return to updates

The Bill Cosby Story

is All Fiction

Miles Mathis

First published November 28, 2019

As usual, this is just my opinion.

I won't call anyone a liar here, I will simply say I no longer believe any part of this story, from either
side. They can tell us these stories, but we don't have to believe them. Always remember that. No one
can ever accuse you of defamation for saying “I don't believe you”. You are forever and completely
free to disbelieve.

As usual, I don't believe the stories because they don't make any sense. The accusations aren't
consistent, sensible, or believable; the trials weren't consistent, sensible, or believable; and the after-
trial reports haven't been believable, either. While reading this stuff or listening to it on the news, we
have the same feeling we have had again and again, when in the midst of Langley-written theater
productions. I have shown you dozens of prominent and fake trials camped in the middle of prominent
and fake events, and this is how this one reads again. It has all the tell-tale signs.

As just the first example, we always see Cosby smiling while coming out of trial or going to jail. Like
the Sandy Hook actors, he can't keep a straight face. Why would he be smiling? He allegedly has been
dragged into court over and over across two decades for these ridiculous charges. So what's to smile
about?
As another example, look at his prime accuser, the person he allegedly assaulted 15 years ago:

We know she is an ex-basketball player, which explains why she is so tall. But why is her neck so
large? Something looks very wrong there to me. Her windpipe also looks very large and manly, and
we find ourselves checking for an Adam's apple, don't we? We see in video that she also walks like a
man. She almost looks like she is transitioning, though we can't say for sure in which direction. The
way she dresses is also a dead-giveaway, in my opinion, with the Annie Hall or Camille Paglia sports-
coat look. So we have a lot of obvious signs screaming “lesbian”. Which means we should ask
ourselves why Cosby would be “assaulting” this Amazon lesbian. She is taller and more muscular than
he ever was, and could very likely kick his old ass in a heartbeat. So she doesn't seem like the sort of
person any sane man would pick for a date-rape. I would be afraid she would come to my door once
the pills wore off and beat me senseless. Put simply: this isn't the kind of woman that men prey on.
Even if they are bad guys, flabby old men like Cosby don't target giant lesbian athletes. I shouldn't
have to be here telling anyone this. Which means this was part of the test: you are always being tested
with these fake stories, to see what you will believe. They want to see if your eyes are open, so they
give you these obvious clues. Are the drugs working, or are you still awake?

We saw a similar thing with the Harvey Weinstein stories: he has been accused of molesting many
women, but it is doubtful he likes women to start with. Which is why the story is such a hoot for
insiders. Those who fake these stories have to keep themselves amused.

For another clue, we look to 22-year-old lead juror Harrison Snyder, who was interviewed by ABC
after the 2018 trial and conviction. He says he voted for conviction due to Cosby's own “deposition”,
in which Cosby allegedly admitted he gave many young women quaaludes in order to have sex with
them. What? Do you think that someone who pled not guilty would state in testimony that he was
guilty? How stupid are we supposed to think Cosby is? Remember, Cosby doesn't have to say
anything in court. He has the right to remain silent. This was a criminal trial, not a civil trial, so Cosby
could always plead the 5th. So I don't understand why he was on the stand in the first place. It was up
to the prosecution to prove a case, and the defense should have had it easy here, since Constand had
already been caught changing her story over and over. This was the second trial on the same charges,
and in the first one Constand had been made a fool of by defense. That's why the jury failed to convict.
ABC even admits that in this after-trial interview with Snyder. They address Constand's multiple
stories by telling us they were explained away by a psychologist, who told the jury this is normal for
women who have been raped. So we are supposed to believe those who have been raped can't
remember when it happened, on what day or what time, or any of the details? That's convenient, isn't
it? Because that means if a woman gets caught in multiple story inconsistencies, she can always call in
a psychologist to tell the jury it is normal. You can't expect any consistency from women, apparently,
which means you can never catch them in a lie.

But I encourage you to watch Snyder closely in this interview. He also comes across as a very weird
person. He never blinks, for one thing. He impresses one as a complete moron, since he admits he
doesn't know anything about anything. He never watches the news, didn't know anything about Cosby,
didn't know what #MeToo was, etc. And yet this is the sort of person we want making life decisions
about those indicted? A 22-year-old blob who appears stoned and knows nothing is chosen as lead
juror for this trial? The interviewer asks if he believed Constand. Yes. Did he believe the other
ladies? Yes. Well, that rules him out as a rational person from the start. I have read their testimony
and I wouldn't trust any of them to tell me the correct time.

As just one example, we are told Cosby took Constand back to his own home, where he gave her a pill
for her anxiety, telling her it was Benadryl. What? Since when is Benadryl an anti-anxiety
medication? Its an antihistamine, and everyone knows that, even a 31-year-old basketball coach. All it
will do besides clear her nose is make her sleepy and possibly dizzy—not what you want on a date.
Plus, when was the last time you went over to a new friend's house and started popping unknown pills
he gave you? Anyone who does that is just asking for trouble and will get no sympathy from me. So
we have the writers at Langley stirring your mind here with absurdities. They know if they stack
enough of these idiotic claims on top of eachother, you will stop asking questions.

Notice that they admit Cosby didn't secretly slip her a roofie in a drink or something. She willingly
took a pill that he gave her, and she admits that. So she's alone with this old guy who is not a doctor
and is taking pills he is giving her. I just wanted to be sure you were clear on that.

Another thing I noticed in that video is that when Cosby is walking out of court (min. 1:52), his
attorney has to take his hand and guide him, as if he can't think for himself. Since Cosby is now past
80, we have to ask if he even knows what is going on. He may have Alzheimer's and may think he is
just making a movie—which he pretty much is. I encourage you to listen closely to Cosby's alleged
interview from prison. The excerpts they allow us to hear are all gibberish. He sounds like a guy who
doesn't know where he is or what he is saying. They have to cut him off and give us most of it in
printed quotes. Nonetheless I beg you to notice the part where he tells you “the jury were imposters”.
Yes, they were. But so was everyone else.

Another thing that makes no sense is those five other women brought in to testify against Cosby. I
send you back to my analysis of the USGymnastics trials, where a similar thing happened. This isn't
how real trials work. Witnesses for the prosecution should be limited to people who can testify about
the charges that are up for trial, not to air new charges. In other words, if someone witnessed Constand
woozy the morning after, or took her to the hospital, or witnessed injuries, then that person might be
called as a witness for the prosecution. But these other women should have separate cases, which must
be tried separately. Since their accusations have not been proven or otherwise decided by a court or
judge, their testimony is just hearsay, and should not be allowed. This is because there is no way for
the jurors to judge their testimony. Why should Snyder or anyone else believe them? To judge their
stories, those stories should be aired under cross examination, with someone taking the other side.
Only then can the jurors judge the worthiness of their stories. But in a case like this, that wouldn't be
possible, since Cosby's defense would then have to investigate all five women. The defense attorneys
should not have to do that, since they have enough to do in defending Cosby on the charges actually on
record. Since Cosby was not being charged for the crimes alleged by the other women, their testimony
should not have been heard here.

Knowing that, you should take it back to Snyder saying he believed the women. That question and
answer session should make you very suspicious, since it should look planted to you. You should ask
yourself on what basis Snyder believed them. What was his reason for believing them? They seemed
trustworthy? That isn't a legal basis for believing someone. It isn't a rational reason. You should
believe them only because they have been fiercely cross examined, and have survived that cross
examination with flying colors. That didn't happen here, which is evidence the entire trial was a fraud.

Another clue in that direction is that the trial judge Steven O'Neill failed to file a post-trial opinion for
at least a year. At that USAToday link, you can see that Cosby's attorneys are saying they can't appeal
until that is filed. So they are filing bail motions instead. More BS, since if O'Neill really failed to file
an opinion, that wouldn't delay an appeal, it would be cause for appeal. Does it make any sense to you
that a judge could stall an appeal just by refusing to file his opinion? Of course not. Judges have to file
their opinions in a timely manner. If they don't, they would not only open themselves to appeal, they
would open themselves to being fired or impeached.

A final problem is the “aggravated indecent assault” charges. If you weren't following me until now,
this should seal it for you. You should have asked yourself why, if what we are told is true, Cosby
wasn't tried for rape. Why “aggravated indecent assault”? When I first saw those charges, I thought,
hmmm, was Cosby accused of causing her severe bodily injury? I thought he was just accused of
drugging her and having his way. But the word “aggravated” in conjunction with “assault” normally
means “causing severe bodily harm”. It is used for when a rapist not only rapes, but also beats up his
victim. Also, Cosby was convicted of three counts of this, but was only given 3-10 years of a possible
30-year-sentence. If the assault were really aggravated, and he was really convicted, he should have
gotten more than 3 years (as you know, it is the lower end of these sentences that normally gets served,
due to “jail overcrowding” or other excuses). Anyway, this wasn't adding up, so I looked up the term.
As it turns out, it is a statutory charge that is unique to Pennsylvania. And indeed, that is where
Cosby's trial was. Take that link and you will see that the term only applies to a child under the age of
16. Since Constand is now 46 and the event happened in 2004, we do the simple math. She was 31.
Therefore, it is legally impossible that Cosby was charged with “aggravated indecent assault” in
Pennsylvania in 2018. The trial was another fake.

This leaves us with two possibilities, as I see it: either Cosby is in on this con, or he is an addled old
man being used by the directors. But in the second case, his family would have to be in on the con,
which adds up to the same thing. Either way, it looks to me like another great lake of nastiness,
dreamed up by the usual suspects to drive ahead their agendas. The agenda here is the same one I have
covered many times: the men-are-pigs, split-the-sexes project. Single people spend far more money
than happy couples, so the merchants don't want happy couples anymore. They want you home alone
and miserable, cramming your face full of pills, and binge-buying from Amazon, Ebay, and every other
online outlet down to Pornhub. They have many ways of achieving this, but the spearhead is aimed at
women. They want women to think men are all ogres, monsters, psychopaths, and potential or actual
rapists and child molesters. If they can break the link from the female side, it is broken no matter what
men think of the matter.

And that is where we are. And why we are there.

But if this is all theater, why fail to convict him at first, then convict him later in a second trial? To
draw it out as long as possible. They need this to remain in the headlines for many years, so they
can't fake it too fast. This isn't their first rodeo, you know. They have been pulling these stunts for
centuries. See my paper on the Salem Witch trials, or—if you like—the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.
They drew the Lindbergh case out as long as they could, because it was meant to cover up more
important real news that should have been in the papers. Same for the O. J. Simpson trials. These
newer trials are part of men-are-pigs, but they are also a diversion. They keep you occupied with these
sexy fake events, so that you never notice or question real events going on in the world all around you.
Your eyes are on fake Trump impeachments or fake celebrity show trials or fake Epstein deaths or fake
Pizzagate scandals or fake rocket launches or fake foreign wars, so your eyes are off the worldwide
treasuries being looted year-to-year and month-to-month and day-to-day, ever more brazenly. They
want you to forget you are being robbed in broad daylight, and that no one is being prosecuted.
Somehow that never makes the news. Or, it flashes by occasionally, when you are told of a LIBOR
scandal or something, but mysteriously it fades from sight, drowned out by the media circus, and you
forget to ask for an update. So, trillions were looted from worldwide treasuries. . . what then? Oh
that's right, nothing. Nothing happened, except your Congressperson voting to raise the debt ceiling so
that more could be stolen.