|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2021 12:10:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Jun 30, 2021 15:42:02 GMT -5
Why did the Penn Supreme Court wait 3 years to make this decision?
Somethings fishy about the whole situation, even from the beginning.
Guaranteed a few people made a LOT of money off this on the side…
|
|
|
|
Post by tbp on Jun 30, 2021 16:16:27 GMT -5
Why did the Penn Supreme Court wait 3 years to make this decision? Somethings fishy about the whole situation, even from the beginning. Guaranteed a few people made a LOT of money off this on the side… This has got political shit all over it. Courts and politicians pandering to special interest groups to persecute this innocent and special man. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jun 30, 2021 16:31:41 GMT -5
I wonder if he'll get a new sitcom.
Or he could join OJ in the search for the real killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raoul Duke on Jul 1, 2021 8:11:34 GMT -5
I read an article on this maybe someone here can explain the legalese...From what I understand he's been released because a prosecutor "promised" not to charge him during their conversations. I'm guessing this is so he would talk and avoid incriminating himself. My question is: what was the strategy? If you can't use what he says, why make this promise in the first place? Or maybe he was tip toeing a line saying it wasn't an iron clad "legal" promise?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 1, 2021 8:23:32 GMT -5
I read an article on this maybe someone here can explain the legalese...From what I understand he's been released because a prosecutor "promised" not to charge him during their conversations. I'm guessing this is so he would talk and avoid incriminating himself. My question is: what was the strategy? If you can't use what he says, why make this promise in the first place? Or maybe he was tip toeing a line saying it wasn't an iron clad "legal" promise? He admitted to drugging women before sex but claimed is was consensual in a civil deposition. For some reason he was given immunity for the future in exchange for this. Due to this most legal experts fully expected him to get out. Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Raoul Duke on Jul 1, 2021 8:36:00 GMT -5
I read an article on this maybe someone here can explain the legalese...From what I understand he's been released because a prosecutor "promised" not to charge him during their conversations. I'm guessing this is so he would talk and avoid incriminating himself. My question is: what was the strategy? If you can't use what he says, why make this promise in the first place? Or maybe he was tip toeing a line saying it wasn't an iron clad "legal" promise? He admitted to drugging women before sex but claimed is was consensual in a civil deposition. For some reason he was given immunity for the future in exchange for this. Due to this most legal experts fully expected him to get out. Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. You're not answering the question. What was the play for the prosecutor here? |
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 1, 2021 8:40:20 GMT -5
He admitted to drugging women before sex but claimed is was consensual in a civil deposition. For some reason he was given immunity for the future in exchange for this. Due to this most legal experts fully expected him to get out. Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. You're not answering the question. What was the play for the prosecutor here? He wanted the victim to get compensation I think. Cosby would have invoked his right to remain silent during the deposition and she would have got nothing. Maybe he got a bag of cash too. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 1, 2021 8:57:05 GMT -5
He admitted to drugging women before sex but claimed is was consensual in a civil deposition. For some reason he was given immunity for the future in exchange for this. Due to this most legal experts fully expected him to get out. Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. You're not answering the question. What was the play for the prosecutor here? I’m guessing he assumed he’d never get a conviction in court so he took the civil win. Pretty sort-sighted to say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 1, 2021 10:27:41 GMT -5
Welp....personally, I had serious doubts as to the number of women coming forward stating the same story (even though Bill in his deposition did admit to using Quaaludes; my skepticism lies in the suspicion that some of those women may not have been victims but were looking to cash in but that's now a moot issue).
Anyway, I am okay with him being out of prison. Have you seen him lately? The man is blind and needs help to walk anywhere. At the very least, he'll now spend the rest of his remaining days in his home with his trophy...err..gold-digging..umm, I mean...wife. I doubt he will end up pulling an OJ and end up back in prison...just a hunch.
BTW, anyone see this yet?
When I saw that, I knew what would happen next and I was right, based on the responding tweets by the cesspool of idiots there.
She got raked over the coals for this comment.
In fact, there is now a petition to have her removed as Dean of the College she's working at.
In Today's America, No one is allowed to have a different opinion anymore.
You must conform and be of the same hive-mind or be destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 1, 2021 10:36:35 GMT -5
I read an article on this maybe someone here can explain the legalese...From what I understand he's been released because a prosecutor "promised" not to charge him during their conversations. I'm guessing this is so he would talk and avoid incriminating himself. My question is: what was the strategy? If you can't use what he says, why make this promise in the first place? Or maybe he was tip toeing a line saying it wasn't an iron clad "legal" promise? Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. The difference between 60 Minutes exposés, fame, book advances and fading into oblivion is what team your perpetrator plays for. The "allies" have done more to harm these women than anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 1, 2021 10:39:06 GMT -5
He is a scumbag. But if he made a deal, he made a deal. Prosecutor should be fired and disbarred.
Gotta have principles. Even if they lead to unfavorable outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jul 1, 2021 10:47:57 GMT -5
He is a scumbag. But if he made a deal, he made a deal. Prosecutor should be fired and disbarred. Gotta have principles. Even if they lead to unfavorable outcomes.
In overturning Cosby’s 2018 sexual assault conviction, the court said Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele was legally bound by Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby more than a decade earlier when he was DA — and therefore should not have brought charges when new evidence surfaced.
“When a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced,” Justice David N. Wecht wrote in the majority opinion.
Yup. This is why people despise Lawyers. Because they defend those who we don't want to be defended.
This turned out to be a case of "TOUGH-SHIT, DEAL WITH IT!".
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 1, 2021 11:27:00 GMT -5
He is a scumbag. But if he made a deal, he made a deal. Prosecutor should be fired and disbarred. Gotta have principles. Even if they lead to unfavorable outcomes.
In overturning Cosby’s 2018 sexual assault conviction, the court said Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele was legally bound by Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby more than a decade earlier when he was DA — and therefore should not have brought charges when new evidence surfaced.
“When a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced,” Justice David N. Wecht wrote in the majority opinion.
Yup. This is why people despise Lawyers. Because they defend those who we don't want to be defended.
This turned out to be a case of "TOUGH-SHIT, DEAL WITH IT!".
If you are a critic of prosecutorial misconduct and unfair practices then you have to be blind in that criticism. Cant cheer when they do it to someone you think is the bad guy. This is banana republic stuff that happens everyday to regular people. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 1, 2021 11:34:28 GMT -5
Things like this are why woman are hesitant to come forward. The difference between 60 Minutes exposés, fame, book advances and fading into oblivion is what team your perpetrator plays for. The "allies" have done more to harm these women than anyone else. Certain "allies" for sure. But all in all the justice system and the wallet of the accused still play the major role. And yeah, the judge really had no choice. In fact it should have happened years ago. IMHO for the most part judges and cops aren't the problem in our system its the crap that goes on at the mid-level. |
|
