Thread: Bill Cosby trial: Mistrial declared after jury deadlocks

https://apnews.com/692bf26493964b19afe90300b5c4ad95

Judge Steven O’Neill told the panel of seven men and five women that it was “an extraordinarily difficult case.”

Ain't that the truth ?
There is a fine line separating shared drinks and/or recreational drug use before a tryst of some type, and drug administration by the man for purposes of stupefaction. His fame and age, together with how long ago it happened, make it a bit of a nightmare.

Guilty on three counts, each one up to ten years, although can be concurrent.

Let's hope the rapist dies in prison.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Guilty on three counts, each one up to ten years, although can be concurrent.

Let's hope the rapist dies in prison.

Folks like Cosby never see the inside of a real prison [if at all].
Instead, they receive time at a country club prison.

No apologist for Cosby, but....
No hard evidence, just he said/ she said. And 'she' had already accepted a $3.4mm settlement, about a decade ago.
That was a Civil complaint (settled out of Court)- this was a Criminal case. Rules of evidence apply, and the presumption of Innocence until proven Guilty.
How was Guilt able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in a he said/ she said shitfight, concerning an 'incident' that happened so many years ago?
Especially when the plaintiff did not launch a complaint at the time, and had considerable contact with Cosby after the alleged assault?
Plus, several of her statements were contradictory. Not sure this Judgement could survive Appeal.
They should have done him for illegally supplying the drugs instead, without permission- certainly guilty there, by admission.

There was a different culture in those days and the whole thing needs to be looked at in that light. Different drug culture and different sexual culture.

Hell, in 1975 even I took Mandrax (called Quaaludes in the States) a few times. Wouldn't have even thought of slipping it to women though.

Women were very loose, sexually. And though some of those cases allegedly ooccurred much later, he was still operating in that mindset.

Poor bastard....I still feel sorry for him, with potentially the rest of his short old age in jail.

Seriously?

He drugged someone against their knowledge in order to assault them.

It wasn't a bunch of swingers passing a few tabs around and getting it on.

Possible to disagree on guilt/innocence, but 'the times' don't justify this.

Women were very loose, sexually.

Some things never change.

He drugged someone against their knowledge in order to assault them.

Or seduce them? I think that's the point of law here. From what I can recall of testimony, she took the 'blue pills' voluntarily, but testified she "didn't know what they were". H'mmm. Ever ingested drugs before/ during a sex romp? I have.
Cases like these are very hard to prove, even harder to adjudicate. I think this verdict owes more to the Zeitgeist ('Me Too' & all that) than solid legal precedent. Seems to me vulnerable to Appeal.
Shoulda done him for supplying the drugs imo.

Anyway, it's fresh off the press- probably best I wait a day or two until more reliable details come out, to comment further. He's guilty of something, but so far unconvinced this was the right charge.

Originally Posted by cyrille

He drugged someone against their knowledge in order to assault them.

Allegedly.
Nobody really knows if women are jumping on the bandwagon to try to get money out of him. Or jumping on it just because some other woman once got paid out, and they feel miffed at his onetime treatment of them.

We just don't know. That's what the trial is all about. I try to not pre-judge.

Originally Posted by sabang

she took the 'blue pills' voluntarily, but testified she "didn't know what they were". H'mmm.

Right. Not good for the prosecution.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Allegedly.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Possible to disagree on guilt/innocence, but 'the times' don't justify this.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I try to not pre-judge.

You're trying over several posts to suggest this was all pretty normal, because things like that were quite common. It's like saying rape is normal because lots of people have sex.

The key difference is consent and your repeated, wistful 'gals were really up for it back then' remembrances completely miss the point.

No statute of limitations on any of these charges which are two decades old?

Looks like 78 year old NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw is next in the bullseye - allegations from 1/4 century ago.

The emergence of the "me too" movement between the first hung jury trail and this one which found him guilty was the element which done him in.

Basically a he said she said trial with little hard evidence provided by the prosecution. This time the "she saids" won.

Originally Posted by Norton

This time the "she saids" won.

Which, I believe, will be a continuing trend. Tabloid readers love to see the 'famous' fall.

Originally Posted by Norton

The emergence of the "me too" movement between the first hung jury trail and this one which found him guilty was the element which done him in.

Basically a he said she said trial with little hard evidence provided by the prosecution. This time the "she saids" won.

Six women all describing in accurate detail - under presumably fierce cross examination - exactly the same pattern of events?

That's a little bit more than "He Said She Said", and any half decent defence lawyer would have been able to tear them to bits if they were lying.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

No statute of limitations on any of these charges which are two decades old?

They aren't.

In most of those cases, the statute of limitations passed long before the women came forward. But in 2015, Cosby was charged with the 2004 assault of Andrea Costand, who said Cosby had given her pills in his suburban Pennsylvania home that left her incapacitated and then molested her.

^That's still over a decade old.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^That's still over a decade old.

But still clearly not outside the statue of limitations for this type of crime.

I don't doubt he did the crimes....or at least some of them. But waiting, in some cases decades, to come forward with accusations?

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I don't doubt he did the crimes....or at least some of them. But waiting, in some cases decades, to come forward with accusations?

No longer a climate of fear for female victims of sexual assault by the powerful and the famous.

Haven't you noticed?

Plus, in some cases (I don't know about this one) they did come forward and the police declined to pursue it.

Sign of the times that these things are now being taken seriously, and not too late in my opinion.

And a sign of those times when the police declined to pursue it.

I am sorry to say, but a woman who come to your place late for a coffee

or come up to your hotel room at 11pm,

have definitely something in their mind and know what's going on

^I believe back in the 'bad days' the term was 'star-fucker' or 'groupie'.

...a pity we don't have a female point of view...yet...