Jump to content

Menu

Bill Cosby is a free man


Catwoman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just saw that too and that technicality is blowing my mind. He was “promised” he wouldn’t be charged???! Wt actual F??

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I am just seeing this. What’s the reason for this early release?

Bill Cosby to Be Freed as Court Overturns His Sex Assault Conviction (msn.com)

the 7-member Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Mr. Cosby, 83, had been denied a fair trial in 2018

In their 79-page opinion, the judges wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” struck with a previous prosecutor meant that he should not have been charged in the case, and that Mr. Cosby should be discharged. They barred a retrial in the case.

In 2005, Mr. Cosby was investigated in the case of Ms. Constand, and a former district attorney of Montgomery County had given Mr. Cosby his assurance that he would not be charged in the cas

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I think it’s awful that he was ever given a promise that he would not be prosecuted. 

This is IT for me.  Thank you.

I am sorry he is getting out because it means he got away with this behavior, but also I think it is right that they let him go under the circumstances, but also that the deal should never have been made.  And in general I wonder whether this kind of dealing is very strategic and involving corruption and payouts.  It begs the question, is such dealing subject to scrutiny, and under what circumstances can it be overruled?

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think deals like that were just business as usual for decades. He was given that promise in 2005. A system doesn't change overnight and all the structural ways that protect rapists are still in place - in this case, not just figuratively or in some legislation or abstract procedure, but in a literal promise. Disgusting.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seasider too said:

I think it’s awful that he was ever given a promise that he would not be prosecuted. 

A bit of trivia- the DA who gave him this promise is the guy who led the defense of Trump for his second impeachment. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castor's comment on the verdict is jaw-droppingly awful:

Quote

“The Supreme Court has now ruled that the prosecution and the trial judge were wrong, and I was right. It’s obvious the court agrees with what I did,” he said in an interview. “This is a victory for the Constitution, not necessarily for Mr. Cosby. He won’t be able to get nearly three years of his life back and the stress of two trials and the impact of that on his health. But it does say the system works.”

 

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/explainer-bill-cosbys-conviction-overturned-78590160

From the article...

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT?

The promise not to prosecute Cosby was made in 2005 by Bruce Castor, who was then the top prosecutor for Montgomery County. Castor was also on the legal team that defended former President Donald Trump during his historic second impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

During a court hearing weeks after Cosby's 2015 arrest, Castor testified that he promised Cosby he wouldn't be prosecuted in the hopes that it would persuade the actor to testify in a civil case brought by Constand and allow her to win damages. Castor acknowledged the only place the matter was put in writing was in the 2005 press release announcing his decision not to prosecute, but said his decision was meant to shield Cosby from prosecution “for all time.”

His successor noted, during the appeal arguments, that Castor went on to say in the press release that he could revisit the decision in the future.

Castor had said that Constand’s case would be difficult to prove in court because she waited a year to come forward and stayed in contact with Cosby.

Castor's successor, District Attorney Kevin Steele, charged Cosby in 2015 after a federal judge, acting on a request from The Associated Press, unsealed documents from her 2005 lawsuit against Cosby, revealing his damaging testimony about sexual encounters with Constand and others. Castor has said Cosby “would’ve had to have been nuts to say those things if there was any chance he could’ve been prosecuted."

 

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m on my phone and can’t link, but I saw that Phylicia Rashad (his Cosby Show costar) tweeted, “FINALLY! A terrible wrong is being righted - a miscarriage of justice is corrected!”

She is now dean of the College of Fine Arts at Howard University, according to the article I read.

  • Sad 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I’m on my phone and can’t link, but I saw that Phylicia Rashad (his Cosby Show costar) tweeted, “FINALLY! A terrible wrong is being righted - a miscarriage of justice is corrected!”

She is now dean of the College of Fine Arts at Howard University, according to the article I read.

That makes me sick! 😡 🤬

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seasider too said:

But I don’t get why it would have been on the table in Cosby’s case. If there was enough evidence to prosecute in the first place, why agree to let him off the hook for saying he did it?

It sounds to me the first case (for which this deal was made) the prosecutors did not feel like they had enough evidence. And this evidence played a key part in the other trial as well (according to the article). 

I agree with 2 of the dissenting justices that "though Mr. Cosby’s due process rights had been violated when he relied on Mr. Castor’s promise and testified in the civil case, the remedy should not have been barring further prosecution but throwing out the evidence the prosecution gained from Mr. Cosby’s testimony."

Having this type of case overturned on a technicality makes me upset.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Why?  I saw your post.....nothing to 'Never Mind.'  I am confused.

My brain wasn’t working right, and I just didn’t want to get involved in a sensitive thread in that state.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clarita said:

It sounds to me the first case (for which this deal was made) the prosecutors did not feel like they had enough evidence. And this evidence played a key part in the other trial as well (according to the article). 

I agree with 2 of the dissenting justices that "though Mr. Cosby’s due process rights had been violated when he relied on Mr. Castor’s promise and testified in the civil case, the remedy should not have been barring further prosecution but throwing out the evidence the prosecution gained from Mr. Cosby’s testimony."

Having this type of case overturned on a technicality makes me upset.

I understand the dissent but that is a tough genie to put back in the bottle at this stage.

The whole non-prosecution deal seems to be pretty sketchy but in a system where we do allow these deals to be made it is more harmful in the long run to allow prosecutors the ability to do end runs around them than it is to make them stick to them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised by Phylicia Rashad's tweet. Not that she supports him - lots of people continue to not understand that someone who was never abusive around them were abusive to others. I'm really surprised that she thought it was a good idea to so publicly and loudly and unequivocally shout it so quickly. Like, could she have made a dumber professional decision? 

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

I'm a little surprised by Phylicia Rashad's tweet. Not that she supports him - lots of people continue to not understand that someone who was never abusive around them were abusive to others. I'm really surprised that she thought it was a good idea to so publicly and loudly and unequivocally shout it so quickly. Like, could she have made a dumber professional decision? 

I'm wondering how much is related to her (and everyone else who worked on the cosby show) losing money when it was pulled from syndication when he was arrested/tried/convicted.
She sounds like she doesn't think he was guilty.  But abusers don't want non-victims to know they're abusive.  . . . . .

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

I'm a little surprised by Phylicia Rashad's tweet. Not that she supports him - lots of people continue to not understand that someone who was never abusive around them were abusive to others. I'm really surprised that she thought it was a good idea to so publicly and loudly and unequivocally shout it so quickly. Like, could she have made a dumber professional decision? 

She’s not of a generation that is particularly savvy online.  It’s also clear that she must be authoring her own tweets because no PR firm would post anything like that.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Castor's comment on the verdict is jaw-droppingly awful:

 

What a (all the bad words). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I'm wondering how much is related to her (and everyone else who worked on the cosby show) losing money when it was pulled from syndication when he was arrested/tried/convicted.
She sounds like she doesn't think he was guilty.  But abusers don't want non-victims to know they're abusive.  . . . . .

Yes, I have personal experience with a person in authority who was incredibly wonderful to me. He seemed like the nicest man. Then all this stuff came out that I was like... "This cannot be the same person."  So yeah, I get her. I've been there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Farrar said:

I'm a little surprised by Phylicia Rashad's tweet. Not that she supports him - lots of people continue to not understand that someone who was never abusive around them were abusive to others. I'm really surprised that she thought it was a good idea to so publicly and loudly and unequivocally shout it so quickly. Like, could she have made a dumber professional decision? 

She’s since walked that tweet back, saying she supports victims.  What a jerk to tweet it in the first place. 

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Annie G said:

She’s since walked that tweet back, saying she supports victims.  What a jerk to tweet it in the first place. 

I found her tweet absurdly disingenuous too. Like, she didn't recant what she said, apologize for it, or recognize that Cosby's victims are victims. Rather, she supports "victims" - which to her no doubt means "real victims" which these women were apparently not in her mind. It's pretty clear to me that it was a pointless statement.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farrar said:

I found her tweet absurdly disingenuous too. Like, she didn't recant what she said, apologize for it, or recognize that Cosby's victims are victims. Rather, she supports "victims" - which to her no doubt means "real victims" which these women were apparently not in her mind. It's pretty clear to me that it was a pointless statement.

Agree!!!!  And how can she not think the women were real victims??? HE DETAILED HIS DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR.  Ugh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Annie G said:

Agree!!!!  And how can she not think the women were real victims??? HE DETAILED HIS DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR.  Ugh.

Right? This is not a case where reasonable people can disagree about whether he did something morally repugnant. Someone who can't understand that your personal experience of a victimizer is not the experience everyone has of them should maybe not be in a position of power overseeing students. Obviously her position as dean is not going to countermand the university's policies or change their whole culture, but you do set a tone for a vast portion of student life in a position like that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

I understand the dissent but that is a tough genie to put back in the bottle at this stage.

The whole non-prosecution deal seems to be pretty sketchy but in a system where we do allow these deals to be made it is more harmful in the long run to allow prosecutors the ability to do end runs around them than it is to make them stick to them.

Yeah. It seems like originally the thought it would be the best way to get something done as they didn't think they had enough to prosecute successfully criminally.

That's always going to be a judgement call that could bite you in the a$$ later on if the situation changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I overheard Maxwell also has some deal similar to what Cosby had. What does that mean for her prosecution? And does this case help Weinstein case in any way? 

The issue with Maxwell is that Epstein had a nonprosecution agreement, which may or may not have extended to his employees. So far a judge has rejected her claim that she is covered by Epstein's agreement. Even if another judge were to throw that out, she can also be prosecuted separately for perjury, and possibly for charges involving additional victims that weren't included in the original agreement.

Weinstain's issue is different — he never had a non prosecution agreement, but his lawyers are arguing that his convictions should be thrown out because some of the women who testified against him (victims who themselves had not brought charges) should have been barred from testifying, and their testimony unfairly prejudiced the jury.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Farrar said:

I found her tweet absurdly disingenuous too. Like, she didn't recant what she said, apologize for it, or recognize that Cosby's victims are victims. Rather, she supports "victims" - which to her no doubt means "real victims" which these women were apparently not in her mind. It's pretty clear to me that it was a pointless statement.

Yes, and when she walked back her original post, she talked about the victims telling “their truth,” which obviously meant she thought it wasn’t THE truth. 

Blech.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The issue with Maxwell is that Epstein had a nonprosecution agreement, which may or may not have extended to his employees. So far a judge has rejected her claim that she is covered by Epstein's agreement. Even if another judge were to throw that out, she can also be prosecuted separately for perjury, and possibly for charges involving additional victims that weren't included in the original agreement.

Weinstain's issue is different — he never had a non prosecution agreement, but his lawyers are arguing that his convictions should be thrown out because some of the women who testified against him (victims who themselves had not brought charges) should have been barred from testifying, and their testimony unfairly prejudiced the jury.

Maxwell has a pretty steep hill to climb to be covered by that agreement.

Weinstein has some marginally better legal arguments but I would be shocked to see him succeed on appeal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...