Bill Cosby released - conviction overturned

https://www.thejournal.ie/billy-cosby-conviction-quashed-released-5482018-Jun2021/

Didn't see that coming!

Apparently overturned not because the evidence changed, but because the court found that the prosecutor was obliged to hold to an agreement Cosby made with his predecessor.

Kermit.de.frog

Cymro wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/billy-cosby-conviction-quashed-released-5482018-Jun2021/

Didn't see that coming!

Apparently overturned not because the evidence changed, but because the court found that the prosecutor was obliged to hold to an agreement Cosby made with his predecessor.

Meh, I think given his age it's inconsequential really.

Overheal

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bill-cosby-be-released-after-sexual-assault-conviction-overturned-pennsylvania-n1272748

So the old prosecutor, Bruce Castor, thought he could get justice out of Bill Cosby more expediently by declining to press criminal indictment against Bill Cosby, and instead they furthered a civil lawsuit against Cosby, because you can be forced to testify/give disposition in a civil lawsuit.

"Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements," the opinion reads. "D.A. Castor’s successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby’s reliance upon D.A. Castor’s decision — Cosby’s sworn inculpatory testimony — were then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s criminal trial."

The court reasoned that the depositions would have never taken place if the prosecutors office hadn't already decided positively to not criminally charge Cosby, and therefore the prosecutors office using that elicited information to bring forth charges at a later date anyway violated his 5th amendment rights.

This ruling does not exclude the possibility of federal charges sticking to Cosby but I have no idea where Cosby sits in the federal criminal circuit.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Meh, I think given his age it's inconsequential really.

Do you think his victims feel that way?

Kermit.de.frog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think his victims feel that way?

Obviously not but this won't be pursued because he won't be alive much longer anyway.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Obviously not but this won't be pursued because he won't be alive much longer anyway.

He won't be? Are you planning on taking the law into your own hands?

Gatling

Imagine he took a civil case against the DA and won a hefty payout being anything is possible in the US

Kermit.de.frog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He won't be? Are you planning on taking the law into your own hands?

He's 83.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He's 83.

Your point being? He had a 3-10 year sentence, and he could have quite easily lived until the end of that sentence. So what is the significance of bringing up his age?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He won't be? Are you planning on taking the law into your own hands?

What sort of a thing is that to ask when it’s plain to see that’s not what was meant. Are you just looking for a reaction?

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

What sort of a thing is that to ask when it’s plain to see that’s not what was meant. Are you just looking for a reaction?

Did you think that I thought Kermit.de.frog was planning on killing Bill Cosby?

While that would make for a great movie, no. Just no.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He's 83.

That's not why it's not being pursued. He cannot be charged for the same crimes again under Double Jeopardy. The State really ****ed this up. The court system doesn't have a clause mooting criminal justice if the defendant is past a certain age, or of a certain infirmity. Just go look at the Robert Durst trial.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you think that I thought Kermit.de.frog was planning on killing Bill Cosby?

While that would make for a great movie, no. Just no.

Then why get all over excited and ask such a silly question when it was plainly obvious what they meant?

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Then why get all over excited and ask such a silly question when it was plainly obvious what they meant?

Don't worry I got you.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't worry I got you.

I can see from your posts before and after that one that you got all over excited and are backtracking now. Carry on.

Everyone involved still gets paid though right?

suicide_circus

I'd say the Cosby Show replay royalty cheques have dried on him

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you'd like to contribute something relevant to the thread, knock yourself out.

It would be a first for us both.


Anyway, lots of people get off lots of things on technical stuff, he’s near dead, grand.

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

It would be a first for us both.

Literally my first post questioned why a poster thinks Cosby's age is inconsequential.

Are you ok?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Literally my first post questioned why a poster thinks Cosby's age is inconsequential.

Are you ok?

I’m all good thanks, though you’re going heavy on the boards by numbers stuff this evening and should probably take a little break before you go for the trip. Go out and get some sun, Bill won’t get you there.

“Are you ok?” classic.

Insidious

If the conviction has been overturned.. is he still guilty or now assumed innocent? Genuinely curious....

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I’m all good thanks, though you’re going heavy on the boards by numbers stuff this evening and should probably take a little break before you go for the trip. Go out and get some sun, Bill won’t get you there.

“Are you ok?” classic.

Why on Earth are you even in this thread?

I made a relevant comment, then a joke, and then another relevant comment. You then attacked me because you didn't get a joke and have done nothing but attack me in this thread.

I'm actually outside at the moment, but perhaps you should take your own advice and get some sunshine, or at least get a better hobby than looking through people's post history.

Crazy. Prosecution must have Fu*ked up royally

Overheal

Insidious wrote: »

If the conviction has been overturned.. is he still guilty or now assumed innocent? Genuinely curious....

"Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged." - State Supreme Court

As far as the criminal justice system is concerned he's a free man. He has not been convicted of a crime, effectively. Regarding public opinion though, it doesn't change the facts ultimately found in the case, but jurisprudence disallows them to do anything further with the information. He's not 'not guilty' either, though. They've thrown out the guilty conviction and the sentencing judgement is all. So, he remained in the eyes of the law presumed innocent despite what the public has learned about his behavior, which save for prosecutorial misconduct, should have rightly landed him in prison.

Potential-Monke

Sounds like someone was fiddling the system...

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you think that I thought Kermit.de.frog was planning on killing Bill Cosby?

While that would make for a great movie, no. Just no.

I'd watch it.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Meh, I think given his age it's inconsequential really.

It wouldn't be inconsequential to his victims.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think his victims feel that way?

Well, people’s opinion of him has changed irrevocably and at his age, he’s unlikely to offend again. I’d say that even though it would be better if he had remained locked up, the victims still got a result. How many people will think this overturning is because he is innocent?

Potential-Monke

Tilden Katz wrote: »

How many people will think this overturning is because he is innocent?

Judging by the way people are these days, a sizeable portion. Shur people still think Mickey J wasn't a pedo....

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think his victims feel that way?

He doesn't have victims.

His conviction's been quashed .

Keep up.

Mister Vain

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Judging by the way people are these days, a sizeable portion. Shur people still think Mickey J wasn't a pedo....

Mickey Joe Harte was a pedo? :eek:

Tilden Katz

Tilden Katz wrote: »

Well, people’s opinion of him has changed irrevocably and at his age, he’s unlikely to offend again. I’d say that even though it would be better if he had remained locked up, the victims still got a result. How many people will think this overturning is because he is innocent?

Do you think that it is not likely that some people who have similar inner thoughts to Cosby will see how little punishment he got for all of his supposed actions and may now consider taking that risk of turning those thoughts into reality based on this?

Hector Savage

This is a very surprising turn for this, what the hell is going on ???

Hector Savage

facehugger99 wrote: »

He doesn't have victims.

His conviction's been quashed .

Keep up.

Drugging women and raping them ??? doesn;t have victims ... ??

facehugger99

Hector Savage wrote: »

Drugging women and raping them ??? doesn;t have victims ... ??

Who did?

Manic Moran

Hector Savage wrote: »

Drugging women and raping them ??? doesn;t have victims ... ??

The correct term is “alleged victims”, absent a valid conviction.
That said, given that the problem here isn’t that the trial came to a wrong conclusion but instead that it should never have been charged in the first place, it remains that a jury did convict. As a result, I’m not sure quite what the practical terminology should be.

Hector Savage wrote: »

This is a very surprising turn for this, what the hell is going on ???

The US legal system is very big on the fine details. If there is a T not crossed or an i not dotted and the process not bulletproof, convictions will not be permitted.

What.Now

So tell me, If I accidentially bumped into him on the street he could sue me if I called him an abuser?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think that it is not likely that some people who have similar inner thoughts to Cosby will see how little punishment he got for all of his supposed actions and may now consider taking that risk of turning those thoughts into reality based on this?

I think that would be EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely, bordering on completely unlikely.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

He doesn't have victims.

His conviction's been quashed .

Keep up.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Who did?

If you're trying to suggest that he is innocent in a smartarse way, then no.

A district attorney promised Cosby that he would not be prosecuted for raping Andrea Costand if he did not plead the 5th as not pleading the 5th made it more likely that Costand would win her lawsuit.

While unable to plead the 5th, he admitted to drugging Costand before raping her.

Some years later, a district attorney believed they found a way of still prosecuting him for the assault of Andrea Costand and proceeded with it.

Today, the Supreme Court said otherwise.

So, he is not innocent, and he does have victims, but he cannot be prosecuted for raping Costand.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that would be EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely, bordering on completely unlikely.

Oh yes? How do you know that? Do you have such inner thoughts? Or know people with such inner thoughts?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yes? How do you know that? Do you have such inner thoughts? Or know people with such inner thoughts?

Is this another one of your "hilarious" jokes or are you accusing me of having sexually predatory inclinations?

You asked a question, I gave my answer. I do not think that today's events will encourage people to risk drug and rape women.

JP Liz V1

Mister Vain wrote: »

Mickey Joe Harte was a pedo? :eek:

What, the Your A Star Eurovision fella, we got the world tonight?

There was loads of women against Cosby, testimony etc., I'm confused

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this another one of your "hilarious" jokes or are you accusing me of having sexually predatory inclinations?

You asked a question, I gave my answer. I do not think that today's events will encourage people to risk drug and rape women.

No, I asked you for what your basis is of that conclusion. What is the basis for that conclusion?

...Ghost...

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think that it is not likely that some people who have similar inner thoughts to Cosby will see how little punishment he got for all of his supposed actions and may now consider taking that risk of turning those thoughts into reality based on this?

Don't act on those thoughts. It won't end well for anyone. Call the number below. Tell them what's going through your mind and they will help you.

112

FTA69

Goes to show what you can get out of when you have the money for top lawyers.

nolivesmatter

Overheal wrote: »

So the old prosecutor, Bruce Castor, thought he could get justice out of Bill Cosby more expediently by declining to press criminal indictment against Bill Cosby, and instead they furthered a civil lawsuit against Cosby, because you can be forced to testify/give disposition in a civil lawsuit...

I remember his bumbling attempt at a defense of Trump. Seems like everything that guy touches turns to sh*t.

Rolling Stone

So the fact that he admitted to the crime is in a roundabout way part of the reason he is walking free. These BS technicalities are a joke, especially when the person is clearly guilty.

political analyst

As it says in this article from 2015, a key question remains unanswered.

https://www.vulture.com/2015/07/bill-cosby-documents-lawsuit-quaaludes-payoffs.html

Cosby and his lawyer had tried to block the release of the records by claiming the comedian was not a public figure; judge Eduardo C. Robreno disagreed, ruling that Cosby had “donned the mantle of public moralist” and thus “voluntarily narrowed the zone of privacy that he is entitled to claim.”

Before the official release, the AP reported that Cosby had admitted to obtaining quaaludes to give to women he intended to have sex with. The full records reveal that Cosby had seven prescriptions for quaaludes, which he used for this purpose. In his testimony, the comedian said he did give the drugs to other people, and confirmed a Jane Doe witness’s account that they had sex after he gave her the pills: “She meets me back stage. I give her Quaaludes. We then have sex.” Cosby did not answer the question of whether he gave women drugs without their consent.

MisterAnarchy

Hopefully this is the start of the MeToo movement falling apart.

...Ghost...

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Hopefully this is the start of the MeToo movement falling apart.

I don't think the Cosby case is a good example to go by. He is obviously a real creep and technicalities aside, should be locked up. There are genuinely innocent people in prison, or tainted by false allegations and Bill Cosbies case is not an example I would use against metoo

3DataModem

A terrible day for justice (Cosby out), but arguably a good day for the justice system.

A deal was made with a prosecutor that was rescinded (hence the appeal succeeded) which was a bad precedent in any jurisdiction.