Cosby Accuser’s Entire Story Discredited

BillCosbyby Patricia L. Dickson1/8/16
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office has reported that it will not charge Bill Cosby for a sexual assault claimed by Chloe Goins.  Goins’s claim to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby at Hugh Hefner’s playboy mansion in 2008 was entirely fabricated, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Chloe Goins, 25 told Los Angeles police and prosecutors that the comedian gave her a drink that caused her to black out during a party at the Playboy Mansion in 2008. When she awoke, she said, she found herself naked on a bed with her breast moist and with Cosby biting her toes with his pants around his ankles. Cosby’s attorneys have denied the accusations and said he was in New York at the time of the party. Goins reported the allegation last year and was interviewed for 2½ hours by an LAPD detective and again in November by a prosecutor. She initially alleged the attack occurred at the Midsummer Night’s Dream Party, held in August 2008. During the investigation, however, she told police she was not certain what the party was that she attended. Goins is not identified in the district attorney’s documents but has previously made her allegations public. Videos of the Midsummer party from the perimeter of Holmby Hills mansion showed no images of Goins or a woman she said accompanied her, according to a report declining the prosecution. Cosby was in New York the weekend of the party, prosecutors said. Detectives did not find Cosby’s name on any guest lists for 56 documented events at the Playboy Mansion in the summer of 2008. But they did find his name on the guest list for a February party, the report noted. The woman who Goins said accompanied her to the mansion told police she did not know Goins and never visited the Playboy estate, according to the declination filed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Jodi M. Link.  Link noted that two crimes described by Goins, misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor indecent exposure, are beyond the statute of limitations. The district attorney also reviewed potential felonies still within the statute of limitations. The prosecutors determined there was no evidence to support charges of sexual battery by restraint or sexual assault by intoxication. Spencer Kuvin, Goins’ attorney, said the D.A.’s decision was a “disappointment” but in no way affects his client’s civil case against Cosby.

It appears that Chloe Goins made up the story out of thin air.  She tearfully recounted this harrowing story on Dr. Phil and on CNN to Anderson Cooper.  However, it turns out that Mr. Cosby never even met this woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her.  One accuser’s story has fallen apart and counting.


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1240 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Cosby Accuser’s Entire Story Discredited

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One wonders who is prompting or paying her to make up her story. Nice report, Patricia.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The woman is a whore and was arrested for this legal infraction some years back. Now I don’t know about you, but I am a little hesitant to take the word of someone who sells sex for money. I know, I’m being judgmental. I can’t help it.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    There are a lot of stories, and just because one is a fabrication doesn’t mean they all are. But it does raise the question of how many others are similar inventions, particularly since disproving many would be almost impossible. Fans of Atlas Shrugged might wonder if all these stories are like the debaucheries associated with Francisco D’Anconia.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Timothy,
      Yes indeed, exactly the same. After all Cosby wandered off the reservation by asserting that Blacks grow up and tend to their problems and needs without the government playing master of the plantation.

      There may actually be women that he has abused, but none placed charges at the time or even a short time after the event. I suspect something happened but also that it was much more consensual than the it seems.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The shame is that this woman cannot be charged “criminally” for lying.

  4. Sometimes the smallest details will reveal whether or not someone is telling the truth. I learned of a case in Law School (I attended one semester) where a Defense Attorney was trying to get his client off for murdering his wife. The District Attorney went ahead with the trial although there was no body. In his closing argument, the Defense Attorney contended that his client was innocent because his wife could possibly be still alive since no body had been found. He pointed at the doors in back of the courtroom and suggested that his client’s wife could walk through those doors at any minute. Everyone in the courtroom turned to look at the doors except his client. The jurors saw that as an admission of guilt and believed that the defendant knew that his wife was dead and probably was responsible for her death.

    Most of the accusers claim to have been given pills or something to drink which in turn left them either unable to move or completely passed out. However, not one of them went to the emergency room to find out what they had ingested. That leads me to two possible conclusions. One, they were aware of what they were taking (they were pill poppers) and there was no need to seek medical test to find out. Two, they never ingested anything to begin with. It is difficult for me to believe that out of a reported 50 women (although if you google Cosby accusers you only get between 30-35 names), not one of them were the least bit concerned about what they ingested. Even Andrea Constand, the woman who he’s been officially charged for sexual assaulting, claimed that the pills he gave her paralyzed her and made her unable to speak. She also did not go to the hospital. Why? Many claimed that the reason they did not report the alleged assaults to the police was because they thought no one would believe them. I am willing to believe some of them on that, but I am not willing to believe that not one of them went to hospital to get checked out.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think I’ve encountered that story about the guy not looking at the door. G. K. Chesterton had a very similar incident in one of his Father Brown stories (I think it was “The Eye of Apollo”): a mystic was addressing an audience from a ledge when there came a crash. The mystic, unlike everyone else, didn’t react — and Brown knew that he had expected whatever the crash was.

      Of course, it’s very difficult to prove a murder without a body, though I have read of a few cases (a case in Oregon in which criminalist Herbert MacDonnell was an investigator, and the Peel-Chillingworth case in Florida).

  5. I came across an interesting article on women’s propensity to lie about rape:

    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Back in the 1960s, I saw a TV special on people wrongly jailed. One of the most spectacular was a black man railroaded in the 1920s by the local Klan (this was southern Illinois) for a rape that never happened. He spent decades in jail. Of course, if femocrats really believed their claim, they would have condemned Slick Willie for — at the least — the rape of Juanita Broaddrick (even Gloria Swinem’s despicable “one grope rule”, which of course only applies to men who agree with her politically, could hardly permit outright forcible rape). They didn’t.

      One thing I’ve observed is that people often assume that other people are like them. Most women are reluctant to discuss rape, which is why even today it’s probably the felony most likely not to be reported by a surviving victim. But there are plenty of exceptions, who are quite willing to make false claims for one reason or another (Alfred Hitchcock did a TV episode in which a false rape claim is the key starting point). This is why rape is also the felony most likely to be falsely claimed by the surviving “victim”.

      This doesn’t take into account recovered memory, which is one of the greatest scandals in the field of psychology. People have been destroyed by doubtful claims from supposedly recovered memories. Elizabeth Loftus discussed this extensively (and devastatingly) in Witness for the Defense.

      • Speaking of women’s (real rape victims) reluctance to discuss rape because of the embarrassment and stigma associated with it, what decent sane woman would get on national television and claim a man shoved his penis in her mouth? At least three of Cosby’s accusers have appeared on national television and made the ridiculous claim that they were sitting in chairs and he just walked up to them and shoved his penis in their mouth. There is no way in the world I would tell anyone, let alone millions of strangers that a man did that to me. I would take that to my grave.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I must agree with you.

          I have always wondered about such claims. Can they really be true?

          Not to put too fine a point on it, if I were a woman and someone did that to me, it would be the last time he pulled that trick on anyone as he would no longer have a penis once I was finished with him. Would this thought not occur to a man before doing such a thing? Would it not occur to a woman if any man were stupid enough to pull such a stunt?

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    Victor Davis Hanson has a fine article today on NRO that deals with liberal hypocrisy on sexual issues. His point is that if you’re a liberal in good standing, you’re allowed to get away with anything, even what would be a tremendous crime for anyone else. He also points out to the fate of Bill Cosby as a reminder that even a small apostasy can be enough to remove the immunity. The link is:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429591/doctrinaire-liberalism-paradoxes

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I’ll give that a read when I find the time. Thanks.

      I’m trying to think if there is a conservative equivalent. In my experience, certainly there are topics that are sensitive. But if approached with reasonable politeness and reason itself, I haven’t really run into a case where talking about God, Jesus, abortion, homosexuals, Social Security, guns, or any number of topics has caused me to be a pariah, even if I go against established conservative opinion.

      Oh, certainly they don’t like it when you point out that Social Security is socialism. (“But I earned it.” No you didn’t, you simply are part of the same tax-fed, IRS-enforced ponzi scheme). And once in a while one might get into a tussle with “libertarians” about the right to bear nukes. Or literalism regarding the Bible. Or any number of topics.

      But I don’t think we have quite the social (and legal) death sentence that the Nazi-like liberals do.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Partly this is because conservatives believe in individual justice, whereas liberals believe in group justice. This makes it easy for the latter to use the legal system as a political weapon — both to let their own miscreants off (which encourages such misbehavior) and to target their enemies (e.g., Lois Lerner, Ronnie Earle, the “John Doe” investigations in Wisconsin, and Chris Christie). As Hanson points out, Cosby’s stint of political incorrectness deprived him of the standard immunity.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Partly this is because conservatives believe in individual justice, whereas liberals believe in group justice.

          Which means that someone might not agree with you or me, but they can follow the reasoning process. Our positions (hopefully) aren’t based on such hopelessly vague or dishonest slogans such as “black lives matter.” We can (or should) distinguish between preferences and presuppositions.

          I can say something like, If I believe this, then this seems right, just, or logical to me. However, if my basic tenet is wrong, I’ll have to change my position.

          But arguing with a liberal (or a libertarian) is a fuzzy affair. Right or wrong aren’t tied to basic principles (at least honest ones) that we can lay out on the table and examine. Like you said, it’s that group justice thing. Therefore it’s like doing “group math.” It’s pointless to argue that two plus two equals four if ideological necessity requires it to be five.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    In a closely related topic, the on-line version of Reason has an article on one of the many accusations against Catholic priests, one that actually got 2 priests and a teacher jailed. But it seems that the accuser is very dubious, has a history of changing his story, and is a drug-abuser to boot. Interestingly, the claims were also written up in a one-sided (of course) article in 2011 — by Sabina Erdely in Rolling Stone. She has an interesting history as well, of course.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      An article on Reason? Wouldn’t being a drug-abuser be a positive? 😀

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, to reference a different sequence here, that’s the difference between a generalization and a stereotype.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I meant it more as biting sarcasm. Those who follow the Libertarian movement know there isn’t a drug they wouldn’t legalize. It’s in the Constitution that you can get stoned 24/7.

          I actually had a brief discussion with someone today (whose name shall be withheld at present). We were watching the TV series, “Blue Bloods,” and it centered around a prostitution sting (which turned out to be illegal). He said that he thought prostitution should be legal. I said, of course, “Please write that up in an essay and submit it.”

          I doubt that he will. He’s like a lot of people. They blow with opinions but won’t actually commit to them. I told him I disagreed with his position but it would make for an interesting discussion, you ignorant slut. No…I was more polite than that. But it would make for an interesting discussion, particularly because he is a Christian. Oh boy.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Patricia sent me a couple links that show Cosby being redeemed a bit:

    Bill Cosby wins in Pennsylvania court; defamation lawsuit dismissed

    and…

    Email may derail case against Bill Cosby

    Truth be known, I will hang by Bill Cosby even it it turns out he was a bit of a naughty boy. Hey, if the Left can make a saint out of a letch such as the drunken Ted Kennedy, I can continue warm feelings for a man who made me laugh when I was a kid and whose type of clean-cut comedy is all but extinct now.

    It would be nice not to have to forgive. But I would. Bill is one of us. He’s family.

Leave a Reply to Timothy Lane Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *