MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Betrayal of Trust, by Mike Gold – Brainiac on Banjo #382 | @MDWorld

November 24, 2014 Mike Gold 5 Comments

Brainiac Art 382Nancy Grace thinks I’m no fun.

I’m a firm believer in the “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” mime. Unless I’ve seen something with my own eyes and I’m certain what I’ve seen encompasses all that happened, I’ll wait for the courts to decide.

The problem with this particular story is, there will be no criminal court action here to establish Bill Cosby’s guilt or innocence… or both.

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t any civil action – lawsuits – but the standards in civil court are far, far lower than those in criminal court. To my observation, most lawsuits that go all the way to a jury are won or lost on the abilities of the attorneys involved, the defendant’s ability to pay for depositions and such, the behavior of the judge, and the temperature of the jury. This is because the only thing involved in a civil action is money; nobody’s going to be denied his or her freedom. Usually, the only people who make out on these things are the lawyers.

Be that as it may, in the court of public opinion we now have, on one side of the scale, the presumption of innocence and the public’s affection for Mr. Cosby, and the logic of “geez, how can all of those women be lying” on the other side. And that’s a valid point, albeit not definitive. Logic is not necessarily evidence, and it is possible all those women could be lying… but without evidence of an organized conspiracy (in my world, that’s not a redundancy) it almost defies imagination.

This sucks. Damn near everybody who is reading these words grew up being entertained by Mr. Cosby. I was 12 years old when I purchased his first comedy album. I was 16 when he (and producer Sheldon Leonard and NBC) broke the race barrier by casting a black man in a starring position on a network television series. I lied my way into a nightclub, Mr. Kelly’s, to see his stand-up. I even talked with him at the Playboy mansion, for crying out loud.

So there is a strong sense of sadness and even betrayal at these horrible accusations of rape, molestation, drugging… It’s almost beyond comprehension.

It’s unfortunate (and understandable) that his alleged victims took so long to come forward. By waiting, they denied everybody the opportunity for vindication and they may have allowed a rapist to continue harming others. It takes a lot of courage for men and women who have been victims to come forward. It takes a lot of fortitude at a point in time when such strength may be lacking. But let’s not conflate a lack of prosecution with innocence. At best, it’s a push.

Several decades ago, Cosby started morphing into his cranky old man identity and that alienated some folks. Um tut sut. He’s entitled to his opinions. But, damn, I’ll tell you something: go watch one of his recent – and lengthy – comedy routines. You’ll see a massive display of genius and brilliant technique. He launches so many threads that you think he’s gone senile… but, magically, by the time he finishes he’s tied them all together and you’ve been laughing all the way.

Right or wrong, that voice is now stilled. Even if that is entirely his fault, that’s a serious disappointment.

Under different circumstances, Mr. Cosby would appreciate the irony. Now kids can tell him to raise his trousers up.

Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com as part of “Hit Oldies” every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Michael Davis and Martha Thomases as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. George Haberberger
    November 24, 2014 - 4:11 pm

    “Now kids can tell him to raise his trousers up.”
    Don’t know when you wrote that but Bill Maher said that same thing on Friday.

    But…. YOU’VE BEEN TO THE PLAYBOY MANSION!!!

  2. George Haberberger
    November 24, 2014 - 4:11 pm

    “Now kids can tell him to raise his trousers up.”
    Don’t know when you wrote that but Bill Maher said that same thing on Friday.

    But…. YOU’VE BEEN TO THE PLAYBOY MANSION!!!

  3. Mike Gold
    November 24, 2014 - 4:21 pm

    A couple times, George. The Playboy Foundation gave a lot of money to my runaway kids program. But, yeah, before that it was “underground cartoonists” day at the Mansion — if I recall correctly (it was something like 43 years ago, and the air was, ah, heavily tainted) Skip Williamson and Jay Lynch and I think Denis Kitchen and possibly Quiet Crumb and a few others who I’ll remember at 3:00 this morning joined Harvey Kurtzman, Russ Heath, I think Jack Davis, and ex-cartoonist Hugh Hefner and a hell lot of stuffed bikinis. I was in my very early 20s. A great night. The food was amazing. And, no, I didn’t slide down the fireman’s pole.

    I wrote the piece on Thursday, as I usually do, but I didn’t send it until it was proofed and edited and I often wait until Sunday to send it because shit happens. So I wrote it Thursday, saw the Maher program late Saturday, thought I had heard that joke before, saw on Sunday that I had heard that joke before but, since I did it first, I didn’t change it. A close call, though. Unless my editor ratted me out to Maher, it’s a coincidence. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  4. Rene
    November 25, 2014 - 10:43 am

    “Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” is a naive fiction. A beautiful fiction most times, but a naive fiction nonetheless.

    Courts of law don’t have magical powers. It isn’t like judges have Cosmic Cubes that make it so people retroactively commit or don’t commit crimes. Courts don’t even have the history-rewriting powers of a Ministry of Propaganda from 1984.

    If someone is not found guilty in a court of law it may mean a lot of things. Usually it’s simply that there was no evidence that convinced the jury that the person did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    No more, no less.

    Or maybe the jury was biased, prejudice or ignorant. Or maybe the accusation was incompetent. Or maybe the accused was too influential and powerful. Or the accusers were from a lower social echelon. Or maybe they just weren’t caught. Or… or… or…

    It doesn’t mean that the person accused or suspected didn’t do it. To think otherwise is to confuse the map with the territory, and insisting that you HAVE to drive your car off a cliff just because your map says there is supposed to be a bridge there.

    No, I am not advocating for mob justice. I don’t think O. J. Simpson should suffer vigilante justice. What I am saying is that, while Simpson is safe from prosecution for whatever he did, there is no law in the land that forces me to invite him to dinner if he moves to the house next to mine.

    There is no law that says that I have to let my young daughter alone with Roman Polanski, or my wife alone with Bill Cosby. There is no law that says I have to send a birthday present to the cop that shot that kid in Ferguson.

    It’s funny, because I have argued with some uber-liberals in the past that seem to think that yes, you SHOULD make all efforts to think that people not convicted in courts of law are innocent, and you should not to have any more fear of letting your kids in the care of Michael Jackson than with the next person.

    And what is more, people who argue for that, almost never consider the corollary to that line of thought. If everybody not convicted in a court of law is innocent, then everybody ever convicted in a court of law is guilty, right?

    I’d say that a lot of people that have been convicted in courts of law didn’t commit the crimes they were accused of. Particularly if you consider African-Americans in periods before 1970. (Or even now, one might say).

    (And no, I’m not paranoid enough to suspect all of my neighbours and co-workers are serial killers that were just too smart to get caught. I’m not paranoid at all. I’m just pragmatic.)

  5. Mike Gold
    November 25, 2014 - 11:05 am

    “Innocent until proven guilty” is a process issue, nothing more, nothing less. People have the right to assume or presume what they will, as long as they have an informed opinion. No, you have no right to just any opinion — you only have a right to an informed opinion. Do I have the right to proclaim “Dick Cheney rapes seven year old boys and then sells them for body parts”? Well, only if I can stand behind it with some evidence or plausible explanation.

    But you’ve got the right to think anything you want. Several nations have laws banning expressions of Holocaust denial. But those idiots who believe it will continue to believe it. You also have a right to associate with whomever you want and, by extension, to not associate with whomever you want.

    But from a legal perspective in this country (and many others), you are seen by the law as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For this very reason, there is no ruling of “innocence” in court: it is the burden of the complainant to prove his, her, or the state’s case. You do not have to prove you did NOT kill, say, Doctor George Tiller. If you are so accused, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is entirely upon your accuser. If I (mistakenly, I presume) do not want to associate with you because I, in my heart of hearts, believe you did indeed kill Dr. Tiller, that is entirely my choice, no matter how half-witted I may be. We have the right to be harmless jerks because that, in and of itself, does not deny others their liberty.

    Being found not guilty in criminal court does not protect you from being challenged in civil court, and since you raised the point about O.J. Simpson I should note that he lost in civil court and he owes pretty much everything he’s got to the relatives of his alleged victims. You don’t hear me complaining about that. But my personal choices, and your personal choices, are ours to make as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Or, in other words, from a legal process perspective what lurks in our heart of hearts doesn’t mean shit to a tree.

  6. Rene
    November 25, 2014 - 12:03 pm

    Yes. People are “innocent” from a legal perspective, and that is it.

    But people usually confuse innocent from a legal perspective with “you should scrub from your mind any thoughts that O. J. Simpson actually killed them because he was not convicted”.

    But I imagine how those people would deal with good old O.J. Maybe they think O. J. Simpson’s body kept appearing and disappearing as he killed them, since he was acquited in one court and lost in another.

  7. Mike Gold
    November 25, 2014 - 12:08 pm

    Not the same thing, Rene. Standards are totally different simply because a criminal court can take away a defendant’s liberty and, in some states, life. Civil courts have much, much lower standards. As I suspect Darren Wilson will find out before too long.

  8. Rene
    November 25, 2014 - 12:23 pm

    Okay, since standards are different and civil courts have lower standards, maybe they think 3/4 of O.J.’s body kept disappearing as he killed them. 🙂

    He was mostly not there, but enough of him was…

Comments are closed.