Gloria Allred’s Despicable Crusade

Gloria Allred

The recent unsealing of documents in the acrimonious 2005 civil suit between Andrea Constand and Bill Cosby brought a smile to the face of Gloria Allred. Cosby’s admission in that suit that he gave quaaludes to women with whom he had sex has been seen by many in both the mainstream and alternative media as proof positive that his “victims” were telling the truth all along, and that Cosby is a serial rapist. A closer scrutiny of the available evidence indicates this is not the case. Some of Cosby’s accusers are clearly lying, a handful of them blatantly. Others are women who have convinced themselves that years and in many cases decades later their consensual sexual encounters with him amount to rape.

Some of these will be discussed shortly, but let us begin with Gloria Allred, what is she doing? On the face of it, she is acting for three women: Tamara Green, Therese Serignese and Linda Traitz, who are suing Cosby for defamation. Self-styled former supermodel Janice Dickinson is also suing Cosby; her attorney, Lisa Bloom, is Gloria Allred’s daughter. All four plaintiffs claim their reputations have been damaged by Cosby branding them liars. They have accused him of drugging and raping them, he has now denied this, and that constitutes defamation?

If you are not familiar with the timeline, here is a very brief recap. In 2005, Andrea Constand brought a civil action against Bill Cosby after filing a complaint against him for sexual assault. This happened, allegedly, in 2004. She claimed to have been drugged by him first, which was the reason for the delay. Andrea Constand is very different from all Cosby’s other accusers, and there is no reason to dispute her veracity, she was telling the truth as she saw it, although it is most likely that both she and Cosby were not and are not being truthful about the nature of their relationship.

When news of her action leaked out, or more likely was leaked to the media by one of her legal team, thirteen other women came forward. Because of the ludicrous rape shield laws that feminist activists have foisted on Western nations, Cosby was in the unenviable position of having to face a shedload of anonymous accusers in court should this case come to trial, women who could make any outrageous claim, throw whatever mud they wanted at him with impunity, with no consequences for their actions even if they were caught out lying brazenly. Faced with a jury being bamboozled by the convincing but fallacious technique of corroboration by volume, Cosby was advised to settle the action with Constand, and did so in 2006.

The scandal went to sleep for nearly a decade until the comedian Hannibal Buress joked about Cosby raping women, then more women came forward, many more, including Janice Dickinson. Unlike the UK, most American states have statutes of limitations, including for rape. This legal norm has been heavily criticised, and there are those who are lobbying for their removal. Before you are swayed by their dishonest rhetoric, check out this article, and finish reading the current one.

Andrea Constand

Andrea Constand (Twitter)

While there are circumstances under which a rape or other sexual offence might not be reported promptly – if the victim is a child, for example – special circumstances excepted, a reasonably intelligent woman who delays reporting diminishes her credibility, and rightly so.

One such special circumstance is if the victim has been drugged. For example, in April this year, a nurse at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, was given an 18 year sentence after he was convicted of, among other things, raping two women who were under general anaesthetic. These women didn’t even realise they had been raped. It is of course possible that Cosby did drug women and rape them, including Andrea Constand. Some reports have claimed he admitted drugging and raping them. In reality he did no such thing. Here is an extract from the deposition bludgeoned out of Cosby by Constand’s bellicose attorney. There appears to have been real venom between her and Cosby’s overprotective lawyer:

Cosby: “I meet Ms (Redacted) in Las Vegas. She meets me back stage. I give her Quaaludes. We then have sex.” This was Therese Serignese, one of the aforementioned plaintiffs. How credible is she as an accuser? Well, for one thing she has admitted knowingly taking quaaludes proferred her by Cosby. She admits too that she asked Cosby for money, and that he gave it to her. The implication is that this was in return for sex. What do we call a woman who has sex with a man in return for money? Furthermore, she claims their liaisons were not purely sexual, that she contacted him intermittently over the years, and that at one point he sent her $10,000 after she told him (truthfully) she had been in a car accident.

So let us summarise this accuser, she met Cosby, took pills from him voluntarily, knowing what they were. She had sex with him multiple times. Took money from him. Asked him for money which he sent at a time when they were not having sex nor even seeing each other, and now she is suing him for calling her a liar because he denies raping her. How much credibility does she have?

Let’s put this another way, this is what one advocacy group says about rape, and this appears to be a consensus: “Rape is a terrifying, violent and humiliating experience that no woman wants or asks for.”

How does that square with her claim that he drugged and raped her multiple times yet she continued their relationship willingly?

Before considering any of the other accusers, here is a short note about quaaludes. In the 1970s when Cosby was using them, quaaludes were considered an aphrodisiac. This belief appears to be nearly as fanciful as his now infamous Spanish fly joke, but it was a widely used recreational drug, and if Cosby is to be condemned for using them and giving them to consenting adult sexual partners, then so are many if not most of the rock stars, jazz musicians and blues players of that era.

Now let us deal with Janice Dickinson, the August 2006 issue of Psychology Today contains an interview with her by Carlin Flora; in So Fake, She’s Real, the observation is made that “Dickinson comes off as a wounded bird in her candid, insightful memoirs of a horrendous childhood and subsequent battles against controlling men and alcoholism.”

One of these controlling men appears to have been her own father; she admits/claims that if she didn’t kill him outright, she hastened his death. Dickinson had nothing bad to say about Cosby until the storm broke last year. She could have lambasted him in her autobiography, but she didn’t. Indeed, she could have made an anonymous reference to him as did Ulrika Jonsson of John Leslie in 2002. His name was subsequently leaked (perhaps inadvertedly) on live television, something that set off a firestorm and a nightmare for the poor man.

Although she was once a looker, Dickinson has never been the kind of girl any self-respecting young man would take home to meet mother; she claims to have slept with around a thousand men!

The $64 million question though is why would Cosby need to drug Dickinson in order to have sex with her? On one occasion after meeting Steven Spielberg in a restaurant, he phoned her, apparently to offer her a part in a film rather than to ask for a bunk up, but “…I couldn’t remember meeting him – I must have been really drunk.
The alcohol-induced blackouts that I was starting to suffer from didn’t help my recall.
I’d often wake up unable to remember much of what had happened the night before. I still wonder how my life might have changed if I’d returned his calls.”

The film alluded to here is Raiders Of The Lost Ark, which was released in 1981; she claims Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. If she couldn’t remember meeting Steven Spielberg, how can she remember being drugged by Bill Cosby? Okay, she had sex with him…and 999 other men, what does that prove? When she gave birth to her daughter Savannah, she had to arrange a paternity test to determine the identity of the father. Miss Dickinson may have a drink problem but she also has a drug problem, and on one occasion after mixing the two fell down the stairs on live TV. This was in 2009, in Finland, not a quaalude in sight. And this woman is suing Cosby because he has damaged her reputation!!

Again, she kept silent all through the 1980s; she said nothing derogatory about Cosby in her autobiography, she kept silent during the Constand lawsuit when all these other women crawled out of the woodwork, and she must surely have known about them, but thirty years and more down the line she decides to tell all. What would you say if a woman accused you, your, father, your brother, anyone you knew, thirty years on under such circumstances, especially if that accuser had as big a mouth as Janice Dickinson?

Linda Traitz is another woman who has no reputation to defend; she has served hard time for both fraud and drug offences. How much would a court award her for coming forward with her story four decades and more after it allegedly happened and then being told it was unworthy of belief?

Finally, Tamara Green, we need not waste too much time on this woman either. Cosby fan and philosopher Jay Raskin writes: “…on January 28, 2005, Tamara Green a 57 year old lawyer, after seeing a report of the Constand case on television, gave a statement by phone to a Montgomery County detective claiming that Cosby had also drugged and perhaps assaulted her…[she went] on numerous television shows and gave numerous interviews. The media did not reveal that at the time she filed the complaint, Tamara Green was under investigation by the California Bar for 13 counts of misconduct for stealing $20,000 from three clients”.

She was suspended by the California Bar and pronounced mentally ill, ignoring a recommendation for treatment. Green appears to have simply jumped on the bandwagon, of which more anon, but the phrase “mentally ill” sums up half of Cosby’s accusers, the other half can be summed up with a single word: liars.

Now let us look at a few more of them. There is Judith Huth, the woman who claims to have a repressed memory of her abuse at Cosby’s hands, a memory that was not repressed when previously she tried to extract a substantial sum of money from him. There is twice convicted prostitute Chelan Lasha, who also has a conviction for false reporting! Lasha claims when she met Cosby at the age of 17 she was suffering from a cold, so he gave her a pill for it! Truly amazing.

Beverly Johnson is a woman who appears to have real credibility, being the first black woman to appear on the front cover of Vogue and all that, but two men who were close to her have both said she is lying; her alleged encounter with Cosby is absurd, and in any case, before she jumped on the bandwagon, she had never said anything bad about him, in public anyway.

Arguably the two most interesting Cosby accusers though are Joan Tarshis and Chloe Goins. Tarshis is interesting because this is a woman who has suffered from delusions and hallucinations all her life. In 2013, a video was posted to YouTube of her relating this in front of an audience. Jay Raskin found this video, so why couldn’t the mainstream media?

Goins is also very interesting because she is the youngest by far of Cosby’s accusers, and if it could be shown he had indeed sexually assaulted her in 2008 as claimed, he could face criminal charges. Goins filed a complaint with Los Angeles police in January, yet to date…Why is this? Because like the media, the authorities know these stories are a crock, yet they go along with them anyway. So what is really going on here?

This is a well-known psychological phenomenon called the bandwagon effect; there are all sorts of bandwagons, often they are political, ideological or financial, but if someone had accused Cosby of practising witchcraft, you can rest assured that there would have been further similar allegations at some point. It is not simply the Cosby accusers who are responsible for the current bandwagon but sensationalist reporting. Nowadays with the alternative media, anything goes, but for these stories to be taken up by the mainstream with almost total lack of critical faculty is extremely unprofessional. If for example Barbara Bowman had been questioned critically, her story would almost certainly have fallen apart. This is a woman who could sue her landlord for less than a thousand dollars, and win, yet she couldn’t file charges against a man who repeatedly drugged and raped her. By her own account she was Cosby’s kept woman; was he drugging and raping her, or was she trading sex for drugs?

Now let us return to the quaaludes, and Andrea Constand. Broadly speaking there are three main possibilities here:

Cosby did not drug Constand, and told the truth about the Benadryl.

Cosby did indeed drug her with quaaludes or some such, and presumably raped or otherwise interfered with her sexually.

Cosby gave her quaaludes which she took knowingly.

There is though a fourth possibility, and this is the most credible explanation, they are both lying, Constand had consensual sex with Cosby, perhaps after having a few drinks, regretted it, and has now convinced herself or been convinced by someone else that she was indeed raped. After all, why would a young, attractive, athletic white woman drop her knickers for a black man old enough to be her father and then some? More to the point, why was she dining alone with him in the first place? The reason, we are led to believe, is that he was giving her career advice. As a pig flew by the window. Incidentally, if her Twitter account is anything to go by, Andrea Constand is now a confirmed believer in the feminist fantasy of rape culture, and is also calling for statutes of limitation to be removed for sex crimes.

With regard to the quaaludes story, we are fortunate to have not one but two benchmarks against which to assess this claim: Roman Polanski and John Worboys. Both are thoroughly documented, the Polanski case was and remains a scandal because this was a man who plied a 13 year old girl with drink, then raped her orally, vaginally and anally. There can be no mitigation for or excusing this, it was a planned, calculated act of depravity. The only thing that may be said, not in defence of Polanski, but perhaps to partially explain it, is that after the murder of his heavily pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, he may have lost it to some extent, all the more because at one time he was a suspect, even though he was out of the country at the time.

The notoriety of the Tate-LaBiancha Murders continues to this day, but by the time Polanski violated Samantha Geimer he’d had over 7 years to purge his grief, and although the death of a loved one in such horrific circumstances may stay with a man for the rest of his life, a line must be drawn somewhere, so there really was no excuse.

Drugged or not, Samantha Geimer did not wait a decade, a year, or even a week to report her violation, and Polanski was promptly arrested. If a 13 year old girl can blow the whistle on a much older man who must have seemed genuinely powerful to her, what does that say about Cosby’s belated accusers?

Fourteen women testified against serial rapist John Worboys, who gave his victims a very powerful drug cocktail, but although the police were criticised for being slow to act, Worboys was in the frame for a considerable period of time. Because many of his victims had been drinking they were confused about exactly what had happened, that coupled with the fact that the police thought they may have been looking for a mini-cab driver rather than a black cab driver delayed his arrest, but they got him eventually. Think how much easier it would have been to bring an A List celebrity to book rather than an anonymous cab driver, if Cosby had been drugging and raping women as has been claimed.

Legal analyst Richard Herman has summed up what has almost certainly been happening here; at the time of writing, the unedited clips of his relevant appearances on King Jordan Radio can be found on YouTube, but here are two clips in one. Lest the reader have any doubt this is the case, this very short clip by Elizabeth Loftus, and this candid admission by a woman who was effectively brainwashed into remembering being sexually abused by her own father should dispel it.

Okay, that is the Cosby accusers, but what about Gloria Allred? This self-confessed feminist attorney is continuing to present herself as a champion of abused and indeed desperate women, but she is no such thing. She may be an advocate but she is first and foremost an officer of the court, which means she has a duty not to present misleading testimony. It is frankly impossible that she and her daughter Lisa Bloom can be unaware of the simple fact that many of these women are plain liars, yet she had the audacity to present Chelan Lasha and the fruitcake Helen Hayes to the world as Cosby victims. Lisa Bloom continues to act for Janice Dickinson, even though like the media she must realise this woman has zero credibility.

For Miss Allred, Cosby is not the real issue, what she is intent on doing is removing the statute of limitations for sex crimes. If she is successful, Americans can look forward to similar witch-hunts to those seen and currently ongoing in the UK.

There is a word for what Miss Allred is doing, barratry, she is inciting litigation for purposes that have nothing to do with the professed aims of said lawsuits. These actions are also clearly an abuse of process, and should be struck out as such.

Where does all this leave Cosby? Whatever the outcome of this litigation, his reputation is in tatters, and rightly so, as the judge who unsealed the Constand case papers said, there is a stark contrast between Bill Cosby the public moralist and Bill Cosby the subject of these lawsuits. There is though a massive difference between Cosby possibly taking advantage of young women, who were themselves for the most part anything but paragons of virtue, and his drugging and raping them. When the fog has finally cleared from this odious case, hopefully both Cosby and his persecutors, including Gloria Allred, will be seen for what they really are.

 

About the author

Alexander Baron

  • janenlee

    one of the best articles so far. Why aren’t people seeing this? Why is the media not checking or following up?

    • TheLatestNews

      @daphne2:disqus We are glad you like this piece! Help us spread the word by sharing the article on your social media profiles.

      • keke

        He wins the media will try to bury it out JUST like they did the NJ win. But its ok, folks will yell it out on social media

        What i believe as the reason that they want ALL people that support him to be crushed is so that when he is done with court he wont have anyone supporting him and they want his legacy and fear. The fear is that is he still has substantial amount of supporters then his legacy and his name will NOT be so ruined and destroyed like the want soooooo bad. Plus he will be worth money and if he can make the money again it will draw some folks back to dealing with him TO make money also

  • JayRaskin

    Nicely reasoned. Thanks, Alexander.