Page 7 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,362
Location: Illinois

04 Jul 2021, 8:27 pm

This is a little creepy.


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


collectoritis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 934

04 Jul 2021, 8:43 pm

That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail



collectoritis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 934

04 Jul 2021, 8:50 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
He's still a rapist and a terrible human being even if he can't be held criminally liable.

I believe in innocence until proven guilty. Locking people up on hearsay is scary. Don't believe in slander, no matter how many people keep repeating it.


When it comes to for example autograph forgers then I believe the so called slander , there is a reason why some get booted off eBay and its not cuz they sell legit stuff. "Its slander , my stock is legit" , yeah that's what all forgers say.

These forgers scam for millions so its not just chicken feed were talking bout here.......



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,258
Location: canada

05 Jul 2021, 1:44 am

Why didn't Cosby lie in the civil trial? Even if you are forced to testify in a civil one, you could just lie and no one would know who was telling the truth, so why didn't he just do that for the civil suit?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,137

05 Jul 2021, 1:50 am

ironpony wrote:
Why didn't Cosby lie in the civil trial? Even if you are forced to testify in a civil one, you could just lie and no one would know who was telling the truth, so why didn't he just do that for the civil suit?


I think he was tricked to reveal information he thought he could not be prosecuted over.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,258
Location: canada

05 Jul 2021, 1:54 am

But what was in it for him to reveal it. Why would a rapist admit to the crime, even if tricked? What was the trick they used to that would get a rapist to admit the crime?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,137

05 Jul 2021, 5:29 am

Possibly because the overwhelming number of women made him try and frame the rapes as seduction. He claimed in his deposition the girls were interested in him because of his fame.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/arts ... eceit.html

While he almost certainly raped these 50+ women without consent I agree when he says these women came to him because he was famous. Otherwise why would they be interested in a not so great looking old man.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 6:36 am

If you watch The Social Network, you will realize the whole movie is various civil court case depositions. In the clip below, Mark explains that the is under oath and to lie, he would have to perjury himself.



The penalties for perjury in Pennsylvania are a $15,000 fine and 7 years in prison.

When a civil case is started, after the summons, complaint, and answer phase, is what is called the discovery phase where the parties on both sides are required to lay all their evidence on the table to figure out what the issues are that the judge needs to consider prior to trial. Part of discovery is a process called deposition where each possible witness to the case, as well as the plaintiff and defendant, are required to state the facts surrounding the case under oath. These depositions are usually done in a law office or court meeting room and rarely is a judge involved. They are recorded and the attorneys for both parties are present. The attorney for the party who is not going to present the witness is the one usually asking the questions and the party presenting the witness can object but objections are usually heard in trial or if the side presenting the witness wants the deposition thrown out. These depositions are done under oath so the penalties for perjury do apply. It is the same as if you are testifying on the stand in a real trial.

Now, even in a civil case, you are not required to incriminate yourself in a criminal case in a civil case deposition. If you ever hear of people testifying to Congress, if they think they could be implicated in a crime, they usually take the 5th amendment. The same can happen in a civil case deposition. You are not committing perjury by taking the 5th amendment (otherwise, that would render that particular right useless). However, if criminal charges are dropped, the person can then be forced to testify. There is a SCOTUS case from the 1910s regarding this issue but I cannot find it for the life of me right now.

So what happened is that as discovery was going on in the civil trial, the attorney for the victim discussed with the Old DA that the case was not going well because the evidence they had might not convince a judge or jury, even at the preponderance of evidence level and that they needed Bill Crosby to admit this acts. However, as long as the statute of limitation on the possible criminal charge, Bill Crosby could simply use the 5th amendment and not admit to anything. The old DA then informed the public that he would not charge Bill Crosby for any crime related to the civil case. That removed the reason for using the 5th amendment and thus, Bill Crosby was forced to testify to his actions under oath and under penalty of perjury (so he could have been charged with a crime if he lied). The 5th amendment does not protect you in civil cases, only criminal (just as the 1st amendment protections on free speech only protect you from government action, you employer can still fire you).

So that is why Bill Crosby testified against himself (probably upon legal advice). If he had not told the truth, he would have committed another crime which he could have been charged with, even in the absence of the original charges.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 6:39 am

Also, because of that deposition testimony, Bill Crosby did settle with the victim for $3.4 million so if she was not made whole because of the criminal procedure issues, she still got something out of him (whether cash pays for something like that is up to you to decide).



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 6:45 am

cyberdad wrote:
Possibly because the overwhelming number of women made him try and frame the rapes as seduction. He claimed in his deposition the girls were interested in him because of his fame.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/arts ... eceit.html

While he almost certainly raped these 50+ women without consent I agree when he says these women came to him because he was famous. Otherwise why would they be interested in a not so great looking old man.


And that was the problem with the civil case without Bill Crosby admitting to what he had done. The evidence suggests that the women wanted to be with him and that the activities were consensual.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 6:49 am

ironpony wrote:
But what was in it for him to reveal it. Why would a rapist admit to the crime, even if tricked? What was the trick they used to that would get a rapist to admit the crime?


Because you don't want to commit another crime, perjury. One which is easier for the DA to prove.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 6:51 am

collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,258
Location: canada

05 Jul 2021, 9:03 am

demeus wrote:
If you watch The Social Network, you will realize the whole movie is various civil court case depositions. In the clip below, Mark explains that the is under oath and to lie, he would have to perjury himself.



The penalties for perjury in Pennsylvania are a $15,000 fine and 7 years in prison.

When a civil case is started, after the summons, complaint, and answer phase, is what is called the discovery phase where the parties on both sides are required to lay all their evidence on the table to figure out what the issues are that the judge needs to consider prior to trial. Part of discovery is a process called deposition where each possible witness to the case, as well as the plaintiff and defendant, are required to state the facts surrounding the case under oath. These depositions are usually done in a law office or court meeting room and rarely is a judge involved. They are recorded and the attorneys for both parties are present. The attorney for the party who is not going to present the witness is the one usually asking the questions and the party presenting the witness can object but objections are usually heard in trial or if the side presenting the witness wants the deposition thrown out. These depositions are done under oath so the penalties for perjury do apply. It is the same as if you are testifying on the stand in a real trial.

Now, even in a civil case, you are not required to incriminate yourself in a criminal case in a civil case deposition. If you ever hear of people testifying to Congress, if they think they could be implicated in a crime, they usually take the 5th amendment. The same can happen in a civil case deposition. You are not committing perjury by taking the 5th amendment (otherwise, that would render that particular right useless). However, if criminal charges are dropped, the person can then be forced to testify. There is a SCOTUS case from the 1910s regarding this issue but I cannot find it for the life of me right now.

So what happened is that as discovery was going on in the civil trial, the attorney for the victim discussed with the Old DA that the case was not going well because the evidence they had might not convince a judge or jury, even at the preponderance of evidence level and that they needed Bill Crosby to admit this acts. However, as long as the statute of limitation on the possible criminal charge, Bill Crosby could simply use the 5th amendment and not admit to anything. The old DA then informed the public that he would not charge Bill Crosby for any crime related to the civil case. That removed the reason for using the 5th amendment and thus, Bill Crosby was forced to testify to his actions under oath and under penalty of perjury (so he could have been charged with a crime if he lied). The 5th amendment does not protect you in civil cases, only criminal (just as the 1st amendment protections on free speech only protect you from government action, you employer can still fire you).

So that is why Bill Crosby testified against himself (probably upon legal advice). If he had not told the truth, he would have committed another crime which he could have been charged with, even in the absence of the original charges.


But since they didn't seem to have any proof on Cosby, they wouldn't know if he perjured himself or not, since they wouldn't have any evidence to counter it. So he could have just lied and said it never happened, and they wouldn't be able to prove he was committing perjury.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,258
Location: canada

05 Jul 2021, 9:05 am

demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,873
Location: temperate zone

05 Jul 2021, 9:14 am

ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.


Thats not the point.

You dont have to do something outright illegal to buy justice. Just be rich enough to outbid the taxpayer by hiring a "dream team" of better lawyers to outgun the local DAs (ala OJ). OJ didnt "bribe" anyone, but he got off, even though few today doubt his guilt. The system is designed to protect the innocent - but for that very reason - the system can be manipulated to rescue the guilty- if the guilty are rich. Or even not so rich (like Casey Anthony).



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 9:18 am

ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.


Even the mob does not try to bride jurors anymore. Too easy to prove and cause other legal issues. Especially in a criminal case that was fraught with issues to begin with. And it took 2 juries to convict Crosby so even with the deposition testimony, the states case was weak. No need to bride a juror