Posted on 07/11/2021 6:26:32 AM PDT by ScubaDiver
of course not?! did you read what you typed?
Never mind.
Billy Cosby is a wicked person for doing what he did. Point of law though, he is going to win any case he brings up against Pennsylvania. He was given immunity for the deposition that they then used against him. The Constitution must hold sway.
Bill Cosby is scum, but that is not the issue. He hadn’t agreement with the state to testify in civil trials if the State agreed to not bring a criminal case against him.
That is not a technicality. It’s a violation of his Constitutional rights. Blame the previous Prosecutor for making the agreement, and the new Prosecutor going ahead with a prosecution.
Sure, Cosby is guilty, but that is not the point.
As scummy as he is, he should win his case against the State. I predict the State will settle before the case goes to trial.
They made a deal with him then backed out.
That’s all you need to know.
Maybe Cosby’s inner Republican truth confessed to the crimes during his trial and while in prison his Democratic untruth side murdered his Republican truth side and now just looks to make big bucks out of the woke justice system.
Hmmm. Roll the tape…
The First Date:
She chatted him up.
“ Over the course of several telephone conversations concerning the renovations, Cosby and Constand developed a personal relationship.
She even over to his house (when his wife was not home)
“Soon after this relationship began, Cosby invited Constand to his Cheltenham residence.”
Now that’s just weird. Who goes over to a mans house and then eats dinner and drinks wine alone?
“When Constand arrived, Cosby greeted her, escorted her to a room, and left her alone to eat dinner and drink wine.”
Now we have some action. She moves to the couch and sits next to Cosby. (She certainly did not eat dinner in the couch)
“Cosby later returned, sat next to Constand on a couch,”
Bill makes an advance !
“and placed his hand on her thigh.”
She does not reject him?
“Constand was not bothered by Cosby’s advance,”
What does this strange line even mean? She went over to his house for wine, dinner, and a ‘cuddle’. Geez. Attorneys are morons.
“even though it was the first time that any physical contact had occurred between the two.”
And they don’t give us any of the events from the rest of the evening.
“Shortly thereafter, Constand left the residence.”
Bill was such a monster. Why he ‘put his hand on her thigh’… Oh My.
The next multitude of dates…
They don’t say how many !
“As the personal nature of the relationship progressed,”
She introduces him to her mother !
And to her sister !!!
They must have been getting pretty serious by this time !!!
Are ‘wedding bells’ in the offing (no, because she is a Lesbian leading him on)
“Cosby eventually met Constand’s mother and sister,”
And Bill has provided them tickets to see him perform.
“both of whom attended one of Cosby’s comedy performances. ”
IIRC, Cosby was a regular partygoer at Hefner’s mansion.
The NEXT big date.
They sure do gloss over the details of the relationship !!!
‘Soon’ - lol. No dates listed for the relationship!
“Soon thereafter,”
Another invite. She again drives to his home !!!
(Again without the wife present)
So why is she going to his house? Since she is (allegedly) a Lesbian.
Again, no date or time provided.
“Cosby invited Constand to return to his home for dinner.”
Again, no explanation for this bizarre conduct !
“Constand arrived at the residence and again ate alone, in the same room in which she had eaten during her first visit.”
Again She cuddles with him in the couch !
“When Constand finished eating, Cosby approached and sat next to her on the couch.”
Some small talk…
“At first, the two discussed Constand’s desire to work as a sports broadcaster,”
Finally, he makes a move!
“but Cosby soon attempted physical contact.”
Hmm, seems like they left out a few steps !!!
“Cosby reached over to Constand and attempted to unbutton her pants.”
Uh, huh. Sure.
“When she leaned forward to prevent him from doing so,”
Oh no, what will he do…
“Cosby immediately ceased his efforts.”
Oh. That was over quick.
What a ridiculous claim !
“Constand believed that her actions had communicated to Cosby clearly that she did not want to engage in a physical relationship with him.”
So they claim she did not tell him no, she just physically stopped him. A normal person would have said something here.
Roflol. They lawyers are a hoot. Who wrote this tripe?!! And how did they keep a straight face doing so.
“She expected that no further incidents like this one would occur.”
Well, if she doesn’t go out in another ‘house date’ with him, it certainly will not reoccur. But these described conduct would certainly not deter any suitor if she accepts another date.
Don’t you just live the description claiming she made no oral discussions with Bill on her/his intentions ?
And yet another Date !
At least we finally have a first date in the record. Even if it is just a year. ‘End of 2003’ covered a lot of days. Surely the lawyers could have provided an actual date for this event.
“Toward the end of 2003,”
So how long have they been dating by this point ?!!
In Connecticut? How many State lines did she cross to make this date?
“Cosby invited Constand to meet at the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut.”
And again, SHE WENT !
“Constand accepted the invitation”
And had dinner with him again, again without his wife!
“and, once at the casino, dined with Cosby and a casino employee, Tom Cantone.”
The court has certainly documented a solid dating relationship by this time. But no criminal activity !!!
Walked back to ‘her room’ by the other guy. Say, who paid for this room ?
“After dinner, Cantone walked Constand to her hotel room.”
and she gets called for a ‘late night’ date at his hotel room’
“Cosby called Constand and asked her to meet him for dessert in his
room.”
And again she went. Is she stupid?
“Constand agreed.”
No mention of the desert - she sits on the bed with him! And where is Bill? Presumably also on the bed.
“When she arrived, she sat on the edge of Cosby’s bed as the two discussed their customary topics: Temple athletics and sports broadcasting. “
Ah, now he is…
“Cosby then reclined on the bed next to Constand.”
So, still no actual deserts mentioned !
How quaint. She talks him off to sleep. So how long was she there on this date? Must have been hours !!!
“Eventually, he drifted off to sleep. “
Minutes, Roflol. Sure guys. Sell us another lie.
“After remaining in Cosby’s room for a few minutes,”
How noble of her.
“Constand left and returned to her own room.”
Um really? She interpreted HIS actions as a sexual advance? And what if HER actions my lawyer?
She went to his hotel room, late at night, wife not present, for a ‘desert’ that is not mentioned again.
“Constand interpreted Cosby’s actions as another sexual overture.”
Where did she ever show that his sexual advances were ‘unwelcomed’?
By going on this date, she was participating in the courtship.
“Notwithstanding these unwelcome advances,”
Oh please!
“Constand still regarded Cosby as a mentor, remained grateful for his career advice and assistance, and did not feel physically threatened or intimidated.”
What an exceedingly biased court document by moronic lawyers !!!
Cosby did routines on spiking drinks starting in the 1960’s
Made a record: It’s True! It’s True! (1969)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_True!_It%27s_True!
He thought raping women is funny.
Correct, you don’t go to a mans Hotel room for any wholesome reason?
The DA’s take on the ‘complaint’ - likely a shakedown for money !
“In February 2005, then-District Attorney Castor reviewed Constand’s interviews and Cosby’s written answers in order to assess the viability of a prosecution of Cosby.”
1. Waited a year to complain !
“The fact that Constand had failed to promptly file a complaint against Cosby troubled the district attorney.
2. No kidding !
“In D.A. Castor’s view, such a delay diminished the reliability of any recollections”
3. Yep, all forensic evidence is long gone.
“and undermined the investigators’ efforts to collect forensic evidence.”
4. ya know lawyers - you could detail what these inconsistent statements were !
“Moreover, D.A. Castor identified a number of inconsistences in Constand’s various statements to investigators.”
5. Gee, nothing was found a YEAR later. Imagine that.
“After Cosby provided his written answers, police officers searched his Cheltenham residence and found no evidence that, in their view, could be used to confirm or corroborate Constand’s allegations.”
6. Gee lawyers, you could once again detail what these inconsistent statements were !
“Following the search of Cosby’s home, Constand was interviewed by police again. D.A. Castor noted that there were inconsistences in that interview, which further impaired Constand’s credibility in his eyes.”
7. Hmm ! Already lawyered up. Prosecutors tend to not like being used by litigants seeking to shake someone down !
“He also learned that, before she contacted the police in Canada, Constand had contacted civil attorneys in Philadelphia, likely for the purpose of pursuing financial compensation in a lawsuit against Cosby.”
8. Hmm, do tell lawyers !
“Additionally, according to D.A. Castor, Constand’s behavior in the year since the alleged assault complicated any effort to secure a conviction against Cosby.”
9. Yep… ‘atypical’. That is the polite way to put it.
“As evidenced by the number of telephone calls that she recorded, Constand continued to talk with Cosby on the phone, and she also continued to meet with him in person after the incident. D.A. Castor found these recurring interactions between a complainant and an alleged perpetrator to be atypical.”
10. Yep
“D.A. Castor also reasoned that the recordings likely
were illegal and included discussions that could be interpreted as attempts by Constand and her mother to get Cosby to pay Constand so that she would not contact the authorities.”
11. No kidding ! The lawyers failed to mention the ‘floating date’ for the assault. The actual date was never determined in either the first or second trial. More of a ‘season of two’.
Given that there were phone records, the date of the alleged event should have been determined.
“The totality of these circumstances ultimately led D.A. Castor to conclude that “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against [] Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” N.T., 2/2/2016, at 60.”
That was why I mentioned it.
If I had a chance to go to a Playboy Mansion in 1968, I would have gone out of curiosity.
But to go there week after week, month after month...not healthy.
Go after the crooked prosecutor and put him in the poorhouse. Strip his bar membership. While Cosby is a scumbag, this prosecution was unlawful and should never have occurred.
So you’re saying that the prosecutor acted in favor of the civil Litigant? He deffered criminal prosecution to benefit a civil action?
Is that his job?
I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear. The criminal proceedings should have been blind to any civil proceedings.
I am not qualified to respond. I am linking to a podcast on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjrWI_zxG6A
My point was that they consented to have sex with him, and
consented to take the pill..
Presumably some girls said no thank you and left. None of these women were questioned.
Slipping a pill into a girl’s drink without her knowledge and then having sex with her when the pill sedates her is a crime
Having a girl claim rape for activity that she had agreed to and then changed her mind is a gray area.
Naive college girls do this all the time...
But these were grown women so presumably knew what they were doing.
Good video.
What he does not make clear, is that testimony can be compelled in Pa in a Civil case. One cannot invoke three 5th amendment !
You need to do a little home work. There was no formal written "agreement"... there were no negotiations... there was a press release by a prosecutor who decided not to pursue a case because it appeared weak. Another prosecutor decided that it was worth pursuing. That is about the extent of the situation. Just because one prosecutor decides not to pursue a case does not give anyone any where immunity from prosecution. That is ridiculous.
If Cosby was not a member of a protected class the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would have laughed their butts off at this "challenge". The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a partisan body with five Democrats and one Republican. This decision was a travesty.
When the prosecutor publicly states that he had assured Cosby that he would not prosecute Cosby if he testified in the civil case proceedings, that is a contract. Whether it is written or not; it makes no difference.
Absent that public statement by the Prosecutor, Cosby and his attorney would have never agreed to testify or be deposed in the civil case.
If the Prosecutor had not made a public statement, Cosby and his attorney would have insisted on a written agreement to not prosecute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.