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

[Present]

That’s the thing I truly didn’t understand, those high power lawyers didn’t think to get this deal in writing being the nature of his case. But you’re correct, @dwalk31, it’s not needed.

On another note, what I found interesting that some of those women kept going back 3-4 times in knowing what was going on. One went back 15 times, which is probably why Cosby’s presumption of why he’s innocent. Only 1 or 2 women never returned, if I recalled correctly.

I dunno about the other victims but here is Constand's own words:


NORRISTOWN, Pa. — Embattled comedian Bill Cosby faced off Friday for a second time with the woman who could put him behind bars for the rest of his life, as Andrea Constand took the stand to describe allegedly being drugged and molested by “America’s Dad” in 2004.

Wearing a white blazer and coral sweater, the 45-year-old massage therapist calmly relayed how the now-80-year-old entertainer offered her what she believed was an herbal supplement to combat her stress — but instead rendered her immobile.

“Mr. Cosby reached his hand out, and there were three blue pills in his hand. He said, ‘These are your friends, they’ll help take the edge off,'” Constand told jurors in Montgomery County Court. “I said, ‘Do I put them under my tongue?’ He said, ‘Put them down, they’ll help you relax.'”

“My mouth became very cottony, and I felt like foam had built up, and my mouth became very dry. Mr. Cosby said, ‘I think you need to relax,'” she recalled. “I knew something was wrong.”

“My legs felt really rubbery, I didn’t have a lot of strength,” she added. “He walked me through to another room where there was a sofa. He placed me on the sofa, on my left side, and he placed a pillow under my head, and said, ‘Just relax there.'”

Constand then awoke to find herself being sexually assaulted, she claimed.


At the risk of being labelled a "misogynist" or "victim blamer" by "the court" for even asking, would any of you take unknown pills from someone you don't know just because they are famous?

Ex: You somehow find yourself at (insert famous person's) exclusive after party and (insert famous person) offers you a pill to "relax".

Do you take it?

Who is accountable for the action of knowingly and willingly choosing to ingest a foreign substance from someone you don't know?

Would these same events have been possible if a different choice ("No thank You Mr. Cosby, I'll be fine") was made?

Even if it was your daughter and you taught her from childhood "Don't take candy from strangers" - would you, as a Father, not have any feelings in your heart about her taking pills from famous men, women (or anyone else)?

Not even for a second even if you kept it inside? You wouldn't be even a little pissed that she made that decision?

My Mom / Dad would whoop my *** if they saw me even talking to a stranger when I was a kid. Are they victim blaming?

If we have gotten to the point that we cant look at the whole picture objectively then the court of Public Opinion is indeed biased more towards feelings than facts.

The first DA had to think critically because the standard is MUCH higher in a Court of Law (criminal vs civil / beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence) and he knew he didn't have enough evidence for a criminal conviction and w/o Cosby's testimony the defense would certainly ask the questions above - and probably much more once Constand took the stand.

Where the first DA went wrong was the whole immunity deal BS.

These facts didn't change just because a new DA came in.

W/O Cosby's immunity deal testimony, the defense would have shredded these victims.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I hate to go tin foil hat

But Bruce Castors actions and behavior after the fact seem so stupid

it's almost like Cosby getting off was the intended goal.

 

[Grine]

I dunno about the other victims but here is Constand's own words:


NORRISTOWN, Pa. — Embattled comedian Bill Cosby faced off Friday for a second time with the woman who could put him behind bars for the rest of his life, as Andrea Constand took the stand to describe allegedly being drugged and molested by “America’s Dad” in 2004.

Wearing a white blazer and coral sweater, the 45-year-old massage therapist calmly relayed how the now-80-year-old entertainer offered her what she believed was an herbal supplement to combat her stress — but instead rendered her immobile.

“Mr. Cosby reached his hand out, and there were three blue pills in his hand. He said, ‘These are your friends, they’ll help take the edge off,'” Constand told jurors in Montgomery County Court. “I said, ‘Do I put them under my tongue?’ He said, ‘Put them down, they’ll help you relax.'”

“My mouth became very cottony, and I felt like foam had built up, and my mouth became very dry. Mr. Cosby said, ‘I think you need to relax,'” she recalled. “I knew something was wrong.”

“My legs felt really rubbery, I didn’t have a lot of strength,” she added. “He walked me through to another room where there was a sofa. He placed me on the sofa, on my left side, and he placed a pillow under my head, and said, ‘Just relax there.'”

Constand then awoke to find herself being sexually assaulted, she claimed.

Very much a date rape scenario. People can argue, why did you even take the drug. You had consent to do it. Some say, it’s negligence on Cosby.

This is why I never used to move forward with sex when women were sloppy drunk. People get falsely accused and I never wanted to put myself in any position or accusations.

Had it happened to several friends in college. Girl was high as a kite and got with drunk with 4 guys. They went to the lake, and she got a train ran on her.

Next day, couple of the guys started bragging about it. Of course, words spreads. She’s embarrassed, then started accusing them of rape. Luckily one of the guys recorded it. One of my friend, decided to leave the school because he felt he couldn’t move forward with his image being tarnish among his college peers.

 

[Grine]

Court of Public opinion vs Court of Law.

What exactly is this exercise intended to solve?

Public Relations training? Ok

Twitter Finger training? Ok

If you want to keep this job you'll apologize training? Fine.

But to reduce this issue down to "training" is ridiculous.

Even after "the class" - the people mad at her will still be mad, Rashad will still feel the exact same way as when she sent the tweet, but at least Howard will appear like it took action in the eyes of the Court of Public Opinion.

Howard should fire her if that's how they feel.

What happened to her 1st admen right? She apologies right away.

But what I don’t understand, why can’t both things be true? She believes/support her friends and empathize with sexual assault victim. Scaling justice; both things can be true.

As it relates to Howard, they have a long history of sexual assaults among their administration and students, I believe they’re in a court order to provide this training. The school imagine is on the line. So they had to say something.

 

[Maximus Meridius]

That’s the thing I truly didn’t understand, those high power lawyers didn’t think to get this deal in writing being the nature of his case. But you’re correct, @dwalk31, it’s not needed.

On another note, what I found interesting that some of those women kept going back 3-4 times in knowing what was going on. One went back 15 times, which is probably why Cosby’s presumption of why he’s innocent. Only 1 or 2 women never returned, if I recalled correctly.

The lady Andrea Constand was still taking her family to see him and meeting with him. Castor felt there wasn't enough for him to be guilty in a criminal case so they went the civil route. Constand got 3 mil in the civil and agreed that she wouldn't testify in a criminal but still did. Castor sent a email to new DA Ferman "reminding" her of that deal.

This whole thing was just sloppy.

 

[Present]

What happened to her 1st admen right? She apologies right away.

But what I don’t understand, why can’t thing both be true? She believe/support her friends and empathize with sexual assault victim. Scaling justice; both things can be true.

As it relates to Howard, they have a long history of sexual assaults among their administration and students, I believe they’re in a court order to provide this training. The school imagine is on line.

A lot of people in their feelings 24 hours a day / 365 days a year.

All information is interpreted emotionally for them - not mentally.

Is actually quite the phenomenon to witness IRL.

From folks that drive on E because they don't "feel like" getting gas to folks that have fire alarms beeping in the background because they don't "feel like" changing the batteries.

They've convince themselves that the beep isn't beeping or that those who can hear it aren't "strong enough" to ignore it.

That gas tank light is on because the car is being mean.

They don't have much energy to resolve the real issues - but they have all the energy in the world to debate / argue you down for even suggesting they get gas or change the batteries

 

[1995]

I dunno about the other victims but here is Constand's own words:


NORRISTOWN, Pa. — Embattled comedian Bill Cosby faced off Friday for a second time with the woman who could put him behind bars for the rest of his life, as Andrea Constand took the stand to describe allegedly being drugged and molested by “America’s Dad” in 2004.

Wearing a white blazer and coral sweater, the 45-year-old massage therapist calmly relayed how the now-80-year-old entertainer offered her what she believed was an herbal supplement to combat her stress — but instead rendered her immobile.

“Mr. Cosby reached his hand out, and there were three blue pills in his hand. He said, ‘These are your friends, they’ll help take the edge off,'” Constand told jurors in Montgomery County Court. “I said, ‘Do I put them under my tongue?’ He said, ‘Put them down, they’ll help you relax.'”

“My mouth became very cottony, and I felt like foam had built up, and my mouth became very dry. Mr. Cosby said, ‘I think you need to relax,'” she recalled. “I knew something was wrong.”

“My legs felt really rubbery, I didn’t have a lot of strength,” she added. “He walked me through to another room where there was a sofa. He placed me on the sofa, on my left side, and he placed a pillow under my head, and said, ‘Just relax there.'”

Constand then awoke to find herself being sexually assaulted, she claimed.


At the risk of being labelled a "misogynist" or "victim blamer" by "the court" for even asking, would any of you take unknown pills from someone you don't know just because they are famous?

Ex: You somehow find yourself at (insert famous person's) exclusive after party and (insert famous person) offers you a pill to "relax".

Do you take it?

Who is accountable for the action of knowingly and willingly choosing to ingest a foreign substance from someone you don't know?

Would these same events have been possible if a different choice ("No thank You Mr. Cosby, I'll be fine") was made?

Even if it was your daughter and you taught her from childhood "Don't take candy from strangers" - would you, as a Father, not have any feelings in your heart about her taking pills from famous men? Not even for a second even if you kept it inside? You wouldn't be even a little pissed that she made that decision?

If we have gotten to the point that we cant look at the whole picture objectively then the court of Public Opinion is indeed biased more towards feelings than facts.

The first DA had to think critically because the standard is MUCH higher in a Court of Law (criminal vs civil / beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence) and he knew he didn't have enough evidence for a criminal conviction and w/o Cosby's testimony the defense would certainly ask the questions above - and probably much more once Constand took the stand.

These facts didn't change just because a new DA came in.

W/O Cosby's immunity deal testimony, the defense would have shredded these victims.

I'm sorry but you're really starting to sound like Ben Shapiro...to the point where you're even using a derivative of his catch phrase

 

[RustyShackleford]

What happened to her 1st admen right? She apologies right away.

But what I don’t understand, why can’t both things be true? She believes/support her friends and empathize with sexual assault victim. Scaling justice; both things can be true.

As it relates to Howard, they have a long history of sexual assaults among their administration and students, I believe they’re in a court order to provide this training. The school imagine is on line. So they had to say something.

That is not how the first amendemnt works

 

[Present]

I'm sorry but you're really starting to sound like Ben Shapiro...to the point where you're even using a derivative of his catch phrase

How do your feelings impact the facts of the case?

 

[sooperhooper]

I know he's like family to her and all but i can't believe phylicia Rashad supported him so vocally. Almost like she was complicit in the matters, a la Ghislaine Maxwell. It's just hard to imagine a woman of her caliber supporting him.

I think it was "just the thing to do" in that decade and people just turned a blind eye to it. Kinda like racism in the 40s. People "knew" it was wrong but it was so widely accepted. Women back then probably felt like they couldn't say anything. Just like black people probably felt powerless while following "whites/colored only" protocol. I guarantee those women went to his room to smash, but they didn't want him drugging them.

 

[Grine]

That is not how the first amendemnt works

She doesn’t have the right to make an opinion or how support of a friend?

 

[Present]

That is not how the first amendemnt works

True.

Freedom of Speech ≠ Freedom from Consequences

Howard trying to have it both ways.

She should have been fired if that's how they felt.

The "training class" thing reminds me of cops.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I hate to go tin foil hat

But Bruce Castors actions and behavior after the fact seem so stupid

it's almost like Cosby getting off was the intended goal.

I'm glad I'm am not the only one that feels this way

The way the dude was moving is head-scratching

 

[Present]

She doesn’t have the right to make an opinion or how support of a friend?

Of course!

But she should have known better - twitter aint the way to go, especially for someone in her position.

Just look at the blow back on this thread for even posting the facts of the case.

Evidently I'm "Ben Shapiro" now

Emotions running high.

 

[Methodical Management]

I think there is an underlying issue behind all this back in forth in here thats going unsaid. Some people seem to think its plausible that this entire thing is an elaborate smear campaign, thats theres some degree of reasonable doubt if you will, while some do not.

Some people seem to think it’s possible to offer consent while incapacitated, while some do not.

Highlights from Bill Cosby's 2005-2006 deposition | CNN

www.cnn.com

You’re right. That’s my mistake. The DA’s office reneged on it. I’m not above admitting that error. It was unintentional.

The facts remain when you replace “he” (the individual) with DA’s office. The individual attorney is just an agent of the office.

Didn't the first court/judge ask the DA(cantor) and Cosbys lawyers to produce the immunity deal but they couldn't since it wasn't in writing only hear say between them and that's why the initial trial was able to proceed? I thought I read that somewhere but someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Bill Cosby judge rejects motion to dismiss case in victory for prosecution

Judge Steven O’Neill sees ‘no basis’ for comedian’s claim that he was previously granted immunity in move allowing trial to move forward

www.theguardian.com

Should Bill Cosby be in prison?

That's the question.

If there isn't enough evidence to convict a man or woman in a court of law, without a prosecutor employing judicial malpractice, should he or she be imprisoned?

If that's what we are arguing here then the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Supporting the 5th Amendment ≠ Supporting Bill Cosby

Equal Justice under law...even for the worst of us.

As it relates to Kwame Ture:

While it is true and I agree with Kwame Ture - his opinion in this case is as irrelevant my own, as neither he nor I have any legal authority or legal accountability.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania carries that burden and executed their duty IAW the Constitution of the United States.

Not sure if there is an opportunity to appeal, but if there is then those that oppose their ruling should certainly do so.

I understand people have their own opinions about Cosby (I personally haven't liked him since he fired Lisa Bonnet - way before these allegations) but this is bigger than him - even bigger than his victims.

I seriously doubt they'd enjoy having their suffering reduced to a tool used to degrade everyone else's Constitutional rights - just so some DA can pat himself on the back while claiming he exercised judicial malpractice on their behalf.

Or maybe they don't care. Who knows.

Either way, this precedent cannot be set, nor can it stand.

Our rights matter.

How can we support / hold fundraisers for The Innocence Project one minute and endorse judicial malpractice the next?

Does saying "but its Bill Cosby though" make it Ok?

Is this the true limit of our convictions?

Who's "endorsing judicial malpractice?" People are upset that this case was botched. There's a big difference between the two.

It's as though you're selectively ignoring parts of people's posts, like this one:

If the only way to hold him even temporarily accountable was to violate his rights, that is proof that the system failed.

Or this:

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.

If just you want to tilt at strawmen, don't slap my avatar on them.

The irony here is that the whole point of citing that Kwame Ture quote was to counter the notion that, because a court overturned his conviction, the rest of us should concede that Bill Cosby is innocent.

What is this if not an "appeal to authority"?

While it is true and I agree with Kwame Ture - his opinion in this case is as irrelevant my own, as neither he nor I have any legal authority or legal accountability.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania carries that burden and executed their duty IAW the Constitution of the United States.

If anything, you're contradicting yourself here.

Cosby’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds in 2016, which was denied. Today, you’re saying that none of us mere mortals have the standing to second guess the Court, yet what of that initial decision? Did you have any right to question that?
What if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had upheld Cosby's conviction? Would you no longer believe he was wrongly convicted, or that his Constitutional rights were violated? Is that what you believed two weeks ago?

Saying "your opinion is moot, because the Court carries that burden," is literally an appeal to authority.


Over 55% of state Supreme Court justices are White men. Just 7% are women of color.

These are Pennsylvania's Supreme Court Justices, whose opinion you apparently prize above those of all others, including your own:

This is the magnetic north of your moral compass?

I should certainly hope not.



In truth, we know that there are a great many wrongly decided cases in American history, from Dred Scott v. Sanford to this past week's ruling in Brnovich v. DNC. Judges are fallible and, when they err, it is far more often than not on the side of the privileged.
"Checking their work" is not beyond the public's purview. Would you have told Thurgood Marshall, "who are you to second guess the Court's decision in Plessy?" Of course not.

If you can be wrongfully accused or convicted, you can also be wrongfully exonerated, spared prosecution, or granted immunity - and it could be argued that was the case here.

It is entirely possible to believe that the appeal was properly decided and yet still feel justifiably outraged by the mishandling of this case from the very beginning.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but, whatever your opinion on the admissibility of Cosby's civil deposition or validity of his "mutual understanding" with Bruce Castor, that argument is more narrow and nuanced than you've made it appear.


I understand that you're concerned about precedent, but this was never about a de facto repeal of the Fifth Amendment, only the enforceability of this particular non-prosecution agreement. Resistance to even the slightest erosion of legal rights is understandable, but I don't think you're factoring in just how unusual the alleged agreement in this case truly is, and, in so doing, you are overstating its threat to the Fifth Amendment, (especially for those whom Mr. Cosby holds in such contempt) which weakens your argument through its reliance on hyperbole.

Bruce Castor Botched the Cosby Case Even Worse Than It Seems

There is no good reason for failing to transparently document a prosecutor’s assurances of nonprosecution.

slate.com

Castor himself has tellingly refused to refer to his prosecutorial decision as an "agreement" between himself and Mr. Cosby.

There is good reason for this. The prosecutors responsible for Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart plea agreement were accused of breaking the law. Specifically, they allegedly violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with (or even notify) Epstein's victims.
For their part, both Andrea Constand and her counsel have already claimed that they were never apprised of any "deal" between Castor and Cosby.

If this Faustian bargain was intended, as Castor has claimed, to provide Ms. Constand and her family with "some small measure of justice," would it not have been prudent to at least ask her if this is consistent with her wishes? If not, whose interests was Castor serving here?

As far as I'm aware, there is no written agreement - only a press release. The lack of transparency - and Castor's own stated motives for declining to prosecute Cosby - are galling. Castor essentially echoes the reprehensible reasoning that shielded Stanford rapist Brock Turner from accountability: that a "single mistake" shouldn't imperil a man's promising future.

His conduct in this case is unconscionable.


We'll never know if prosecutors could've obtained a conviction without Cosby's testimony. Bruce Castor denied us that possibility.

We do know that, by his own admission and in corroboration of his accusers' sworn testimony, Cosby misappropriated prescription drugs to give to women, and failed to secure affirmative consent. That is rape.

To believe that Cosby did nothing wrong, you must believe, as he does, that verbal affirmative consent is unnecessary even if the other party is impaired.


As such, you can believe that prosecutorial misconduct occurred in this case and still believe that Cosby is guilty - in the same way that George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are guilty.
George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson may not be convicted murderers, but they are murderers. Or do you disagree? Do you defer in all matters of ethics and morality to the vacillating and oft-contradictory whims of America's overwhelmingly White male judiciary?

The injustice here is not that the prosecutors failed to get charges to stick by any means necessary, but that Cosby's case was mishandled every step of the way.


In this case, like so many others, the system failed utterly. It failed Bill Cosby, it failed his sixty accusers, it failed those who did not come forward, and it failed society.
In a more just nation, Cosby would've been successfully tried decades ago - back when it was still possible to collect forensic evidence and question potential witnesses, such as the doctor from whom he obtained quaaludes.

The chilling effect this debacle may have on future sexual assault prosecutions is to be lamented, not celebrated.

 

[Grine]

True.

Freedom of Speech ≠ Freedom from Consequences

Howard trying to have it both ways.

She should have been fired if that's how they felt.

The "training class" thing reminds me of cops.

The student body is calling for her resignation.

And again, the “training class” is merely to level the image of action for Howard’s legacy that is stained by their own history of sexual assaults.

 

[RustyShackleford]

She doesn’t have the right to make an opinion or how support of a friend?

She has the right to say what she wants without the government, or an agent of the government, trying to suppress here speech

The first amendment right doesn't protect her from her employer, a private institution, mandating certain training as a requirement for her undoing employment because of her public comments. Also, I wouldn't be surprised by all the employment contracts she signed when she got hired, she acknowledged Howard has the power to fire her or make her go through training and seminars if he causes a bad PR situation.

Another more clear example to drive home the point, would be like if a T-Mobile manager posted on Twitter that he hates Muslims and Mexicans, the first amendment won't protect him from getting fired, or having to go through diversity training.

The first amendment doesn't mean everyone can say whatever they want with impunity, and your employer just gotta let you live.

 

[1995]

How do your feelings impact the facts of the case?

This is an awfully ironic question when we consider that you just made a post where you used an appeal to emotion in order to place a degree of accountability on date rape victims

 

[Grine]

He has the right to say what she wants without the government, or an agent of the government, trying to suppress here speech

The first amendment right doesn't protect her from her employer, a private institution, mandating certain training as a requirement for her undoing employment because of her public comments. Also, I won't be surprised by all the employment contracts she signed when she got hired, she acknowledged Howard has the power to fire her or make her go through training and seminars if he causes a bad PR situation.

Another more clear example to drive home the point, would be like if a T-Mobile manager posted on Twitter that he hates Muslims and Mexicans, the first amendment won't protect him from getting fired, or having to go through diversity training.

The first amendment doesn't mean everyone can say whatever they want with impunity, and your employer just gotta let you live.

You are correct. I was merely speaking of the cancel culture/public opinion - not in representation of Howard.

In this social media era, you have to be very careful, especially in a certain position, what to be said and not.

 

[blastercombo]

If you’re on the side of Cosby for any reason, like I already said, you’re a rape apologist. Do better

 

[Grine]

If you’re on the side of Cosby for any reason, like I already said, you’re a rape apologist. Do better

So does this applies to his children, wife and family members? Parents?

 

[Present]

Some people seem to think it’s possible to offer consent while incapacitated, while some do not.

Highlights from Bill Cosby's 2005-2006 deposition | CNN

www.cnn.com

Bill Cosby judge rejects motion to dismiss case in victory for prosecution

Judge Steven O’Neill sees ‘no basis’ for comedian’s claim that he was previously granted immunity in move allowing trial to move forward

www.theguardian.com

Who's "endorsing judicial malpractice?" People are upset that this case was botched. There's a big difference between the two.

It's as though you're selectively ignoring parts of people's posts, like this one:


Or this:


If just you want to tilt at strawmen, don't slap my avatar on them.

The irony here is that the whole point of citing that Kwame Ture quote was to counter the notion that, because a court overturned his conviction, the rest of us should concede that Bill Cosby is innocent.

What is this if not an "appeal to authority"?

If anything, you're contradicting yourself here.

Cosby’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds in 2016, which was denied. Today, you’re saying that none of us mere mortals have the standing to second guess the Court, yet what of that initial decision? Did you have any right to question that?
What if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had upheld Cosby's conviction? Would you no longer believe he was wrongly convicted, or that his Constitutional rights were violated? Is that what you believed two weeks ago?

Saying "your opinion is moot, because the Court carries that burden," is literally an appeal to authority.


Over 55% of state Supreme Court justices are White men. Just 7% are women of color.

These are Pennsylvania's Supreme Court Justices, whose opinion you apparently prize above those of all others, including your own:

This is the magnetic north of your moral compass?

I should certainly hope not.



In truth, we know that there are a great many wrongly decided cases in American history, from Dred Scott v. Sanford to this past week's ruling in Brnovich v. DNC. Judges are fallible and, when they err, it is far more often than not on the side of the privileged.
"Checking their work" is not beyond the public's purview. Would you have told Thurgood Marshall, "who are you to second guess the Court's decision in Plessy?" Of course not.

If you can be wrongfully accused or convicted, you can also be wrongfully exonerated, spared prosecution, or granted immunity - and it could be argued that was the case here.

It is entirely possible to believe that the appeal was properly decided and yet still feel justifiably outraged by the mishandling of this case from the very beginning.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but, whatever your opinion on the admissibility of Cosby's civil deposition or validity of his "mutual understanding" with Bruce Castor, that argument is more narrow and nuanced than you've made it appear.


I understand that you're concerned about precedent, but this was never about a de facto repeal of the Fifth Amendment, only the enforceability of this particular non-prosecution agreement. Resistance to even the slightest erosion of legal rights is understandable, but I don't think you're factoring in just how unusual the alleged agreement in this case truly is, and, in so doing, you are overstating its threat to the Fifth Amendment, (especially for those whom Mr. Cosby holds in such contempt) which weakens your argument through its reliance on hyperbole.

Bruce Castor Botched the Cosby Case Even Worse Than It Seems

There is no good reason for failing to transparently document a prosecutor’s assurances of nonprosecution.

slate.com

Castor himself has tellingly refused to refer to his prosecutorial decision as an "agreement" between himself and Mr. Cosby.

There is good reason for this. The prosecutors responsible for Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart plea agreement were accused of breaking the law. Specifically, they allegedly violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with (or even notify) Epstein's victims.
For their part, both Andrea Constand and her counsel have already claimed that they were never apprised of any "deal" between Castor and Cosby.

If this Faustian bargain was intended, as Castor has claimed, to provide Ms. Constand and her family with "some small measure of justice," would it not have been prudent to at least ask her if this is consistent with her wishes? If not, whose interests was Castor serving here?

As far as I'm aware, there is no written agreement - only a press release. The lack of transparency - and Castor's own stated motives for declining to prosecute Cosby - are galling. Castor essentially echoes the reprehensible reasoning that shielded Stanford rapist Brock Turner from accountability: that a "single mistake" shouldn't imperil a man's promising future.

His conduct in this case is unconscionable.


We'll never know if prosecutors could've obtained a conviction without Cosby's testimony. Bruce Castor denied us that possibility.

We do know that, by his own admission and in corroboration of his accusers' sworn testimony, Cosby misappropriated prescription drugs to give to women, and failed to secure affirmative consent. That is rape.

To believe that Cosby did nothing wrong, you must believe, as he does, that verbal affirmative consent is unnecessary even if the other party is impaired.


As such, you can believe that prosecutorial misconduct occurred in this case and still believe that Cosby is guilty - in the same way that George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are guilty.
George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson may not be convicted murderers, but they are murderers. Or do you disagree? Do you defer in all matters of ethics and morality to the vacillating and oft-contradictory whims of America's overwhelmingly White male judiciary?

The injustice here is not that the prosecutors failed to get charges to stick by any means necessary, but that Cosby's case was mishandled every step of the way.


In this case, like so many others, the system failed utterly. It failed Bill Cosby, it failed his sixty accusers, it failed those who did not come forward, and it failed society.
In a more just nation, Cosby would've been successfully tried decades ago - back when it was still possible to collect forensic evidence and question potential witnesses, such as the doctor from whom he obtained quaaludes.

The chilling effect this debacle may have on future sexual assault prosecutions is to be lamented, not celebrated.

Bruh!

"The irony here is that the whole point of citing that Kwame Ture quote was to counter the notion that, because a court overturned his conviction, the rest of us should concede that Bill Cosby is innocent."

Strawman. No such "notion" was implied. I didn't ask if he was innocent - I asked if he should be in prison based all on the fact of the case.

Innocent people are locked up, guilty people go free - every day of the week Fam.

Me = irrelevant.

You = irrelevant.

Ture = irrelevant.

What the rest of us think = irrelevant

Cosby's conviction has been overturned in a Court of Law based on the decisions of those with the power to decide (from the DA to the judges) - white black green purple red man woman dog or cat.

Feelings be damned.

What are you saying by bringing up the ethnicity, sex, race, etc of the Judges?

How does this information impact the facts of the case?

"We'll never know if prosecutors could've obtained a conviction without Cosby's testimony."

How Fam?

The DA at the time literally said it in his own words. They had no case w/o a confession.

Are you claiming if only a more skilled DA was there - they could have gotten a conviction while remaining within the boundaries of the law?

If that's the case then my team would have won every Super Bowl too - if only.

"As such, you can believe that prosecutorial misconduct occurred in this case and still believe that Cosby is guilty - in the same way that George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are guilty."

The "Burden of Proof" is on who again?

"The injustice here is not that the prosecutors failed to get charges to stick by any means necessary, but that Cosby's case was mishandled every step of the way.

Exactly.

So the question remains -

Should Bill Cosby be in prison?

 

[blastercombo]

So does this applies to his children, wife and family members? Parents?

Oh stop. I’m talking about these people in this thread. That’s all. If you’re seeking some type of validation…..

 

[Grine]

Oh stop. I’m talking about these people in this thread. That’s all. If you’re seeking some type of validation…..

Oh stop, I’m just asking your opinion based on your statement.

You think too much of yourself.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Again, I agree with the decision that Cosby's conviction had to be vacated given one happened, but I disagree about them preventing a new trial.

It is crazy to me that only the majority opinion of Justice on the PA court has to be seen as the definitive truth on this matter, and should not be questioned. When other justices while agreeing with the conviction being overturned, took issues with blocking a new trial. So my opinion is in line with some members of the court, just not the majority.

Like if that is the case, that the majority opinion of a court must be looked at as the definitive truth when the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court starts shredding civil rights laws in the next few decades like it did the VRA last week (and 7 years ago) on what many view as ******** reasoning, should people just stand aside and be like welp their opinions must look as unassailable.

Like I am supposed to be cool with thousands of black people dying needlessly on aggregated because the Medicaid expansion was not allowed to be forced into place?

I'm supposed to think Dredd Scott was a good decision?

I'm supposed to think qualified immunity produces just outcomes?

Jim Crow could have been stopped in the Supreme Court long before the Civil Rights act, but it wasn't. I too am supposed to agree with all those ****** rulings?

It is completely reasonable to disagree with a high court majority when you think they got it wrong. Other members of the same court do it all the time.