>but i believe political and social climate matters as well.
>one DA was hesitant to go at Cos when he we still an iconic
>black father figure. after niggas cut him loose for talking
>shit, he became vulnerable and 10 years later another DA picks
>up the same evidence and gets a conviction because no one gave
>a fuck...no DA was scared about blowback...no jury gave a
>fuck...no risk of riots. nothing. i mean, a JOKE laid the
>groundwork for that. hannibal basically jumped in and said the
>water's fine and it was game over.

this is fair, only because of how the narrative changed.

however I disagree with the reasoning that Cosby was given preferential treatment initially because of his celebrity. the criminal charges were dropped because of insufficient evidence, reportedly. in a post below I note that because of the nature of many sexual crimes, physical "proof" is very hard to obtain after the fact, and for a third party to analyze the claim it becomes a game of which story has the most evidence and corroboration. there is plausible deniability.

however, a civil case did proceed, with as many as 15 Jane Does ready to testify. Cosby gave testimony that later was the rope for his criminal undoing, but he settled, forcing all the testimony, including his own into a seal for years.

as you said, it was the changing winds that eventually broke things open. after many women told very similar stories to Constand (the 2005 accuser), the AP requested the documents to be unsealed. a judge granted it on the ground of Cosby being a "public moralist".

then the rejection of criminal charges became a political issue. incoming DA basically won election on the fact that the DA declined to charge him.


>that was not the case with MJ in 1993 or 2005. seems like it
>still isn't. the only reason this shit even got made is
>because of the changing social climate. niggas would have been
>protesting outside HBO offices in the 90s. NOW??? all black
>"leaders" know better than to say a damned word. not one word
>protecting mike.

this account is at odds with what happened. the actual reporting on MJ's cases in both situations was heavily in favor of the prosecution. in 2005, much of the cross examination of key prosecution witnesses was downplayed. but anytime something that can prop up the "circus" narrative popped up, like MJ running into the court in pajamas? that got headlines.

nothing stopped MJ from being charged criminally in 1993 or 2005. DA Tom Sneddon's whole notability in the first place is because of these cases. he didn't GAF if he put MJ in jail. that was his job and his goal.

I'm not convinced completely that this got made specifically or rather... solely because of the changing social climate. however, it does help. the film didn't disclose prior civil case attempts at all, yet the makers and the subjects say "it isn't about money". there is also a distinct lack of investigation in the film. no attempts to corroborate stories, weave it within prior allegations, establish any pattern of behavior that the accused may have done.

where the current social climate comes in is: few will be willing to challenge in public, even less than in 1993 and 2005, the veracity of these claims. the narrative is "believe victims regardless" rather than "take them seriously and investigate".

this is exactly what the director and the subjects are banking on. that they will be believed wholesale, unchecked, out of context with their prior history, specifically as it relates to these allegations. they are specifically seizing on tenets of real issues with child sex abuse, the ways in which society has dealt with the topic poorly, so on and so forth.

finally, regarding black leaders: the SCLC sent a strongly-worded letter to HBO in advance of the broadcast of the film.

most of the "we believe it" Black voices are aligned with Oprah and the "LIBRUL MEDIA", with little to no deviation from the opinions espoused in similar voice.