Bill Cosby released - conviction overturned

Overheal

tdf7187 wrote: »

Just so as we're clear, America is a horrible fascist racist country which oppresses black people using the legal system to subject them to all kinds of iniquities, except Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, who are somehow exempt.

3 whole black Americans with multimillion dollar legal teams scraped “wins” out of the criminal justice system and you want to demonstrate that as some argument about the fairness of the legal system on race? Don’t think so bud.

FileNotFound

Overheal wrote: »

3 whole black Americans with multimillion dollar legal teams scraped “wins” out of the criminal justice system and you want to demonstrate that as some argument about the fairness of the legal system on race? Don’t think so bud.

3 very guilty men

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

The suggestion that people will see this as a green light to drug and sexually assault women is insane.

In fairness, since one poster has drawn this from the story, pretty warped interpretations from it is not unusual... Treating it as if it's some victory...

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

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

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

"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.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you aren't convicted then, in the eyes of the law, you are innocent.

FTA69

tdf7187 wrote: »

Just so as we're clear, America is a horrible fascist racist country which oppresses black people using the legal system to subject them to all kinds of iniquities, except Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, who are somehow exempt.

Yeah the fact they’re all multi millionaires with the best legal counsel money can buy has no bearing at all.

There is a proven race dynamic in the American justice system; but also a wider reality that if you’re broke you’re probably going to get shafted.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty. If you aren't convicted then, in the eyes of the law, you are innocent.

Indeed. He's only guilty in the eyes of the public now. The facts the court found haven't changed, only the law's ability to convict and sentence him for it has.

BillyBiggs

There’s probably no woman out there who would allow Cosby buy her a drink.

...Ghost...

BattleCorp wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty. If you aren't convicted then, in the eyes of the law, you are innocent.

Are we ever innocent in the eyes of the law? You are only "not guilty". Something I would like to see changed, because you are innocent before you become a defendant and never after.

BillyBiggs wrote: »

There’s probably no woman out there who would allow Cosby buy her a drink.

This woman might

sligeach

Some very clueless people spouting garbage on here. Michael Jackson was found NOT guilty on every charge in 2005. They couldn't even frame him successfully with misdemeanor charges. The media spout whatever will sell newspapers, gets them ratings, etc. It's negativity that sells, not positive stories.

Back in the real world, the courts deal with FACTS. I challenge people to look at the facts that cleared him, which also covered the 1993 allegations. I think some people don't care about the truth. They love being part of a lynch mob, they want him to be guilty, or they're just I don't know if I'm allowed say the word, t****s. So you think Michael got off because of money. Really? So how much money did the state of California spend, the various police departments, social services, child services, the FBI,etc, etc, spend? They found NOTHING. The FBI who investigated Michael Jackson for over 17 years released their files on him after his death. NOTHING. There isn't one shred of incriminating evidence. So did one man outwit everyone?

The accusers, meanwhile, their stories are full of provable lies. They all went to their lawyers first, looking for money, not the police.

Leaving Neverland, was a mockery. A one-sided hit piece, with more holes than Swiss cheese. It's not about money say Wade and James. Omitting that they've had lawsuits thrown out of court for 100's of millions of dollars. They've had their cases thrown out since as well. They'll sue anything and say anything to get money. But they're done, unless they appeal. They might as well, they already owe a tonne of money, just keep digging lads. Their cases are so laughable they haven't gone to full trial. They've been dismissed outright. Their stories have changed more times than the Irish weather. There is one TRUTH.

Had Michael Jackson been alive these case never would have happened. That mockumentary wouldn't have been made, the director said so. Damn right, because they all would have been sued(HBO, Channel 4, Dan Reed, etc), and successfully. But in death, he has no legal protection. They can say what they like, without fear of prosecution. They've lost every single legal battle, but there is one still ongoing, and that's the MJ Estate against HBO, which the lawyers are very confident of winning.

Overheal

Some very clueless people spouting garbage on here. Michael Jackson was found NOT guilty on every charge in 2005.

... who said otherwise?

FileNotFound

Overheal wrote: »

... who said otherwise?

Don't think anyone said he was found guilty but you'd have to be wacko to think Jacko was innocent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually only told one joke. And it was a very obvious joke to make as the question was nonsensical.

And I am asking you a serious question. And you are fully aware that it is a good question by the fact that you refuse to answer it.

But you may continue to be disingenuous by deflecting from answering each time, its up to you.

I'm not deflecting. The fact you think it's a "good question" is evidence enough not to engage with you. It was as nonsensical as your "joke"

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not deflecting. The fact you think it's a "good question" is evidence enough not to engage with you. It was as nonsensical as your "joke"

So, you are 'not deflecting' from answering a question, but at the same time, are citing an ad hominem reason for refusing to answer the question.

Now, I would say as a third party observer that definitely looks like deflection. What question are you claiming to not be deflecting from answering?

sligeach

Overheal wrote: »

... who said otherwise?

This.

FileNotFound wrote: »

3 very guilty men

Overheal wrote: »

3 whole black Americans with multimillion dollar legal teams scraped “wins” out of the criminal justice system and you want to demonstrate that as some argument about the fairness of the legal system on race? Don’t think so bud.

Do you know the meaning of the word "scraped"? Michael Jackson being cleared of all 14 charges is the opposite of scraped. 14! It was an emphatic victory for justice. The accusations were a farce, it never should have gone to court, there was no case to answer and so the prosecutions case fell to pieces.

The Michael Jackson Trial : One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

99nsr125

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.

He should sue for wrongful conviction and damages

99nsr125

Hector Savage wrote: »

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

It didn't happen

Wrongful conviction

That accusation would be libel and as per boards you could get a ban for saying so

MOR316

FileNotFound wrote: »

3 very guilty men

Not in Michael's case.

No evidence then and the case ended 6 weeks earlier than it was due to because of no evidence and the family exposing themselves in the courtroom.

Same way the two lads from that documentary have had their cases thrown out. No evidence and they keep changing their stories, that are different to their previous ones. Had their cases thrown out again recently, after yet another version. Also, it doesn't help them when the director of that documentary, is going around in interviews saying, "it's about the money" and "I coached them in what to say" and when the contradictions and lies that are in that documentary are brought up, he throws them under the bus and says he took them at face value.

Then again, they don't help themselves by lying on their depositions constantly and their relatives stating otherwise. One of their cousins says nothing of the sort ever happened as he was there and there is some sound engineer who worked on the documentary called Kevin Lipsey, who says they said the exact opposite off camera so...

Once there is proof someone has committed a crime, by all means, throw the book at them and in Michael Jackson's case, I'd be the same...But this modern day lynch mob mentality of, "well there's no proof he did it and was found not guilty in court but, we're going to attack them anyways" is uncomfortable from my perspective.

It's like everyone was quick to throw Johnny Depp to the wolves...Now, it's not as straight forward as people thought. Don't like that in society at all

sligeach

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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

No. Most right thinking, intelligent people know Michael Jackson was innocent. He wasn't found not guilty because of any technicality. He walked free because of facts. Of that, I am sure.

Overheal

sligeach wrote: »

Do you know the meaning of the word "scraped"?

Really, this was the trigger word for assuming that I was saying Michael Jackson was not found not guilty? I'm not unaware of what happened, I am aware he was found not guilty.

I don't know what you are trying to argue, honestly.

Some very clueless people spouting garbage on here. Michael Jackson was found NOT guilty on every charge in 2005.

Never did I say he was found guilty. To the contrary the user's point about race and the legal system, whom I was replying to, was based squarely on the very fact that Michael Jackson (and Cosby and Simpson) were found not guilty.

Overheal wrote:

tdf7187 wrote: »

Just so as we're clear, America is a horrible fascist racist country which oppresses black people using the legal system to subject them to all kinds of iniquities, except Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, who are somehow exempt.

3 whole black Americans with multimillion dollar legal teams scraped “wins” out of the criminal justice system and you want to demonstrate that as some argument about the fairness of the legal system on race? Don’t think so bud.

How you can possibly have interpreted that as me suggesting he was not found not guilty is beyond my reckoning.

MOR316

FileNotFound wrote: »

Don't think anyone said he was found guilty but you'd have to be wacko to think Jacko was innocent.

I know you don't mean it this way but, Jacko was originally coined by The Sun newspaper as a racist term to describe Michael Jackson.

Jacko was a cockney slang term for monkeys and Woolworths sold "Jacko The Monkey" toys in the 1970s. The Sun newspaper also ran headlines like "Crowd goes ape for The Jacko" in the late 80s

Again, I know you didn't mean it as a racist remark but, it's the 21st century and I think terms like that in general should be left behind where they belong.

There's enough things to throw at him

MOR316

Overheal wrote: »

Really, this was the trigger word for assuming that I was saying Michael Jackson was not found not guilty? I'm not unaware of what happened, I am aware he was found not guilty.

I don't know what you are trying to argue, honestly.



Never did I say he was found guilty. To the contrary the user's point about race and the legal system, whom I was replying to, was based squarely on the very fact that Michael Jackson (and Cosby and Simpson) were found not guilty.



How you can possibly have interpreted that as me suggesting he was not found not guilty is beyond my reckoning.

In the poster's defence, they're very passionate about the topic and he/she probably thought you were assuming he was guilty anyways, regardless of any court findings is all.

Just a misunderstanding

MOR316

FTA69 wrote: »

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

I genuinely cannot stand this stereotypical, uneducated bull**** when it comes to cases like this.

Did you not read how and why it was overturned? It had nothing to do with "money for top lawyers"
Gill from The Simpsons could have had it overturned!

Read it and then reply to me!

Overheal

MOR316 wrote: »

In the poster's defence, they're very passionate about the topic and he/she probably thought you were assuming he was guilty anyways, regardless of any court findings is all.

Just a misunderstanding

The relevant bit here however is that Jackson had to spend millions on his legal defense, and even then, the outcome of the case was far from certain. He had also previously paid out millions of dollars in previous lawsuit settlements. I think it's still fair to say their success in the legal system is not useful as a counterindication of whether or not the legal system has race discrimination issues. Such a conclusion is heavily marred by the fact these 3 examples (Jackson, Cosby, Simpson) were all extremely wealthy individuals who had money for top quality and expansive legal aid and public relations assistance not afforded to your average criminal suspect.

Overheal

MOR316 wrote: »

I genuinely cannot stand this stereotypical, uneducated bull**** when it comes to cases like this.

Did you not read how and why it was overturned? It had nothing to do with "money for top lawyers"
Gill from The Simpsons could have had it overturned!

Read it and then reply to me!

No lawsuit is ever won in court "because one side had the most money" the court always rules on the facts or the logic involved, of course. But how many thousands of hours was the defendant billed by the law firm before they researched and drafted and prepared and demonstrated the argument that the court found satisfied the interests of both their client and the criminal justice system? More than a dollar's worth, I'm sure.

MOR316

tdf7187 wrote: »

Just so as we're clear, America is a horrible fascist racist country which oppresses black people using the legal system to subject them to all kinds of iniquities, except Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, who are somehow exempt.

Well not exactly...

Bill Cosby, as has been explained.

For OJ Simpson, the prosecution absolutely ballsed that one up! The detective who found the infamous glove, pleaded the 5th to everything the defence team asked him, including if he had planted the glove. He had earlier said during the trial that he never used the term "n*****" in his life. OJ's team then introduced tapes where the detective was recorded talking about Police brutality against Black people and he called them, "n******"
This was not long after the Rodney King assault and riots were still happening in LA over that. That was enough to turn the case on it's head. "A racist planted the glove"

For Michael Jackson...Simple as it could get, there was no evidence against him. Accusers caught themselves out several times during the case, the prosecution got burned for trying to plant evidence. They had zero on him. It finished 5 or 6 weeks earlier than it should have ended.

Mellor

Insidious wrote: »

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

He is still guilty. Based on his 2005 civil testimony.

The 2018 formal charge was overturned.

facehugger99 wrote: »

He doesn't have victims.

His conviction's been quashed .

Keep up.

He does have victims. His 2018 criminal conviction was overturned as it was violated a plea deal made in 2005 - violating that would be highly illegal.

However his 2005 testimony from those proceeding stand. Where he admitted in court that he drug, and had sex with women. Based on that testimony, it's perfectly valid to call him a rapist.

Keep up.

Rolling Stone wrote: »

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.

FileNotFound wrote: »

It's a sad day when someone who commits such heinous crimes gets away on technicalities even after being found guilty.

To think they didn't even challenge the fact he was guilty.

He should have ended his life in jail.

It's not a technicality he got off on. He got off on the fact they agreed to not charge him. Imbeciles in the DA office, but legally this is the right outcome.

Prosecutors: Tells us the truth in civil court and we won't charge you, here is the paper to prove it.
Cosby: I'm a rapist.
Prosecutors: HAHA, Our fingers were crossed, go to jail, lol.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty. If you aren't convicted then, in the eyes of the law, you are innocent.

Not quite. The saying it "presumed innocent", until proven guilty.
In this case he loses that presumption when he admits to being a rapist in court.

He can't be sentenced for his crimes due to a plea deal. That does not imply the crimes didn't happen.

MOR316

Overheal wrote: »

The relevant bit here however is that Jackson had to spend millions on his legal defense, and even then, the outcome of the case was far from certain. He had also previously paid out millions of dollars in previous lawsuit settlements. I think it's still fair to say their success in the legal system is not useful as a counterindication of whether or not the legal system has race discrimination issues. Such a conclusion is heavily marred by the fact these 3 examples (Jackson, Cosby, Simpson) were all extremely wealthy individuals who had money for top quality and expansive legal aid and public relations assistance not afforded to your average criminal suspect.

I'd agree with that yeah.

Although, I find it hard to call Simpson's and Cosby's a success...
OJ got off on criminal charges because of the prosecution messing up (will never get my head around that) but, he was left with nothing after the civil case. He did end up in jail but, obviously on a different charge...

Cosby, again we know how and why he was released but, it's still there that he admitted the crime and he did spend 3(?) years in jail

Mellor

MOR316 wrote: »

Cosby, again we know how and why he was released but, it's still there that he admitted the crime and he did spend 3(?) years in jail

And was also found liable in civil court and paid a couple of million dollars in damages.

Tilden Katz

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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

I know but even though Bill Cosby was quite popular, it was no where near the level of adulation Jackson received (and still does to an extent). That is cult-like devotion right there amongst MJ's most devoted fans. I don't think Cosby ever enjoyed that level of loyalty.

Tilden Katz

sligeach wrote: »

Some very clueless people spouting garbage on here. Michael Jackson was found NOT guilty on every charge in 2005... yadda yadda yadda

Oh goody gumdrops. Another Michael Jackson rant from sligeach.

Sligeach. Many people agree with you and believe that MJ was innocent. Many others do not agree with you and believe MJ was guilty. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts on the topic. Let it go.