NBC employee claims Bill Cosby paid off women, invited young models to dressing room.

[dwalk31]

I don't know about any situation where the court of public opinion getting it wrong led to murderers and rapists going free.

So I would say its stupid to compare the two. The Justice system failing us matters much more than the court of public opinion getting it wrong.

Especially in a situation where a person has been accused by 60 different ppl of the same thing. That type thing just doesn't happen frequently to innocent ppl.

But if you can correct me with some examples feel free to.

Maybe the court of public opinion hasn’t resulted in murderers and rapists going free. But it has certainly historically resulted in people that are falsely accused being harmed and/or killed.

 

[1995]

This cuts both ways, right. A racist can use this type of half-baked logic to justify not needing to resort to courts of law which results in situations like Emmit Till. Instead, they can indict, convict, and penalize based on the court of public opinion.

This court of public opinion is based on substantially less fact, evidence, and ability to cross examine.

 

[dwalk31]

This is a prime example of why the court of public opinion is bad.

 

[Comparison Ford]

This cuts both ways, right. A racist can use this type of half-baked logic to justify not needing to resort to courts of law which results in situations like Emmit Till. Instead, they can indict, convict, and penalize based on the court of public opinion.

This court of public opinion is based on substantially less fact, evidence, and ability to cross examine.

But who ever said that we don't need to resort to courts of law? If anything, people are upset that this wasn't tried in a criminal court from the get-go and when it was it resulted in a conviction.

Now he walks free because of a technicality resulting from a ******** sweetheart deal.

 

[dwalk31]

But who ever said that we don't need to resort to courts of law? If anything, people are upset that this wasn't tried in a criminal court from the get-go and when it was it resulted in a conviction.

Now he walks free because of a technicality resulting from a bull**** sweetheart deal.

This is not an accurate characterization.

The prosecutor didn’t have enough evidence to prove his case. He made a deal in hopes of pinning Cosby with civil liability. He then reneged on the deal and used deposition testimony, that was open to interpretation, to convict.

Cosby maintained his innocence the entire time.

Due process isn’t a technicality. Hopefully you’re never in a position to realize that.

 

[1995]

This is a prime example of why the court of public opinion is bad.

 

[Comparison Ford]

This is not an accurate characterization.

The prosecutor didn’t have enough evidence to prove his case. He made a deal in hopes of pinning Cosby with civil liability. He then reneged on the deal and used deposition testimony, that was open to interpretation, to convict.

Cosby maintained his innocence the entire time.

Due process isn’t a technicality. Hopefully you’re never in a position to realize that.

Luckily I don't have any women accusing me of drugging and raping them, let alone 60 of them.

I'm sure they're all just lying.

 

[dwalk31]

Luckily I don't have any women accusing me of drugging and raping them, let alone 60 of them.

I'm sure they're all just lying.

I truly hope that luck continues.

In the unfortunate event that it does not, you will be innocent unless and/or until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[blastercombo]

This is a prime example of why the court of public opinion is bad.

Yet you support trump who did what again…..? Remind us…..

 

[gry60]

This cuts both ways, right. A racist can use this type of half-baked logic to justify not needing to resort to courts of law which results in situations like Emmit Till. Instead, they can indict, convict, and penalize based on the court of public opinion.

This court of public opinion is based on substantially less fact, evidence, and ability to cross examine.

As if the court of law doesn't hide the subjectivity in choosing which evidence to admit or reject during a trial, the subjectivity in deciding whether to try or not to try law enforcement, or the subjectivity in deciding who will be jurors behind procedure! Cosby walked because his deposition - his admission of guilt - couldn't be used in a criminal trial because of the conditions under which it was obtained.

This is one of those cases where the legal system has shown its imperfection in obtaining justice, if justice is defined as correcting wrongs and making plaintiffs whole.

Where Cosby should be isn't a matter best discussed using legal tools; it's a matter of ethics. To my knowledge, Bill Cosby never alluded that his deposition was obtained under coercion, so I have no reason to believe that what he said isn't true. Based on that, the ethical thing is for him to pay for it in the way society deems acceptable (jail). Thanks to the legal system, he will not endure the consequences of his actions.

Is this justice?

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Not familiar with MLH discussing this but I definitely recommend reading Manning Marable’s book on Malcolm X.

I heard about that book and it still wasn't any proof. Malcolm's daughter said that book was all speculations.

 

[marikomorose]

Cosby is free, and I genuinely want to know what your end goal is in pertaining to the points being argued in here?

 

[gry60]

deposition testimony, that was open to interpretation,

I give incapacitating pills to women to help them with "stress", then I slide my hands where I shouldn't and if they don't say anything, I keep going until they wake up with my tee on.

....

 

[dwalk31]

I give incapacitating pills to women to help them with "stress", then I slide my hands where I shouldn't and if they don't say anything, I keep going until they wake up with my tee on.

....

That was the testimony?

 

[dacomeup]

I heard about that book and it still wasn't any proof. Malcolm's daughter said that book was all speculations.

Not even trying to derail the thread but are you surprised that his daughter is disparaging a book that offers criticism of him, and previous accounts of his story. Marable is a legendary historian and African American studies figure.

 

[Maximus Meridius]

Not even trying to derail the thread but are you surprised that his daughter is disparaging a book that offers criticism of him, and previous accounts of his story. Marable is a legendary historian and African American studies figure.

It's so many people that knew Malcolm that have been in his documentaries and that has never came up. Even the people that have been critical of him, never came up. You gotta have some type of proof to make a claim like that.

 

[dacomeup]

It's so many people that knew Malcolm that have been in his documentaries and that has never came up. Even the people that have been critical of him, never came up. You gotta have some type of proof to make a claim like that.

A book like that doesn’t get written by someone like Marable without talking to tons of people though. And the stuff he wrote about the relationship he had with a man is such a minor part of the book . The Autobiography is literally my favorite book and it’s not surprising to me that it isn’t 100 percent accurate. People always paint themselves in a better light when writing those.

 

[Master Zik]

Maybe the court of public opinion hasn’t resulted in murderers and rapists going free. But it has certainly historically resulted in people that are falsely accused being harmed and/or killed.

Given that it has no structure or system and isn't an institution the court of law matters more.

That falsely accused ppl get hurt or killed is wrong but pales in comparison to the justice system failing the ppl.

And quite frankly, I feel like if the court of public opinion led to someone being hurt or killed its only cuz the justice system failed society.

 

[Methodical Management]

I guess the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" thing is optional for some folks.

Such an eye opening thread - in real time.

"There is a higher law than the law of government. That's the law of conscience." - Kwame Ture

I'm no admirer of the carceral state, and would vastly prefer a system of restorative justice rather than one bent on retribution, but it is nonetheless repugnant to watch people celebrate the release of a credibly accused serial rapist on a technicality.
It is especially vulgar to see this cast by Cosby spokesperson Andrew Wyatt as "justice for Black America" when scores of Black women were ignored, abused, scorned and, ultimately, denied justice. Even now, Cosby supporters are swapping disgusting memes denigrating their appearance or behavior. That's a lot of things, but it is not "pro-Black."

Let's not forget how Cosby gallivanted around the country on his "blame tour," denying the persistence of systemic racism, telling people to pull themselves up by their belt-straps, and justifying police lynchings:

Does that statement appear supportive of "due process" to you?

This is a prime example of why the court of public opinion is bad.

It's a prime example of your pitiful hypocrisy.

Even after their exoneration, Trump continued to insist upon the guilt of the Central Park Five - and you continued to "support" Trump in another election.

Trump is the oozing embodiment of everything you claim to stand against in terms of due process, yet you wield "due process" in his defense, not to protect the rights of the vulnerable, but to selectively blunt public criticism of powerful men like Trump who, ironically, support mass incarceration.

This is not an accurate characterization.

The prosecutor didn’t have enough evidence to prove his case. He made a deal in hopes of pinning Cosby with civil liability. He then reneged on the deal and used deposition testimony, that was open to interpretation, to convict.

Cosby maintained his innocence the entire time.

Due process isn’t a technicality. Hopefully you’re never in a position to realize that.

First of all, that's just factually wrong. The DA who made the deal, Bruce Castor, was not the person who chose to pursue prosecution. His successor, Kevin Steele, was. You insist on semantic accuracy when it serves your purpose, but whiff on basic facts.

More importantly: you don't get to have this both ways. You are simultaneously attempting to claim that the tainted deposition contained no incriminating statements, yet a conviction would be impossible without them.


Cosby was not released because of exculpatory evidence, but due to a prior immunity agreement that looks and smells like Epstein's sweetheart deal, which is to say: corrupt. We won't agree on this point, as you unsurprisingly insist on taking Castor's rationale at full face value, even though prosecutors managed to prevail against Harvey Weinstein in similar circumstances. The tragedy here is that not that evidentiary rules were ultimately prioritized (a retrial would've been a more appropriate remedy, in my opinion), or that Cosby was not made to suffer by any means necessary, but that there was no justice to be found here - especially for the survivors.

As James Baldwin so poignantly wrote, “if one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected - those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! - and listens to their testimony.”

At least sixty women, many of them Black, were repeatedly denied justice because, for decades, their lived experiences were dismissed, their intentions were doubted, their characters were slandered. They were denied justice because their alleged abuser was rich and powerful, and given the rare opportunity to cut a backroom immunity deal with a corrupt DA.

That is nothing to celebrate.


You say that Cosby's "non-confession" was elicited under false pretenses. What if, instead of "baiting" him with a sweetheart immunity agreement, they'd just slipped him drugs?
Had that happened, how receptive would you be to the argument that "if he didn't want to confess, what was he doing at a meeting with the DA and his legal counsel?"

What Cosby did admit to is a standard of "consent" that is part and parcel of rape culture. His freedom is not proof that the "system works."
If the only way to hold him even temporarily accountable was to violate his rights, that is proof that the system failed.

 

[dwalk31]

"There is a higher law than the law of government. That's the law of conscience." - Kwame Ture

I'm no admirer of the carceral state, and would vastly prefer a system of restorative justice rather than one bent on retribution, but it is nonetheless repugnant to watch people celebrate the release of a credibly accused serial rapist on a technicality.
It is especially vulgar to see this cast by Cosby spokesperson Andrew Wyatt as "justice for Black America" when scores of Black women were ignored, abused, scorned and, ultimately, denied justice. Even now, Cosby supporters are swapping disgusting memes denigrating their appearance or behavior. That's a lot of things, but it is not "pro-Black."

Let's not forget how Cosby gallivanted around the country on his "blame tour," denying the persistence of systemic racism, telling people to pull themselves up by their belt-straps, and justifying police lynchings:

Does that statement appear supportive of "due process" to you?



It's a prime example of your pitiful hypocrisy.

Even after their exoneration, Trump continued to insist upon the guilt of the Central Park Five - and you continued to "support" Trump in another election.

Trump is the oozing embodiment of everything you claim to stand against in terms of due process, yet you wield "due process" in his defense, not to protect the rights of the vulnerable, but to selectively blunt public criticism of powerful men like Trump who, ironically, support mass incarceration.



First of all, that's just factually wrong. The DA who made the deal, Bruce Castor, was not the person who chose to pursue prosecution. His successor, Kevin Steele, was. You insist on semantic accuracy when it serves your purpose, but whiff on basic facts.

More importantly: you don't get to have this both ways. You are simultaneously attempting to claim that the tainted deposition contained no incriminating statements, yet a conviction would be impossible without them.


Cosby was not released because of exculpatory evidence, but due to a prior immunity agreement that looks and smells like Epstein's sweetheart deal, which is to say: corrupt. We won't agree on this point, as you unsurprisingly insist on taking Castor's rationale at full face value, even though prosecutors managed to prevail against Harvey Weinstein in similar circumstances. The tragedy here is that not that evidentiary rules were ultimately prioritized (a retrial would've been a more appropriate remedy, in my opinion), or that Cosby was not made to suffer by any means necessary, but that there was no justice to be found here - especially for the survivors.

As James Baldwin so poignantly wrote, “if one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected - those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! - and listens to their testimony.”

At least sixty women, many of them Black, were repeatedly denied justice because, for decades, their lived experiences were dismissed, their intentions were doubted, their characters were slandered. They were denied justice because their alleged abuser was rich and powerful, and given the rare opportunity to cut a backroom immunity deal with a corrupt DA.

That is nothing to celebrate.


You say that Cosby's "non-confession" was elicited under false pretenses. What if, instead of "baiting" him with a sweetheart immunity agreement, they'd just slipped him drugs?
Had that happened, how receptive would you be to the argument that "if he didn't want to confess, what was he doing at a meeting with the DA and his legal counsel?"

What Cosby did admit to is a standard of "consent" that is part and parcel of rape culture. His freedom is not proof that the "system works."
If the only way to hold him even temporarily accountable was to violate his rights, that is proof that the system failed.

I disagree with you on the facts of the Cosby case. Period.

As it relates to Trump, you’re absolutely right. His insistence that the Central Park Five were still guilty AFTER the overturned conviction is a prime example of what’s going on now, in here, with the Cosby case.

The Central Park 5 confessed. And they were convicted by a jury. Cosby did not confess, but was also convicted by a jury. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, a confession is not the end all as it relates to guilt. People confess for a number of reasons—improper police tactics in the case of the Central Park 5.

The Cosby case is different, but it reeks of the same prosecutorial misconduct. 1. Make a deal. 2. Use testimony from a civil deposition after you can remove 5th Amendment protections and then argue the meaning of the testimony in criminal court.

If you want to be a champion for the court of public opinion, fine. Do you.

But, as you say, it couldn’t be me.

 

[boris]

I disagree with you on the facts of the Cosby case. Period.

As it relates to Trump, you’re absolutely right. His insistence that the Central Park Five were still guilty AFTER the overturned conviction is a prime example of what’s going on now, in here, with the Cosby case.

The Central Park 5 confessed. And they were convicted by a jury. Cosby did not confess, but was also convicted by a jury. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, a confession is not the end all as it relates to guilt. People confess for a number of reasons—improper police tactics in the case of the Central Park 5.

The Cosby case is different, but it reeks of the same prosecutorial misconduct. 1. Make a deal. 2. Use testimony from a civil deposition after you can remove 5th Amendment protections and then argue the meaning of the testimony in criminal court.

If you want to be a champion for the court of public opinion, fine. Do you.

But, as you say, it couldn’t be me.

People in here paid for newspaper advertisements to express their opinions to the public?

 

[blastercombo]

LOL again, disingenuous argument is disingenuous. “Trump can do better with his articles about killing black kids” right? Stop.

 

[Grine]

Bill Cosby Is Planning a New Comedy Tour According to His Rep

A rep for Bill Cosby says various promoters and comedy club owners have been calling nonstop since the disgraced comedian's release from prison.

movieweb.com

 

[1995]

I can't wait to see what the hecklers come up with

 

[Methodical Management]

I disagree with you on the facts of the Cosby case. Period.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You've falsely stated that the DA who created the agreement (Bruce Castor) reneged on that same agreement, as though this was the office's intent from the beginning. So much for presumed innocence.

As it relates to Trump, you’re absolutely right. His insistence that the Central Park Five were still guilty AFTER the overturned conviction is a prime example of what’s going on now, in here, with the Cosby case.

The Central Park 5 confessed. And they were convicted by a jury. Cosby did not confess, but was also convicted by a jury. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, a confession is not the end all as it relates to guilt. People confess for a number of reasons—improper police tactics in the case of the Central Park 5.

So the loudest person to call for Cosby's death can count on your servile obeisance?

By your logic, you have no right to express an opinion about the improper use of evidence in Cosby's case or any other. That's for courts to adjudicate. It was right until it was wrong. Unless you are a presiding judge or juror, you have no right to form or express an opinion of your own.

If you want to be a champion for the court of public opinion, fine. Do you.

It's ironic that you see this as a battle between mob rule and deference to America's courts, when the criminal justice system has historically proven itself as accomplice and executor of mob rule.

Cosby, like any defendant, deserved a fair trial, yet corruption precluded that possibility and denied justice to him and at least sixty women. That he imposed himself on drugged women is no longer an object of speculation. If you believe it is possible to provide consent while under the influence of powerful barbiturates, you are no ally of "due process." Drug-induced confessions are not the subject of fiction.

You claim you care about due process, but you clearly didn't care about due process for the Central Park Five. Where were you when Mike Brown was shot dead in the street, his body left uncovered for hours? Did you have anything to say about his due process rights? Or his killer's?

No, you invoke due process when it suits you - not to advance justice, but to stifle public criticism.

It is an empty appeal to authority, a plea to avoid discussing a case on its merits, a demand that we cede any and all evaluation to the courts - as if that's a place where the oppressed and marginalized routinely find justice in American society.


I haven't seen anyone here promote the idea of taking the law into their own hands - only forming their own opinions and advocating for systemic reforms that would produce more just and equitable outcomes. Yet, for some reason, this to you is a bridge too far.

You don't have to choose between mob rule and oligarchy. You can choose to be on the side of justice.