Bill Cosby Charged

Bill Cosby Charged With Felony Sexual Assault Over 2004 Incident

A Pennsylvania court on Wednesday charged Bill Cosby with aggravated indecent assault, also referred to as felony sexual assault. If convicted, the comedian could face up to 10 years in prison.

The charge stems from a Jan. 2004 incident at Cosby’s house in Cheltenham, Pa., where former Temple University employee Andrea Constand says the actor drugged and sexually assaulted her. According to Constand, Cosby pressured her to take three blue pills with wine, then proceeded to take advantage of her on his couch.

Constand initially accused Cosby in 2004, but her efforts were thwarted by a Montgomery County prosecutor who determined that charges weren’t warranted. Her new attorneys have since released the following statement: “In that this matter is now being pursued in the criminal justice system, we will not comment further.”

More than 50 women have come forward to accuse the Cosby Show star of sexual misconduct over the past 30 years.

Cosby is expected to appear in court Wednesday.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. peterwdawson says:

    Glad he’s at least been charged now so we can end a long period of speculation.

  2. Lyn says:

    Too bad he got to ride the wave of fame & fortune so long before finally being held accountable.

    • peterwdawson says:

      It really is a shame since it is true that, in the words of Chris Rock, Bill Cosby is one of the best storyteller comedians there ever has been. Decades of worthwhile material now tainted because those who tried out out him years ago were beaten down, and more innocents also suffered due to this. Serious shades of Jimmy Savile with such a beloved person turning out to apparently be a monster.

      • Charged, not convicted. Shouldn’t we at least wait for the verdict before condemning him? Or has the legal system finally recognised trial by media?

        • Mary says:

          True but as we all know, many guilty have walked. One or two might be questionable however that many it is hard to believe he is innocent. It is sad really that because of his statue years ago he wasn’t tried before now.

        • peterwdawson says:

          I find your statement confusing. We have no power in the proceedings so who cares if we condemn him, but because we condemn him apparently we’re now the judge and jury? It’s ultimately up to the individual, but looking at past statements, reports and more, you get a really ugly pattern. Is it possible he’s still innocent? Sure. But considering the kangaroo court that is the modern legal system, and how long it takes for these things to reach their climax, there’s zero point in holding back so long as you aren’t trying to actually take the law into your own hands.

  3. In abstract: all of humanity are currently living in various states of hell.

    To sue each-other for that which God deems to be “very good’ and the only insufferable condition in order for people to finally rise above said hell, whereby overcoming death by ignorance(!) is obviously besides the point, thus people keep dying of this very ignorance…

    Imposing guilt and shame upon one-another is the lowest level of them all, especially, because nobody is learning, or gaining anything permanent.

    • Mike M says:

      It certainly appears that you have found your own special state of hell. God suggests you stop taking the blue pills and get some fresh air.

    • God never deemed rape “very good” you’re confusing it with the union of man and woman consentually. Shame should be heaped upon Bill Cosby, his hell is of his own devising and is only a small piece of those he’s built for others to live in. Let’s not inversely romanticise Bill Cosby by allowing that any action is equal and therefore of not any more or less heinous weight because of our own particular hells we, theoretically, live in. This is like that drunk idiocy of someone saying “Why the hell not? If I’m going to hell anyway” and is at best an enabling and excusing comment trying to free us from the burden of moral and social responsibility under the guise of scriptured sage advice.

  4. It is sad to see someone who held such a special place in America’s collective memories come to this. However, as a woman, I can only feel satisfied that he is finally going to face a representative set of charges for the crimes he has committed for decades. Hopefully, justice will be served for this woman, at least.

  5. Amanda says:

    Waste of taxpayers’ money! She took a settlement, so she can’t testify against him or she’ll have to pay back all the money she got and probably much more. No witness, no case…this is to satisfy the “public opinion” and not justice! Same thing happen in the R. Kelly case, blowing smoke!

    • KatsMom says:

      Most settlement agreements prevent witnesses from speaking about the case, but they can only be held liable if they do so of their own volition. Therefore, a prosecutor subpoenaing Constand and a judge thereafter compelling her to testify arguably is not a violation of the settlement. I don’t see how this is similar to the R. Kelly case either. From what I remember about that case, the alleged victim vehemently denied that she was the girl in the videotape. You’re making a mighty big leap that Constand would do the same thing here.

    • Mary says:

      Wasn’t that settlement in a civil case not criminal? I believe she could testify but cannot be forced to do so.

  6. Walkie says:

    I believe Cosby did the things he’s accused of but I don’t see how they will be able to prove it in this case. Won’t it come down to her word against his? That usually doesn’t secure a conviction.

    • Mary says:

      It might depend on if the judge allows Crosby own statement during that trial, and if other Women are allowed to testify. The way I look at it at least he is being held accountable even if sadly he is not convicted.