he was eventually retried right?
P Diddy’s Los Angeles home raided by DHS
- Thread starter dezert_storm
- Start date
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
They ignored the deal to not use Cosby’s depositions from the civil cases.
Agreement not to prosecute Bill Cosby leads to his freedom, exposes prosecution's missteps
"It's not often that a prosecutor makes a wacky deal for a defendant to go testify in a civil case and in exchange he won't be prosecuted," one legal analyst said.www.nbcnews.com
So in your mind, that's a "skipped step"?
So you're saying that if they didn't use the deposition, then Cosby would be in prison?
Again, do you know what civil legal standards are compared to criminal ones?
Cosby didn’t want to admit to giving ANY drugs, consensual or not, in the criminal case. He openly did the in the civil case.
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
He never once admitted to giving drugs nonconsensually. You keep telling that lie and you know that I'm right. He never once said that he gave a woman drugs secretly.
On the case I served jury duty on?
Yeah, but we weren’t on that case at that point.
Basically the prosecutors re-showed a deposition/interview but the second showing to the jury showed more than they were supposed to and introduced new evidence to the case (i.e. that he was already serving time on another case) and basically tanked his case on the standing case being adjudicated.
His own daughter was saying she wasn’t raped but the detective at the scene and the psychologist said she was raped and suppressing the memory.
it was a fukked up case and even more scary because we all couldn’t settle on a case of guilt.
It was so crazy because after the mistrial both the defense and prosecutor came into the jury chambers and told us that the guy was basically guilty and that the replaying of the video fukked the case up showing that he was already a criminal.
again, the copped to giving drugs to the women in the civli case then denied it in the criminal case.
This is why when the victim’s legal team wanted the deposition released, they were able to show Cosby was lying about giving up drugs and nail him (in addition to other shyt he did).
This was however a violation of his civil rights because the prosecution said they wouldn’t release that deposition in a later case.
Nigerianwonder
Superstar
They ignored the deal to not use Cosby’s depositions from the civil cases.
Agreement not to prosecute Bill Cosby leads to his freedom, exposes prosecution's missteps
"It's not often that a prosecutor makes a wacky deal for a defendant to go testify in a civil case and in exchange he won't be prosecuted," one legal analyst said.
Cosby never admitted to any crime in his deposition. If he had they would have charged him then cause it was for a civil case and not a criminal case. He would not be protected from a crime he admitted to in civil court. His deposition also had nothing to do with with the case he was in court for plus it was sealed. The prosecutor deliberately used it out of context and illegally unsealed it knowing it would easily get overturned on appeal. Why? cause he was clout chasing and wanted the photo of cosby in handcuffs on his resume. They should be in jail for what they tried to pull.
Diddy is going to jail. They’re building the case. They did the same thing to R Kelly.
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
This is NOT true and you just made this up. He did NOT lie about giving drugs in the criminal case case. He admitted that he offered women pills. He denied DRUGGING women, as those are two different things.
See this is my issue with you and why you should be permabanned. Cause you will lie to try to win an argument. You make up your alternative facts and then try to pass them off as the truth.
Wrong. The entire reason he admitted to giving the drugs in 2005 was to AVOID prosecution then. That was the ENTIRE reason he admitted it in the first place.
Bill Cosby’s Release From Prison, Explained (Published 2021)
Here is a breakdown of the legal issues surrounding a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that abruptly let the disgraced entertainer out of prison.
...
Why did Mr. Castor say he would not charge Mr. Cosby?
Mr. Castor — who this year was one of the defense lawyers in President Donald J. Trump’s second impeachment trial before the Senate — has said that he announced in 2005 that Mr. Cosby would not be charged in an effort to prevent him from invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination so he would have to testify in Ms. Constand’s coming civil case.
In 2016, when the Cosby defense team was trying to get the criminal charges thrown out, they took the unusual step of calling Mr. Castor as a witness at a pretrial hearing. He testified that he had believed Ms. Constand but did not think the evidence was enough to prove her accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. He defended his decision as a way to help her suit.
“I decided that we would not prosecute Mr. Cosby, and that would set a chain of events that would get some justice for Andrea Constand,” Mr. Castor said.
Editors’ Picks
Did Mr. Castor make a binding promise?
Yes, said the Supreme Court majority.
There was no formal, written non-prosecution agreement — just the terse news release — and Ms. Constand and her lawyers have said they were not told of any promise or deal.
Against that backdrop, a legal dispute arose over whether Mr. Castor had in fact offered a binding promise that Mr. Cosby would never be charged — and, if he did, whether he had the authority to do so. Mr. Castor maintained he had made such a pledge, but the trial judge disagreed and ruled that the criminal case brought by the new district attorney could proceed. But the Supreme Court majority backed Mr. Castor’s interpretation of what he had done.
While that does not necessarily also mean that immunizing Mr. Cosby from prosecution was the right thing to do, Mr. Castor said in a phone interview on Wednesday that he believed his prosecutorial decision-making in 2005 had been “exonerated” by the Supreme Court’s decision. The ruling was a “shellacking” for the current district attorney’s office, he said.
“I was right back in 2005, and I’m right in 2021,” Mr. Castor said. “I’m proud of our Supreme Court for having the courage to make an unpopular decision.”
...
Guilty people should get off on technicalities so at to encourage the government to conduct due process in a manner that's legally in accordance with the constitution.
Permitting guilty people to suffer their consequences as a result of a dubious prosecution puts everyone at risk. No better than cops framing a guilty man.
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
Wrong. The entire reason he admitted to giving the drugs in 2005 was to AVOID prosecution then. That was the ENTIRE reason he admitted it in the first place.
Bill Cosby’s Release From Prison, Explained (Published 2021)
Here is a breakdown of the legal issues surrounding a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that abruptly let the disgraced entertainer out of prison.www.nytimes.com
...
Why did Mr. Castor say he would not charge Mr. Cosby?
Mr. Castor — who this year was one of the defense lawyers in President Donald J. Trump’s second impeachment trial before the Senate — has said that he announced in 2005 that Mr. Cosby would not be charged in an effort to prevent him from invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination so he would have to testify in Ms. Constand’s coming civil case.
In 2016, when the Cosby defense team was trying to get the criminal charges thrown out, they took the unusual step of calling Mr. Castor as a witness at a pretrial hearing. He testified that he had believed Ms. Constand but did not think the evidence was enough to prove her accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. He defended his decision as a way to help her suit.
“I decided that we would not prosecute Mr. Cosby, and that would set a chain of events that would get some justice for Andrea Constand,” Mr. Castor said.
Editors’ Picks
Did Mr. Castor make a binding promise?
Yes, said the Supreme Court majority.
There was no formal, written non-prosecution agreement — just the terse news release — and Ms. Constand and her lawyers have said they were not told of any promise or deal.
Against that backdrop, a legal dispute arose over whether Mr. Castor had in fact offered a binding promise that Mr. Cosby would never be charged — and, if he did, whether he had the authority to do so. Mr. Castor maintained he had made such a pledge, but the trial judge disagreed and ruled that the criminal case brought by the new district attorney could proceed. But the Supreme Court majority backed Mr. Castor’s interpretation of what he had done.
While that does not necessarily also mean that immunizing Mr. Cosby from prosecution was the right thing to do, Mr. Castor said in a phone interview on Wednesday that he believed his prosecutorial decision-making in 2005 had been “exonerated” by the Supreme Court’s decision. The ruling was a “shellacking” for the current district attorney’s office, he said.
“I was right back in 2005, and I’m right in 2021,” Mr. Castor said. “I’m proud of our Supreme Court for having the courage to make an unpopular decision.”
...
And again in his deposition, he never admitted to a crime. He said that he procured drugs for women. NOT that he drugged them. And you know that, you damn liar.
considering what we now know about Puff, theres a good chance that after he smashed that bottle of champagne over Stoute's head, he pulled out another one and stuck it somewhere else.
considering what we now know about Puff, theres a good chance that after he smashed that bottle of champagne over Stoute's head, he pulled out another one and stuck it somewhere else.
Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
Anyway about to watch X Men. I'll be back on later.
Watch Nap spam the thread when he realizes I'm gone
Watch Nap spam the thread when he realizes I'm gone
