last cosby trial was a sham

[Wolfstrike]

I'm trying to think what the confusion was about the definition of consent, then I realized, they didn't say that because they didn't understand, they said that because they are not accepting that the women consented
...and they voted guilty.
The juror said "we convicted him because of his own words"
What does that mean?
They're referring to an old court case where Cosby said he gave (shared) drugs with women he wanted to sleep with.
The judge said that he released the statement because of Cosby's "poundcake speech". ...which basically talks about black people claiming to be innocent when evidence is against them.
What does it all mean?
The trial was a sham and the jury was loaded against him

 

[The Professor]

The trial was not a sham. The evidence against Cosby was damning. At a civil trial deposition in 2005 he admitted he gave Quaaludes to women he wanted to have sex with. The women in his criminal trial testified that they were unable to resists his advances because of their drugged state. It doesn't matter that they voluntarily took the drugs. What matters is that they were incapable of giving informed consent and were physically unable to resist the sexual acts which followed. A man who has sex with a women who is drunk, drugged or otherwise incapacitated is guilty of sexual assault. That is the law.

The one thing I will never understand is why Cosby testified the way he did at his deposition. He could have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify, but he didn't. His attorneys were amazingly incompetent to allow that to happen. For those of you who are not familiar with the law, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself regarding anything which might incriminate him. This right is not limited to criminal trials but also includes civil proceedings. The difference is that in a criminal trial the jury must be instructed that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify whereas in a civil trial the jury is free to consider the defendant's refusal to answer questions.

The apparent reason for the different treatment of a defendant in a criminal and civil process is that in the first instance the State is the moving party and in the second another person, the victim, is the moving party. Protecting a defendant against the awesome powers of the state makes sense; however no man should be able to hide behind the Fifth Amendment curtain in order to deny relief to his victim.

CONCLUSION: Cosby was properly convicted based upon reliable evidence. His own words were used against him because of a monumental and sophomoric blunder made by his attorneys in a previous civil litigation.

 

[Paulie]

That's great and all but this assumes that these women really didn't want to sleep with him. There's no way to really know but critical thought leads me to believe that the likelihood that none of them had any desire to sleep with him is pretty slim. Women would literally throw panties at michael Jackson and break down crying over his mere presence near them, so I'm to believe that millions of women wanted to Fuck michael, a dude never really known for his looks, but somehow none of these women wanted to fuck Cosby? I just have a hard time believing that

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

That's great and all but this assumes that these women really didn't want to sleep with him. There's no way to really know but critical thought leads me to believe that the likelihood that none of them had any desire to sleep with him is pretty slim. Women would literally throw panties at michael Jackson and break down crying over his mere presence near them, so I'm to believe that millions of women wanted to Fuck michael, a dude never really known for his looks, but somehow none of these women wanted to fuck Cosby? I just have a hard time believing that

Have to go by the the facts that are available. A drugged person cannot give consent and these woman are saying they were not willing. Your speculation on how “millions” of women would feel is irrelevant

 

[Paulie]

Thanks for educating me on the justice system

 

[Votto]

The trial was not a sham. The evidence against Cosby was damning. At a civil trial deposition in 2005 he admitted he gave Quaaludes to women he wanted to have sex with. The women in his criminal trial testified that they were unable to resists his advances because of their drugged state. It doesn't matter that they voluntarily took the drugs. What matters is that they were incapable of giving informed consent and were physically unable to resist the sexual acts which followed. A man who has sex with a women who is drunk, drugged or otherwise incapacitated is guilty of sexual assault. That is the law.

The one thing I will never understand is why Cosby testified the way he did at his deposition. He could have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify, but he didn't. His attorneys were amazingly incompetent to allow that to happen. For those of you who are not familiar with the law, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself regarding anything which might incriminate him. This right is not limited to criminal trials but also includes civil proceedings. The difference is that in a criminal trial the jury must be instructed that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify whereas in a civil trial the jury is free to consider the defendant's refusal to answer questions.

The apparent reason for the different treatment of a defendant in a criminal and civil process is that in the first instance the State is the moving party and in the second another person, the victim, is the moving party. Protecting a defendant against the awesome powers of the state makes sense; however no man should be able to hide behind the Fifth Amendment curtain in order to deny relief to his victim.

CONCLUSION: Cosby was properly convicted based upon reliable evidence. His own words were used against him because of a monumental and sophomoric blunder made by his attorneys in a previous civil litigation.

...........and his last name was not Clinton.

You forgot that little bit.

Sure, Bill is guilty but what turned the tide against him was him speaking out against the Black community. He sounded a little to conservative when he insisted that Black men need to grow up and raise their families instead of running off, leaving their wife and child in poverty while they blame whitey for their financial woes.

 

[Votto]

Thanks for educating me on the justice system

The law is really an art.

For example, prostitution, illegal but porn is legal.

So next time you want to hire a prostitute, just tell her you want to film and then they can't arrest you.

Now this may not make sense to you and I, but to a super duper smart lawyer this makes perfect sense.

Thank God they run our country.

 

[rightwinger]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

 

[Votto]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

It's like Weinstein. They use them up for monetary benefit and then wait till they get old and have nothing left to contribute to society and then take them out in a field and shoot them.......unless your last name is Clinton.

Socialist health care does the same thing.

 

[rightwinger]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

It's like Weinstein. They use them up for monetary benefit and then wait till they get old and have nothing left to contribute to society and then take them out in a field and shoot them.......unless your last name is Clinton.

Socialist health care does the same thing.

Weinstein was never a cultural icon

 

[Votto]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

It's like Weinstein. They use them up for monetary benefit and then wait till they get old and have nothing left to contribute to society and then take them out in a field and shoot them.......unless your last name is Clinton.

Socialist health care does the same thing.

Weinstein was never a cultural icon

I dunno. In Hollywood he sure was.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

It's like Weinstein. They use them up for monetary benefit and then wait till they get old and have nothing left to contribute to society and then take them out in a field and shoot them.......unless your last name is Trump.

Socialist health care does the same thing.

Fixed it for you.

Such a sad sack of shit you are. Keep blathering about Clinton, while supporting the child raping sexual predator in the White House.

 

[rightwinger]

Sad to see an icon like Bill Cosby destroyed

But he was a monster

It's like Weinstein. They use them up for monetary benefit and then wait till they get old and have nothing left to contribute to society and then take them out in a field and shoot them.......unless your last name is Clinton.

Socialist health care does the same thing.

Weinstein was never a cultural icon

I dunno. In Hollywood he sure was.

He was a hero to conservatives when he used to criticize black people

See? Why can’t you be more like Bill Cosby?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I'm trying to think what the confusion was about the definition of consent, then I realized, they didn't say that because they didn't understand, they said that because they are not accepting that the women consented
...and they voted guilty.
The juror said "we convicted him because of his own words"
What does that mean?
They're referring to an old court case where Cosby said he gave (shared) drugs with women he wanted to sleep with.
The judge said that he released the statement because of Cosby's "poundcake speech". ...which basically talks about black people claiming to be innocent when evidence is against them.
What does it all mean?
The trial was a sham and the jury was loaded against him

Ok now that they have convicted Cosby how about Morgan Freeman who molested 7 females.

 

[Wolfstrike]

I'm trying to think what the confusion was about the definition of consent, then I realized, they didn't say that because they didn't understand, they said that because they are not accepting that the women consented
...and they voted guilty.
The juror said "we convicted him because of his own words"
What does that mean?
They're referring to an old court case where Cosby said he gave (shared) drugs with women he wanted to sleep with.
The judge said that he released the statement because of Cosby's "poundcake speech". ...which basically talks about black people claiming to be innocent when evidence is against them.
What does it all mean?
The trial was a sham and the jury was loaded against him

Ok now that they have convicted Cosby how about Morgan Freeman who molested 7 females.

any police reports?

 

[strebe]

only because the girl confessed to being gay. And she is the one who putting cosby in jail.