, accusations false – 97
10 accusers accusations true – .065%, accusations false – 99.94%
20 accusers accusations true – .00000042% (42 in 100 million), accusations false – 99.999958%

30 accusers accusations true – .00000000027 (27 in 100 billion), accusations false – 99.999999973%

40 accusers accusations true – .00000000000018 (18 in 100 trillion), accusations false – 99.99999999999982%.

Thus the odds of all of the accusers telling the truth are 18 in 100 trillion or less than 2 in 10 trillion.

Calculation of Confidence Level

Let us assume for our null hypothesis that The women accusing Dr. Cosby are not a random and independent sample from the population in the study of women rape victims from 1973-1992 as portrayed in the U.S. Department of statistics when it comes to reporting to the police.

Since the number of alleged drug and assaults was established at 52%, we can round that off to 50% or the same odds as a coin flip which makes the probabilities a binomial distribution. We can calculate a confidence level for the 40 allegations that we are dealing with.

For a binominal, Standard deviation = SQR{(N*p*(1-p)}.

Thus, Standard deviation = SQR{(40*.5*(1-5)} = SQR{(40*.5*.5)} = SQR 10 = 3.16227766017 = ~ 3.162

Confidence level for one standard deviation or Z is 68.8%, thus sample average plus or minus sample standard deviation equals  x̅ (±)s. Since the average of people going to the police in a binomial sample of 40 is 40/2 or 20, we can say that 20 (±) 3.162 or between 16.838 – 23.162 would go to the police with a 68.8% confidence level.
A Z score of 2.59 would give us a 99% confidence level. Thus 2.58(Z) = 2.58(3.162) = 8.15796 or ~8.16. The 20 average reports would allow us to expect 20 (±) 8.16 or between 11.84 to 28.16 police reports with a 99% confidence level.

Since 12 to 28 of the alleged victims did not report to the police, we can say with a 99% confidence level that the null hypothesis is wrong. The women accusing Dr. Cosby are not a random and independent sample from the population of women rape victims from 1973-1992 as portrayed in the U.S. Department of statistics when it comes to reporting to the police.

Does this mean that the odds are equally great that some of the accusers are telling the truth?

The odds that an accuser is not telling the truth increases exponentially with each additional accuser. With 40 accusers, we should have expected 20 or 21 to have gone to the police. The fact that none did, can only be reasonably explained by this not being a random sample of sexual assault victims, which points in the direction of a conspiracy. This should not be taken to mean that it is likely that 19 or 20 are telling the truth. If half are implicated in a conspiracy, there is reason to believe that the other half are also part of that conspiracy (or conspiracies). If we find that 40 people claim to see Big Foot or a wizard flying through the air, and we find that 19 of them are lying, it does not mean that the rest are telling the truth, but it suggests strongly that all are lying or mistaken and have entered into a conspiracy with each other.

It should be recognized that going to the police was only one of a number of ways that the accusers could have provided evidence for their claims. They could have had drug tests done, hired lawyers, called reporters, written letters to friends or relatives, written anonymous letters to the mass media, written to companies employing Dr. Cosby, or told friends and relatives, who, in turn, could have notified authorities or written letters.

Summary
Based on their not reporting their alleged crimes to the police, and Department of Justice crime statistics, there is at least a 52% chance of any accuser falsely accusing Dr. Cosby.  The lack of any written evidence generated at the time that the incidents were alleged to have occurred would and admissions by all the accusers that they did not seek medical or legal or write any complaints or include direct references to the event increase those odds enormously. The chances that these accusers are telling the truth and are not part of a conspiracy become less and less as more accusers come forward. The chances of this being a conspiracy against Dr. Cosby increase exponentially with each accuser. The chances of conspiracy against Dr. Cosby are at least a trillion to one in favor, unless some other reasonable explanation for the lack of evidence to confirm any of the accounts is found.

Basically, a 52% chance of going to the police is very close to 50%, which is the odds of a coin flipping heads or tails. If all the women are telling the truth, each time that there was a drugging and assault, Cosby was flipping a coin. According to them it came up the same  40 times in a row. This gives us a result of .0000000000009 or 9.094947e-13.The odds against this happening are .5 to the 40th power or 9,999,999,999,999 to 1 (~ten trillion to one). Assuming that the women are a randomly and independently selected group of women, the odds that there is a conspiracy against Dr. Cosby are greater than 10 trillion to one.

We also found with a 99% confidence level that 12-28 of the 40 accusers should have gone to the police if all 40 of these people had been assaulted. The fact that none did suggests that this was not a random and independent sample of actual rape victims.

 

Footnotes

[1] Andrea Constand

[2] Barbara Bowman, Beth Ferrier

[3] Shawn Berkes, Tamara Green

[4] http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

Joseph Cammarata – The Perfect Lawyer for the Seven Accusers

Cammarata, Jones and Davis     Before becoming famous for representing seven Cosby accusers in a defamation lawsuit, Joseph Cammarata was famous for representing Bill Clinton accuser Paula Jones in the 1990s. What few people know is how Cammarata and his partner Gilbert Davis ended up with most of the money from the lawsuit that she settled with President Clinton.

     After three years working on the case, Cammarata and Davis had negotiated a settlement of $700,000 with Clinton’s attorneys. Because of their fees, Cammarata and Davis would have probably gotten almost all of the money. Jones wanted to continue the case. Cammarata and Davis bailed on her. (see http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/09/jones/). They then put a lien for $800,000 against Jones for any settlement that Jones might get. (From St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 24, 1997):

Paula Jones’ former lawyers have put an $ 800,000 lien on any settlement or damages award in her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton.
Attorney Joseph Cammarata said Tuesday that he and Gilbert Davis served notice on Jones, Clinton and two insurance companies that they hold a lien for hourly fees.
Cammarata and Davis withdrew as Jones’ counsel on Sept. 8 after disagreement with her over a settlement. They are entitled to compensation for the three years of work they did, Cammarata said.
“States provide statutes whereby an attorney doing work on a case is entitled to be paid on the case if there is a recovery,” Cammarata said.
Susan Carpenter McMillan, a spokeswoman for Jones, said the lien raises the financial stakes in the case.
“Now it’s got to be about money or she’s going to have an apology but be $ 800,000 in debt,” McMillan said. “Paula’s got to have enough money to pay her attorneys.”
Jones, now represented by a family friend acting as an unpaid attorney, faces a Nov. 12 deposition in Little Rock, Ark., where jury selection for the trial of her suit against Clinton is set for May.
While Jones’ former attorneys had, at one time, sought for her as much as $ 2 million in exchange for dropping the suit, sources close to Clinton’s legal team say his attorneys are adamant against settling the case for anything more than $ 700,000 – if at all.
In allowing the attorneys to withdraw on Sept. 9, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright made a point of ordering that Cammarata and Davis were entitled to reasonable fees. In their three years of nearly full-time work on the case, each had already been paid $23,000.

     Jones was forced to settle the case the following year for $850,000 and no apology or admission of guilt from Clinton. The judge apparently awarded her $200,000 and the rest went to her attorneys. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones).

      The following year, 2000, Jones did a nude pictorial for Penthouse Magazine. According to Comwebwatch (http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/paula.html)

The people who once treated her every word as gospel are now either attacking Jones or are completely silent since Jones — whose accusations of sexual improprieties against President Clinton eventually ended in an impeachment trial — appeared in the December 2000 Penthouse magazine for a nude pictorial and interview.
Despite denying she would pose nude a few months earlier, Jones said she did it because she needed the money to pay legal bills and other expenses, money she said to pay for her children’s education and for legal expenses over dueling funds raising money in her name.
Paula Jones in Penthouse December 2000 Issue

     Don’t be surprised if Cammarata, who has spent his career on personal injury lawsuits, bails on the seven accusers in this case too. It probably won’t take three years before he realizes that he has a losing case and Dr. Cosby will not offer him a penny. Cammarata’s hourly rate has no doubt increased since the 90s, so each of the accusers will be left with legal bills in the hundreds of thousands. This will be besides any money the jury awards to Cosby for the ruthless campaign of character assassination they have waged against him.

 

Re-opening a Case Without New Evidence

7 million drugs for non-medical purposes      Some seven million people a month use prescription drugs for non-medical purposes. According to the National Institute on drug abuse 52 million people above the age of 12 have illegally used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes[1]. It is obvious that the use of prescription drugs for non-medical purposes is quite common.

Totonto Star Jan 21 2005

Notice that Constand just said “some pills that made her dizzy.” She does not say prescription medication. Even in her lawsuit in March, 2005, Constand did not mention prescription drugs as being involved in her case:

lawsuit in March 2005

It is evident that DA Kevin Steele and DA Risa Vestri Ferman did not find new evidence against Dr. Cosby when portions of his 2005 testimony were released in July of 2015. Rather, it appears that they used the new information released by Judge Robreno to manufacture new evidence against Cosby and bring a new and different case against him. Because the 2005 testimony had nothing to do with Constand’s 2005 case, it was not the reason Steele reopened the case.  It seems reasonable to conclude that Steele only used the new information as an excuse to create new charges against him.

The only new information released in the memoranda released by Judge Robreno in July 2015 was that Dr. Cosby had shared a prescription drug with a lover 39 years earlier. Cosby had admitted when questioned by Ferman on January 26 2005 that he had shared an over-the-counter cold medicine, Benadryl, with Andrea Constand before engaging in sex with her. The charge that Constand was bringing against Dr. Cosby was not that he used a prescription drug to incapacitate her, but that he gave her drugs that made her “dizzy” and she poorly remembered that he touched her breast and put her hand on his penis. She did not know the name of the drug that he gave her or whether it was a prescription or non-prescription drug. If Dr. Cosby gave her a prescription drug or a non-prescription drug it did not matter. The question was whether he gave the drug to her in order to drug her and have sex with her or not. DA Castor said that there was not enough evidence to charge Cosby. He said nothing about a prescription or non-prescription drug. Nobody did in 2005.

Steele makes a big deal out of the fact that Cosby, according to him, used a prescription drug, bringing forward this brand new, 2015, never-heard-before testimony from Constand’s mother:

He would have to look at the prescription bottle

This bringing up of a prescription bottle seems meant to tie in with Cosby’s quaaludes admission in 2005. If she had mentioned a prescription in 2005 then Steele could have somehow tied Cosby’s 2005 testimony to the 2005 case. As it is, mentioning it in 2015 for the first time after Cosby’s testimony was publicly released just means that she read about it in July 2015, or her daughter told her about it or Steele’s gang of detectives who interviewed her told her about it. It does not show that Cosby’s prescription drug testimony had anything to do with the 2005 case.

Sharing a prescription drug is a misdemeanor crime. It is a quite different type of crime than the crime that Andrea Constand described. DA Ferman was in charge of the investigation of Cosby in 2005. If she felt that Cosby had committed a crime by sharing a prescription drug, she could have asked him when she interviewed him on January 26 2005 for several hours. She did not.

If, in 2005, Dr. Cosby admitted he illegally shared a prescription drug 29 years earlier with a lover, and it became known during the initial investigation, it certainly would have not changed the decision by DA Castor or any DA that there was not enough evidence to prosecute him on the charges that Andrea Constand brought.

One could argue that the new evidence is that Dr. Cosby illegally gave a prescription drug to someone 39 years ago. Is this evidence for the crime of illegally giving someone a drug to incapacitate them and sexually abuse them? Absolutely not. People break the law to give other people prescription drugs for all sorts of reasons – to make money, to gain friendship, to do a friend a favor, to help a sick person who can’t afford the drugs, etc. Tens of Millions of people share prescription drugs. One recent 2014 study found:

     The prevalence rate for borrowing someone’s prescription medication was 5% to 51.9% and for lending prescription medication to someone else was 6% to 22.9%. A wide range of medicines were shared between family members, friends, and acquaintances…Sharing of many classes of prescription medication was common.[2]

According to the National Institute on drug abuse 52 million people above the age of 12 have illegally used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes. It is quite common to share prescriptions medications, done by ten million people a year. On the other hand, cases of people deliberately using drugs to make a long time friend dizzy and then sexually abusing them is extremely rare. We can figure out how rare by looking at the results of a 2013 recent study at a sexual assault center in Norway http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23910880%5B3%5D. They studied 264 sexual assault cases and this is the key finding: “57 patients (22%) suspected proactive DFSA, but only five had findings of sedative drugs that were not accounted for by self-reported voluntary intake. No cases could unequivocally be attributed to proactive DFSA.”[ DRSA stands for drugging-facilitated sexual assault.]
In other words, 57 patients thought they had been drugged with sedatives, but only 5 had sedatives in their body. It was impossible to tell if they had taken them voluntarily or not. At least 92% of women who thought they had been drugged were not. This alone suggests that there’s less than a 8% that Constand is correct when she says that she was drugged.

Five out of 264 would indicate that sedatives are used in about 2% of sexual assault cases. If we take the 2% statistic and apply it to the number of police reported sexual assaults in 2005 (Constand reported her sexual assault a year after it happened) we get this: 2% of 93,934 reported sexual assaults (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2005) = 1,879. This is a reasonable estimate of how many drug-facilitated sexual assaults were reported in 2005. Let us assume that every single one of those reported assaults were true and involved sedatives and was done by a different person. If we assume 50 million people have illegally used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes, the odds are 26,609 to one that any person illegally using prescription drugs for non-medical purposes committed a drug-facilitated sexual assault. There is no connection between using prescription drugs for non-medical purposes and using drugs to assault a person.

There is no connection between the two behaviors. One can make an analogy to bouncing checks and robbing banks. Tens of millions of people write bad (bounced) checks each year. There were about 6,957 bank robberies in 2005 (https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2005/bank-crime-statistics-bcs-2005). Bouncing a check at a bank and committing armed robbery are both illegal. That is about all they have in common. Bouncing a check does not make you any more likely to rob a bank. If someone is accused of committing armed robbery and the DA finds that there is not enough evidence to prosecute that person in 2005, it would be absurd and illegal for a new DA 11 years later to reopen the case because he found that the accused person had once bounced a check at another bank 39 years earlier. This is the same type of absurdity and illegally that went on with DAs Ferman and Steele in the Cosby case.

*************************************************************************

[1] http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/popping-pills-prescription-drug-abuse-in-america
[2] In a study funded by the U.S. Justice Department in 2005, 45 different drugs that “have been or could be used in DFSA (drug-facilitated assisted sexual assault) were studied. Quaaludes was not included.

The report studied 144 “willingly enrolled” women who went to clinics claiming that they had been drugged and sexually assaulted.  The study found only 40% of the women truthfully reported their illegal drug use. It concluded “the subject’s own drug use was more likely a factor in facilitating a sexual assault than surreptitious drugging.

Estimates of the Incidence of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault, Negrusz, Adam, Juhascik, Adam, Gaensslen, R.E.

[3] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824561 American Journal of Public Health,

Prescription Medication Sharing: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Kebede A. Beyene, MSc; Janie Sheridan, PhD; Trudi Aspden, PhD

[4]J Forensic Leg Med. 2013 Aug;20(6):777-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2013.05.005. Epub 2013 Jun 25. Ethanol and drug findings in women consulting a Sexual Assault Center — associations with Clinical Characteristics and suspicions of drug-facilitated sexual assault.Hagemann CT, Helland A, Spigset O, Espnes KA, Ormstad K, Schei B.

 

.

Dr. Cosby Faces The Witch’s Dilemma: How Do You Defend Yourself Against Imaginary Crimes

Witch Cartoon

Over 50 people have publicly accused Dr. William H. Cosby of crimes ranging from attempted murder to rape to sexual abuse to drugging (using blue pills, red pills, a pill, quaaludes, alcoholic drinks,  wine, champagne, vodka, beer, bourbon, scotch, coke, coffee, and cappuccino, to rough kissing. touching a right breast,  and hugging (sexual harassment). The two things that these reports have in common is that virtually all the accusing women made these accusations after hearing and seeing in the mass media that others had made similar reports and none of them went to the police in a timely manner. The average wait between alleged incident and public reporting was approximately 35 years.

How do you defend yourself against charges that you gave somebody a drug 35 years ago. How do you defend yourself against charges that you touched somebody or raped somebody 35 years ago?

Ordinarily, you would examine the people charging you in a legal setting and prove that they are either falsely remembering incidents, or lying due to mental illness or for profit.

Unfortunately, Dr. Cosby does not have to fight against just his accusers, but he has to face an entire industry that is dedicated to promoting imaginary crimes. This industry has spent more than 30 years creating false statistics to prove that imaginary sexual crimes are real crimes and they are everywhere. Sex crimes exist, but people can be made to imagine sex crimes too.

It is a billion dollar a year industry supported by the Justice Department of the United States Government and  by numerous private entrepreneurs (mostly lawyers who own so called non-profit (but actually quite profitable) “rape clinics.”). Dr. Cosby is their chosen target and their industry cannot progress without his conviction.

This is a David and Goliath battle. We must remember that David is fighting for all of us.