I saw this too - I know it is not like me lol but I actually have no comment - I think I have already said how I feel about the whole Cosby situation ...

My personal feelings about the statute of limitations is that unless there is solid physical evidence or there is substantial testimony by multiple witnesses to the charge(s) that is actually filed, or an admission of guilt by the alleged perpetrator in say, a civil suit related to the actual charge filed, then a person should never be charged based solely on the word of the alleged victim.

I should add here, that my belief involves charging someone with a crime that occurred so many years ago that it is impossible to obtain solid physical evidence. In the case of Bill Cosby, the charge is filed at the end of the statute of limitations, i.e. some 12 years after the alleged incident.

I agree 100% Legal and it just so happens to be the last victim that came forward - the whole thing stinks bad

I am not persuaded that he is innocent of the alleged crime. He did testify under oath in the civil suit to having drugged females and had sex with them. Whether that admission of guilt is permitted to be entered into the criminal proceedings as evidence is up to the judge.

In cases where such admissions of guilt do not exist, and the case revolves around the he said she said thing some 12 years later, the deck is seriously stacked against the accused because the accused does not have the benefit of evidence to rebut the allegations or to discredit his or her guilt -- and yes, this is relevant and even important in a society that gives too much credit to a person claiming to be a victim based solely on their say so.

I have no idea about the guilt or innocence - what I do know is that the media (once again) has twisted the information to their sensational advantage. If you read the actual transcripts that have been released what the man actually said is that yes he did GIVE (important word here because give does not mean force necessarily) LUDES (very common drug of choice back then - "everyone took them" - were everywhere especially in Hollywood - many people took them and they were available like candy) to women and then had sex with them (also very important wording - having sex does not mean non-consensual) - they are basing this witch hunt on the interpretation of today that a person drinking or taking drugs cannot give informed consent (personally I say that is hog wash! many a man or woman have had sex while drinking or high and it was completely consensual) - my goodness if we go with that interpretation then most of the sex being had during the 60's and 70's was rape. Why is it so hard to believe that these women were involved in the Hollywood partying and wanted to have sex with one of the most famous celebrities there - and do you really think someone as famous as he is/was would have to stoop this low? I am not sure of all the facts of course but I do know that the man says it was consensual and I for one believe him. Trust me there are a lot of celebrities out there getting mighty worried right now knowing that they had sex with many a high or otherwise impaired starlet ....

I know that mine is not the mainstream or popular view on this but I still say it was a witch hunt from the start - not sure why at all - but I stand with that. I think it was all tied up with a nice little bow .... and I know this is a very sexist statement but it is coming from a 90 yr old lady (my mom) who said "No way did 50 + women keep their mouths shut for all these years!" lol

Advocate, your mom makes a good point. That alone could be his defense and wrap up the case. lol

This should be a very difficult case for the prosecution to prove. Should.

Advocate, your mom should have her own talk show.