• 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

BStrong said:
And I'm pretty sure one of those is actually mentally ill.

I loved Cosby as a kid. I memorized every album he put out and even up till today, if I need to give an example of convuluted planning I'll link to a youtube video of Cosby's bit describing street football as a kid in Philly.

Having said that, There is more than enough evidence that he was a predator - he had a distinct MO, and evidently it became a regular pattern of behavior.

Because of his status in the entertainment business, he would be no different from the entertainers, musicians etc that have historically been given leeway in less than acceptable (even illegal) behavior. Loved celebrities get a bunch more slack than Joe Lunch Box - the star is eccentric and entertaining. Joe Lunch Box is a boor and might be up to no good. Think Whoopie Goldberg on Polanski - "It wasn't rape - rape." If that was Joe Lunch Box, the local media might not have even reported on the crime.

In Cosby's defense, his case wouldn't be the first where somebody raised their hand "Hey! Me Too!" after the news broke with no truth to the allegation, but Cosby himself in the earlier lawsuit had admitted to the behavior alleged by victims.

I think his defense is playing for time more than anything else.

Interesting to note that Cosby was also acting as a self-appointed comedy monitor wrt younger comedians. He has contacted younger comedians out of the clear blue and with no preamble lectured them on working blue (profanity, sexual or other "blue" humor) and it's ironic that he'd find a comedian making sexual jokes objectionable while drugging women and raping them in his personal life.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. I agree about the talent. His skit about his wife while she was in labor with their first child, as she changed her mind about natural childbirth and demanded drugs, was at the time one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

I also agree that he is a predator. And evidence of his guilt seems to be glaring. It is difficult to imagine him being found not guilty. It is also difficult to imagine him being sent to prison, not because of celebrity but because of age and health.
 
"Ma'am, do you recognize anyone in the courtroom?"
"Hey, that's Bill Cosby!"
 
trustbutverify said:
So... not enough hard evidence? Are they saying that it's a she-said-he-said scenario?
Click to expand...
I believe they're saying that he's a beloved celebrity (by some, apparently) and they don't really care if he's a rapist.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the jury is deadlocked... they didn't find him innocent. Its possible that the majority considers him guilty but that there are one or 2 holdouts.

Personally I think he's guilty. But, keep in mind that there is no "hard evidence" (no video tape, no blood analysis done on the victim after, etc.) There were multiple women who have made accusations about Cosby, but I figured the jury is only instructed to rule on the one case. His story about "only giving benadryl" may seen silly to us, but the jury has to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than "what's most likely".
 
Segnosaur said:
Keep in mind that the jury is deadlocked... they didn't find him innocent. Its possible that the majority considers him guilty but that there are one or 2 holdouts.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. My comment was directed at however many jurists were arguing for a not guilty verdict.

Personally I think he's guilty. But, keep in mind that there is no "hard evidence" (no video tape, no blood analysis done on the victim after, etc.) There were multiple women who have made accusations about Cosby, but I figured the jury is only instructed to rule on the one case. His story about "only giving benadryl" may seen silly to us, but the jury has to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than "what's most likely".
Click to expand...
Beyond all of this, I believe his "America's dad" celebrity status plays a major role. People are much less likely to convict someone they've been systematically conditioned to think of as a member of their family.
 
Segnosaur said:
Keep in mind that the jury is deadlocked... they didn't find him innocent. Its possible that the majority considers him guilty but that there are one or 2 holdouts.

Personally I think he's guilty. But, keep in mind that there is no "hard evidence" (no video tape, no blood analysis done on the victim after, etc.) There were multiple women who have made accusations about Cosby, but I figured the jury is only instructed to rule on the one case. His story about "only giving benadryl" may seen silly to us, but the jury has to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than "what's most likely".
Click to expand...


Yep. The jury is instructed not to consider any other cases, if they even know about them. The defense did not take long to present their side. They must believe they know that a jury can't convict based on what was revealed in trial.

He will walk.

One thing I'm concerned about with this Cosby thing is that people are applying today's social standards to things that happened decades ago (other accusers). That seems tricky in a trial like this. It seems people can't imagine doing drugs and having sex, and that a woman might choose to do so. Our standards have changed.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that it's an attitude I see.

We do this now with Civil War statues and memorials depicting the Confederacy. Sure, we don't like them now, but nobody gave a damn for a very long time.


Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
Yep. The jury is instructed not to consider any other cases, if they even know about them. The defense did not take long to present their side. They must believe they know that a jury can't convict based on what was revealed in trial.

He will walk.

One thing I'm concerned about with this Cosby thing is that people are applying today's social standards to things that happened decades ago (other accusers). That seems tricky in a trial like this. It seems people can't imagine doing drugs and having sex, and that a woman might choose to do so. Our standards have changed.

I'm not saying he's innocent, just that it's an attitude I see.

We do this now with Civil War statues and memorials depicting the Confederacy. Sure, we don't like them now, but nobody gave a damn for a very long time.


Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Trying to excuse disgraceful conduct by a celebrity . Just a Thought.
 
dudalb said:
Trying to excuse disgraceful conduct by a celebrity . Just a Thought.
Click to expand...

Your're surprised?!?

I remember about two years ago a number of Top Gear fans were defending Jeremy Clarkson's verbal & physical attack of one of the show's producers - an action if any of US had done it in our workplaces would have at best ended up in a firing (as what was the BBC's eventual decision,) and jail time at worst...
 
If there's one person on the jury that thinks drugging women and then raping them is just fine - which, based on some studies is not unlikely as these people are way more common than I would have thought - then that could cause the problem.

No way to know for sure at this point, but my money is on that. I think once the jury can talk we'll hear that some guy said something along the lines of 'everyone does it' or whatever.

Or maybe I'm just tired and cranky.

I guess we'll see. Could be both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom