Posted on 04/09/2018 1:19:07 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The retrial of Bill Cosby got off to a wild start this morning when a topless woman who once acted on "The Cosby Show" allegedly charged at the comedian as he arrived at a Pennsylvania court.
The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office identified the suspect as Nicolle Rochelle, 39, of Little Falls, New Jersey. As a young girl, Rochelle appeared in four episodes of "The Cosby Show" between 1990 and 1992, playing a character named Danielle.
She was charged with disorderly conduct, which the district attorney's office defined as "the intent to cause a public inconvenience annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk."
Her agent has not responded to ABC News' request for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“Continueing to see” could include in the workplace, which is far from a ‘loving reason’. I think Cosby is a perv & has been for a very long time.
Also- His wife Camille was his manager-—and she signed all of his checks. So—IF anyone was paid off—Camille knows it, and she is guilty of COLLUSION.
Retrial?
I admit I didn’t follow the case, but isn’t double jeopardy against the law?
That alone, would make me vote “not Guilty”.
Never have I heard of a real rape victim continuing to date their rapist knowingly.
One question: Would Laz?
Black privilege is a two way street. Bill goes one way, Nicolle goes the other way. If OJ can skate, Bill can too.
Bill will skate.
That's certainly a possibility but it's at least as possible that one,or more,of his accusers are liars looking for $$$ and/or fame.And as I said her having continued to associate with him in *any* way suggests that there's something fishy about her story.
And if,by chance,my suspicions about her are justified that doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't actually raped others.
When it comes to lawyers, nothing surprises me. Judges are lawyers too.
wow, didn’t even know there was gonna BE a retrial ...
Well, the title was titillating anyway.
I’m surprised that she shaves her pits.
That’s what I was wondering? How many times are they gonna try this guy?
Yes, attention seeking and self-indulgence, only justified by the sick idea that norms of dress and conduct are evil social constructs. They believe that they should be able to walk down the street naked without consequence or responsibility.
Let’s just say that this idea lies firmly wedged between the casting couch and Bill Cosby’s and Harvey Weinstein’s sick minds.
It’s like Eddie Murphy said, “When you are famous, women throw their p-—sies at you like they’re Frisbees.”
Which is in essence, no different than what Trump said when he was talking about grabbing p***sies.
Well, they are successful in getting attention. I can sympathize somewhat in their concern for the objectification of women’s bodies: in pornography for sure, but also in advertising. Sex sells, but it doesn’t always sell sexy things. I remember an old newspaper ad for Wolf motor oil. It had a well-endowed woman in hot pants, high boots, and a revealing top, and she had a wolf on a leash. It got my attention, and I still remember it after all these years, but I never bought Wolf motor oil. It just seemed a silly way to advertise that product.
If they hope to go beyond getting publicity for their causes and create a general indifference to public nudity, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. They don’t seem to understand how men are wired. But they also don’t seem to understand that a lot of men value women for reasons outside their physical attributes.
Remember, you can’t un-see. #unsee
https://gdb.voanews.com/1F026EA2-D8AA-4E15-AEEE-C13F5BCD5F07_cx0_cy14_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
