I wrote exactly: “You don’t believe the alleged victims have been denied their own reputations and livelihood because they were presumed to be guilty and not innocent when no one would represent them in a court of law?”
The part which says, “when no one would represent them in a court of law?” means exactly that, “when”, i.e. during the space of time in which “no one would represent them in a court of law?” This period of time in which no one would represent the victims in a court of law extended variously from the day in which the rape occurred to some years afterwards. During this interval of time some of the victims tell us they were accused of being guilty of lying, often ridiculously so. They were repeatedly accused of what amounts as gold diggers trying to get some of Bill Cosby’s money.
So, you are wrong and being argumentative where there is no justification whatsoever. As my comments in the other threads clearly indicate, I have always been talking about the period of time before the first of the women finally secured legal counsel and a court hearing and before the statute of limitations had expired. You should also note how I posted links to such sources as an interview with a victim, and I was obviously aware of the 2004 court case in which Bill Cosby induced some of the victims to settle out of court before the other victims could testify in court. Consequently, your attempt to misrepresent my comment to mean other than what it clearly says is contradicted by the sources I linked and the very words I used.
Look again at what some of these women have said about what happened to them when they tried to tell other people about their being raped. Their talent agent denied them. The attorney laughed a victim out of his office. Their reputation was ruined. Their opportunity and potential livelihood as an aspiring actress was ruined. None of them were able to secure the help they needed to prosecute Bill Cosby in a criminal court before the expiration of the statute of limitations. “You don’t believe the alleged victims have been denied their own reputations and livelihood because they were presumed to be guilty and not innocent when no one would represent them in a court of law?”
"The problem here is the apparent inability of some 13 to 16 alleged female victims finding themselves unable to take their complaints into a court of law, because the justice system and rule of law were denied to them in the first place. Some have said they went to the authorities and were laughed and/or scorned right out of their offices in disbelief and/or unwillingness to take the matter into a court of law."
I replied to your first sentence. We do not know of a single case in which any of the victims was unable to take her complaint into a court of law. Nary a one. One of the victims, Bowman, consulted one attorney who did not take her case, according to Barbara Bowman. If she had wanted to take her case into a court of law, I believe she could have found an attorney to do so. Don't you?
Some of the women chose not to pursue any claim. Women choose not to pursue sexual assault claims on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
Andrea Constand settled a filed, public, legal civil action for an undisclosed amount of money subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Some of the women accepted payments of travel and/or living expenses from Mr. Cosby. Why file a lawsuit?
We know of two cases in which a prosecutor decided not to go forward with a criminal prosecution of Mr. Cosby: Barbara Bowman and Andrea Constand
Ms. Constand then filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Cosby and he settled it. Ms. Constand's attorneys are the ones who found the double-digit 'Jane Doe' I-was-sexually-assaulted-by-Bill-Cosby witnesses, including those who were received payments from Mr. Cosby before 2005.
In addition to the two cases that prosecutors wouldn't file, Lachele Covington filed a claim with the police but was told that because Mr. Cosby quit trying to thrust Ms. Covington's hand down Mr. Cosby's sweatpants when she said 'no' and pulled her hand away, no molestation had occurred. Ms. Covington was an actress on the Cosby Show and claimed Mr. Cosby was consulting her about career advice. She filed her claim with the police three days after the incident, one day after she told her family.
Wait? Having her touch Cosby's manhood? That's how Barbara Bowman says it started, including the rubbing-my-head-because-Mr.-Cosby-says-that's-how-he-concentrates stuff that Ms. Covington also reported to the police.
So, no, there wasn't a "when no one would represent them in a court of law?” at all, and the accusations of "what amounts as gold diggers trying to get some of Bill Cosby’s money" came from Mr. Cosby's people about the ones who went public, while Mr. Cosby was paying the ones who didn't go public.
Capisce?