I don't know. It looks like Cosby's lawyers vs. Constand's lawyers to me.. Or a class debate. We're good, Tasha.


What about you? Need to be represented? (I'm kidding)

Someone's telling porkies. The question is: which one?

Bill Cosby's accuser, her mom testify at sex-assault retrial

"Bill Cosby's chief accuser at his sexual-assault trial on Monday denied framing him and said she doesn't know a key witness who plans to testify she spoke of leveling false accusations against a celebrity. Andrea Constand told jurors she doesn't "recall ever having a conversation with" Marguerite Jackson. ... Jackson has said that she and Constand worked closely together, had been friends and had shared hotel rooms several times."

Seems he is found guilty in 3 cases

https://www.newsandguts.com/link/nyt...s-accusations/

Bill Cosby's wife has come out guns blazing.

Camille Cosby Calls Bill Cosby’s Guilty Charge “Mob Justice” In Startling Statement

I'd surmise that, if the accusations against Cosby are true, it'd be a very, very brave woman who'd have the courage to stand up and say: "Yes, I did know. I just didn't want to look and see."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness

Well, the whole trial was "Aussage gegen Aussage" (It's his word against hers.)

Afaik, there was no evidence what so ever, no victim had bloodtests (drugs) or other medical tests done at the doctor's in the mornings - considering some things they accused him of, those tests/documentation would have been very significant.

They work with jury trial system. A highly unprofessional system imo (Switzerland has given up on that for criminal court cases in 2011).

This whole thing was part of the "me-too"movement. Now I am not principally against movements - but it is a big difference if people (let's in this case say woman) demonstrate around the world for woman's lib or against single men - accusing them of serious crimes.

I don't doubt these kinds of things go on in hollywood (let's be honest, somehow everybody knew "the system" there already only so far the females were blamed for "sleeping their way to the top").
The me-too movement should fight generally against this problem in the industry and aim at strict laws, control and easy possibilities for reporting. THAT would be an achievement.
What will they do now? Threat "be careful or you'll end up like Cosby" when there is a problem? (Threat is an other criminal offence. More vicious circles programmed).
Any decade old cases should be treated seperately from the movement as they are general, criminal offenses under today's law as well as the law back then. They lead to the movement - which is good - but the movement should regulate the future. Like the woman's lib movement did.

Successful framing is not unknown in the US. Voices in favour of Bill Cosby did not get much attention/tv time, the wife's is even belittled as "willful blindness". Spouses do not have to speak up in cases of crime. Why should this woman speak up for him publicly if she had the slightest doubts? In a case like this?! Her voice is not heavier or weaker than any other voice in the enviroment of Cosby but she has something to say and it can not just be waved off even if it does not fit the aimed goal.

Although I - of course - wrote this due to the Cosby-case, this is a general opinion of mine to this movement and these crimes.

As to the Cosby case in particular, I don't know what to think. I do wonder how this case would have turned out in a country like Switzerland, where you can not become rich winning a case like that.

And does nobody wonder why nobody hears much about Weinstein anymore? Didn't it all start with him? Is he the thougher nut to crack, the tougher person to roll over or just a smarter criminal?

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

Why is the jury system unprofessional in your opinion? Surely a jury of peers is a good thing : particularly if the majority of judges are socially, ethnically and economically un-diverse?

Lots about Weinstein on BBC news website today: his own company distancing themselves further; brother condemning him; TWC logo being removed from credits; influential actor tweeting about shelving directorial debut because doesn't want to be associated with him; Cate Blanchett speaking up.

All discussed in A-level media class this morning.

A jury system is unprofessional per se.
Also random people are emotional, don't know the laws in detail (while the lawyers talking to them do), can be influenced by their own story or a story in their enviroment - a friend was wrongly accused of rape .... a work-mate was raped ... (and I do not doubt for a minute that US lawyers as well as prosecuters do thorough research on the jury-members - I would, were I a lawyer). And more pressure of their own enviroment after "how could you charge him guilti/not guilty?".

As you are up to date: Will Weinstein be taken to court at all? Or has society taken this case in it's hand.

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

Fair enough. Convictions just on one indivudual's say so makes me twitch though.

Now, now... It'll probably get to court at some point IMO. I'm only up to date because I read. I think society is quite rightly, finally, bloody appalled.

I agree.
Here "Kollgegialgerichte" (interesting, I found no translation for that in English) do exist. It seems to be different from canton to canton. In Bern for example, 5 judges decide on criminal offenses where prosecution demands more than 5 years prison. (sorry, only German and French).

This is why defense lawyers largely favor the jury system in the U.S. They don't have to prove innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt. The defense can introduce all sorts of tings to conjure up "reasonable doubt".

Interesting. Ta.

@Curley
"Voices in favour of Bill Cosby did not get much attention/tv time, the wife's is even belittled as "willful blindness".

There was no belittling, since my sentence said: "if the accusations against Cosby are true", and of course, we do not know that. My point was that if he had been committing these acts, all along, his wife might well have known about them, too.

When she says she knows nothing of his having committed any crimes, this may mean that he committed none. Or that he was very well organised while doing what he did far away from his wife such that she never had an inkling of any of it. Or that she is or was wilfully blind.

If she had taken refuge, back then, in the easier option of wilful blindness, it would take great courage were she to admit that now.

Because one's own kind (ethnicity, race, language, religion, etc) is looked upon favorably and less likely to be convicted?

John Doe and Jane Que probably aren't even aware in the first place, that's why the defense will want the jury to match the indicted's group as well as possible.

While the bias applies to professional judges, too, the y can be made aware and trained relatively easily (it's a well-defined group) and probably have a strong interest to not suffer from that bias (or as little as is humanly doable).

(curley, they're called collegial courts. Applies to the US Supreme Court, probably others as well, especially appelate courts)

Bare midriff, bath salts, incense and an alleged prior sexual encounter. From last year's trial that resulted in a deadlocked jury:

2017: Cosby juror says he didn't believe 'well-coached' Constand

Interestingly, he interpreted Cosby's deposition as being favourable to him, unlike the juror who has spoken out about the recent trial:

2018: Juror says Bill Cosby's own words led to his conviction

To me this is a case of insufficient evidence.
It's not a comfortable result for a defendant but here it would end the case.

Here's a BBC documentary about the case, apparently broadcast shortly before (cf. BBC iPlayer, Wikipedia) the conclusion of the 2017 trial that resulted in a deadlocked jury.



It contains no-one supportive of Bill Cosby and gives several accusers an airing, including Lili Bernard and Joseph C. Phillips (referred to in previous posts below). It looks as if Bernard, who judging from Google has been very vocal, was the person he knew who told him her story that made him believe Cosby was guilty.

Thanks Reb77Br. And again more information gives a new perspective.

I do not remember having been so torn, having such a hard time to at least come to a subjective opinion for such a long time.
He's been declared guilty and I find myself accepting that as a constitutional verdict. It will be interesting what punishment the judge will rule.
Cosby admitted handing out chemicals to females he intended to have sex with. That in itself deserves punished. Has he been framed? It would have been a very good conspiracy indeed plus by doing the stuff he admitted himself, he knocked in enough nails into this frame himself.

One thing is extremly important to me: It was mentioned in the video that what he did for education of black people, the doors he opened for black people has all lost it's significance now. Bullshit! Black people only deserved getting what was their right all along if a black messias fought for what should not have needed fighting for?!

As one guy in the video mentioned: „The importance of Bill Cosby‘s work doesn‘t change“. I noticed I still laugh about some of his old shit. The guy had/has great humor.

He was not a great man. He was some guy who did a great job. And it turns out in private he seemed a creep, a criminal but most of all a pitifull creature, a sorry excuse of a man.
He misused his fame to get laid?! He wasn't even able to do that, he had to drug and rape them apparently. And the crazy thing is, he could probably have had them all and keep the fame and the money all his life.

"He was America's dad" ... even "he was a God". For Christ sake people! Why can the public - and the US public seems prone to that - not take great work, great achievment, discovery or invention as such and appreciate who is behind it for exactly that without idolizing the entire person?
I always hated that, never understood it even as a teen-ager. If you want perfect - be perfect yourself (good luck with it). Had he not been so idolized, most of what he is accused of now would not have been possible to happen. Think about that, people who are all poleaxed now. Those who rose him sky-high and put him on a pedestal made it possible for victims to be too scared to do what's normally done after an assault.

I will still laugh about his stuff. I shall not send him chocolate to jail though.

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

Andrea Constand and her mother have given an interview, excerpts here:
Bill Cosby Survivor Andrea Constand: He Said Pills Were ‘My Friends’
Andrea Constand: ‘I Forgave Bill Cosby For What He Did To Me’

Another recent video that pops up in YouTube:
The 13 Year Hoax: The Big Hoax That Is Andrea Constand
Some interesting comments underneath it by the person who posted it, including that Andrea Constand says in her interview that she took the pills with water, but said in court that she took them with wine. The video includes interview clips with Robert Russell, saying that he thought Andrea Constand and her mother had a vendetta against Bill Cosby and were out for more cash. He's the 'friend' referred to here: Cosby's accuser was a weed-smoking mushroom addict who came to the U.S. for money and fame claims her 'friend' - but judge says jury can't hear his allegations

It's hard to tell whether someone is telling the truth, but I'm back to being sceptical again. I don't think she satisfactorily explains in the interview why she took the pills, when she was supposedly there to discuss her career. Wouldn't be surprised if she was a trickster.