USA TODAY International Edition
Why’d it take a decade for Cosby’s words to surface?
Bill Cosby finally tripped on his own words. Now, the public can judge what actually happened between the comedian and more than two dozen women who’ve accused him of sexually assaulting them, often after they had been drugged.
It never should have taken this long. But he was aided by a dangerous trend: the ease with which courts, which are public forums, grant secrecy. In a sworn deposition in 2005, Cosby admitted that he had obtained Quaaludes with the idea of giving them to women he wanted to have sex with, and that he gave what was known as “the party drug” to one young woman and “other people.”
The admissions put a whole new spin on allegations of sexual assault, which date from the 1960s to as recently as 2008. They exploded last year into an ugly he- said, they- said controversy in which Cosby played the wounded victim of innuendo. That pose, already wearing thin, was shattered this month when a federal judge lifted the seal from a document that Cosby and his lawyers had fought to keep secret.
If not for court- sanctioned secrecy, his accusers might have been spared the agony of being branded as liars and worse. And other women would have been on notice to keep their distance.
But secrecy, often at the behest of powerful defendants, has helped hide everything from priests who molested children to defective GM cars that killed more than 100 people. In this case, the court helped protect a celebrity who, if allegations are true, acted like a serial predator.
Cosby’s ability to fend off a stream of accusers was no doubt helped along by his mega celebrity, his fatherly persona as TV’s Dr. Cliff Huxtable and the skepticism that greets allegations of rape when the accuser and the accused are acquainted.
His damning admissions came in a civil suit filed in 2005 by An- drea Constand after authorities declined to prosecute Cosby based on her accusation that he drugged and molested her at his suburban Philadelphia home.
U. S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno agreed to seal documents temporarily and later rejected the Associated Press’ move in 2005 to lift the seal. When the case was settled — with a confidential agreement that’s still in place — no one contested the order and the documents remained buried. This summer, the AP returned to court to try again.
In his ruling unsealing the documents, Robreno wrote that Cosby had narrowed his claim to privacy by publicly denying similar allegations and thrusting himself into public debate on everything from child rearing to education to crime. A better reason to open the file is that Cosby, as the judge noted, was “the subject of serious allegations concerning improper ( and perhaps criminal) conduct.” Which is why his testimony should never have been sealed.
With extraordinary chutzpah, Cosby’s lawyers argued this summer that release of this material “would be terribly embarrassing.” You bet. But that’s no reason to keep testimony under wraps. Courts ought to protect the public from potentially dangerous people or products, not allow the wealthy to buy secrecy.