The Cosby Trial 2017

[invisible]

From what I know, and I don't know a bunch, this is one person's word against another's. Cosby should be judged only for this case, not his other alleged molestations and abuses of power (I had to put alleged. *eye roll*). He didn't use Quaaludes in this case; yes, he did in others, but not in this case. I do not believe Benadryl affected this lady as she described. I don't know what happened, really. I mean, it's been a long time, events and facts are accidentally distorted, there's no physical evidence. I think he's a rapist, and he very well may have raped her. But the evidence is just storytelling, as I hear it.

I couldn't have convicted Casey Anthony for 1st degree murder, either. The prosecution can't just rely on how situations appear. "Hell, come on, you know it had to be that way!" makes sense rationally. To take away another's freedom, though, that should be a hell of an uphill battle. Concrete, hard facts needed, or else the likely guilty person walks. The prosecution knows they have the burden of proof.

In this case, he was on trial for the rapes that it was technically possible to bring to trial. I don't think that means that he should only be tried for those cases. That's just what it was possible to bring to trial in this case.

When you're talking about a rape that happened, especially one that happened some time ago, it's not reasonable to expect concrete, hard evidence. There are a lot of reasons why that kind of evidence will not get taken. You know, she was ashamed, she blamed herself, she had other things on her mind, she wanted to forget about it and pretend it never happened. Trauma isn't this sort of effect that causes predictable outcomes on every victim. It's unpredictable. It's not only unreasonable to demand hard evidence in every case, it's victim-blaming. "She should have got a rape kit if she got raped." Well there's any number of possible explanations for why she didn't get a rape kit. It's not reasonable to assume that it's something that a rape victim would automatically do, or know to do.

When you say "events and facts are accidentally distorted", I think that not you specifically, but I think that this exact approach is used to discredit the victim. She can't remember events exactly as they occoured, well of course she can't - she is not a data bank. Does that mean than she doesn't know whether she was raped or not?

 

[Lurk]

In this case, he was on trial for the rapes that it was technically possible to bring to trial. I don't think that means that he should only be tried for those cases. That's just what it was possible to bring to trial in this case.

When you're talking about a rape that happened, especially one that happened some time ago, it's not reasonable to expect concrete, hard evidence. There are a lot of reasons why that kind of evidence will not get taken. You know, she was ashamed, she blamed herself, she had other things on her mind, she wanted to forget about it and pretend it never happened. Trauma isn't this sort of effect that causes predictable outcomes on every victim. It's unpredictable. It's not only unreasonable to demand hard evidence in every case, it's victim-blaming. "She should have got a rape kit if she got raped." Well there's any number of possible explanations for why she didn't get a rape kit. It's not reasonable to assume that it's something that a rape victim would automatically do, or know to do.

When you say "events and facts are accidentally distorted", I think that not you specifically, but I think that this exact approach is used to discredit the victim. She can't remember events exactly as they occoured, well of course she can't - she is not a data bank. Does that mean than she doesn't know whether she was raped or not?

But it's my opinion that concrete, hard evidence is necessary, or should be, in order to put a person away in jail for years. If she is the victim (and I think she probably is), it's unfortunate that she's in this situation.

I understand why women wait to come forward, but I wish they didn't because of this type of situation. It really sucks, but I don't see how she can prove this with the evidence she has. Sometimes assholes win. Just look at Trump!

 

[Happy Phantom]

Where is Deadpool when we need him.

From what I know, and I don't know a bunch, this is one person's word against another's. Cosby should be judged only for this case, not his other alleged molestations and abuses of power (I had to put alleged. *eye roll*). He didn't use Quaaludes in this case; yes, he did in others, but not in this case. I do not believe Benadryl affected this lady as she described. I don't know what happened, really. I mean, it's been a long time, events and facts are accidentally distorted, there's no physical evidence. I think he's a rapist, and he very well may have raped her. But the evidence is just storytelling, as I hear it.

I couldn't have convicted Casey Anthony for 1st degree murder, either. The prosecution can't just rely on how situations appear. "Hell, come on, you know it had to be that way!" makes sense rationally. To take away another's freedom, though, that should be a hell of an uphill battle. Concrete, hard facts needed, or else the likely guilty person walks. The prosecution knows they have the burden of proof.

Whoopi Goldberg would likely say he's innocent, but not for the reason(s) you think. She just has a knack of saying unintelligible things, such as there was no proof that Ted Kennedy was responsible for Chappaquidick on The View after he kicked it. I'm quite certain that in this, or an alternate universe she is defending DT. Oy. #stfuwhoopi

 

[invisible]

But it's my opinion that concrete, hard evidence is necessary, or should be, in order to put a person away in jail for years. If she is the victim (and I think she probably is), it's unfortunate that she's in this situation.

I understand why women wait to come forward, but I wish they didn't because of this type of situation. It really sucks, but I don't see how she can prove this with the evidence she has. Sometimes assholes win. Just look at Trump!

That's not the way that this part of the legal system works, and there are a lot of good and complex reasons why it doesn't work that way. It's not a matter of "hard evidence", it's a matter of "reasonable doubt".

When you look at evidence, there isn't any fixed, essential point at which the evidence crosses the boundary into certainty. That's a matter of human interpretation. It's never a "perfect" yes/no outcome.

The most desirable evidence isn't always available. That doesn't mean that the types of evidence that are available shouldn't be treated according to their merit. It's particularly relevant to a situation like rape where there are so many reasons why the most desirable evidence may not be available. It's part of the nature of the crime. It's not useful to society to dismiss the crime based on its unpreditable nature. The crime has to be dealt with for the protection of society.

You can have your opinion all you like, but it's not the way that the legal system works. All it means is that you're judging the operations and outcomes of a system by inappropriate and irrelevant criteria.

 

[Lurk]

Whoopi Goldberg would likely say he's innocent, but not for the reason(s) you think. She just has a knack of saying unintelligible things, such as there was no proof that Ted Kennedy was responsible for Chappaquidick on The View after he kicked it. I'm quite certain that in this, or an alternate universe she is defending DT. Oy. #stfuwhoopi

Maybe she can't imagine he can be so multifaceted as to be able to conceal anything from her?....I just don't get her. Maybe it's arrogance rather than love for an old friend

 

[Happy Phantom]

Maybe she can't imagine he can be so multifaceted as to be able to conceal anything from her?....I just don't get her. Maybe it's arrogance rather than love for an old friend

I used to think she was intelligent. Idk, perhaps she's a wino and chugs a few bottles before going live.

Bill is a rapist and The Cosby Show sucked ass. I do love pudding though so I'll give him that. Are pudding pops still sold in supermarkets?

 

[Lurk]

That's not the way that this part of the legal system works, and there are a lot of good and complex reasons why it doesn't work that way. It's not a matter of "hard evidence", it's a matter of "reasonable doubt".

I'm aware. It's a bit skewed to treat "hard evidence" and "reasonable doubt" as though each phrase could substitute for the other. I need hard evidence to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that I should vote to convict a person of a crime. I don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the hard evidence is indeed the "hard" evidence it claims to be.

When you look at evidence, there isn't any fixed, essential point at which the evidence crosses the boundary into certainty. That's a matter of human interpretation. It's never a "perfect" yes/no outcome.

Of course I agree. When people who don't agree aren't bullied into falling in line, the system works. I think it just worked in this trial.

The most desirable evidence isn't always available. That doesn't mean that the types of evidence that are available shouldn't be treated according to their merit. It's particularly relevant to a situation like rape where there are so many reasons why the most desirable evidence may not be available. It's part of the nature of the crime. It's not useful to society to dismiss the crime based on its unpreditable nature. The crime has to be dealt with for the protection of society.

But crap evidence isn't necessarily enough to convict just because it happens to be available.

Are you suggesting we should err on the side of caution and lock Cosby up for the protection of society?

You can have your opinion all you like, but it's not the way that the legal system works. All it means is that you're judging the operations and outcomes of a system by inappropriate and irrelevant criteria.

What evidence in this case convinced you?

 

[Happy Phantom]

Oprah- *throwing into audience* Pudding pops for you, and you and everyone!! Every last damn person gets at least one.

 

[Lurk]

Oprah- *throwing into audience* Pudding pops for you, and you and everyone!! Every last damn person gets at least one.

*tosses it*

For the record, I always thought he was a moralizing holier-than-thou prick who was not funny. I never got it.

 

[invisible]

But crap evidence isn't necessarily enough to convict just because it happens to be available.

Are you suggesting we should err on the side of caution and lock Cosby up for the protection of society?

It isn't necessarily enough to convict just because it happens to be available, no. But it isn't necessarily "crap evidence" just because it is not "hard evidence". There might be a range of evidence that is available that is not "hard evidence". Dismissing it just because it is not "hard evidence" is like covering up the ears and yelling "LA LA LA, NOT LISTENING!" Nothing that is not "hard evidence" would be sufficiently persuasive here, because it is categorically rejected. It is completely arbitrary, a sort of personal whim.

Here is a little story, forgive me for getting personal. In her childhood, my mother was raped many times digtally and with objects such as broom handles by a nun, causing her to develop complicated psychiatric problems that persisted throughout her adulthood. Unfortunately, the bloody underwear she wore as a child are long gone, as she buried it in some paddock after the attacks that were made on her. It's lucky for us that people in the legal system have understood these circumstances and have made use of other forms of evidence. Of course, this has been absolutely reasonable of them. I would not understand if they had not considered forms of evidence that were not "hard evidence".

And, no, that's not what I was suggesting.

What evidence in this case convinced you?

I was convinced by Cosby explaining that he gave her 3 pills because he wanted her to be "relaxed" for their "necking" session. I find it impossible to comprehend this in any other way than that he deliberately sedated her. That is not a state of consent.

I read a range of key questions that were asked of Constand. Personally I found the questions incredibly surreal to read, but that isn't the point. The point is that none of that questioning caused me to have any reasonable doubt that she was telling the truth about what happened to her.

 

[invisible]

I was convinced by other features of the case in addition. But never mind. It really doesn't matter. The case has been thrown out and it is not important what I think.

 

[Lurk]

It isn't necessarily enough to convict just because it happens to be available, no. But it isn't necessarily "crap evidence" just because it is not "hard evidence". There might be a range of evidence that is available that is not "hard evidence". Dismissing it just because it is not "hard evidence" is like covering up the ears and yelling "LA LA LA, NOT LISTENING!" Nothing that is not "hard evidence" would be sufficiently persuasive here, because it is categorically rejected. It is completely arbitrary, a sort of personal whim.

You're correct that all available evidence isn't necessarily crap evidence. I did get a bit dramatic there.

Okay...I would listen to everything, all evidence. Mountains of anecdotal evidence may convince me of guilt, but I still would not vote to convict. See, I would always second guess my decision in a situation like that. Did I fill in the narrative? Like, "Ah ha, here's the money shot! I knew it!" That's easy to do. We are all doing it when we assume Cosby is guilty of serial rape. The media does it all the time because it's exciting and attracts an audience. We all likely believe Cosby is guilty of many abuses of power, druggings, and molestations. But, if he went to trial, the prosecutor still needs to start at step one; which is, some man committed some crime, and we will prove it.

Also, my definition of hard evidence is undefined so far.

Here is a little story, forgive me for getting personal. In her childhood, my mother was raped many times digtally and with objects such as broom handles by a nun, causing her to develop complicated psychiatric problems that persisted throughout her adulthood. Unfortunately, the bloody underwear she wore as a child are long gone, as she buried it in some paddock after the attacks that were made on her. It's lucky for us that people in the legal system have understood these circumstances and have made use of other forms of evidence. Of course, this has been absolutely reasonable of them. I would not understand if they had not considered forms of evidence that were not "hard evidence".

That's terrible and I'm sorry that happened to her.

Again, I am not sure how to explain my definition of hard evidence, but you may think it more narrow than it actually is.

I was convinced by Cosby explaining that he gave her 3 pills because he wanted her to be "relaxed" for their "necking" session. I find it impossible to comprehend this in any other way than that he deliberately sedated her. That is not a state of consent.

I read a range of key questions that were asked of Constand. Personally I found the questions incredibly surreal to read, but that isn't the point. The point is that none of that questioning caused me to have any reasonable doubt that she was telling the truth about what happened to her.

Okay, we disagree on this. I would not find this info enough to convict him. Not even close.

This is touchy, but anyone can lie.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I think that despite the probability of Cosby's guilt, convicting with such little evidence could set a precedent in other cases that a person can be jailed for a crime they may not have committed on the grounds that they are a bad person anyway. How do you say "Ooops, my bad!" to someone who was imprisoned for several years and later found not guilty d/t advances in forensics, etc.

 

[Lurk]

I think that despite the probability of Cosby's guilt, convicting with such little evidence could set a precedent in other cases that a person can be jailed for a crime they may not have committed on the grounds that they are a bad person anyway. How do you say "Ooops, my bad!" to someone who was imprisoned for several years and later found not guilty d/t advances in forensics, etc.

yep

And what if in some bizarre twist of fate he didn't molest this woman?

 

[sprinkles]

I think that despite the probability of Cosby's guilt, convicting with such little evidence could set a precedent in other cases that a person can be jailed for a crime they may not have committed on the grounds that they are a bad person anyway. How do you say "Ooops, my bad!" to someone who was imprisoned for several years and later found not guilty d/t advances in forensics, etc.

Exactly. I get the feeling he probably did it, but it would be plausible to fake a similar case, especially after having seen one like it.

 

[invisible]

It would depend on the case. "Precedent" is a legal term that is not appropriate for use here. What you're describing, that's not actually what precedent is.

You all are talking about how he did it. It's like you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. But you're holding out for other reasons that have nothing to do with formulating reasonable doubt on this particular case. That seems wrong and beside the point to me.

There's always a chance that there is a bizarre twist of fate that the convicted person didn't commit the crime. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Lurk]

You all are talking about how he did it. It's like you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. But you're holding out for other reasons that have nothing to do with formulating reasonable doubt on this particular case. That seems wrong and beside the point to me.

Because we're discussing Cosby, and everyone does think he did it; buuut...we can't acknowledge that, so we are trying to approach the known as an unknown.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

It would depend on the case. "Precedent" is a legal term that is not appropriate for use here. What you're describing, that's not actually what precedent is.

You all are talking about how he did it. It's like you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. But you're holding out for other reasons that have nothing to do with formulating reasonable doubt on this particular case. That seems wrong and beside the point to me.

There's always a chance that there is a bizarre twist of fate that the convicted person didn't commit the crime. What does that have to do with anything?

My bad. I didn't mean a legal precedent, i.e. other cases citing the decision of "Cosby vs...". I meant a societal precedent, i.e. this says that we as a society are ok with convicting someone without all the evidence we need for a unanimous decision.

It's not the case evidence that makes me think he did it, I just have a feeling. Because of that I am biased and can't speak to reasonable doubt, which is exactly why I'm hesitant to call for conviction.

And yes, my thinking that he did it is just a hunch as well. I would be reluctant to sentence any person with my incomplete understanding of the case and what evidence is available.



Now, all this aside, none of us really know why the jury is deadlocked. My automatic assumption was that there is not enough evidence. However, it could be something entirely different. We don't know why opinions are conflicting. Someone could very well be voting to convict (or not) because they don't like Cosby (or because they love him). We don't know for sure whose decisions are based on hunches, or if someone interprets the evidence differently than others.

 

[invisible]

If they're going to be judged as guilty then whether or not that outcome would hurt society shouldn't be a consideration in that. It's extraneous to that judgment.

 

[Lurk]

This thread is heated because there is an implicit assumption that every woman who claims Cosby raped or drugged her is telling the truth. Because rape victims are very frequently demeaned and outright slandered (suing for money, for example) -- insult upon injury -- we naturally want to take the alleged victims side. As in, kneejerk, shoot first, questions later.

Surely I don't need to point out why this could be a problem?

Did not Cosby himself admit to drugging unknowing women? Isn't that enough evidence?

Umm, no?

It's completely wrong to consider social or cultural implications as a factor in deciding whether someone is guilty or not.

I agree.

If you are withholding a decision of guilt because you think it would set a precedent that would hurt society, sorry but you've gone over to the dark side.

What if I leap to a decision of guilt because I'm sick of seeing women being abused and exploited by men? Am I an Angel of Light?

Earlier, I asked you this:

What evidence in this case convinced you?

I was genuinely interested in understanding your pov, but you didn't answer. Can you?

Or, did you answer when you mentioned the three pills. I forgot that.

..................................................


This thread is like a lynch party. Hang 'em high! High on emotion, short on facts.