Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The DA Bruce Castor didn't have enough to charge Bill Cosby with anything in 2005.
Bruce Castor forced Bill Cosby to incriminate himself with the agreement and understanding that he couldn't be prosecuted.
Bruce Castor faced a close election challenge from one Stephen O'Neill. O'Neill made "I'm going to get Bill Cosby" a big part of his campaign. Castor won that election and continued on as District Attorney.
Stephen O'Neill went on to become a judge.
Judge Stephen O'Neill was the judge over the trial of Bill Cosby. Considering his obsession with going after Bill Cosby, it should not have been remotely possible for him to be the judge in that trial -- but he was the judge anyways.
Risa Vetri Ferman runs for the District Attorney position against Bruce Castor, similarly campaigning on a "I will get Bill Cosby" as a big part of her campaign. She won.
Risa Vetri Ferman's prosecution ignored the deal Castor had made with Cosby and prosecuted him anyways.
So going into the trial, you had a judge that was openly hostile towards Bill Cosby and a District Attorney who was elected on the promise that she would get Bill Cosby.
When Bruce Castor testified under oath that he had made the deal not to prosecute Cosby, Judge Stephen O'Neill had Castor thrown out of court as a hostile witness.
Judge Stephen O'Neill did many things to sway things against Cosby throughout the trial.
Ultimately, Bill Cosby was railroaded by the same BS as Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump: "There sure are a lot of women accusing him, so surely he must be guilty of something!!" Never mind that the man has hundreds of millions of dollars, is a public figure and undoubtedly has a lot of people who hate him and want to ruin him. Apparently, "lots of accusers" without any evidence is good enough these days.
The best actual evidence against him was the video taped deposition in which he was essentially forced to incriminate himself, in violation of his 5th Amendment rights.
Several women were allowed to testify when their testimony should have been legally inadmissible.
It is proven that several of Cosby's accusers were lying.
Bill Cosby has hundreds of millions of reason$$$ for women to want to falsely accuse him. He also had many political and ideological enemies that were quite keen to take him out as well.
One of the jurors said out loud that "we all know he's guilty" before the trial even started. The judge refused to remove that juror.
Bill Cosby's trial was a kangaroo court and a joke. When the prosecution breaks that many rules and the judge is that biased to begin with, there is no conceivable way that Cosby could have gotten a fair trial. I honestly don't know if he raped a bunch of women. He admitted to having a kink for drugging women prior to having sex with them, but some people -- men and women both -- are into some serious freaky sh-t when it comes to sex. It has not been proven that the ladies weren't consenting to all of it at the time. In fact, it is very strange that so many women waited for decades to accuse Coby of anything. The court of public opinion can think what it wants, the court of law requires that you actually prove guilt with facts and evidence. And when the prosecution agrees that they've got no case but pulls what Bruce Castor pulled, essentially coercing self-incrimination from Cosby -- that ain't right. When Ferman decides to ignore what Castor agreed to, that ain't right. When put together the combination of a judge and a prosecutor who are both hell bent on taking out Bill Cosby, the odds of getting a fair trial are pretty much zero.
Adding it all up, there's plenty of reason to seriously doubt that Bill Cosby was ever guilty of anything but being a weird freak sexually. It was never proven that he committed a crime.
There really needs to be some sort of time limit for these accusations- if I get beaten and robbed, it would be absurd for me to go to the authorities about it 5 years later. It needs to be the same way for alleged rape/sexual assault/sexual harassment victims. In all frankness, allegations from unscrupulous women years or even decades after the alleged "sex crime" happened should never see the light of day in a halfway sane society.
I see your point. But a sex crime done by a very famous person. Not some thug assaulting and robbing you. Where the woman wakes up the next day obviously having sexual relations and only remembers drinking something Cosby gave her. And we are talking Bill Cosby. How many people have you hung out with on the celebrity level of Cosby? Most would say zero. She is an unknown person accusing one of the most famous people in the world of a horrible crime. Doing so will end her show business career and who knows what else.
So years later she sees reports of woman claiming exactly what she went through with him. Not just one woman but many. And a light goes on in her head. Some of these woman are just cashing in. But my guess is some are not.
Can you imagine if you partied with women and then years later were falsely convicted of something that you didn't do? Terrible.
He is not a poor guy. He is free on technicalities. Statues of limitations, etc. He has deep pockets to hire good lawyers. Not because he is innocent. There are credible, successful women who have accused him of these things. But the statute of limitations stops their cases.
I see your point. But a sex crime done by a very famous person. Not some thug assaulting and robbing you. Where the woman wakes up the next day obviously having sexual relations and only remembers drinking something Cosby gave her. And we are talking Bill Cosby. How many people have you hung out with on the celebrity level of Cosby? Most would say zero. She is an unknown person accusing one of the most famous people in the world of a horrible crime. Doing so will end her show business career and who knows what else.
So years later she sees reports of woman claiming exactly what she went through with him. Not just one woman but many. And a light goes on in her head. Some of these woman are just cashing in. But my guess is some are not.
I expect that for the vast majority of the women, they're either lying or the scenario went something like this. "Oh wow, I think I'm about to have sex with Bill Cosby!! Hmmm, he wants me to take some drugs before we screw. Okay that's a little weird, but I'm cool with it. I'm still about to have sex with Bill Cosby!! Go me!!"
If one or more women thought the experience was weird, I get that. If it took you a few decades to speak up, then it beggars belief that you weren't consenting at the time.
This is the same BS they pulled with Brett Kavanaugh and it needs to stop.
He is not a poor guy. He is free on technicalities. Statues of limitations, etc. He has deep pockets to hire good lawyers. Not because he is innocent. There are credible, successful women who have accused him of these things. But the statute of limitations stops their cases.
I disagree that this particular case was a technicality. A technicality would have been Cosby getting released because the police failed to mirandize him (or something similar). Here, he should have never been arrested or tried in the first place given the promise by the old prosecutor. Without the deposition, which was the foundation of the criminal trial and which was only given because Cosby relied on the old DA's commitment to never try him, there would not have been much of a case.
No, this is a major constitutional issue and the Constitution won out here. I am by no means a Bill Cosby fan following the release of his deposition transcripts where he admits to buying Quaaludes to drug women for sex. But I also support the Constitution and am against politicians refusing to uphold their oaths to support and defend the document.
Note, even some of the other allegations, I don't blame the statute of limitations for Cosby being free. Those cases would be he said/she said cases without physical evidence, which would present a very tall order for conviction. Even if those women are credible (and many of them are), they would be individual cases constrained by what I just wrote.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 07-01-2021 at 08:27 PM..
He is not a poor guy. He is free on technicalities. Statues of limitations, etc. He has deep pockets to hire good lawyers. Not because he is innocent. There are credible, successful women who have accused him of these things. But the statute of limitations stops their cases.
The women jumped on the sympathy bandwagon. The poor ones just wanted money. The rich ones wanted to gain sympathy for their brands and attention.
Victimhood is trendy these days.
Either way, in the eyes of law, he's innocent.....and that's good enough for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
