Bill Cosby released.
 

Bill Cosby released, conviction in sexual assault case overturned

Makes no sense to me. If John Dillinger robbed PA bank 1 and was found not guilty because he made some agreement with the PA prosecutor so that the bank could sue him for the money in a civil case and then he robs bank 2 in another county in PA and is found guilty why should his agreement with bank 1 have any bearing on anything expect that he is a bank robber? He is a bank robber as many could attest. And a well known bank robber. Even if his ex-wife says he does not rob banks.

There seem to be many accusers of Bill Cosby and he admitted in one of these cases that he did it but that was to stop his facing future criminal charges. These other accusers could have been cross-examined by Cosby's lawyers.

Simple.
Cosby had better lawyer than Dillinger!:shrug:

Bill Cosby sexual assault cases - Wikipedia

Not in a lot of matters it looks like.

Wait, wait, wait... I need to get some popcorn. This is going to take off quickly!

Hey, hey, hey...Fat Albert goes free!

Wikipedia is not a credible source, anyone can add whatever they like to any issue within. Take what you read there w a grain of salt.

As of November 2015, eight related civil suits were active against him. Of course, he was an easy mark with lots of $$ and 1/2 of the country already hating him.Gloria Allred is representing 33 of the alleged victims. Ugh! Talking about credibility. ALL women are not to be believed! Nuff said.In July 2015, some court records were unsealed and released to the public from Andrea Constand's 2005 civil suit against Cosby. The full transcript of his deposition was released to the media by a court reporting service. Sounds like grounds for legal action to me. In his testimony, Cosby admitted to casual sexwhile married. Makes him a pig, not a rapist. involving recreational use of the sedative-hypnotic methaqualone (Quaaludes)And? Pretty sure many in our generation liked their Quaaludes back in the day. with a series of young womenYoung, no minors, not illegal., and he acknowledged that his dispensing the prescription drug was illegal.Dispensing? C'mon.

Was he the most upstanding guy? Don't think so. Did he deserve prison time? Don't think so.

You should look at what other of his accusers allege-- Bill Cosby sexual assault cases - Wikipedia

And you should research Wikipedia. That seems like a false claim that people can add whatever they want. That sounds false. Something someone on Fox might say. It is far more complex than that. Wikipedia:You can and cannot change Wikipedia - Wikipedia

sad that lawyers continue to rule the world that we live in

I'm amazed at all the paperwork I need to sign every time I go to a doctor's office...because his lawyer is trying to protect him from some other guy's lawyer

if there's only one lawyer in town he barely makes a living...two lawyers in a town and they both become multi millionaires

IMHO, we should shut down all the law schools and transform them into medical schools, nursing schools, and trade schools...we have more than enough lawyers...let's educate some people in careers that actually add value

In my opinion, the lesson here is that, if someone commits a crime against you, you need to report it immediately. Showing up years later just doesn't cut it.

That's exactly correct. Legal experts said way back when, that the time elapsed could be an issue. The problem, of course, is that when reporting a crime against the wealthy and powerful, even if it's immediately afterward - justice is often never meted out.

Especially if you are a woman...

Nope. It doesn't matter at all. Report quickly.

Exactly. While there will always be those occasional women that cry wolf or try to take advantage, it's somehow become popular (by both men and women) in a lot of cases to try and shame the victim - or to only believe the male. Which is the reason so many predators are never even reported in the first place.

Among the accusations and charges, is that Cosby slipped the luudes into the drinks, and the women were not aware that their alcohol had been further drugged.

There's also that crazy quirky adorable little section of wiki that I like to call:
SOURCES.

There's actually a list of sources at the bottom of every wiki page. I know, that's insane, you might think. But danged if it isn't right there. And to the surprise of literally no one with a brain, ever, you can actually check on most of those sources!

That's right, you can do your own fact checking! If a wiki entry says "Jim-bob insisted that the moon was made of green cheese and the earth was flat" and there's a little number after that like (1) - you can scroll down and look at that number and right next to it - there's a source entry.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Check it out: those numbers? They're in numeric order! OMG WTF BBQ LOL!!! You don't even have to know how to count!

#themoreyouknow

Only the consents you sign are intended to protect your doc from suits. Everything else is to fulfill a government regulation e.g. CMS or a mandate of The Joint Commission. Ever notice how your doc hardly looks at you during an office visit bc s/he is too busy punching on a laptop? Yep. Documentation to fulfill a government regulation e.g. CMS or a mandate of The Joint Commission. I currently work for a med mal defense firm. The things people sue for is absurd. Don't get me started. We need to get rid of unreasonable people.

And Cosby says otherwise. So.....

What I do know.... Why refer to a source if you can't trust it and have to fact check it?

Huh??? In the vast majority of cases the woman is believed whether she is being truthful or not.

I fully agree that most victims do not come forward for many reasons.

I ran into a few law students at the U of MN who had been raped at one time or another and/or sexually assaulted and I do not think any of them reported the incidents. And some of these were while they were in law school by other law school students. And I could not do much about it because of the social networks at law school which were often how one got a hold of the all important law review outlines of the such-and-suchs classes. These outlines made the class a lot easier. And all I had for evidence was some friend who claimed x did y. I did warn other friends to stay away from some person but never went into why.

Follow the money

My doctor has actual conversations with me, face to face, eye to eye. He also pauses between subjects to type into his laptop all the information we'd discussed. When I get home, I can see everything he's put in, from my own computer.

Transparency is awesome.

So if your best friend in the whole world, who you trust with your life, came to you and said "the earth is flat" you'd just believe him because you trust him?

You wouldn't ask "where did you hear that?"

And if he told you he saw it on a news website that you also trust, you wouldn't wonder where THEY heard it from? Which scientist informed them of this fascinating tidbit of news?

Perhaps you're not interested in learning new things, expanding your knowledge base, or making sure that you are *accurately* informed of things.

I'm very interested in knowing stuff. So I look up things when "someone said" something.

You think so? No. No, you do not. There are pieces and parts of a patient's medical record that is not in your portal.

Well, at least the federal government don’t have to pay the nursing bill anymore. The law only applied to the unconnected, or disconnect.

Fatty Arbuckle's story is an interesting one. A movie star that got taken down by what looks like a false accusation of rape and manslaughter. They do happen. But my younger brother was hearing jokes about Bill Cosby's behavior when my younger brother was a rental car person at the Reno, Nevada airport. Cosby played at the casinos there if memory serves. Bill Cosby was a frequent visitor to Northern NEvada They did hear warnings about getting too close to Bill Cosby.

Roscoe Arbuckle - Wikipedia

No one has written as to why Cosby was freed and protected from further prosecutions for his druggings and sexual assaults. He was facing civil suits from his victims. The statute of limitations was nearing its limit. The local prosecutor told Cosby that they would NOT use anything he said in the civil suit to prosecute him. So Cosby told the truth, or some of the truth, in his civil suit including that he had given drugs to women to lower their resistance to sex with him.

The prosecutor then used that testimony to indict and try Cosby. The court ruled that the promise of the prosecutor to not use his civil court testimony was binding, like a promise of immunity. It then vacated his conviction as it depended on prohibited information. Yes money talks and it buys good lawyers too. But the rule of law is important and the court seems to have gotten this one right even though it allows a likely guilty man to walk.

It is not clear what this promise was with respect to which cases would not be prosecuted criminally. Certainly not all of them. Only the one in that jurisdiction of the prosecutor. Bill Cosby is a free man after Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns sex assault conviction - CNN

The Statute of Limitations probably would have run out on all these cases though no matter what jurisdiction.

It should be pretty clear what kind of man Bill Cosby is though. He is a pathological liar who preyed on women for a long time and got a way with it because of his fame and fortune.

Not true at all in this day and age. Thats in the old days

So, a criminal prosecutor agreed not to prosecute Cosby for a crime so that a plaintiff in a civil court case could get money from Cosby? That sounds like obstruction of justice and illegal. Why is a criminal prosecutor even involved in a civil court case?

He was not released because he is innocent. He was released on a technicality that happened during the court process that found him guilty.

Whether he is innocent or guilty of anything doesn’t really matter at this point as his reputation is destroyed, he has probably spent a million dollars or more for lawyers, and at 81 years old he ultimately served two years in jail. What does matter here is that is a case of prosecutorial misconduct where his rights were violated thus the conviction was overturned as it should have been. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t sue the city for his attorney fees and damages.

Broken promise
 

He definitely IS guilty but he was released because the original prosecutor gave him immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for his testimony in the civil case. Years later another prosecutor rescinded that and he was prosecuted. The conviction was thrown out because of (I guess) prosecutorial misconduct, not because he is innocent, he isn’t.

Do the math……60 to 1
Do you always bet long-shots?

Also, in his civil case, …….
HE CONFESSED!

Just the facts a few statistics
 

The United States population consists of 6% of the total Worlds population, however the United States has 76% of ALL the lawyers of the World. Considering that is the main reason that our system is at a breaking point with so many lawsuits being filed and cases going to trial.

For what I have heard the vast majority of the civil cases will be thrown out as the statute of limitations has long since expired. I suspect BC was a pig, but not a single one of these people came forward when the alleged allegation took place. Where is the evidence? How many of these accusers just see a quick buck in the future. Woman have got to learn that when something like this happens you have to go to the police immediately even if you believe no one will listen to you not 25 years later. At least it will be on record.

And yet Hollywood still airs his reruns………..blows my mind

Our country is now for the thugs, crooks, murders, etc. Druggies are heroes. Murders are ok. Rapists weren't treated unfairly.

Is it too late for our country?

But whatever you do don't put Dukes of Hazard on tv.

The issue was the civil case brought by one of his victims. The prosecutor, named Bruce Castor [you can look him up, he's been in the news for more than the Cosby case] decided that this victim would be a poor witness and that he wouldn't be able to get a conviction of Cosby based on her testimony and actions. He then made a public statement that his office would not use anything from the civil trial deposition to prosecute Cosby. Why he said this I do not know, but it forced Cosby to not invoke the 5th amendment when questioned in his civil case. You cannot refuse to answer a question if you are not at risk of being charged with a crime. While Castor did not later charge Cosby, the prosecutors who replaced him in office did so. The Pennsylvania court by a 6-1 vote held that the immunity granted Cosby by Bruce Castor was binding.

You can read the actual court opinion on CNN HERE.
The introduction to the opinion states the facts clearly: