The Bill Cosby Situation

[Johnnypenso]

Given the sheer number of his victims, the abhorrent nature of his crimes and the total lack of any remorse that he has shown, it is a shamefully light sentence. Couple that with the fact that the appeals process and legal machinations that he can afford could easily keep him out of jail until he dies, and you have all the makings of a travesty. I only hope that he serves some hard time.

Of course, it is already a travesty - just as Jimmy Savile got away with his vile abuse for decades in the UK, Cosby could only reach the ripe old age of 81 without conviction because of the fact that celebrity status and money buys you power and seemingly a blind eye from everyone, including the law. Hopefully that era is now coming to an end - Savile was already dead before his first accuser ever had the courage to speak up. One can only applaud the courage of those who stood up against Cosby and his vile entourage, and the culture that allowed him to perpetrate his crimes for so long.

Good riddance Cosby, hope you burn in hell.

Unfortunately the statute of limitations ran out on all the accusers except for one. I heard on NPR on the way home that the maximum sentence for his conviction, given his lack of a previous record, was limited to 4 years per count.

 

[TexRex]

Kramer: "Isn't there like a statue of limitations on that?"

Jerry: "Statute."

Kramer: "What?"

Jerry: "Statute of limitations. It's not a statue."

Kramer: "No, it's statue."

Jerry: "Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations."

Kramer: "Wait. Just wait. Elaine? Elaine! Now you're smart; is it statue or statute of limitations?

Elaine: "StatUTE."

Kramer: "Oh I really think you're wrong!"

 

[Johnnypenso]

Kramer: "Isn't there like a statue of limitations on that?"

Jerry: "Statute."

Kramer: "What?"

Jerry: "Statute of limitations. It's not a statue."

Kramer: "No, it's statue."

Jerry: "Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations."

Kramer: "Wait. Just wait. Elaine? Elaine! Now you're smart; is it statue or statute of limitations?

Elaine: "StatUTE."

Kramer: "Oh I really think you're wrong!"

Was this really necessary for one single missing letter?

 

[Dotini]

Cosby as Alexander Scott

Bill Cosby received three consecutive Emmy awards for his portrayal of a playboy international spy in the James Bond knock-off TV series I Spy, costarring Robert Culp. The series was filmed on location all around the world, and wildly popular. Cosby was the very first African American to play a lead role in a television drama. The woman-chasing that was portrayed in this show as well as almost countless other movies, TV shows, books and magazines evidently left him feeling entitled to exploit his success and tastes. He was not alone! Date-rape knockout drops, i.e., the Mickey Finn, dated from the 1920's if not before.

 

[chicagotruck]

 

[TexRex]

Was this really necessary for one single missing letter?

What's really necessary?

I understood it was a typo, but that particular typo reminded me of a humorous exchange from a popular sitcom and I was compelled to recite it, just as I would have been regardless of who made the error.

That I didn't quote you should have been observed as it not being directed toward anyone in particular but rather the mistake itself.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I hate to wave the blue flags while you're battling, @TexRex and @Johnnypenso, but @Touring Mars has already provided some good provenance for that typo (or deliberate reference).

 

[baldgye]

Given the sheer number of his victims, the abhorrent nature of his crimes....

I don't know much about Bill and his crimes, but reading this thread is illuminating. Not least because of the comments and the likes those comments generate.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What's really necessary?

I understood it was a typo, but that particular typo reminded me of a humorous exchange from a popular sitcom and I was compelled to recite it, just as I would have been regardless of who made the error.

That I didn't quote you should have been observed as it not being directed toward anyone in particular but rather the mistake itself.

The fact that it was the next post after mine and referenced the exact spelling mistake I made is just a coincidence eh?. If you're going to troll/flame bait/mock/ridicule at least own up to it instead of hiding behind the fact that you didn't quote me(as if anyone would be convinced it was anything else).

 

[TexRex]

The fact that it was the next post after mine and referenced the exact spelling mistake I made is just a coincidence eh?

I said no such thing. On the contrary, I established that the exact spelling mistake is what prompted the recollection and subsequent quotation of the aforementioned humorous exchange. It's also not exactly surprising that such a quotation would immediately follow what prompted it.

If you're going to troll/flame bait/mock/ridicule at least own up to it instead of hiding behind the fact that you didn't quote me(as if anyone would be convinced it was anything else).

"If" being the operative word.

I realize the cleaving of one's cheeks by one's skivvies is likely to cause discomfort and, consequently, an unpleasant demeanor, but you can stow the indignation.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I said no such thing. On the contrary, I established that the exact spelling mistake is what prompted the recollection and subsequent quotation of the aforementioned humorous exchange. It's also not exactly surprising that such a quotation would immediately follow what prompted it.


"If" being the operative word.

I realize the cleaving of one's cheeks by one's skivvies is likely to cause discomfort and, consequently, an unpleasant demeanor, but you can stow the indignation.

It's harassment. It's reported as such. Continue at your pleasure.

 

[TexRex]

It's harassment.

Says you.

It's reported as such.

Great. I like my odds among moderators who aren't so inclined to be offended by comments that weren't directed at them and as such weren't submitted with a post quote or user tag.

Continue at your pleasure.

Aww, thanks.

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaand prosecutorial misconduct set him free, in a 6-1 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Way to go, stupid ****ers. A flawed criminal justice system can not only put innocent people in prison, but it can also let guilty people out.

 

[Danoff]

Aaaaand prosecutorial misconduct set him free, in a 6-1 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Way to go, stupid ****ers. A flawed criminal justice system can not only put innocent people in prison, but it can also let guilty people out.

I'd like to understand more about what happened here, the news stories are a bit... brief in their descriptions. As best I can tell, Cosby's potentially incriminating testimony in another case was predicated on not being charged, and then he was charged. The state court upheld that he should not have been charged due to that agreement.

The fact that the agreement was not in writing is fairly troubling. But I find it equally troubling how quickly people are crying moral outrage. Cosby is no doubt guilty of a crime, but it also sounds like potentially prosecuting him for that crime was traded in exchange for something else - this is something the criminal justice system does regularly. Let people skate in exchange for getting other people.

 

[TexRex]

Cosby is no doubt guilty of a crime, but it also sounds like potentially prosecuting him for that crime was traded in exchange for something else - this is something the criminal justice system does regularly. Let people skate in exchange for getting other people.

The non-prosecution gimme appears to have been in exchange for his testimony in a civil case brought against him by Angela Andrea Constand.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The worst part about this will now be Cosby's victimhood/mistreatment which will completely overshadow any sense of justice for the actual victims. I struggle to see how this is just.

 

[Danoff]

The non-prosecution gimme appears to have been in exchange for his testimony in a civil case brought against him by Angela Constand.

I see. So in this case it was giving up criminal charges in exchange for strengthening civil charges. I'd imagine that whoever offered that deal is not feeling wonderful about it at this point.

 

[TexRex]

The worst part about this will now be Cosby's victimhood/mistreatment which will completely overshadow any sense of justice for the actual victims. I struggle to see how this is just.

An unjust system being held to account for its misdeeds is just, even if a piece of **** like Cosby is a beneficiary of the unjust system being held to account.

 

[JKgo]

Wow. That's so sudden. I have practically forgotten about this human trash, but here we go again.

By the way, BBC chose this particular photo as their lead-in to the article itself.

Not sure when it was taken, but boy, does he look smug or what.

 

[Danoff]

The worst part about this will now be Cosby's victimhood/mistreatment which will completely overshadow any sense of justice for the actual victims. I struggle to see how this is just.

I'm not to concerned about victimhood or mistreatment. Cosby is the new OJ. He'll probably write a book called "If I did it". If anything, I imagine it'll just make him more hated.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm not to concerned about victimhood or mistreatment. Cosby is the new OJ. He'll probably write a book called "If I did it". If anything, I imagine it'll just make him more hated.

You're probably right. His legacy has been thoroughly inverted.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'd like to understand more about what happened here, the news stories are a bit... brief in their descriptions. As best I can tell, Cosby's potentially incriminating testimony in another case was predicated on not being charged, and then he was charged. The state court upheld that he should not have been charged due to that agreement.

The fact that the agreement was not in writing is fairly troubling. But I find it equally troubling how quickly people are crying moral outrage. Cosby is no doubt guilty of a crime, but it also sounds like potentially prosecuting him for that crime was traded in exchange for something else - this is something the criminal justice system does regularly. Let people skate in exchange for getting other people.

Yeh, this doesn't really work when the 'other people' happens to be the defendant too.

Wow. That's so sudden. I have practically forgotten about this human trash, but here we go again.

By the way, BBC chose this particular photo as their lead-in to the article itself.

View attachment 1064075

Not sure when it was taken, but boy, does he look smug or what.

BBC and many other places have an annoying tendency to pick a stock picture of the person portraying the emotion(s) that they think the person might show right now even if that isn't the case (and indeed, it can't be since Cosby hasn't even been released yet).

-

As for the decision to free Cosby, it only goes to reinforce my belief that the 🤬s are winning - not only winning, but winning by a huge margin and hammering decency into the ground.

 

[NotThePrez]

Well, that's disappointing, to say the absolute least. Genuinely speechless.

Edit: After reading this article written by The Assosciate Press (haven't read any others just yet), it seems like the promise was made so that Cosby could be sued by one of his victims (Andrea Costand) in civil court. Because of this promise, Cosby was unable to plead the 5th at any point, and that the prosecution for his rape charges weren't even supposed to happen. I'm wondering why something as significant as that was never put into writing, that just screams sketchy, imo.

Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth overall, though.

 

[TexRex]

BBC and many other places have an annoying tendency to pick a stock picture of the person portraying the emotion(s) that they think the person might show right now even if that isn't the case (and indeed, it can't be since Cosby hasn't even been released yet).

It looks like he was released very shortly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced its ruling.

As for the timeliness of the image, most of the sources I've seen show him in that same outfit and with the same people but he's been photographed from multiple angles. The "smug" look has only shown up once that I've seen, but it appears the images may be fresh.

 

[Touring Mars]

It looks like he was released very shortly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced its ruling.

As for the timeliness of the image, most of the sources I've seen show him in that same outfit and with the same people but he's been photographed from multiple angles. The "smug" look has only shown up once that I've seen, but it appears the images may be fresh.

The pic shown above is definitely old, as are the others I've seen in the UK press, which are all from his trial e.g:

Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction overturned by Pennsylvania court

Cosby has served two years of a 3-to-10-year sentence but court says charges invalid because of prior deal with prosecutor

www.theguardian.com

Still, ironically, I bet the 🤬 really is as smug as hell, so it's largely a moot point.

 

[TexRex]

The pic shown above is definitely old, as are the others I've seen in the UK press, which are all from his trial e.g:

Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction overturned by Pennsylvania court

Cosby has served two years of a 3-to-10-year sentence but court says charges invalid because of prior deal with prosecutor

www.theguardian.com

Still, ironically, I bet the 🤬 really is as smug as hell, so it's largely a moot point.

Okay, the similar images that I assumed were recent because of their prevalence indeed appear to be not fresh, and instead from 2018.

 

[Danoff]

Wow. That's so sudden. I have practically forgotten about this human trash, but here we go again.

By the way, BBC chose this particular photo as their lead-in to the article itself.

View attachment 1064075

Not sure when it was taken, but boy, does he look smug or what.

It looks like he can't see very well and is trying to make a face like his tie. Don't look guilty but also not too happy.

 

[TexRex]

I'd imagine that whoever offered that deal is not feeling wonderful about it at this point.

I'd imagine he's not particularly given to introspection.

🤨

A couple "new" characters join Trump's legal team.

Bruce L. Castor Jr., who previously, as a district attorney, declined to prosecute Bill Cosby for allegations of sexual assault against Andrea Constand, went on to accuse Constand of changing her story which prompted her to file a defamation lawsuit that was settled out of court and then retaliated with a suit of his own against Constand, that was tossed out of court.

And then there's David Schoen, who met with Jeffrey Epstein just days before the latter's death, which may or may not have been under suspicious circumstances.

Weird.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This The Week article conveys the situation a little more clearly, at least for me.

The case is complicated, though, by errors made by the prosecution. Essentially, an earlier prosecutor believed there was little chance of winning in a criminal trial on Constand's claims, and that the best way for her to get justice would be to triumph in civil court. But to do that, Cosby needed to testify under oath. And so the prosecutor sent out a press release affirming that Cosby would not be criminally prosecuted, at which point Cosby could no longer claim his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Cosby was deposed in the case, testified under oath, and eventually settled with Constand. Years later, with a new prosecutor in office, Cosby's testimony was unsealed and used to convict him in a criminal proceeding, and he was sentenced to three to ten years. His lawyers appealed, and Wednesday they won.

There are some important catches here: The first prosecutor didn't go through the formal process of immunizing Cosby; rather, he made a public promise in the name of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Cosby (and his lawyers) relied upon that. As the dissent in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision notes, one would have expected to find more of a paper trail indicating such a significant promise existed (the dissent, though, supports giving Cosby a new trial on the grounds that allowing testimony from other women who claimed Cosby sexually assaulted them was unfairly prejudicial).

The whole point of the civil suit was to maneuver around the fifth and so the criminal case built upon that very testimony is obviously compromised. I can see how the Pa supreme court reached its conclusion. It's what must be done, but it's not really justice.

 

[Joey D]

What in the pudding pop hell is going on? I missed the news earlier today and I legitimately can't believe that he walked on a technicality. Hopefully, the court of public opinion makes the last years of his life hell.