… Pennsylvania in 2005, said he got seven quaalude prescriptions in the 1970s. The lawyer for the accuser asked if he had kept the sedatives through the 1990s — after they were banned — but was frustrated by objections from Cosby’s lawyer.
“When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” lawyer Dolores M. Troiani asked.
“Yes,” Cosby answered on Sept. 29, 2005.
“Did you ever give any of these young women the quaaludes without their knowledge?”
Cosby’s lawyer again objected, leading Troiani to petition the federal judge to force Cosby to cooperate.
Cosby later said he gave the accuser three half-pills of Benadryl, although Troiani in the documents voices doubt that was the drug involved. The two other women who testified on the accuser’s behalf said they had knowingly been given quaaludes.
Three of the women accusing Cosby of sexually assaulting them have a defamation lawsuit pending against him in Massachusetts. They allege that he defamed them when his agents said their accusations were untrue.
“It would be terribly embarrassing for this material to come out,” lawyer George M. Gowen III argued in June. He said the public should not have access to what Cosby was forced to say as he answered questions under oath from the accuser’s lawyer nearly a decade ago.
So what does all this mean?
In the court of public opinion, many issues are now being raised, but do we know the whole truth. These documents were settled in a case where Cosby had to pay some money to the accused. Because a person pays one time does that mean he guilty of all?
And if he is truly guilty, does the court of public opinion allow time for a person to change? Can a convicted person change?
With this new information, more questions are raised instead of answered.