Orethapedia

According to unsealed testimony obtained by the Associated Press from an old sexual assault civil lawsuit, Cosby admitted to obtaining drugs for the purpose of giving them to women for sex. The drugs in question included quaaludes.

Let’s pause for a second and reflect on this interview segment:

Now, here we are today. Why is anyone shocked? I am not. I didn’t for one minute believe that there wasn’t something funky in the milk. When one woman says something you do tend to doubt. Why?We live in a culture where women are denigrated, disrespected and allow it. Sorry, calling yourself or any other woman a THOT is not okay. But, that’s a sidebar for another day.

The fact still remains that this is a man accused, who answered in his own deposition as follows:

Andrea Constand’s attorney, Dolores Troiani : ” 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?” Troiani asked.

Bill Cosby: “Yes.”

Andrea Constand’s attorney, Dolores Troiani: “Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?”

Cosby’s lawyers object and tell him not to answer the question.

Cosby admitted that he acquired seven prescriptions of Quaaludes with the intent to give the sedatives to young women he wanted to have sex with, he has not admitted to actually drugging any of his accusers.

He did say he gave drugs to “other people,” but when Troiani began to ask Cosby if he gave other people Quaaludes knowing they were illegal, Cosby’s attorney interjected and said that his client acknowledged giving them only to a woman whose name is redacted.

The deposition comes from a 2005 civil case, of a former Temple University employee Andrea Constand. She  accused Cosby of sexually assaulting her in his home in Philadelphia in 2004. Bill Cosby  testified under oath in connection with that lawsuit that he gave her three half-pills of Benadryl.

There are few instances in which habit evidence can be used to show that a person acted on a particular occasion in conformity with that habit. Bill may have that habit propensity, but  that evidence is often not admissible in civil court unless it rises to the level of a “habit”. Courts are interested in facts not what might have happened based on prior conduct. For example, a history of speeding tickets doesn’t prove speeding at a particular moment. Habit evidence is stronger and shows hat a person always does the same thing in a given set of circumstances.

Is Bill Cosby  someone who just fell into an accepted social behavior who is now being accused of an unseemly crime? Is it that he has this type of “behavior”? Those are the questions the court must deal with. What do you think?