June 22, 2017

Cosby jurors "initially voted overwhelmingly, in a non-binding poll, to find the entertainer not guilty on all three counts of aggravated indecent assault."

But in the end, it was 10 to 2 for finding him guilty of digitally penetration without consent, and it was it was 10 to 2 for finding him guilty of of the charge based on giving the woman intoxicants without her knowledge. But it was 11 to 1 to acquit him of the charge that was based on her being unconscious.

That's based on an interview given by one juror to ABC.

54 comments:

dreams said...

I'm glad two of them held out for a not guilty verdict.

AllenS said...

How many people here think that trying Cosby again would be a good idea?

Darcy said...

It looks like the jury didn't want to convict him and I think that instinct was correct. I have found this trial sad and unsettling. I think he did wrong. I don't think he should have been convicted of a crime.

neo-neocon had a very good post about my problems with this prosecution and now conviction. Link.

MikeR said...

Don't know the details. Dozens of accusations from numerous women, so I imagine he's guilty, but the criminal justice system doesn't work that way and shouldn't. It's her word against his.

Darcy said...

Wish there was an edit feature...didn't mean for that to read that neo-neocon was writing about MY concerns. Hehe. Don't know her. (But she is AWESOME)

rhhardin said...

Digital penetration must mean finger fucking.

It's so hard to keep up.

rhhardin said...

Analog penetration is the alternative.

John Borell said...

Analog penetration is like listening to vinyl records.

eric said...

Sounds like there were 10 racists on the jury.

William said...

Analog penetration sounds dirtier. Digital penetration sounds like he hacked her playlist........Cosby is most probably guilty of something, but, in each individual case, there's probably a ton of obfuscating or contradictory details. I don think that they will ever win a case against him and, should they do so, there will be years of appeals. Cosby will not die in prison. There are other criminals more worthy of pursuit........He got away with it. There are worst cases of injustice. Jimmy Saville died without a breath of scandal ever tarnishing his reputation whilst alive.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Retrying him in probably agood idea but thsi time:

1) Don't try to argue that it might really have been Benadryl and that Benadryl can have these effects. But say flat out Cosby was lying about that, and that the pills he submitted to police were not the same pills he gave. The jury really has to find that to convict.

2) Make some attempt - it is surely not impossible - to figure out what kind of pills they really were or might have been. This is surely not utterly unknown.

3) Maybe make an argument that even if Cosby was not sure what kind of effect the pills would have, Andrea Constand clearly was not about to consent to anything before he gave them, and he knew it, AND and that he lied about what they were, and he saw she was affected in a way to reduce her capacity to consent or refuse, and doing anything after that is illegal. And that we can believe what both he and she agreed happened even if we don't believe everything he said.

R.J. Chatt said...

One thing is for sure, if Cosby's activities had been exposed a long time ago lots of women would have been spared. But no one thought they would be believed, so they kept their mouths shut and his secret hidden. I just wish someone had spoken out a long time ago instead of worrying about whether a jury would have found Cosby guilty.

Achilles said...

Blogger AllenS said...
"How many people here think that trying Cosby again would be a good idea?"

The prosecutor getting paid by taxpayers who wants to be on TV.

AllenS said...

Achilles, how many times does he want to be on tv beating a dead horse?

Also, Sammy F: "to figure out what kind of pills they really were or might have been"

Good luck getting that part in bold admitted as evidence.

Snark said...

This is exactly the way I think I would have voted. It sounds to me like the majority believed that he gave Constand the pills with the intention to incapacitate her and that she was incapacitated during the initial physical contact. That middle charge was bit more murky because by her own testimony she awakened, and that was what allowed her to describe her experience.

Quaestor said...

It sounds like the Cosby jurors were more confused by the evidence than persuaded of anything. I suppose it derives from the basic improbability of the whole story — a gaggle of hysterical women waits years, nay decades, to report an assault by a celebrity, and only one of them gets in under the limitations wire in time to actually press criminal charges and she's the most improbable of the lot. Just look at her. The Cosby jurors had to look at her for days and days. Not what you'd call a looker, is she? A damned circus freak is more like it. The notion that Bill Cosby, a wealthy and charismatic man would need Benedryl to get laid is dubious on its face; that he would even want sex with that hag is well into preposterous territory.

Achilles said...

AllenS said...
Achilles, how many times does he want to be on tv beating a dead horse?

Most lawyers make a career out of beating dead horses. Why not get on TV too. Especially for a future politician. The job description of politician is quite literally "Gets on TV and beats Dead Horses.

Quaestor said...

If the prosecution can get a conviction with the next jury panel we should keep them together to settle other weighty and evidence-devoid questions such as flying saucers, Loch Ness beasts, giant bipedal apes that leave spoor all over the Northwest forests, and life after death.

MayBee said...

Dear Women-

Unless you were a child when you were assaulted, you have to act quickly if you want to press criminal charges. You cannot stay in friendly contact with someone after your assault if you wish to later press charges.
It does not mean you deserved to be assaulted, or that you did something wrong, or that you were not assaulted. But that is separate from getting a conviction.
If you want to send someone to jail, you have to be able to show a jury that you cannot abide by having that person walk free for some period of time after they assault you. No matter how complex it is, you cannot kindly interact with that person and *then* decide they must be locked up.

This is reality.

JML said...

"Analog penetration is like listening to vinyl records."

So, scratching snatch?

bagoh20 said...

They voted that: yes, he drugged her, and he penetrated her, but didn't use the drugs to do it?. So they are saying it was consensual. Which I tend to believe, based on her keeping in contact afterward. Who stays friends with their rapist?

I tell you what. If Cosby was not rich and famous, none of this would have happened, and I mean none of it - back then or now.

I now openly wear a body cam on all my romantic encounters. I tell the ladies that I wear it just in case she is disappointed with the outcome.

Snark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snark said...

Behaviour, continued contact etc. by a victim after an assault by someone they know is completely useless in determining guilt or innocence. It may not be intuitive to many, but 1000% it is possible and perhaps even likely that a victim will maintain some version of the previous relationship with the person that assaulted them. I think it's good news that at least 10 members of this jury were able to accept that.

MayBee said...

It may not be intuitive to many, b

Thus, my note to women.

You want a conviction? You have to convince the jurors you were traumatized.

rhhardin said...

It's not a complete waste. We have pill sex jokes that wouldn't have been available.

rhhardin said...

Men and women get to strike a posture on the matter.

readering said...

Searching for compromise verdict from the menu of options. Unable to agree on one.

rhhardin said...

They could have drugged the holdouts and solved it.

Unattorney said...

Decades ago, I prosecuted a weird rape case. The brilliant public defender gently and devestatingly destroyed the poor woman's credibility on cross. The old master dda advised, "Just tell the jury : why would she make this up if it wasn't true?"Young and dumb, I replied that one could say that about every case. But there I was before the jury pleading, "Why would would she put herself through that vicious cross-examination if it wasn't true? Why would she suffer all this harassment if it wasn't true?" After they convicted,the jurors patiently explained to the stunned and brilliant defense attorney that they all felt the victim would not have put herself through so much if it hadn't been true. This case taught me never to talk to jurors after trial.

MayBee said...

Let's say, for example, I find an employee is skimming money from the bank deposits I have him make at night on the way home. Instead of firing him, I promote him. I let him take even more money to the bank, I put him in charge of more accounts. I give him positive job reviews. He remains my employee for 20 more years.

Do you think my behavior makes it harder or easier to later accuse him of embezzling? Do you think it makes it harder or easier to get a conviction against his wrongdoing?

AllenS said...

They could have drugged the holdouts and gave them a good screwing.

Snark said...

"Thus, my note to women.

You want a conviction? You have to convince the jurors you were traumatized."

I get the argument, but continued contact is so prevalent that I think the interests of justice require that the public begins to understand this is not useful in determining guilt or innocence.

MayBee said...

I get the argument, but continued contact is so prevalent that I think the interests of justice require that the public begins to understand this is not useful in determining guilt or innocence

Or, perhaps, women should stop with the continued contact of the people they wish to accuse of rape.

MayBee said...

Being raped is awful.
Being sent to prison is awful.

If you want to send someone to prison, you have to convince me what they did is so awful they deserve prison. And staying in touch with them does not help me on that road.

lgv said...

Without taking a side in guilt/non-guilt, I find it disturbing that an initial vote of 11-1 somehow switches to 2-10. The one on the initial vote must have been very persuasive. Did they act out "12 Angry Men" inside the room or something? Nine people changed their mind. Again, I am shocked and I find it disturbing that one influencer can flip a jury like that.

Char Char Binks said...

"One thing is for sure, if Cosby's activities had been exposed a long time ago lots of women would have been spared."

It seems women were lining up for Cosby's activities. They'll let you do that when you're a star, believe me bigly.

Snark said...

"Or, perhaps, women should stop with the continued contact of the people they wish to accuse of rape."


I think it needs to be understood in terms of the shame and losses a victim feels like they face when they've been sexually misused by someone they know. First, and virtually always, a victim is likely to initially feel like it was somehow her fault. That is the context in which she may or may not consider going to the police station and describing intimate violations to a stranger, often a male stranger. The thought of reporting is often very fleeting, if it is seriously considered at all. When the person who assaults her is a part of her social or professional circles the trade offs seem terrible. The loss of the current reliable rhythms of her life, the loss of the friend she thought she had, the loss of the ease and predictability of a social or professional status quo - all traded in for an instant feeling of being set apart in those circles and an always humiliating and usually unfruitful journey through the justice system. It seems so much easier, and so much safer, to stuff your shame down and just carry on more or less as you had. Sometimes you need a third person to jolt you and make you see that there are truly other options and that you were truly misused and don't need to simply put your head down and carry on. Andrea Constand's mother played that role in this case, I believe.

If you find any of this improbable, think of how many people stay in terrible soul draining marriages on very similar fears of loss and uncertainty.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

lgv said...

Without taking a side in guilt/non-guilt, I find it disturbing that an initial vote of 11-1 somehow switches to 2-10. The one on the initial vote must have been very persuasive.

I was on the jury of a wrongful death lawsuit. The first question we had to answer was Was person X at least partially responsible for the death of person Y. Our initial vote was 9-3 for yes. I was one of the three. Fifteen minutes of rational discussion was all it took for me and one other juror to flip it to 10-2 for no. Another hour for the last two. The last one could never give a rational argument for holding person X responsible, but a child died, and somebody should have done something.

I don't know the details of this case, but a major swing of the jurors does not bother me at all.

MayBee said...

If you find any of this improbable, think of how many people stay in terrible soul draining marriages on very similar fears of loss and uncertainty.

Are they trying to get a conviction against their spouse?

Look, people do all kinds of things. But convicting someone of a crime means convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's better to empower women to report than to try to coddle our fears and try to get the rest of the world to try to figure out what we were really thinking, when we are in a he said/she said situation. Especially if you are trying to get a criminal conviction for being "sexually misused". There is almost no way for an outsider to know the difference between someone who was criminally raped, and someone who felt uncomfortable but didn't find it bad enough to interrupt a relationship, or anything in between.

bagoh20 said...

Seeing him afterward, doesn't mean it didn't happen, but to me it does mean that to some degree the plaintiff consented afterward, if not before.

She is saying: You did something I did not agree to, but I'm OK with it. Then decades later, "I was raped!" Seems to me any wife or girlfriend could do the same.

Snark said...

"Are they trying to get a conviction against their spouse?

Look, people do all kinds of things. But convicting someone of a crime means convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's better to empower women to report than to try to coddle our fears and try to get the rest of the world to try to figure out what we were really thinking, when we are in a he said/she said situation. "

No, but in each situation people are facing personal upheaval with absolutely certain losses and far from certain benefits. It's not coddling to understand and accept human nature for what it is. It's not a lack of 'empowerment' that prevents women from reporting sexual assault intially, it's an assessment of the cost and benefits that feels real to them at the time, real to them inside that bubble. I have no problem at all comprehending the force of inertia in both situations, and believe that anybody capable of empathy would be able to comprehend as well, given the opportunity.

Convicting anybody of a crime shouldn't be easy, and the nature of sexual assault charges make them particularly hard to prove. It's far better for victims to try to avoid being assaulted in the first place, perhaps by shedding certain naiveties, seeking a solid sense of self worth and paying attention to intuition. But once a case makes it to court, the fact is that their actions after an assault are probably going to be useless as evidence either way. It seems foolish to me to argue that we should just surrender to the idea that jurors must unavoidably overvalue useless evidence. It's simply not true. People and societies are capable of new understandings of old things.

Achilles said...

People and societies are capable of new understandings of old things.

I wonder how this discussion would be different if it was Bill Clinton on trial. Except for the fact that everyone pretty much admits Bill is a rapist and with the other Bill there is a reasonable doubt.

Fernandinande said...

I'm generally in favor of coddling comedians, especially as regards ePenetration.

10 to 2 for ...intoxicants without her knowledge.

Is this for the one who said she felt pressured to take the pills he handed her? IIRC, the one who claimed to be paralyzed? And who contacted him after the events?

Snark said...

Sometimes I wonder if Hillary would have left Bill after they left the Whitehouse if she would have an easier time of it politically. She would have seemed more human and less calculating I think.

Darcy said...

AllenS: I laughed. Gawd. =)

Maybee: Spot on. The whole thing is murky due to behavior of alleged victims before and afterward. It does bring doubt about consent.

So hard to look at Cosby now. He was such a hero of my youth. I watched his TV shows. Just a seemingly adorable man.

But heroes are human and "None is righteous, no, not one" I certainly am not.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Achilles....there is a lot of corroborating evidence in regards to Bill having rapped Juanita Broaddrick. Some of it goes back to right after it happened. The Cosby accusations came so much later that it is harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

prairie wind said...

There is a trend toward eliminating statutes of limitations for sexual assault cases or for civil cases where there had been no conviction, even for adults. The Cosby case is an excellent illustration of why statutes of limitations are good for the victim. Bringing charges earlier makes it easier to win the case.

Quaestor said...

Except for the fact that everyone pretty much admits Bill is a rapist and with the other Bill there is a reasonable doubt.

If the Cos is imprisoned while Slick Willie remains both at large and celebrated by Hollywood and the other deplorables it will be proof of something I always considered bullshit — pervasive institutionalized racism.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Quaester.....there are those that said something to that effect when Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and the Kennedy boy found innocent.
Although you could say in that case a black victim got justice but not the white girl. Assuming both were guilty.

Sammy Finkelman said...

AllenS said...6/22/17, 11:10 AM

Also, Sammy F: "to figure out what kind of pills they really were or might have been"

Good luck getting that part in bold admitted as evidence.


It may not be that difficult. You get an expert witness to testify about various kinds of blue pills. Maybe even that a certain blue pill around at that time was known in other cases or something. This is not to say what happened, but what could have happened.

Going along with the Behadryl story was a bad idea. Cosby turned over 3 pills, 2 of which had nothing intoxicating about them.

The thing is, Cosby admitting giving her pills, and there may be some evidemce that he didn't want to tell the truth about them,



Sammy Finkelman said...

MayBee said... 6/22/17, 12:29 PM

You want a conviction? You have to convince the jurors you were traumatized.

She wasn't traumatized. (It was not that a volumtary sexual relationship had been totally out of the question, but just not then. She wasn't ready for that, or maybe didn't want it because she thought it wasn't appropriate for them.)

She wasn't traumatized. But she wasn't happy about it. She really wanted to know what happened - for next time. She wanted an apology and an explanation. Maybe it was an accident, and he didn't anticipate that effect. She could look up what was published about those pills, and decide if she should be angry, and how much, and if there was a forgiveable explanation for him having given them to her.

Getting angry right away would deprive her of the possibility of getting the truth out of Bill Cosby. She pretended to be more friendly with him than she was, because she hoped she'd find out what those pills were!

He kept on doing things for her. But didn't tell her the truth. Eventually, she got angry at him, or her mother did for her. The inability to extract the truth from him was a big factor in her harsh judgment of Bill Cosby.


AllenS said...

Sammy F says: "This is not to say what happened, but what could have happened.

Good luck getting that part in bold admitted as evidence.

Birches said...

Another woman upvoting Maybee

Darrell said...

Two more Bill Cosby jurors have spoken out saying the jury was almost evenly split in its deliberations, which refutes earlier claims the majority wanted to convict the entertainer.

The jurors, who spoke anonymously to the Associated Press and TV network WPXI​, said on Thursday that a similar number of jurors wanted to convict the 79-year-old as acquit him.

It contradicts earlier reports that jurors voted 10-2 to convict Cosby on charges he drugged and molested a woman at his Philadelphia area home in 2004.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4630926/Two-Bill-Cosby-jurors-speak-refute-10-2-jury-split.html