Bill Cosby convicted of sexual assault

A jury found Bill Cosby guilty Thursday of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman at his home near here 14 years ago, capping the downfall of one of the world?s best-known entertainers, and offering a measure of satisfaction to the dozens of women who for years have accused him of similar assaults against them.

On the second day of its deliberations at the Montgomery County Courthouse, the jury convicted Mr. Cosby of three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand, at the time a Temple University employee.

.....

The judge did not set a date to sentence Mr. Cosby on the three counts, all felonies and each punishable by up to 10 years in state prison.

The National Organization for Women called the verdict a ?notice to sexual predators everywhere.? Rose McGowan, one of the women who has accused Harvey Weinstein of assault, tweeted a thank you to the judge and jury and to ?society for waking up.? Gloria Allred, the lawyer who represented many of Mr. Cosby?s accusers, hailed the decision as an important breakthrough.

Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/arts/television/bill-cosby-guilty-retrial.html

Thoughts?

Don't care much, Hollywood is full of scummy people anyways.

Is it odd I find it a bit comical he was given life imprisonment when he's like...80+?

I have really mixed feelings about this. The outrage and heartbreak that the community feels about all of the many things Bill Cosby has been accused of and will probably never be tried for is understandable. However, I think the country is caught up in the mentality of getting revenge against Bill Cosby, rather than looking at the subtleties of the law.

Do I say that Bill Cosby was innocent? No, I'm not. I think however that the case between Cosby Andrea Constand is very problematic from a legal standpoint if you break it down piece by piece. Even if Cosby did all these things I don't think this should have even gone to court looking at it from the perspective of girl whose dad has a law background and can tell her a few things about how the system is supposed to work

Cosby isn't on trial for attacking 60 women. He was on trial for one person, and I don't think this particular person had a good case at all.

Andrea Constand did a lot of puzzling things. Her story kept changing, she was off by dates by as much as two months. She contacted a civil lawyer before criminal. She gave interviews with the National Inquirer beforehand. Phone records show that she even called Cosby on her own nearly 50 times after the time she claims he assaulted her. I've had guys do stuff to me that is not nearly as bad, and I think most girls would not want to keep hanging around someone if they did that to you. Andrea Constand sent him sweaters and presents took baked goods from him afterward and even asked for tickets for her family to see him perform. Again, this is all after she said he violated her. That is bizarre. There was also a co-worker of Constand whose testimony the jury did not hear. Marguerite Jackson claimed that Constand told her that she needed money to go back to school, open a business and knew a high-profile person she could claim raped her to find a way out of hardship.

Now Cosby might have done all of these things, but I think there was at least in this case an issue of reasonable doubt because of several credibility issues that would normally cause a witness to self-destruct on cross examination. However, because this was only case that fell within the statue of limitation we could not afford to lose it. We had to get the bad guy no matter what. In the process there were some unprecedented rulings, we bent the law where we could and that has some disturbing implications for all of us. Its not about Cosby, it's about the law. Tomorrow It could be you or someone you care about who doesn't get the full protection of the law. You don't want to rip up the constitution just to get Cosby. As unpopular as my saying so will be, no, I'm not happy to hear about this conviction because I don't think it was ever a solid case. I watched a very good YouTube video that goes into far more detail from a legal point of view of what is wrong with the Cosby case. I will attach the link later when I find it if you are curious. I try to do research before coming to conclusions.
EDIT: Here we go. This channel Drutv has highlighted this case a lot. The second video is the more recent video. The first one is from last year, but has still lots of helpful information. He has many similar videos about the scandal you can explore if you are interested, but these videos relate more specifically to where the difficulties lie with this particular accuser.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYnS7hWRPU

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eh5QV0Qm8Y


Robert Bolt said it best in his play A Man for All Seasons. The fiery and just Roper pushes Thomas More to arrest someone who they all know is dangerous, More insists that the evidence isn't there and that they have to follow the law. But Roper his son-in-law says to hell with it, you know he's guilty.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

If he did it, he deserves what's coming to him, as does anyone who has done something like this. And if he didn't, he wouldn't be the first to be falsely accused and sentenced by the system and he won't be the last. I don't know enough about the situation to make even a remotely educated guess about which is the case, and I suspect most other people don't, either.