I have earlier raised

The current Cosby-Constand trial raises additional questions.

First, the trial remains a he-said-she-said-she-said. For example, how do we know this is not revenge cooked up by Constand and her mother for Cosby not keeping career promises to Constand?

Second, is the verbal "evidence" given by a financially-interested party and her mother, sufficiently reliable to send a man to prison, with no further, corroborating evidence?

Third, if drugs proffered by Cosby were not surreptitious, how do we know the woman did not deliberately take them as an excuse to lower her own inhibitions? And how do we know her complaint against Cosby is not the pretext in her own mind to avoid feeling "slutty" afterwards?

The Cosby deposition in which he spoke of giving drugs for sex, did not say any such incidents surreptitious nor non-consensual. In fact, women exchanging sex for drugs and/or celebrity friendship may not be a rule but is certainly commonplace.

Fourth, why would a man smart enough to have achieved such success, risk it all for a few seconds with a woman so ugly?

Finally, suppose we assume true everything Constand and her mother claimed. Could this still not be argued an extended case of the eons-old Faustian bargain between men and women: Men court and serve and patronise and give gifts and give advice and promote the welfare of a woman, in return for which she eventually concedes and sleeps with him?

Constand used Cosby for her purposes. Modern feminism has convinced us that she owes him nothing in return. But should we not dispute this? Should we not dispute the "right" of a woman to use a man?

Feminism has made an art form of demonising and criminalising every real or fabricated "dirty trick" a man can do to a woman, from "rape by fraud" to "breach of promise" to "manspreading". Cannot MR do the same in reverse - demonise every female "dirty trick"? Is a woman "leading on" or accepting a man's attentions with no intention of reciprocating, not a form of "emotional fraud" or "sexual fraud"? Should it be criminalised?

I'm not arguing firmly for any of the above, nor asserting Cosby necessarily innocent. I'm simply raising a few questions or issues for discussion.

Should anyone be tempted to argue that "numbers (of complainants) make the case", consideration should be given to:

  • The number of people who once thought atheism deserving of death.
  • The number of people who thought Galileo wrong.
  • The number of proven false accusations in the sex-abuse hysteria of recent decades:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria
  • The false accusations (also by young females) resulting in judicial murder at the Salem witch trials:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
  • Ibsen's Enemy of the People
  • Dürrenmatt's Old Lady's Visit
  • Last but not least, the fact that none of the Cosby accusers' stories arose independently of Constand.