Bill Cosby’s Sex Assault Conviction Overturned by Court

It's possible that some of the accusers had consensual sex in order to gain favor in a quid pro quo arrangement, but he could not deliver so the accuser felt cheated and made the accusations to get revenge. Some accusers may have jumped on the band wagon hoping for free money but had no case. I always thought highly of Cosby and I doubt that he's the monster he is portrayed to be.
 
I see the priorities of many a DA/candidate in many a case but in the case of rape or other traumatic crimes it's not easy for the victims to testify and/or be interviewed over over about the same incident by police, das, lawyers etc.

In this case the DA got the victim a multi million dollar settlement from that deal. If the then prosecutor pushed the victim to testify in court in 2004 he could've been accused of being over aggressive/ambitious. Keep in mind a rape conviction against a celebrity is vote getting resume entry and a loss an opponent's talking point. But it would've been a daunting task not only trying to compete with a millionaires defense team but there were 'issues' including the victim still talked to Cosby and waited a year to report the crime(shouldn't be an issue but makes case that much harder). Don't forget the victim accepted the deal.

15 years ago the environment wasn't the same so to question that deal to much and use current time thinking, culture etc is tough.
 
RadishRose said:
Not because he is innocent, but because of a previous deal-
"the prosecutor who brought the case was bound by his predecessor's agreement not to charge Cosby."
Click to expand...
Correct. The PA SC decision is quite lengthy, but the issue was just as you point out. They overturned the Superior Court's (Appeal's Court) affirmation of the trial court. The state should have honored the previous Prosecutor's plea agreement the SC ruled. Although it vacates and abates his conviction, that is procedural only.
 
Cosby's sentence was three to five years (from what I remember) and he served nearly three, so it's not like he got off scot-free. And the court specifically stated that it was in no way an exoneration for the crimes of which Cosby was convicted.

Interesting fact about the term 'Scot-Free'
The expression 'Scot-free' originates from the Scandinavian word, 'Skat,' which means “tax” or “payment.” The word mutated into 'scot' as the name of redistributive taxation meant to provide relief to the poor during the 10th century. Someone who did not have to pay the tax for some reason was referred to as 'scot-free.'
 
Aunt Marg said:
That's always been my belief as well.
Click to expand...

jerry old said:
DA's occupy an extremely important place in the court system.
They decide who is guilty and who is not guilty before the trials begin.
Their job is to convict people-period. They have little or no interest in the truth/
Guilty or innocent has little importancne, 'Can we get a conviction is their only concern.
Click to expand...

Jules said:
Many cases are stayed because they know they can’t get a conviction.
Click to expand...

jerry old said:
I wish it was, but it is true.
The DA decides if you stand trial.
Their only interest is 'winning,' if your without funds, have to rely on a public defender (which are inadequate)
your guilty.
There only interest is conviction, not justice. There unrelenting in their desire to have high stats of convictions/

In my state, there all 'want'a be politicians-The DA's office is a springboard to running for political office: judge, mayor, governor...
I've see it time and time again.

I've spent a lot of time at courthouse, listening to the Assistant DA's gossip. Their ambitions, and will ignore what is truth.

The courts have their investigators, very few investigators and incompetent.
One court investigator for several courts, they can only be involved with high profile cases.

If your poor your going to jail.
Click to expand...

Pepper said:
I understand what you're saying @jerry old, and I think (unfortunately) that you're more right than wrong.
Click to expand...

jerry old is spot on correct. Just as the good ole boy justice system is depicted on the large screen, the small screen and in book form just check out the linen cloth tabled bistros near the courthouse at lunchtime and see who's commiserating with who. The PD kisses up to the ADA to become an ADA and the ADA kisses up to the magistrate to either get groomed for the next opening on the bench or consideration for a foot in the door at a local high powered law group and all the minions stir the pot of lies, deceit and betrayal in the name of justice to prop up the goose with the golden gavel on election day. Nature of the beast.
 
Chris P Bacon said:
Sometimes it’s “Wealthy Privelege”.
Money talks, ask OJ Simpson.
Click to expand...
OJ wasn't acquitted at his murder trial because he had money. He was acquitted because of the prosecution team's incompetence & apathy.
First there was the "Glove Show." Then they put that racist cop (Mark Fuhrman) on the stand & the defense made a liar out of him & proved that racism & evidence planting by police did exist, which provided Reasonable Doubt.
OJ's money didn't help him at the civil trial or the second criminal trial for kidnapping & armed robbery.

And money didn't help Mike Tyson, who served 3 years for rape, either.
 
FastTrax said:
jerry old is spot on correct. Just as the good ole boy justice system is depicted on the large screen, the small screen and in book form just check out the linen cloth tabled bistros near the courthouse at lunchtime and see who's commiserating with who. The PD kisses up to the ADA to become an ADA and the ADA kisses up to the magistrate to either get groomed for the next opening on the bench or consideration for a foot in the door at a local high powered law group and all the minions stir the pot of lies, deceit and betrayal in the name of justice to prop up the goose with the golden gavel on election day. Nature of the beast.
Click to expand...
I once inquired of a lawyer about an accident I was involved in and explained that I had spoken to a different law firm about the same incident. The lawyer asked who they were, and I didn't think it was ethical to ask, but she urged me to do so because they all know each-other anyway.
 
Chet said:
I once inquired of a lawyer about an accident I was involved in and explained that I had spoken to a different law firm about the same incident. The lawyer asked who they were, and I didn't think it was ethical to ask, but she urged me to do so because they all know each-other anyway.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exposes just how the world of blind justice really works.
 
Chet said:
It's possible that some of the accusers had consensual sex in order to gain favor in a quid pro quo arrangement, but he could not deliver so the accuser felt cheated and made the accusations to get revenge. Some accusers may have jumped on the band wagon hoping for free money but had no case. I always thought highly of Cosby and I doubt that he's the monster he is portrayed to be.
Click to expand...

I agree here !
 
Chet said:
It's possible that some of the accusers had consensual sex in order to gain favor in a quid pro quo arrangement, but he could not deliver so the accuser felt cheated and made the accusations to get revenge. Some accusers may have jumped on the band wagon hoping for free money but had no case. I always thought highly of Cosby and I doubt that he's the monster he is portrayed to be.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that. I, too, was a huge fan, I agree that some of the accusers may have been consensual and some may be lying, but it only takes one of those women to be telling the truth (when she says he drugged her and then had sex with her while she was passed out or partially paralyzed) to make him guilty of rape -- and he admitted in a previous law suit that he bought quaaludes with the intention of giving them to young women. It's in writing and on film.

This latest is like when they have to dismiss a case against someone who has confessed to the crime, because the police failed to read them their Miranda rights.

I don't mind that he's out now. He's served some time, the truth is out, his reputation as one of the greats is over. He is and always will be known as a rapist. Rightfully so. I'm just glad all this didn't come out till after my father died because he practically worshipped Cosby.
 
Pepper said:
Even though the conviction is being overturned BC was still found guilty by a jury of his peers and did serve actual time, felony time.
Click to expand...
B.C. did admit to drugging women, in order to have nonconsensual sex with them, in affidavits. So, it is not that he's exactly. innocent.
He does have the money for good attorneys. And as we all know, money buys acquittals, and overturned convictions.
As the era of the casting couch, and the entertainment industry's sexual blackmail age becomes a memory, I'm amazed at how extensive it was. So many of the "famous' turned out to be nothing more than dirty old men.
 
Last edited:
mellowyellow said:
What a farce, this makes the judiciary look foolish, hope it can be reversed somehow.
Click to expand...
It was one of the prosecutors that tried to renege on a deal an earlier prosecutor had made. I do not think it can be reversed; it isn't the kind of case the Supreme Court takes, anyway.

It is my understanding that in this case the prosecutors could retry Cosby, because it's my understanding double jeopardy doesn't matter when a verdict is overturned on a technicality.

Whether or not the prosecutor will retry is a whole 'nother question.
 
Butterfly said:
It is my understanding that in this case the prosecutors could retry Cosby, because it's my understanding double jeopardy doesn't matter when a verdict is overturned on a technicality.

Whether or not the prosecutor will retry is a whole 'nother question.
Click to expand...
The PA SC ordered no further prosecution on this matter, so DJ is moot.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top