>Burden on proof is on them right?

Each plaintiff must prove each of their allegations by a preponderance of evidence. It's a lower standard than in a criminal case where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt.

>Proving a rape decades after the fact ain't gonna happen. All
>evidence is likely to be anecdotal right?

None of the plaintiffs have to prove any rape. The defendants who have been sued for defamation can use truth as a defense. If the defendants said they were raped and the plaintiff says that statement is defamation (basically a harmful lie) then if the defendants prove their statement is true then they win. But they can win in other ways too - they don't have to prove anything necesarily.

And yes - the defendant can prove their rapes with circumstantial evidence. They don't need direct evidence. Plus the standard is relatively low - more likely true than not. So if they choose truth as defense and prove it's more likely true than not that they told the truth then they win. Same with Bill - he is also a defendant accused of telling harmful lies. He said the accusers are lying. If he chooses to prove it's more likely true than not that the accusers are lying (or whatever he said) then he wins. But neither of them has to use truth as their defense.

>So we can suppose a jury decision in a civil trial,

Maybe but maybe not.

which will
>look terrible for Cosby but he may actually find at least one
>or two women who provably exaggerated or even lied, casting
>doubt on the rest.

Maybe.

>
>Any chance a judge could refuse to hear this case? Seems to me
>there's almost no hope of a resolution.

Any of this could be tossed early of the plaintiffs can't find enough proof for their allegations during the pre-trial/discovery phase. Or if their complaints are technically improper for any of several reasons. Or if the cases settle.

fuck you.