Bill Cosby freed

[Thorongil]

51 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

It doesn’t. 

Yes it does. This is what I mean about juries. A lot of people arent competent to be on them.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Thorongil

[RH33]

Just now, Thorongil said:

I agree. The law must be dispassionate.

So you think 60 woman all lied? 

The law isn't dispassionate my reactions, emotions and disposition were all noted in statements.

[oneteaminglasgow]

7 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Yes it does. This is what I mean about juries. A lot of people are competent to be on them.

I’ll leave it here, but you aren’t correct. 

[Scary Bear]

https://twitter.com/shortishortkut/status/1410410860581883904?s=21

I give up. Can’t do Twitter. How do you embed a tweet/video from Twitter?

The man is clearly unrepentant.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Scary Bear

[Thorongil]

42 minutes ago, RH33 said:

So you think 60 woman all lied? 

The law isn't dispassionate my reactions, emotions and disposition were all noted in statements.

I have no view on whether anyone lied. That’s for a court to determine.

Law should always be dispassionate and impact on victims should be considered only where guilt has been established.

I say this myself as a victim of violent crime. 
 

 

[scottsdad]

11 hours ago, Thorongil said:

But I don’t remember people complaining about the legal system when he was convicted and sent down. 

Plenty of people complained, mostly about the statute of limitations. 

[Thorongil]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

Plenty of people complained, mostly about the statute of limitations. 

People were happy to accept the guilty verdict, because it pleased them. But not happy to accept its overturning because it didn’t please them. 

Yet their only knowledge of the case comes from the media. 

I accepted the initial verdict (not that it’s any of my business) and also the overturning. I maintain my own private view about the likelihood of what transpired but I am conscious that comes from a position of ignorance.

[hk blues]

1 hour ago, Thorongil said:

Cosby may well be a rapist, but in the absence of a conviction his legal status is innocent. 
 

If you are willing to accept convictions can be founded on technical legal points then one cannot complain when convictions are overturned on “technicalities”. 
Also pretty  alarming that you think Not Guilty doesn’t also mean innocent. 

I'm not so sure convictions are founded on technical legal points unless you're defining evidence as such?  I think we all have the right to express disappointment when an individual who was found guilty of a crime despite the onerous burden of proof requirement is subsequently released on a technicality rather than due to the evidence of the case.

[scottsdad]

10 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

People were happy to accept the guilty verdict, because it pleased them. But not happy to accept its overturning because it didn’t please them. 

Yet their only knowledge of the case comes from the media. 

I accepted the initial verdict (not that it’s any of my business) and also the overturning. I maintain my own private view about the likelihood of what transpired but I am conscious that comes from a position of ignorance.

The overturning of the conviction was on a technicality. If there had been a retrial and he had been found not guilty, perhaps more people would take your view. 

[dirty dingus]

Unfunny rapey auld b*****d should have came out of prison in a box.

[RH33]

45 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

I have no view on whether anyone lied. That’s for a court to determine.

Law should always be dispassionate and impact on victims should be considered only where guilt has been established.

I say this myself as a victim of violent crime. 
 

 

Do you think witnesses giving evidence to a jury do so in a dispassionate manner?

[Thorongil]

Just now, RH33 said:

Do you think witnesses giving evidence to a jury do so in a dispassionate manner?

No.

[Thorongil]

29 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

The overturning of the conviction was on a technicality. If there had been a retrial and he had been found not guilty, perhaps more people would take your view. 

Technicalities are part of the legal framework. One person’s technicality is another person’s lifeline. 
 

[RH33]

Just now, Thorongil said:

No.

Ergo law is not dispassionate.

 

[Thorongil]

4 minutes ago, RH33 said:

Ergo law is not dispassionate.

 

What?!?! It’s the courts who apply the law, not witnesses.

[diegomarahenry]

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

That's enough for me to believe the evidence must have been overwhelming - the low successful prosecution rate for such crimes would suggest it must've been.  To labour a point, he was released on a technicality.  

Yes, and my point was, that public pressure , in theory could have lead to an unsafe conviction. Both Cosby and Weinstein have appeals. 
 

Like the George Floyd case, if that police officer had been found not guilty, America would still be ablaze but I am sure there is a technicality in there waiting to be exploited and will be in the next 1-2 years. 
Say, police training described putting a knee on someone’s neck was an approved method for subduing someone but there was no mention of a time limit, then that officer, despite being filmed showing a complete disregard for someone’s life, at best, could argue they were following training. Then the police as a whole would be liable rather than the individual. The need for a guilty verdict outweighed a watertight case. 
 

if you look at the Salmond case, public opinion was probably 50/50 on his guilt, none of the accusers were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt he committed any crime and he was acquitted. If you watched or followed certain journalists he was 100% guilty in their eyes. There was a desire to prosecute him at a cost of probably 7 figures to the public purse. Because of the skullduggery involved, it probably cast doubt in many peoples mind as to whether he was guilty or not meaning the public perception was mixed.

With the high profile sex offenders and the George Floyd policeman, there was no doubt in the public that these people were guilty, in Cosby and Weinstein’s case their convictions are unstable. With double jeopardy etc it could lead to people getting away with crimes because unstable guilty verdicts are pushed through under public pressure rather than being bulletproof.
 

[RH33]

10 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

What?!?! It’s the courts who apply the law, not witnesses.

And the jury make the innocent or guilt decision which the court acts upon.....

[welshbairn]

Nowhere in the judgement does it suggest that Cosby is innocent, only that he incriminated himself in a civil case after being told that there would be no criminal trial.

Intro:

Quote

In 2005, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor learned that Andrea Constand had reported that William Cosby had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at his Cheltenham residence. Along with his top deputy prosecutor and experienced detectives, District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand’s claim. In evaluating the likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties with Constand’s credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.  Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the district attorney’s  declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements. D.A. Castor’s  successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking.  Cosby’s sworn inculpatory testimony were then used by D.A. Castor’s successors against Cosby at Cosby’s  criminal trial. We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor’s decision not to prosecute Cosby in exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth.

The whole judgement is linked below.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/bill-cosby-b1875721.html

Edited July 2, 2021 by welshbairn

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

Yes, and my point was, that public pressure , in theory could have lead to an unsafe conviction. Both Cosby and Weinstein have appeals. 
 

Like the George Floyd case, if that police officer had been found not guilty, America would still be ablaze but I am sure there is a technicality in there waiting to be exploited and will be in the next 1-2 years. 
Say, police training described putting a knee on someone’s neck was an approved method for subduing someone but there was no mention of a time limit, then that officer, despite being filmed showing a complete disregard for someone’s life, at best, could argue they were following training. Then the police as a whole would be liable rather than the individual. The need for a guilty verdict outweighed a watertight case. 
 

if you look at the Salmond case, public opinion was probably 50/50 on his guilt, none of the accusers were able to prove beyond reasonable doubt he committed any crime and he was acquitted. If you watched or followed certain journalists he was 100% guilty in their eyes. There was a desire to prosecute him at a cost of probably 7 figures to the public purse. Because of the skullduggery involved, it probably cast doubt in many peoples mind as to whether he was guilty or not meaning the public perception was mixed.

With the high profile sex offenders and the George Floyd policeman, there was no doubt in the public that these people were guilty, in Cosby and Weinstein’s case their convictions are unstable. With double jeopardy etc it could lead to people getting away with crimes because unstable guilty verdicts are pushed through under public pressure rather than being bulletproof.
 

I'm certainly not disputing that public opinion can impact a jury but was public opinion for/against Cosby at the time of his trial?  Me neither.  It's interesting to note his 1st trial was a hung jury but the existence of other complaints against him wasn't allowed in evidence but was in the 2nd trial where he was found guilty. 

As for legal technicalities, I'm not sure the scenario you describe with the Chauvin case would be classed as a technicality, rather a matter of material fact.  

Let's not forget Cosby agreed to pay near on $4m to his accuser - some amount for an innocent man!  That apart, I totally get the concept that the law has to be applied and that the balance of proof lies on the accuser etc etc but that doesn't mean none of us should feel a sense of injustice when we feel there is one.  We're not lawyers and our opinion matters not a jot but that's not to say we cannot express it (This isn't aimed at you B.T.W.)

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

10 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

Violence towards women doesn’t seem to be taken seriously. Just look at the incidence of domestic abuse reported by the partners of policemen and the lack of prosecutions and it’s probably no wonder crimes such as the one you suffered are not dealt with properly.

We see guys like Colin Hendry interviewed about the Euros like he’s some great guy when he’s a persistent wife beater and violent stalker. At Dunfermline, Martin Hardie is treated as a hero yet he’s another inadequate who harasses women. 

A male-dominated culture just doesn’t seem to grasp the trauma their behaviour can cause women. 

That couldnt be any further from the truth, ive dedicated a large part of my career to the investigation of domestic abuse etc and to say  that its not taken seriously is utterly dismissive to people who do absolutely everything they can to help victims. There are entire departments solely dedicated to such investigations, specialist courts, specialist prosecutors who deal with only domestic abuse cases. Even outside this, domestic abuse calls make up a massive part of the day to day work of uniformed police officers too. With a large proportion of calls around domestic abuse. Every single police officer and domestic abuse prosecutor gets specialist training from Domestic Abuse Matters which is co-delivered by agencies like women's aid and rape crisis. Its a stated priority for Policing and COPFS in that its recognised as a massively important area. 

Its an incredibly complex field, if someone comes forward to report say a historical incident where the person was assaulted with no other persons present etc then its significantly difficult to prove that abuse, forensic opportunities gone, door to door opportunities significantly diminished, you rely on a strong statement from a victim which stands up to scrutiny and some other corroborative factor, which could be a confession, incriminating texts or a first disclosure from the victim. Even then the chances of finding that corroborative factor can be really difficult. That said they will still explore as many avenues as possible to do this, interviewing ex partners who may have suffered similar abuse which can provide corroboration via the moorov doctrine, but getting them to engage can be so difficult because many just want to move on or have blocked out these traumatic memories. 

Domestic abuse and sexual violence etc is for me one of the most horrific types of crime, because it so often occurs in an environment which where we should all feel the safest and the impact of it can be significantly harder to overcome than most other crimes. 
 

I get the frustration that crimes like these dont always result in a prosecution, but to allude to it being because the criminal justice system is somehow uninterested, complicit or ‘not done properly’ on some kind of massive scale is unfair and inaccurate. Are there things that can improve, absolutely, could the PF and Police etc do with more resources to investigate and prosecute, absolutely, but is it somehow because they dont care? No chance.