PA Supreme Court overturns Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction (Page 2/2)
Jake_Dragon JUL 01, 11:41 AM
I hope the woman comes back and sues the former DA
****ing attorneys, its not about the law. Its who has the most money and power.
Rickady88GT JUL 01, 11:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:

I hope the woman comes back and sues the former DA
****ing attorneys, its not about the law. Its who has the most money and power.



I don't know about the attorneys, but I do remember oj being taken to the cleaners.
rinselberg JUL 01, 12:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
I hope the woman comes back and sues the former DA
****ing attorneys, its not about the law. Its who has the most money and power.


This isn't my way of adding any "spin" to this discussion, but that "former DA" was Bruce Castor. He had a starring role during the second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, in February 2021. He presented the opening argument in defense of DJT against the single article of impeachment and alternated with one other lawyer (if memory serves me) in standing up and defending Trump during the trial in the Senate.

Hey, I"m no lawyer, but it seems kind of strange (to me) that it was just a verbal agreement between Bruce Castor and the lawyer(s) representing Bill Cosby that became the focal point here. A verbal agreement. Not even memorialized in a document and kept on file. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the word of Bruce Castor on that.

I think history should remember "two" Bill Cosby's. The public-facing Bill Cosby, not universally liked or admired, but a man with a considerable following, who was outwardly trying (IMO) to contribute to society in a very positive way, vs. the private Bill Cosby, a habitual sexual predator and rapist who got away with it for way too many years and created way too many victims. I don't think either of these "quantum entangled" Bill Cosby's negates or cancels the other Bill Cosby.

Bill Cosby should be memorialized by history in a quantum state of superposition, not unlike Schrödinger's very celebrated "cat" who is neither deceased nor extant until the observation is made.

"You're welcome."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2021).]

gtjoe JUL 01, 02:11 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Th

Hey, I"m no lawyer, but it seems kind of strange (to me) that it was just a verbal agreement between Bruce Castor and the lawyer(s) representing Bill Cosby that became the focal point here. A verbal agreement. Not even memorialized in a document and kept on file. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the word of Bruce Castor on that.





The Verbal agreement caused Bill Cosby to give a Sworn deposition in which he testified without using his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. This sworn deposition was then admitted into evidence in his criminal trial, which is should not have been.
BHall71 JUL 01, 04:33 PM
Yea, he is a big ole perv. Years ago I won some tickets on the radio to see his comedy show. Included back stage meet/greet. The way he looked at my wife was creepy as all hell. I cut it short and got us the hell out of there before I got charged with assault myself.

Brian

[This message has been edited by BHall71 (edited 07-01-2021).]

randye JUL 02, 03:25 AM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:

I hope the woman comes back and sues the former DA
****ing attorneys, its not about the law. Its who has the most money and power.



Sue the former DA for what?

What would be her legal cause of action?

Additionally, it IS about the law.

When the government makes an agreement with a defendant, (either verbally or written), then the government is absolutely legally obligated to adhere to that agreement.

Cosby's conviction wasn't overturned on a "technicality".

It was overturned because the government intentionally broke the legal agreement that it made.

The government broke the law.

I will need to look into the matter more but I strongly suspect that the (oral) legal agreement that was made with Cosby is called a "use immunity" which is very common and is used far more than "transactional immunity", which the government obviously didn't extend to Cosby since they did prosecute him for the crime and transactional immunity would have prevented the case from ever being tried.

Use immunity protects the defendant against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the defendant.

Either way, the government did offer Cosby legal immunity, the Appeals court agreed and that is indeed about the law.

I don't like seeing self-confessed sexual predators go free, but what I like far, far less is a government that intentionally breaks the law to do whatever it wants.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-02-2021).]

Hudini JUL 02, 07:15 AM

quote
Originally posted by gtjoe:


The Verbal agreement caused Bill Cosby to give a Sworn deposition in which he testified without using his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. This sworn deposition was then admitted into evidence in his criminal trial, which is should not have been.




Edit: +1 gtjoe’s comments


The publicly announced verbal agreement was with a previous AG. Then the new AG decided to abuse the system of Due Process. There is no doubt he was guilty, however, the abuse of the legal system was very real. The ends do not justify the means.

[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 07-02-2021).]

Jake_Dragon JUL 02, 12:57 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:

Sue the former DA for what?



Because he is a dick
Victims rights should be considered before any deal is made and they should have some say in any plea deal.
Hudini JUL 02, 11:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:


Because he is a dick
Victims rights should be considered before any deal is made and they should have some say in any plea deal.




I believe the agreement was simply to get something, anything, because without it the situation was he said/ she said. The victims could have pursued civil action, but criminal action was never going to work. Maybe the victims will get some satisfaction knowing he served a couple years in prison.
blackrams JUL 03, 03:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:
I believe the agreement was simply to get something, anything, because without it the situation was he said/ she said. The victims could have pursued civil action, but criminal action was never going to work. Maybe the victims will get some satisfaction knowing he served a couple years in prison.



It does not appear that's the situation by the actions, comments being posted and from interviews of those subjected to his sexual aggressions. I don't blame the victims for feeling cheated but, I didn't follow the trial, wasn't on the condemning jury and didn't hear the evidence from either side. But, the fact stands, him being charged after the agreement was made with the state was simply wrong. He should have never been charged. That evidence and testimony would have never been heard in the criminal justice system. That's not to suggest he isn't guilty but, as I said previously, a deal is a deal and if you can't trust the government to keep it's end of the deal, we've all lost.

Rams