RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Bill Cosby Charged in Sexual Assault Case

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16262
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/30/15 4:23 pm    ::: Bill Cosby Charged in Sexual Assault Case Reply Reply with quote

punkin! Mad




_________________
no justice, no peace.
stever



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6158
Location: Ann Arbor


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/30/15 5:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

...perhaps you meant: puddin'? Wink



_________________
Women's Basketball Daily
Celebrating the Women's Game Since 2005
WBBDaily Mobile Edition
Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1477
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/30/15 7:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Andrea Constand: What we know about Bill Cosby's Canadian accuser
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bill-cosby-andrea-constand-1.3169510

Andrea Constand, 42, walks her dogs in Toronto on Dec. 30, 2015. The former basketball player and coach has accused comedian Bill Cosby of sexual assault. (Mark Blinch/Reuters)

Brave woman!


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 4793



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/30/15 7:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/12/30/bill-cosby-charged-2004-pa-sexual-assault/78069794/

Quote:
Constand accused Cosby in 2005, alleging he drugged and sexually assaulted her when she visited his then home in Montgomery County outside Philadelphia in 2004. But the then-county prosecutor declined to charge him, saying there was not enough evidence by the time she went to police.The case dates from 2004, and under Pennsylvania law, prosecutors have a 12-year deadline to bring charges in a sexual assault case. The statute of limitations is due to expire at the end of January.

So Constand sued him in civil court instead. That suit was settled a year later and the results were sealed, including a three-day deposition of Cosby. But this year, after dozens of women had come forward accusing Cosby of drugging and raping them in episodes dating back to the mid-1960s, a judge released part of the deposition, and more leaked later.

In the deposition, Cosby admitted under questioning that he obtained drugs, including Quaaludes, to give to women he sought for sex.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/01/16 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If I ever need a lawyer, I WANT this woman -

Bill Cosby's Lawyer [Monique Pressley] OWNS Lamont Hill in debate

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fP6sBEmAgIE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/01/16 11:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not saying I wouldn't want her as my lawyer but I disagree on her owning the interviewer or the subject matter or the narrative in this clip. I think her arguments are weak. Her suggestions about Hollywood, how it works when it comes to 'allegations' such as these (something that is essentially non-existent) and who Bill Cosby was back in the day (still just a black man in America) are a) uninformed myths and b) a galling attempt at playing the race card. If this is where they're going then we're in for a sad and sick display by the Cosby team. But would that be a surprise?


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 7:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Not saying I wouldn't want her as my lawyer but I disagree on her owning the interviewer or the subject matter or the narrative in this clip. I think her arguments are weak. Her suggestions about Hollywood, how it works when it comes to 'allegations' such as these (something that is essentially non-existent) and who Bill Cosby was back in the day (still just a black man in America) are a) uninformed myths and b) a galling attempt at playing the race card. If this is where they're going then we're in for a sad and sick display by the Cosby team. But would that be a surprise?


Hmmm, thought her points were very salient. Remember she doesn't have to "prove" Cosby was innocent. She just has to create a reasonable doubt in just one jurist.

It still amazes me that when black folk raise up REAL, historically factual issues of race and disparity in America, white males want to dismiss it as "playing the race card." We are playing the hand we've been dealt.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 10:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Not saying I wouldn't want her as my lawyer but I disagree on her owning the interviewer or the subject matter or the narrative in this clip. I think her arguments are weak. Her suggestions about Hollywood, how it works when it comes to 'allegations' such as these (something that is essentially non-existent) and who Bill Cosby was back in the day (still just a black man in America) are a) uninformed myths and b) a galling attempt at playing the race card. If this is where they're going then we're in for a sad and sick display by the Cosby team. But would that be a surprise?


Hmmm, thought her points were very salient. Remember she doesn't have to "prove" Cosby was innocent. She just has to create a reasonable doubt in just one jurist.

It still amazes me that when black folk raise up REAL, historically factual issues of race and disparity in America, white males want to dismiss it as "playing the race card." We are playing the hand we've been dealt.


Playing anything is the problem here in Cosby's case. This is saying the card is available to "us" all and therefore we will play it. Regardless of the circumstances of the crime and regardless of how NOT a factor it ever was in this case. Cosby has admitted buying sedative type drugs to give to women for the purpose of having sex with them. At least one black woman has accused him of 'slipping' a drug into her drink. Color of this guy's skin wouldn't be available to him as a defense under any circumstances. Bringing it up in this case and in this interview was, IMO, outrageously off-based. Worse than the affluenza-defense. And the color of my skin is likewise totally irrelevant.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 11:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

First let me be clear that I believe Cosby is a pervert and rapist. Playing devil's advocate.

To the best of my knowledge, Cosby has not admitted giving drugs to women against their will. Never had a quaalude so I have no reference on how it affects you. But I do seem to recall that it was a really popular recreational drug in the 70s/80s. So saying he gave them to women for sex he will say it was to enhance the euphoria of the experience.

Just as it seems incredible that so many women would make up similar stories, it's equally incredible that so many did not press charges at the time.

Yes, I fully believe that a black man - even one of Cosby's stature - would have been wisked away and put under the jail if a white woman had accused him of rape in the 70s.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17513



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
First let me be clear that I believe Cosby is a pervert and rapist. Playing devil's advocate.

To the best of my knowledge, Cosby has not admitted giving drugs to women against their will. Never had a qualude so I have no reference on how it affects you. But I do seem to recall that it was a really recreational drug in the 70s/80s. So saying he gave them to women for sex is like saying he gave them something to enhance the experience.

Just as it seems incredible that so many women would make up similar stories, it's equally incredible that so many did not press charges at the time.

Yes, I fully believe that a black man - even one of Cosby's stature - would have been wisked away and put under the jail if a white woman had accused him of rape in the 70s.


If they willingly took drugs (as in, he handed it to them and they knew what it would do) and then slept with Cosby, it would be a lot harder to prove that he raped them. (Although, it is still rape in that circumstance if Cosby was sober..it just becomes harder to prove to a jury.)

So if Cosby hasn't admitted it to slipping it in their drinks, just giving it to them..then that's the story he's going with. But it doesn't seem like that's the story the ladies are going with.

The drug is a sleep aid, muscle relaxer, and aphrodisiac.

And I don't think it's that amazing that these stories have been "hidden." Cosby rape allegations have been around for a long time. But to go even further, it's not hard to believe at all. It's estimated that only about 25% of rape cases are actually reported. Cosby being who Cosby was..not that shocking. (And yes, he is a black man, but he's been white peoples favorite black man for forever too..and a black woman's word against Cosby's..) I mean, think about Sandusky. That went on for about ten years and the guy was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse. (which means there were plenty more victims.)..and it never got out...



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 11:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
So saying he gave them to women for sex is like saying he gave them something to enhance the experience.


Ah. He was doing them a favor. That is such an example of an excuse that is not available to anyone under any circumstances that we can stop right there. You can buy a woman a drink. That's the end of the road as far as what is permissible thinking. Purchasing strong prescription drugs for the purpose of getting those drugs into women so that they will 'more willingly' have sex with you SHOULD put one foot of any man's in a jail cell and the other on a hoverboard. Actually having gotten drugs into women should find the door on the cell closing. Beverly Johnson's allegation, and she's not alone, that he slipped drugs into a drink of hers without her knowledge or permission AND that she ingested those drugs and was drugged by them SHOULD lock that cell door tightly shut.


sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16262
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

if this doesn't play out well for cosby, i think his next move will be to claim he has some life-threatening illness to avoid seriously hard time and/or circumstances in prison.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 2:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So saying he gave them to women for sex is like saying he gave them something to enhance the experience.


Ah. He was doing them a favor.


Well yeah. That will be the story - handing out drugs at the sex party. BTW, I don't think Beverly Johnson has said she was raped - just that she was drugged. Her manager says she's a liar according to this:

Beverly Johnsons Former Manager Says She Lied About Bill Cosby Sexual Assault Accusations


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So saying he gave them to women for sex is like saying he gave them something to enhance the experience.


Ah. He was doing them a favor.


Well yeah. That will be the story - handing out drugs at the sex party. BTW, I don't think Beverly Johnson has said she was raped - just that she was drugged. Her manager says she's a liar according to this:

Beverly Johnsons Former Manager Says She Lied About Bill Cosby Sexual Assault Accusations


Don Gibble? Oh well.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-17/news/ls-25569_1_valerie-levitt


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 6:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To be clear, even if they took the drugs intentionally, it's rape if they were intoxicated to the point of not being capable of consent.

I think it's fairly easy to figure out why there were so few complaints about Cosby until recently: (1) Cosby has been an important person in entertainment for a very long time, so the risk of complaining was significant; (2) he mostly chose women who were at the greatest risk if they complained because they were in entertainment; (3) his particular method - drugging women (at least sometimes giving them the drugs with their knowledge - is exactly the kind of thing that makes women think that it was somehow their fault; and (4) these kinds of cases are hard to prosecute.

Even so, some women did complain. For instance, the woman at the center of the Philadelphia case went to the police right after it happened and pursued the civil suit only after the prosecutor decided not to pursue it. If you look at a timeline, you'll see that other women said he had assaulted them as far back as 2005.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3590
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/02/16 10:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cosby is not charged with any form of rape in the Constand case. Nor, under Pennsylvania law, is he charged with statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual assault. He's charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault under Section 3125(a) of the Pennsylvania penal code. This is a second degree felony, the penalty for which is up to 10 years in prison and/or up to $25,000 in fines.

This is a petting below the waist case. Specifically, Cosby is charged with digitally penetrating Constand's vagina (which he admits) in violation of subsections:

-- (1), which requires that the victim did not consent. Cosby said she did consent. This count will be a classic he said/she said standoff of evidence.

-- (4), which requires that the victim was "unconscious" or "unaware" of the penetration. Both Cosby and Constand testified she was aware of the initial penetration, so there will have to be proof that there was additional penetration while she was later unconscious. But who is going to testify to something that happened when she was unconscious? No one was in the house except Cosby and Constand. This count seems like a loser.

-- (5), which requires that Cosby "substantially impaired" Constand with drugs or intoxicants without her "knowledge". The testimony of Constand is that she voluntarily took three blue pills offered by Cosby -- but she didn't know what they were -- and that she voluntarily took a "couple of sips of wine." Cosby testified that the pills were one and a half Benadryl pills. Constand says that 20 or 30 minutes after the pills and wine, she became "frozen" and "paralyzed". This charge may be the prosecutor's best chance for a conviction, due to jury suspicion about what the drug really was and whether it "substantially impaired" Constand's ability to consent.

All of this evidence was before the Pennsylvania District Attorney in 2005. He did not prosecute because there was not sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, the charge has been refiled. To some observers, this could have the appearance of publicity seeking by the new DA -- to "cash in" on all the bad press recently surrounding Cosby. Is there any new evidence? The police say, yes: the deposition testimony of Cosby in Constand's civil case against him. But this testimony doesn't seem (to me) to incriminate Cosby with respect to Constand or any other woman. He simply testified that he intended to use Quaalude years ago when having consensual sex with women and did so on one specific occasion.

It's undisputed that Constand dated Cosby numerous time and accepted invitations to his house on several occasions. She testified that she rejected his sexual advances on two prior occasions. Cosby, in contrast, says they had a romantic relationship that included petting on prior occasions. It's undisputed that Constand voluntarily went to Cosby's house at 8:45 p.m. on the night in question -- after he told her by phone that "no one else would be present" and that she should "dress in comfortable clothing."

This would seem to be a very hard case to prove.

Cosby's lead attorney is a highly credentialed criminal lawyer, Brian J. McMonagle. Monique Pressley, who is a radio host and evangelical preacher as well as a lawyer, was probably hired to be "TV counsel".


Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 06/14/17 1:40 am; edited 1 time in total
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 12:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I am 100% sure that Cosby's deposition was not in front of the DA in 2005 because it did not take place until after she filed her civil suit, which was only after the DA declined to prosecute. I suspect the deposition, which largely corroborates her story (not completely, but that's not to be expected) was a big factor here.

Also, I would not be surprised if the DA tries to get testimony from other women into the case. You can, in some cases, get evidence from other crimes in to demonstrate that the perpetrator has a specific m.o., although of course the value of that evidence has to be weighed against the possible prejudice to the defendant. If the DA does get such evidence in, it no longer is a he-said-she-said case.

And, of course, you don't need to be unconscious to lack the ability to consent. You can be aware of what's happening and unable to express yourself, for instance. (Not to mention that resisting is not required under any interpretation of the laws against sexual assault.)


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 12:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One other thing - I believe Constand is gay and has said she was dating another woman at the time of the incident with Cosby. I'd be curious as to the source of claims that she was dating Cosby (who, not that it appears to matter to him, was and is married).


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1477
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 12:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
One other thing - I believe Constand is gay and has said she was dating another woman at the time of the incident with Cosby. I'd be curious as to the source of claims that she was dating Cosby (who, not that it appears to matter to him, was and is married).


Andrea Constand is a lesbian. She was in a relationship with a women in 2004. She regarded Bill Cosby as a career mentor, not a romantic or sexual partner. A woman's being a a man's home does not mean she's dating him.

http://www.autostraddle.com/bill-cosby-charged-with-sexual-assault-thanks-to-out-lesbian-andrea-constand-322759/


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 2:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Carol Anne wrote:

Andrea Constand is a lesbian. She was in a relationship with a women in 2004. She regarded Bill Cosby as a career mentor, not a romantic or sexual partner. A woman's being a a man's home does not mean she's dating him.


so, you think its out of the realm of possibility for a lesbian to exchange sexual favors for personal gain?


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1477
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:

Andrea Constand is a lesbian. She was in a relationship with a women in 2004. She regarded Bill Cosby as a career mentor, not a romantic or sexual partner. A woman's being a a man's home does not mean she's dating him.


so, you think its out of the realm of possibility for a lesbian to exchange sexual favors for personal gain?


No, but in my 70 years of being a lesbian I've never heard of it.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5986
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 3:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:

Andrea Constand is a lesbian. She was in a relationship with a women in 2004. She regarded Bill Cosby as a career mentor, not a romantic or sexual partner. A woman's being a a man's home does not mean she's dating him.


so, you think its out of the realm of possibility for a lesbian to exchange sexual favors for personal gain?

I would say it is probably similar to the number of heterosexual men willing to trade sexual favors with other men for personal gain.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 4:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Experts. Rolling Eyes


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13652
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 6:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Experts. Rolling Eyes


I'm curious. What do you mean by that?


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 6:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Carol Anne wrote:


No, but in my 70 years of being a lesbian I've never heard of it.


Well, there ya go. could never happen Rolling Eyes

I can't dispute your personal experience. But its a big world with all sorts of people with all sorts of motivations.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 10:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:


No, but in my 70 years of being a lesbian I've never heard of it.


Well, there ya go. could never happen Rolling Eyes

I can't dispute your personal experience. But its a big world with all sorts of people with all sorts of motivations.


I don't think it's impossible for a lesbian to decide to trade sexual favors with a man for career advancement, but I also think it's a lot less likely than that she wasn't, particularly in the absence of evidence that anybody but him says she was "dating" him. (And I'm still hoping to see a link where someone actually said they were dating.)


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/03/16 11:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:

I don't think it's impossible for a lesbian to decide to trade sexual favors with a man for career advancement, but I also think it's a lot less likely than that she wasn't, particularly in the absence of evidence that anybody but him says she was "dating" him. (And I'm still hoping to see a link where someone actually said they were dating.)


I'm not sure who said they were "dating". But most of this is he/she said. She did said that he had made sexual advances in the past - yet she continued to see him for some purpose.

My points had been that these are things that his lawyer will certainly bring out.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19041



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 12:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Experts. Rolling Eyes


I'm curious. What do you mean by that?


Never you mind. Very Happy


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13652
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 12:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Experts. Rolling Eyes


I'm curious. What do you mean by that?


Never you mind. Very Happy


Yeah. Whatever.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
beknighted wrote:

I don't think it's impossible for a lesbian to decide to trade sexual favors with a man for career advancement, but I also think it's a lot less likely than that she wasn't, particularly in the absence of evidence that anybody but him says she was "dating" him. (And I'm still hoping to see a link where someone actually said they were dating.)


I'm not sure who said they were "dating". But most of this is he/she said. She did said that he had made sexual advances in the past - yet she continued to see him for some purpose.

My points had been that these are things that his lawyer will certainly bring out.


It wasn't you who said they were dating - it was GlennMacGrady - but I thought I ought to reiterate my request.

On the point about him making sexual advances, a lot of women put up with a lot of garbage, particularly from me with power over them, because they think they need to do it to keep their jobs, they don't think anyone will believe them, etc. And, honestly, I don't think it hurts the case at all - the narrative is that she turned him down and he decided not to take no for an answer. Also remember that she was seeing him in connection with her job at Temple, not for fun.


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8294



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lord, please forgive me for posting this video. Here goes:

<embed><iframe width="509" height="310" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EpOo-DtgUjs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://youtu.be/EpOo-DtgUjs



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8294



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 10:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
If I ever need a lawyer, I WANT this woman -

Bill Cosby's Lawyer [Monique Pressley] OWNS Lamont Hill in debate

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fP6sBEmAgIE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


She has been racking up a body count of ignorant reporters. Making folks look dumb on their own show.

<embed><iframe width="438" height="267" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OLHFIFoG1r4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://youtu.be/OLHFIFoG1r4



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 11:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
If I ever need a lawyer, I WANT this woman -

Bill Cosby's Lawyer [Monique Pressley] OWNS Lamont Hill in debate

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fP6sBEmAgIE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


She has been racking up a body count of ignorant reporters. Making folks look dumb on their own show.

<embed><iframe width="438" height="267" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OLHFIFoG1r4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://youtu.be/OLHFIFoG1r4


Folks, I truly believe that Cosby did at least most of the things he's been accused of. I really don't want to defend him. My original post was about Monique Pressley. This woman is the FREAKIN" TRUTH of a lawyer. I am just highly impressed!! With this woman, I don't think this case against Cosby is as "Slam Dunk" and many of you seem to think.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 2:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
With this woman, I don't think this case against Cosby is as "Slam Dunk" and many of you seem to think.


For what it's worth, I don't think it's a slam dunk. The prosecution case probably depends on getting at least some favorable rulings from the judge on what can be put into evidence. (I'm not saying the prosecution should lose those issues, just that it's not 100% certain to win them.) And, of course, sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to win in the first place.

And as the O.J. case proved many years ago, prosecutors can screw up cases even when they have strong evidence. (That was a great example of a prosecution that messed up a case that ought to have been won, partly by trying to anticipate every argument the defense might make, creating tons of opportunity for reasonable doubt.)


sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16262
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/04/16 2:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

yeah, i'd be afraid of ms. pressley.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8294



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/16 7:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8294



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/16 7:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

...and Kanye is clearly trying to drum up new publicity for his upcoming album.




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 4793



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/09/16 8:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think it would be extremely difficult to prove over a decade later that Bill Cosby put a rufie in a woman's drink. It seems like a conviction could only come if the judge allowed the other women who also think they were rufied to testify or for their cases to be mentioned. But even that wouldn't prove that Cosby rufied this woman, just make it a stronger possibility.


p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9715



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/10/16 2:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

@OsitaNwanevu:



GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3590
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 2:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Cosby is not charged with any form of rape in the Constand case. Nor, under Pennsylvania law, is he charged with statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual assault. He's charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault under Section 3125(a) of the Pennsylvania penal code. This is a second degree felony, the penalty for which is up to 10 years in prison and/or up to $25,000 in fines.

This is a petting below the waist case. Specifically, Cosby is charged with digitally penetrating Constand's vagina (which he admits) in violation of subsections:

-- (1), which requires that the victim did not consent. Cosby said she did consent. This count will be a classic he said/she said standoff of evidence.

-- (4), which requires that the victim was "unconscious" or "unaware" of the penetration. Both Cosby and Constand testified she was aware of the initial penetration, so there will have to be proof that there was additional penetration while she was later unconscious. But who is going to testify to something that happened when she was unconscious? No one was in the house except Cosby and Constand. This count seems like a loser.

-- (5), which requires that Cosby "substantially impaired" Constand with drugs or intoxicants without her "knowledge". The testimony of Constand is that she voluntarily took three blue pills offered by Cosby -- but she didn't know what they were -- and that she voluntarily took a "couple of sips of wine." Cosby testified that the pills were one and a half Benadryl pills. Constand says that 20 or 30 minutes after the pills and wine, she became "frozen" and "paralyzed". This charge may be the prosecutor's best chance for a conviction, due to jury suspicion about what the drug really was and whether it "substantially impaired" Constand's ability to consent.

All of this evidence was before the Pennsylvania District Attorney in 2005. He did not prosecute because there was not sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, the charge has been refiled. To some observers, this could have the appearance of publicity seeking by the new DA -- to "cash in" on all the bad press recently surrounding Cosby. Is there any new evidence? The police say, yes: the deposition testimony of Cosby in Constand's civil case against him. But this testimony doesn't seem (to me) to incriminate Cosby with respect to Constand or any other woman. He simply testified that he intended to use Quaalude years ago when having consensual sex with women and did so on one specific occasion.

It's undisputed that Constand dated Cosby numerous time and accepted invitations to his house on several occasions. She testified that she rejected his sexual advances on two prior occasions. Cosby, in contrast, says they had a romantic relationship that included petting on prior occasions. It's undisputed that Constand voluntarily went to Cosby's house at 8:45 p.m. on the night in question -- after he told her by phone that "no one else would be present" and that she should "dress in comfortable clothing."

This would seem to be a very hard case to prove.

Cosby's lead attorney is a highly credentialed criminal lawyer, Brian J. McMonagle. Monique Pressley, who is a radio host and evangelical preacher as well as a lawyer, was probably hired to be "TV counsel".


Well, 16 months have passed and the jury is now deliberating Cosby's fate. Only one other alleged "victim" from the past besides Constand was allowed to testify for the prosecution. The entire defense lasted a mere six minutes, just to move some written police reports into evidence.

The most likely reason that Cosby didn't put on a defense is that his lawyers feel that the prosecution's case is weak and that they have created reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror by their vigorous cross examination of Constand.

I think my summary of the three possible statutory offenses remains sound and that violation of subsection (5) remains the prosecution's best shot. In that connection, the jury has asked the judge for further guidance as to what "without knowledge" means under this subsection. The judge refused to define the phrase further.

Note: 16 months ago, I got my information as to what some of the evidence would be in the trial from a reading of the police affidavit that I linked and also from a reading of Cosby's deposition in Constand's civil case against him, which everyone assumed would be read to the criminal jury and in fact was.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3590
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/17 1:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jurors said they were deadlocked after three days, judge pushed them to deliberate for three more, but after 52 hours the deadlock remained and the judge finally declared a mistrial today. This means Cosby can be retried and the D.A., as of now, says he will do so.

I'm sympathetic to the opinion of Cosby's wife about this particular D.A., the judge and the superficial, click-bait crazed media:

Quote:
Cosby’s wife of 53 years, Camille, slammed prosecutors for bringing the case to court, calling [D.A.] Steele “heinously and exploitatively ambitious” in a statement released after court adjourned. She also attacked the judge, the accuser’s lawyers and the media.

“How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant, collaborating with the district attorney,” said her statement, which was read by Wyatt.

She also slammed the media covering the trial.

“How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truths for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life,” Camille Cosby said.


http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/06/17/bill-cosby-verdict/
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5986
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/17 3:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Jurors said they were deadlocked after three days, judge pushed them to deliberate for three more, but after 52 hours the deadlock remained and the judge finally declared a mistrial today. This means Cosby can be retried and the D.A., as of now, says he will do so.

I'm sympathetic to the opinion of Cosby's wife about this particular D.A., the judge and the superficial, click-bait crazed media:

Quote:
Cosby’s wife of 53 years, Camille, slammed prosecutors for bringing the case to court, calling [D.A.] Steele “heinously and exploitatively ambitious” in a statement released after court adjourned. She also attacked the judge, the accuser’s lawyers and the media.

“How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant, collaborating with the district attorney,” said her statement, which was read by Wyatt.

She also slammed the media covering the trial.

“How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truths for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life,” Camille Cosby said.


http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/06/17/bill-cosby-verdict/

The ability to get a conviction here is probably traveling up a pretty steep incline.

That being said, I don't blame the DA. Cosby has done so much damage to so many women over the years, yet is untouchable for all of them except this one. So sometimes you just got to fight the fight you can, no matter the long odds.

I have no sympathy at all for Cosby, and if his wife is going to stand by his predator ass, then I have little for her as well.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3590
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/17 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cosby knew he would get a hung jury all along

Quote:
. . . Cosby would spend the break predicting if not an outright acquittal, at least a mistrial.

“Steele wants me badly; he ran on getting me,” Cosby said at one point of the prosecutor, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele.

“But he doesn’t have a case.”

That’s why, Cosby said, he turned down the DA’s offer of a no-jail deal that would have required him to wear a monitoring bracelet and register as a sex offender.

A prosecution spokesman denied there was ever any offer, but Cosby insists there was.

“They offered me a deal,” Cosby said during one break. “They want me to wear this bracelet around my ankle,” he said. “They want me to say I’m a sex offender.”

Why did he decline?

“I’m innocent,” he said.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 5986
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/22/17 1:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A juror interviewed said that it was 10-2 in favor of conviction. One of the alternates said that they would have voted for conviction had they been on the jury.

Based on that, I have to think the DA will refile.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin