The Fall of Bill Cosby

Remove all ads!

Where does it say he was giving the victims pills under false pretense? I mean, it's a fair assumption, but I don't see anything concrete backing it up. Maybe I missed it.

 

HMM ... evidence mounts in this forum at least

little niggles: given word from a public official is binding, there is only burden of proof thereafter

if Cosby lied about using a drug to escape prosection from a more serious offence that's standard

lawyers often become judges or politicians - 'law' has been made a dirty business anyways and practicing it allows 'professioals' to get away with murder all over the world:

"steal a little and they send you to jail, steal a lot and they make you king" - bobo the dylan

 

Yes, I just head that on a podcast. If I was the defense I would try to get the release of the supposedly sealed deposition thrown out, and cause for a retrial. Of course, I would also doubt that they would ever be able to find a jury at this point who could be impartial.

 

I never picked any of that up. It was a shame really... when I was a kid, Bill Cosby was the dad by which all dads were to be judged. He always had the right things to say to his kids to keep them motivated, and to encourage them when they were down. Always seemed to keep his wits about him when the kids did something stupid, or did something that was edgy.

Totally never expected any of that. I mean, he was acting, and it was all scripted. I'm not sure there was really anything you could have seen as a viewer. Not saying your wrong... but I think most people felt as I did.

 

Actors act on stage. His performance in a TV series has as much to do with his private personality or honesty as Hannibal Lector with Sir Anthony Hopkins.

And that is exactly something I´d expect from the people at Salem. She must be a witch, I always privately thought so and now someone else accuses her of being a witch so I must have been right from the start...

You have been thinking of him as a sleazy guy since your childhood - for his acting in a TV series - and think you find your suspicion confirmed by the accusations and then state that you make it a point not to judge anyone based on appearance...?

Not at all. I found it despicable that an 80years old guy who turned blind could still be dragged to court for something that - at the time - allegedly happened at least 15 years ago (some even longer ago). Not that they were searching for him for 15 years like Dr. Kimble on the run, but obviously nowadays people do not report crimes to the police when they happen anymore, but only decades later when an opportunity arises to form a mob.

 

I totally agree, he might have done it but say it when it happens, This is all about the $!

 

Excellent! No, really. Noone should go to jail because someone only says something happened. In dubio pro reo has been the cornerstone of justice in most countries.

If a court trial comes down to: "we have no evidence but the judge believes the accusations" then I would say that any sort of religion, faith or believe has no place in court.

There is almost always some evidence - if the victim immediately goes to secure those (e.g. visit a doctor who can check for DNA-evidence, or remains of the drug in the blood or urine). Even on the dress of Monica Lewinsky was evidence against Bill Clinton found a long time after it happened.

It is a bad thing for the system of justice and even for the women themselves.

If someone really is a criminal you go to the police or state attorney and present all evidence without any delay, so that any crime reported could be examined, searched for evidence, alibis and nothing fades away or is lost.
Not doing so does enable a real criminal to commit further crimes, because the victim(s) before remained idle. You wrote that you think he should be nailed for a ton of crimes that he evaded - had all those been reported and examined in due time, instead of 15 or more years after they happened, then some of the alleged victims may not have had to become victims. And even if the first one or two woman would not have been believed and no hard evidence been found - the trials even if unsuccessfull would have been known by the police and the court in case the 3rd or 4th accusation happens and make them search more thoroughly.

Punishment from a court trial in part is meant not only to punish the criminal, but to deter possible future criminals from commiting crimes by showing them that there is a good chance to be caught and jailed - here all we see is someone in court, 15 years and more too late (and in case of another stage at court perhaps not even jailtime as I think that I read that his attorney considers to attempt to repeal the courts decision).