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:
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?
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’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.
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.”
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.