Bill Cosby released from prison

Post Reply New Topic

The prosecutor did not feel that the case was winnable. By stating that they would not prosecute Crosby, he could no longer plead the 5th in the deposition. Thus, he felt that they could at least get something for the victim from Crosby.

But here is what I don't understand even from reading google. Google explains the what, but they do not explain the why and the how so much of how it works.

What did they feel they could not get for the victim if it was not winnable? What else is there to get besides winning?

For those who might feel Cosby got away with rape. His original sentence (after being railroaded) was 3-10 years.

Technically he already served 3 years and he is 83 years old.

I don't see any advantage in making him suffer any further.

Crosby deserves the death penalty. I don't care how old he is.

It never ceases to amaze me when the alt-left wackadoodles argue for incredibly short sentences for the most disgusting criminals. The man is a rapist who drugged his victims.

Could you show me one example of a rapist getting the death penalty?

I can show you an example of a wackadoodle leftist attempting to justify an incredibly short sentence for a man who drugged and raped multiple women.

You said he deserved the death penalty but cant show me one example of somebody charged with rape ever getting the death penalty?

You're probably right. I just thought it was odd that at roughly the same time, maybe slightly later, Full House did a very similar episode with a very different message. Stephanie Tanner went on a similar crash diet and brutal exercise regime. The ending of the episode said that crash diets are extremely dangerous and can lead to anorexia.

The dangers of anorexia weren't wholly unknown in the 1980s. For them to ignore known science makes it even more irresponsible.

The reason I mentioned that episode it because it fits into the Cosby Show's success at all costs attitude. The idea is that if you're not a lawyer or an obsitrition living in a New York Brownstone, you're nothing.

If you want an example of Cosby's sexist attitudes, read Love and Marriage. I had the misfortune to read this book when I was single and looking for relationship advice. The book is divided into two halves. The first half concerns Cosby's youth, during which he had a creepy obsession with stalking girls and getting dates with them at any cost, even if it meant telling such lies as saying he was on the track and field team.

The second half deals with his married life. He paints a (largely fictional) picture of his wife as a domineering shrew. He had one story, they sat down at a restaurant and he ordered a steak. Camille said out of the blue "You can't eat that, we're vegetarian now" and Bill Cosby wasn't allowed to eat a bite of meat for three years. That would be a damning story, if any of it was actually true.

He didn't mention the countless times he cheated on Camille. He didn't mention him being at fault for anything at all in his marriage. He made it look like every bad thing that happened to him was 100% her fault. It's like Bill Cosby can't take responsibility for anything.

The 80s was the launch of the aerobics era. It was quite common at the time for women to jump into lycra/leggings and exercise to electro-pop

If you watch his press conference, he hasn't taken responsibility at all. He maintains his innocence. What's more interesting is the number of black celebrities who seem to be celebrating his release. Not sure what to make of that?

Well what I don't understand is, is that with the sources I read, is that he was given immunity in exchange, and they didn't honor that deal. Immunity in exchange for what though? Was he testifying against some criminal who was bigger than he was, and got immunity in exchange for that? What did he offer the court in exchange for immunity that was so valuable to them?

Immunity against future prosecution. Cosby was misled to believe he must testify by the prosecution, I think his defence lawyer should have properly advised him.

But what is he giving them in exchange for his immunity though? What did he have that they wanted?

There was some arrangment he made which was a verbal (rather than a written agreement) that prosecurtors would not pursue a future case.

Cosby (for reasons only known to him) later (perhaps feeling confident) admitted that he put Quaaludes in girls drinks he wanted to have sex with, The critical thing that got him jailed is admission in a 2005 deposition to giving Constand several Benadryl pills on the night of the alleged assault in his Philadelphia-area mansion in 2004.

As I said it might have been an oversight on Cosby's part. The decision to reverse is based on the contract made in 2005. There may have been an out of court settlement otherwise the prosecutors would not have agreed to initially drop the case.

The 5th amendment of the US Constitution protects the defendant from being forced to testify against themselves. This is true in civil cases (where the lawsuit is about equity and damages) as well as criminal cases. This is because the government should not be allowed to force you to testify in a deposition for a civil case and then using the deposition in a criminal case. Similar to being forced to testify in Congress about actions you committed that might be criminal. The idea is that there should not be an end run around the 5th amendment. However, if the district attorney agrees to not bring a criminal case against a defendant, then the defendant can be forced to testify in a civil case because the 5th amendment no longer applies (you cannot be tried for a crime).

In this case, the former DA reviewed the evidence and decided that he could not get a conviction based on the evidence provided to him of beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he felt that the victim could get a monetary reward in civil court which does not have a strict level proof (I think they use preponderance of evidence instead). Even there, the victim could not get an award from the court unless they could get Cosby to admit to what he did. Cosby was not required to testify as long as criminal charges were hung over his head. The former DA therefore publicly announced (but did not put in writing) that he was not going to charge Mr. Crosby for any crime that he admitted to while under oath in the civil case. The result was that Mr. Crosby was required to testify in the civil case and Mr. Crosby ended up settling with the victim for $3.4 million.

Years later, a new DA was running for office. Caught up in the MeToo moment, part of the new DA's campaign was that he was going charge and try to convict Mr. Crosby as at the time, the statute of limitations had not run out. He probably did not know about the previous DA's dealing with Mr. Crosby and the deal that was made since it was not a signed agreement (but had been publicly stated in the newspapers). The new DA was elected into office and did as he promised, using the testimony from civil case, and got a conviction. Whether Mr. Crosby's lawyers objected to the recorded testimony from the civil case being used or not, I do not know. I am sure that they did, at least to preserve record for appeal (which is why defense attorney's object to quite a few things, hoping that something sticks for appeal). If they did object, the trial judge overrode the objection which they can do absent direction from a higher court. Because of that testimony, the new DA was able to get the jury to convict on a charge that without the testimony, probably would not have been able to get the conviction.

Mr. Crosby's attorneys appealed the case (which you would expect in a case that went to trial) and the high court ruled that even though it was not written, the agreement of the previous DA was publicly known and as such, had to be followed by subsequent DAs. Also, the court found that Mr. Crosby probably would not have testified in the civil case had it not been for that agreement. Thus, the new DA did an end run of Mr. Crosby's 5th amendment rights and the conviction was tossed. They also said that Mr. Crosby cannot be tried again for that particular victim because the high court even saw that without the testimony, there would have been no conviction, as well as a sanction against the new DA for doing this end run. Thus, Mr. Crosby was freed from prison and his criminal record cleared, as if he committed no crime. That does not mean however that Mr. Crosby did not commit the crime. It simply means that in the end, the DA could not prove it without using unconstitutional means.

Now the new DA can appeal to the US Supreme Court but given the current makeup, I doubt it would be successful. This should be a warning to future DAs that if they decide to help a victim win a civil suit, they need to give up the criminal charged forever. Also, for defense attorneys, regardless of pubic statements regarding an agreement, they need to get it in writing.