[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

In his interview, Casper said that he made a promise, not an agreement, or a settlement. Apparently, the only reason for the promise was so Cosby could not claim the fifth amendment and refuse to testify in the civil case.

And that, precisely, was the agreement or understanding. Castor made the promise with the intention that it would eliminate Cosby's ability to claim his 5th amendment protection during the civil case. Whether Castor conspired with the defendant or not, his promise forced Cosby to testify against himself and secured a verdict for the victim.

So either we believe Castor had an agreement with the victim, likely unwritten and possibly unspoken, to drop the criminal case in a way that forced Cosby to testify in the civil case or we believe Castor made the promise for absolutely no reason at all.

We have no way of knowing what Castor's motivation was but assuming he was not entirely a fool, he must have had some plan for why he made the promise.

[Becca9800]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And that, precisely, was the agreement or understanding. Castor made the promise with the intention that it would eliminate Cosby's ability to claim his 5th amendment protection during the civil case. Whether Castor conspired with the defendant or not, his promise forced Cosby to testify against himself and secured a verdict for the victim.

So either we believe Castor had an agreement with the victim, likely unwritten and possibly unspoken, to drop the criminal case in a way that forced Cosby to testify in the civil case or we believe Castor made the promise for absolutely no reason at all.

We have no way of knowing what Castor's motivation was but assuming he was not entirely a fool, he must have had some plan for why he made the promise.

Castor said today he didn't have the needed evidence to secure a criminal conviction, the decision was his to provide the "victim" an opportunity to win a civil suit. And she left a multi-millionaire. Boo-hoo.

And I say "victim" bc she put herself in the same situation not once, not twice, but three times and then cried foul. WTF? I ain't buying.

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by blueash

Please tell me, what Hollywood organization, or any other network is airing Cosby's reruns? I am sure you wouldn't have written that post if you were not certain that it was true. Attacking Hollywood is always good for scoring points.

Now that his conviction has been set aside, do you believe he belongs back on TV or do you favor continuing to "cancel" him?

You can watch the Cosby Show airs on TVONE, Prime airs Fat Albert, Cosby airs free on Fawesome, The Cosby air on YouTube and you can watch pretty much any of his movies on demand………will continue to cancel him in my home pretty much for ever. He is still guilty

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by Becca9800

So what exactly do you object to in my previous response? I'm confused by your need to make this personal.

Not personal you are standing up for him when he is guilty.
My point is if it was someone you know would you be so fast to stand by him….knowing all you should know

[Becca9800]

Originally Posted by Eg_cruz

Not personal you are standing up for him when he is guilty.
My point is if it was someone you know would you be so fast to stand by him….knowing all you should know

What I know is the 1st prosecutor states he didn't have evidence to convict, 1st trial ended w hung jury. Doesn't appear there was clear and convincing evidence of guilt, does there? 2nd trial was during the peak of the bullsh!t Me Too Movement and 50 more women come forward. What are the odds that all 50 experienced assault by BC and NONE of the 50 reported the event when it happened? 50. At the 2nd trial the "victim" beefed up the details of the alleged molestation, her testimony changed. At the 2nd trial the judge allowed 5 of those 50 accusers testify. None reported their assaults but they testified to it as if fact. I don't stand by BC, I stand with any person being accused decades later of a crime that may not have happened. Show me the proof. In this case, there wasn't the proof to send a man to prison. Ask any trial attorney if jurors tend to find with the facts or with their hearts.

FWIW, I think the 2nd prosecutor, the one who stepped all over BC's 5th A rights, should be criminally charged and civilly accountable. THAT should never be acceptable to any American citizen. Why aren't you concerned about that piece?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Becca9800

What I know is the 1st prosecutor states he didn't have evidence to convict, 1st trial ended w hung jury. Doesn't appear there was clear and convincing evidence of guilt, does there? 2nd trial was during the peak of the bullsh!t Me Too Movement and 50 more women come forward. What are the odds that all 50 experienced assault by BC and NONE of the 50 reported the event when it happened? 50. At the 2nd trial the "victim" beefed up the details of the alleged molestation, her testimony changed. At the 2nd trial the judge allowed 5 of those 50 accusers testify. None reported their assaults but they testified to it as if fact. I don't stand by BC, I stand with any person being accused decades later of a crime that may not have happened. Show me the proof. In this case, there wasn't the proof to send a man to prison. Ask any trial attorney if jurors tend to find with the facts or with their hearts.

FWIW, I think the 2nd prosecutor, the one who stepped all over BC's 5th A rights, should be criminally charged and civilly accountable. THAT should never be acceptable to any American citizen. Why aren't you concerned about that piece?

As you seem to be familiar with the details of the charges against Cosby, I wonder why you would cherry pick those details. Firstly. all of us should "stand with those accused" whether the alleged crime occurred decades ago or last week. That is the precious presumption of innocence which all defendants are granted. But there is a procedure under Pennsylvania law for the granting of immunity. It is encoded in the rules of the state and is certainly known to any prosecutor as to exactly what needs to be done to actually grant that immunity. You can read the details of what those requirements are in the court decision.

Bruce Castor completely ignored the rules and regulations for the grant of immunity which must be made in writing and signed. Immunity is NOT granted under the law of Pennsylvania by a prosecutor giving a press conference. So there was a real issue of law as to whether Cosby's statements in his depositions were somehow protected and whether or not he could have taken the 5th in those depositions. Again read the details in the court record. In fact this had already been litigated and the lower court held that there was NO promise of immunity and that Cosby's statements could be used against him. It was entirely reasonable for the later prosecutors to proceed with a trial given the opinion of the lower courts.


Please read the Penn Supreme Court's opinion on pages 26 - 27 which details the failures of Bruce Castor to follow the requirements of the law in the granting of immunity, if he intended to do so. And also explains that the victims attorney in the civil case never asked or was told that Cosby had been granted immunity:

As noted, the trial court denied the motion, finding that then-D.A. Castor never, in fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62.
Instead, the trial court considered the interaction between the former district attorney and Cosby to be an incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court found no authority for the “proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign.” Id. Rather, the court noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania’s immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14

Per the terms of the statute,

14 The immunity statute provides, in relevant part:
(a) General rule.--Immunity orders shall be available under this section in
all proceedings before:
(1) Courts.
* * *
(b) Request and issuance.--The Attorney General or a district attorney
may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and
that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney
General or district attorney:
(1) the testimony or other information from a witness may be
necessary to the public interest; and
(2) a witness has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide
other information on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination.[J-100-2020] - 28 permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity. See id.
§ 5947(b) (“The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order
from any judge of a designated court.”). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such
permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any
purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the trial court, the “press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of an enforceable promise not to prosecute.” T.C.O. at 62.

The trial court also found that “Mr. Castor’s testimony about what he did and how
he did it was equivocal at best.” Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney’s characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited Attorney Troiani’s statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer.

[blueash]

All the fault in this case goes to the actions of Bruce Castor who is excoriated by the Penn Supreme Court's opinion. He failed to follow the rules of the state in granting immunity, if he meant to do so. He issued a confusing press release which included a line saying his office would revisit the criminal charges if more information became available which certainly does NOT sound like he is never going to prosecute.

The later prosecutors found more evidence of a pattern of drugging women to get them to not resist or even clearly remember Cosby's sexual predation. Contrary to what what written in this thread he DID admit to using Quaaludes mixed with alcohol on victims other that the one in the criminal indictment. Some of those other victims were allowed under Pennsylvania law to testify to establish a pattern of behavior of Cosby in the second trial, again those additional witnesses are allowed under the law.

The prosecutors who charged and convicted Cosby followed the law exactly. There was no proper grant of immunity. They developed additional witnesses and evidence. They tried and convicted Cosby based on his actions, the evidence and the law. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction because it disagreed with the lower court about the details of the meaning of the words in the press conference and whether the statements of Bruce Castor should be taken as an improper but still binding grant of immunity. And as our system of laws often does, any ambiguity is resolved to the benefit of the person harmed by the error.

[graciegirl]

I wanted so badly to think Bill Cosby was innocent. He was a brilliant and clever performer, and I thought such an educated man.

However, I am undecided now, again, about him being innocent of SO many charges.

But...I always wonder when a rich man is charged with these kinds of charges.

It saddens me to see an old man who used to be quite treasured, now shamed for possibly good reasons.

I wonder so many things. Usually if there is smoke, there is fire.

[Swoop]

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...1&d=1625232089

[Becca9800]

Originally Posted by blueash

I wonder why you would cherry pick those details.

That's rich. Given you did exactly as you accused me of doing (your posts are cherry-picked down to the pits.)

6-1 in favor of BC. 2 justices questioned if Castor had the authority to do what he did. “We should reject Castor’s misguided notion outright and declare that district attorneys do not possess this effective pardon power,” Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote in a partial dissent.

But they didn't reject outright, did they? Instead, they overturned the lower Court's ruling.

And the Court would have found in favor of BC again re: allowing 5 accusers to testify at 2nd trial, according to every legal expert I've heard discussing the issue.

BTW, thanks for the lesson on 'innocent until proven guilty', I did not know that's how it all worked.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I wanted so badly to think Bill Cosby was innocent. He was a brilliant and clever performer, and I thought such an educated man.

However, I am undecided now, again, about him being innocent of SO many charges.

But...I always wonder when a rich man is charged with these kinds of charges.

It saddens me to see an old man who used to be quite treasured, now shamed for possibly good reasons.

I wonder so many things. Usually if there is smoke, there is fire.

My younger brother would make jokes about Bill Cosby and those Jell-O Pudding Pops he marketed. This was often done in a lewd manner by my younger brother. He had a job with rental cars at the Reno Airport for a few years and would have heard the gossip about celebs playing the Reno-Tahoe area casinos like Bill Cosby. It also seemed that some show girls would not go near Bill Cosby. There was a lot of money invested by different people and corporations in the image of Bill Cosby.

Pin on favorite 1970s kids commercials

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Becca9800

What I know is the 1st prosecutor states he didn't have evidence to convict, 1st trial ended w hung jury. Doesn't appear there was clear and convincing evidence of guilt, does there? 2nd trial was during the peak of the bullsh!t Me Too Movement and 50 more women come forward. What are the odds that all 50 experienced assault by BC and NONE of the 50 reported the event when it happened? 50. At the 2nd trial the "victim" beefed up the details of the alleged molestation, her testimony changed. At the 2nd trial the judge allowed 5 of those 50 accusers testify. None reported their assaults but they testified to it as if fact. I don't stand by BC, I stand with any person being accused decades later of a crime that may not have happened. Show me the proof. In this case, there wasn't the proof to send a man to prison. Ask any trial attorney if jurors tend to find with the facts or with their hearts.

FWIW, I think the 2nd prosecutor, the one who stepped all over BC's 5th A rights, should be criminally charged and civilly accountable. THAT should never be acceptable to any American citizen. Why aren't you concerned about that piece?

HE ADMITTED that he did it. He is guilty, and we know he's guilty, because he admitted to committing the crime, and admitted that he committed it not just on one woman, but on multiple women, at different times. He admitted that he slipped quaaludes into drinks that his victims drank, and then took advantage of their inebriation to have sex with them while they were unable to withhold consent.

The reason this is a big deal is NOT because he's innocent. It's NOT because we "don't know" enough. It's NOT because he "might not have done it." The reason it's a big deal is because he admitted it in exchange for immunity against criminal prosecution during a civil suit, and then the prosecution reneged on their promise.

That's why it's a big deal.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I wanted so badly to think Bill Cosby was innocent. He was a brilliant and clever performer, and I thought such an educated man.

However, I am undecided now, again, about him being innocent of SO many charges.

But...I always wonder when a rich man is charged with these kinds of charges.

It saddens me to see an old man who used to be quite treasured, now shamed for possibly good reasons.

I wonder so many things. Usually if there is smoke, there is fire.

He IS an educated man.

He ADMITTED that he put quaaludes (prescription muscle relaxers) into alcoholic beverages that he gave women who he then had sex with after they were too inebriated to protest. He admitted this years ago.

He shamed himself.

However, some people can separate fiction from reality. Dr. Huxtable was a great role-model. He was also a fictional character on a sit-com. Bill Cosby, the actor who played Dr. Huxtable, is an incredibly talented actor. He was also a sexual predator. I say was, because I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that he isn't capable of being a predator of any kind, anymore, and no woman in their right mind would let him buy them a drink, anymore.

[Taltarzac725]

The women who did not report Bill Cosby also feared being blacklisted by the powers that be in their various professions especially if this was in the casino, entertainment, education and athletic areas. Cosby had a great deal of influence through much of his career.

[Becca9800]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

HE ADMITTED that he did it.

He admitted to consensual sex with multiple women. He admitted to offering drugs to women he wanted to have sex w. He denied ever giving drugs to a woman wo her knowledge. He maintains today that he did nothing illegal. He's long said he would serve his full 10 year sentence before admitting to any wrongdoing. He refused to take a a sexual deviant re-education course in prison which caused his petition for parole to be denied.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He is guilty, and we know he's guilty,

YOU know no such thing. Unless YOU were there, YOU don't know how it went down. YOU believe him to be guilty.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

because he admitted to committing the crime,

<sigh> repetition does not make your beliefs any more factual.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He admitted that he slipped quaaludes into drinks that his victims drank....

.

Nothing I've read bears out your claim. Give me a credible source for your belief.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The reason this is a big deal is NOT because he's innocent. It's NOT because we "don't know" enough. It's NOT because he "might not have done it." The reason it's a big deal is because he admitted it in exchange for immunity against criminal prosecution during a civil suit, and then the prosecution reneged on their promise. That's why it's a big deal.

Seems it's a big deal on both counts, at least to some. Including you. You first wanted to point out that he was guilty, followed by why he's guilty. You seem angered that he was released. No? The real issue here didn't come into play until your closing paragraph. But no worries, I'm sure you were just saving the best for last. People are enraged that he was released. The enraged don't care a whit about the 5A violation. I hear them bemoaning all day long about the guilty one that had enough power, money, friends and influence to get away w multiple rapes. Not once did I hear any tandem concern for his rights, or even an acknowledgment that his rights were trampled. And I agree, it is a huge deal.