Just because Bill Cosby admitted he gave Quaaludes to a woman he was in a consensual sexual relationship with in the 1970s does not mean he gave other women the drugs “without their knowledge or consent” or “engaged in any non-consensual sex,” his attorneys say in a new court filing.
“Quaaludes were a highly popular recreational drug in the 1970s, labeled in slang as “disco biscuits” and known for their capacity to increase sexual arousal,” wrote Patrick O’Connor, one of Cosby’s attorneys, in the motion filed Tuesday.
“There are countless tales of celebrities, music stars, and wealthy socialites in the 1970s willingly using Quaaludes for recreational purposes and during consensual sex,” he wrote.
“Yet upon the unsealing of those excerpts, the media immediately pounced, inaccurately labeling the released testimony as defendant’s “confession” of “drugging” women and assaulting them,” he wrote.
“Reading the media accounts, one would conclude the defendant has admitted to rape,” he wrote. “And yet defendant admitted to nothing more than being one of the many people who introduced Quaaludes into their consensual sex life in the 1970s.”
O’Connor’s motion was in response to excerpts from the deposition that were unsealed July 6 at the request of the Associated Press and one filed July 8 by attorney Dolores Troiani, who represents former Temple employee Andrea Constand, with whom Cosby settled a lawsuit in 2006.
There was a confidentiality agreement with that settlement but Troiani asked the judge to release Cosby’s deposition transcripts and Constand and Troiania from those confidentiality provisions which “defendant has chosen to ignore,” she wrote.
“But for Cosby’s repeated violations of the confidentiality agreement and attempt to sway public opinion in his favor this motion would not have been necessary,” she wrote.
“The release of these documents will assist other women who have been victimized and bring awareness to the fact that sexual assault is not just committed with a gun or knife but is also committed by mentors who engage in exploitative behaviors,” she wrote.
O’Connor argues against unsealing the deposition, which was obtained by The New York Times via the court reporting service the attorneys used, and/or allowing it to be distributed to more members of the media.
“The timing of plaintiff’s July 8, 2015 motion reflects an attempt on her part to ride on the coattails of the barrage of inaccurate and negative media attention that followed this court’s July 6, 2015 release of excerpts from the defendant’s deposition,” O’Connor wrote.
“Plaintiff should be denied further relief and instead should be sanctioned,” he wrote. “The court should preserve what little benefit to defendant remains from the settlement agreement.”