• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill Cosby trial

"Civil rights attorney." "Women's rights attorney." "Plantiff's attorney." These would be examples of accurate descriptions of what Gloria Allred does. I'd be interested to read some legal documents or articles that describe her as a "prosecutor," if only because it would be educational for me.


ETA: Until I see them, I'll consider this nonsense that she's a "prosecutor" to be exactly that.
 
I've lost count. Are you quintupling down on stupidity, or up to sextupling?

The original poster was correct in his use of the word "prosecutor". Type the word in to dictionary.com. And, no, you do not need legal documents or articles to establish this. The poster was under no obligation to be using a particular definition of the word.

Thanks for all this clarification though. I truly had no idea how pathetic your original post that started this tangent actually was.
 
dudalb said:
I don't think Cosby is playing with a full deck anymore.

It's sad. The guy who had me on the floor laughing at this brilliant stand up comic routines about Old Weird Harold and Fat Albert has come to this.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is sad, which is why I held back some sarcasm. I too, remember him from his often genius routines. His skit about helping his wife during the labor and birth of their first child. Trying, at first, the Lamaze method, was one of the funniest things I had ever heard.
 
He tricked people into thinking he was funny... maybe he can fool them into thinking he's Jesus.
 
Court overturns Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction, bars further prosecution

Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction will be overturned and the 83-year-old comedian will be released from prison after the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued an opinion to vacate his conviction Wednesday.

Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned the conviction after finding an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented Cosby from being charged in the case.

The Supreme Court reviewed two aspects of the cast that Cosby’s lawyers challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers in addition to Andrea Constand.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/30/cou...ault-conviction-bars-further-prosecution.html
 
Belz... said:
What?
Click to expand...


The Pennsylvania supreme court apparently decided that Cosby was unjustly convicted on the basis of evidence he provided in the previous civil proceeding.
Bill Cosby had his conviction for sexual assault overturned by a Pennsylvania appeals court on Wednesday, a decision that will set free a man whose case had represented the first high-profile sexual assault trial to unfold in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement.
....
In their 79-page opinion, the judges wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” struck with a previous prosecutor meant that he should not have been charged in the case, and that Mr. Cosby should be discharged. They barred a retrial in the case.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/arts/television/bill-cosby-release-conviction.html

Paradoxically, they're not claiming he's not guilty, just that he had a deal not to be prosecuted.
 
theprestige said:
Why on earth would they say anything at all about whether he's guilty? That wasn't the question before them, nor did they have any standing to issue a formal opinion on that question.
Click to expand...

True. But they didn't question the evidence that proved Cosby's guilt. They only said it shouldn't have been used against him.
 
Some commentators are observing that the traditional remedy would be to order a retrial without use of the tainted evidence. "No new trial" is apparently an aberration.
 
Bob001 said:
True. But they didn't question the evidence that proved Cosby's guilt. They only said it shouldn't have been used against him.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. The question of whether the evidence proved his guilt was already answered by the jury, as it should have been. The judges on the Supreme Court have no business answering that question. They are not juries, they are not prosecutors, they are not defense attorneys. They are arbiters of the law, not of guilt or innocence according to the evidence.

Again I ask, why on earth would they say anything at all about the quality of the evidence or the likelihood of guilt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom