as a defense attorney, this thread is an interesting read to me, especially considering the sample bias of male degenerate gamblers (easy guys, I've been here 16 years so I include myself). when I go back over the allegations of most of cosby's "victims", for the most part they collectively allege that cosby gave them drugs and alcohol in attempts to get laid. those are hardly unique allegations. imo what could turn the scenario to a criminal act is if a woman was SECRETLY drugged and then raped or molested. in the case just charged, I may be mistaken but I don't believe that was the allegation. my understanding is that she alleges that she knowingly took some drug with alcohol while socializing with cosby, and then was somehow conscious but immobilized or "in a trance" and unable to protest when cosby put his hand down her pants. if that is the case I can understand why the d.a. declined to prosecute 12 years ago, as such a case is dead ass loser, unless of course the defendant is a public figure with a bunch of negative publicity that pollutes the jury pool, in which case it becomes a big political plum for a prosecutor to secure his office. look, I believe that, at the very least, cosby is an insufferable cockhound that is an embarrassment and disgrace to his wife and family. but to prosecute a man after 12 years when the prior d.a. declined to do so, and after cosby has given civil depositions in the matter after being assured there would be no criminal prosecution, is fundamentally unfair.
Did they knowingly and willingly accept the drugs and alcohol or were they "slipped a mickey?" Did he tell them it was one kind of drug and them give them something else knowing it would immobilize them? Just seems the word SECRETLY can have some slippery definitions.