Because the accusations are for events that took place so long ago, there is no physical evidence left of the crime. There are only the accusations. You can argue a lot of people made the accusations, but that doesn't change that there is no physical evidence, or that it's quite typical of lots of random people to jump aboard claims of sexual involvement with celebrities.
So this depends on if you believe someone should be declared guilty of something on testimonies alone.
I don't know why Cosby claimed he had consensual sex with someone that was drugged, even if true that's not something provable and doesn't help your image.
shipwreckers posted...
He paid money to a victim. If he didn't do it there is ZERO REASON to pay anything to them under any circumstances (or even dignify them with a response in general).
This isn't really true. There are times when a lawyer tells their client to just plead guilty even if they are innocent because proving they are innocent may be more trouble than admitting guilt and making "amends" (going to jail, paying the fine, etc.).
In Cosby's case the entire media was treating him as guilty, leading to a large portion of the populace to do the same, regardless of if he was innocent or not so it's possible he was just trying to show he was making amends even if he was innocent. It didn't matter if he he was guilty or not, because everyone believed he was guilty.
I still don't understand why people take rape accusations more seriously and at people's word when you wouldn't treat murder accusations that way. You want to ruin someone with no evidence? Accuse them of rape. Better yet get a few people to do it. People will treat them as guilty even of there is no physical evidence.
Because he was guilty and admitted as much. Are you dense?