UPDATE: The judge declares a mistrial. (NYT)
The exhausted jurors had been deliberating since Monday, sometimes for as much as 12 hours a day.ADDED: A poll (to be answered before there is actual news from the jurors):
AND: I'm still not seeing interviews with jurors, but I'll close the poll now (at 2:08 CT). With 671 votes, 39% thought the holdouts were for conviction and 61% thought the holdouts were for acquittal.
UPDATE 2: Prosecutors say they will retry Bill Cosby.
Answering concerns about the cost of retrying such a high-profile case in the sleepy burb of Norristown, Steele was adamant. “You can’t put a price tag on justice,” he said. “Nobody is above the law.” There’s no word on how or when a new jury will be selected....
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
The jury is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
Kafka would understand.
My WAG: Mistrial at 4PM today.
That judge should be charged with jury tampering.
Let's do dinner, have a some drinks, pop a couple ludes and see what happens, is not rape.
Mistrial declared.
Keep your hand on your ha'penny
Cover it well with your palm
Keep your hand on your ha'penny
And Molly will come to no harm.
h/t derbyshire
Well I stand corrected.
Quick... take my poll.
(Sorry to serve up a straight line. Unintended.)
When to judicial system ignores the statute of limitations we all lose some of our Constitutional rights.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Leave Cosby alone. If the woman wants to sue him, which is what this has always been about, let her go ahead.
When I first saw that picture of the woman, for a second I thought, 'Wait...Lyle Lovett's mixed up in all this?'
No independent witnesses, no physical evidence, no reported crime at the time from 13 years ago and the "victim" continued to see the accused....
Charges should never have been brought. Prosecutorial abuse.
When I checked the poll, it was 6 of one, and a half a dozen of the other.
As soon as Cosby first spoke out on personal responsibility I knew the Left would go after him.
"No independent witnesses, no physical evidence, no reported crime at the time from 13 years ago and the "victim" continued to see the accused.... "
The crime was reported but not charged in 2005, so it was about a year - not thirteen.
He had a deep connection with his fans. You can see it in some of the comments here. I don't know if you can find a jury pool that doesn't include some fans, or even if it would be fair to exclude thse fans. In any individual case, especially a very old one, there could be doubts cast that a juror who was a fan could interpret as a reasonable doubt. So Cosby walks.......He lost his legacy and his reputation. That's something. On the other hand, he got to live a long and successful life as a revered public figure and closet rapist. So he comes out ahead......At times like this, I mourn the death of God. I wish there an afterlife so mistakes like this could be corrected.......Random observations: Lots of Liberace's fans didn't think he was gay......Josef Stalin died in bed and was mourned by millions. As injustices go, this is small potatoes.
Well, the Fat Albert shout would have been funny if he'd been convicted.
About a year later is not reporting a crime at the time.
My lord, they did it again. Did someone just bring up Josef Stalin in a Bill Cosby thread?
Is there anything that man didn't stand for? Apparently now we have to imagine him exhorting young Georgians and Armenians to pull up their pants/შარვალი/վարտիք.
Apparently now we have to imagine him exhorting young Georgians and Armenians to pull up their pants/შარვალი/վարտիք.
I thought this was about pants being pulled down.
Based on evidence I would have understood either a conviction or an acquittal. I think this will be one of those times when the court of public opinion does the work of convicting, leaving the justice system with its foundational principles intact. Sometimes that's exactly the right thing, and both verdicts exactly correct.
What a terrible miscarriage of justice. This man is a serial rapist. Maybe, one of our country's most prolific rapists. I mean, jeez, dozens of drugged and raped victims! Heck, maybe even hundreds! How filthy and disgusting can the lone juror holdout be? Sad stuff...
Spiros Pappas said...
How filthy and disgusting can the lone juror holdout be?
How do you know that there was only a lone juror holdout? Did I miss something in the article?
Sorry, Spiros, sometimes you have to tell people you're in sarcastro mode or they won't figure it out.
AllanS, Deanna Durante has been covering the trial for the local NBC affiliate. Her twitter account indicated, quite clearly, that there was a single juror who was obstructing justice in this case. In fact, she almost immediately tweeted that a "lone juror" caused the mistrial. But I just checked again and that tweet seems to have disappeared! How odd? Maybe I misread, but I don't see how that could be the case. In any event, prosecutors, unlike filthy animal criminals, learn from their mistakes. So Mr. Cosby's retrial is much more likely to result in a conviction. So there is a silver lining.
Jurors don't hold out for acquittal for more than a day or so; they simply hang.
Dear toothless: My comparison to Stalin was that there was no comparison. There's no comparison to Beria either. Beria's rapes were much more traumatic. Kirov is kind of cool. He founded a ballet school just so he could have a large supply of nubile ballerinas on hand. You've got to admire his taste if not his morals. I would put him closer to Charley Sheen than to Bill Cosby.......Tolstoy is in a class by himself. Of all the great serial rapists in history, he's the one who survived with his reputation not only intact but even greater. I wouldn't compare Bill Cosby to Tolstoy either.
There was never proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, and there is nothing contradictory between those two statements.
You have jury tries just so that there can be lone juror holdouts.
I'm skeptical about the tweet that there was a lone holdout. However, the prosecution says it will retry the case, so they must think they sold their case to most of the jurors.
For Montgomery County Pennsylvania District Attorney Kevin Steele the Cosby case has been a 100% success! He's on national TV. He is gaining tremendous political capital which will help him as he runs for statewide and national offices.
There will even be a great book deal.
What a terrible miscarriage of justice. This man is a serial rapist...
This is why pitchforks and torches were invented.
As soon as Cosby first spoke out on personal responsibility I knew the Left would go after him.
Yes, that and the money, of course. When they say it is not about the money, it is about the money.
Gloria Allred is standing by with 50 women in tow.
Blogger Lucien said...
Sorry, Spiros, sometimes you have to tell people you're in sarcastro mode or they won't figure it out.
There were no tells in the comment that I could see. Now the subsequent comment, with the "single juror who was obstructing justice" was well played.
Well, this must be a first for serial rapists, when so many that were raped kept having friendly relationships with the rapist. Another trial, and another hung jury.
Cosby's dirty secret has been exposed. For a public figure at the end of his life that's probably justice enough.
I think the worst part of this case for me was reading the cynical comments about women (who some believe are all just gold diggers) and so little appreciation for the pain of betrayal of trust Cosby caused.
On the other hand, I have very little patience for grown women who look to men to be "in charge" in relationships, it's no wonder they are taken advantage of. So which is it, should women give their personal power up to a man in a personal relationship or not? (because that leads to better sex) I'd say, not; a man must earn the woman's trust and that takes time. In the case of Cosby the women he met, drugged, and raped were obviously mislead by his fame and reputation.
Well I'll be damned; you learn something new every day, I guess. Tolstoy was a rapist? Shows you how much I know. But I always figured Dostoyevsky wasn't the better man anyway. I'd never presumed he was the better author. Now if I could only find the right translation of War and Peace to get around to finishing - or at least getting past the first 250 pages...
It was actually interesting to hear that 'Cos had this problem, given all his moralizing (at least, of Eddie Murphy's language) in the '80s. That skit of Eddie Murphy getting called up and chastised by him is one of the best of all time. Some of the best comedy ever done. And under the surface, who knew? I guess it just goes to show. Telling kids to pull up pants is one thing, the rest something else. How ironic.
So I'll surely live. My only regret is that I now know why I can't find copies of that autobio-pic Seinfeld did called Comedian. The whole climax was the search to find and meet his idol: Who know who.
What a bummer.
Spiros Pappas wrote: ...there was a single juror who was obstructing justice in this case.
Unanimity is reserved for white defendants. Eleven out of twelve is good enough for darkies.
If it wasn't for Cosby's fame and reputation, those women wouldn't have given him the time of day.
I won't take the poll because I think there were at least 4 holdouts one way or the other, but if it is one holdout, it is more likely to be one hold out for acquittal.
Poll is much closer than I expected. These celebrity groupies are the one's Trump was going on about when he said they will let you do anything you want to their bodies for a chance to dip into your bank account.
I find Cosby's night time proclivities detestable, but it's difficult to be sympathetic to women who volunteered to swallow whatever pills he handed them.
A weed dealer I know tells me most of his female buyers are asking for oxy to couple with rough sex. Is that a thing now? I recall that women were complaining younger men have become so desensitized to hard core porn that they are hurting them as the New Normal for casual hookups. Is that a thing now?
My understanding of the case is that Cosby honestly explained to each woman what medication he was offering them. Is that true?
A juror doing his job properly would have acquitted with this set of facts presented, but jurors probably rarely do their jobs properly.
That is what Jury trials are for, pardoning popular people who probably did something wrong, but so what.
A Long time Celebrity's face and voice is loved. No matter what they do, a Jury Pardon will intervene.
Quastor, I think your comment is ignorant and racist. Why should one juror, unaccountable to anybody and with her own vision of justice (likely racist against White women), do this terrible thing to Ms. Constande? I don't believe in jury nullification and you shouldn't either. It's wrong.
"If it wasn't for Cosby's fame and reputation, those women wouldn't have given him the time of day."
And his money. Don;t forget about his money. That is why Gloria Allred is standing by.
Do you think she cares about poor rapists ?
I find Cosby's night time proclivities detestable
I detest hardly anything. It must be a faulty upbringing.
Or the influence of Flanders and Swan
Have Some Madeira M'dear (lyrics)
She was young, she was pure,
She was new, she was nice,
She was fair, she was sweet seventeen.
He was old, he was vile,
And no stranger to vice,
He was base, he was bad, he was mean.
He had slyly inviegled her up to his flat,
To view his collection of stamps;
And he said as he hastened to put out the cat,
The wine, his cigar, and the lamps:
"Have some madeira, m'dear,
You really have nothing to fear;
I'm not trying to tempt you, that wouldn't be right,
You shouldn't drink spirits at this time of night.
Have some madeira, m'dear,...
And he said as he hastened to put out the cat,
The wine, his cigar, and the lamps:
is syllepsis.
Earnest Prole said: "There was never proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case .."
Maybe they brought the OJ jury out of retirement. You know the "we ain't sending no brother to jail" jury.
is syllepsis
Thanks -- I was just thinking "that turn of phrase must have name."
Maybe they brought the OJ jury out of retirement. You know the "we ain't sending no brother to jail" jury.
Undoubtedly true. Cosby's defense attorney was criticized for his defense strategy and closing statement by people who have no idea what he was up to.
TTR: "Tolstoy was a rapist?"
He helped himself to the serfs on his estate and their feelings were not a consideration. Indulging oneself with the servants was not a custom limited to American slaveholders.
Even before I knew that about Tolstoy, I much preferred Dostoevsky (and Chekhov and Gogol) to the Count. When I finished "War and Peace," I felt like pasting gold stars on the calendar. It was like running a long distance marathon - an endurance test that became increasingly painful before reaching the finish line
I agree with P.J. O'Rourke, who said that while he was reading "Anna Karenina" and Tolstoy was going on for 150 pages about the soul of the Russian peasant, P.J. was saying, "Enough already, Leo! Why did she fuck the guy?"
Must not have been any sports fans on the jury. The jury was from the Pittsburgh area, Cosby a native Philly guy. No love lost between the cities.
"The jury is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment."
That is what I think is criminal - the judge trying to reduce his docket and workload by forcing a hung jury to decide, one way or another. My view is that a hung jury typically indicates some reasonable doubt, and that a judge trying to force a verdict is essentially trying to reduce the prosecution's burden.
I should note that I just got my first MT jury summons yesterday. Expect that I won't see jury duty on a criminal trial anytime soon, after they see my profession, that I have other attys in the family, and, yes, know several of that dastardly breed (last firm I was in had over 200 of them). And, yes, I have been involved in litigation (duh!). About all I can hope for, after filling out the form, is maybe a nice contract dispute case. Very likely not a criminal case, and probably got not one grounded in tort either. Bummer.
Correction, not Oct but Percuset. Not sure what that is. Doubt it's even spelled correctly.
PERK-a-set
Spiros Pappas said: "Why should one juror, unaccountable to anybody and with her own vision of justice (likely racist against White women), do this terrible thing to Ms. Constande? I don't believe in jury nullification and you shouldn't either. It's wrong."
That's what juror are FOR. The government is required to convince TWELVE (not 11) random citizens that a) the defendant did what they say he did, and b) that he deserves to be punished for it. If they fail in that task, the defendant is not--and should not--be convicted. If it were just a matter of legal technicalities (which, I remind you, span thousands of pages of federal, state, local, and municipal laws, plus countless rules, regulations and so forth), a judge could serve just fine. But that's not the point. The point is to convince twelve ordinary citizens that the defendant violated the law and deserves to be punished. If they don't think so, they vote to acquit.
12 years after the fact on a case that is, basically, he said/she said is too little too late. Pattern of conduct is not admissible except in narrow circumstances...which are not these circumstances. I have often disagreed with Camille who is a shrill shrieking leftie and a racist to boot, but she is right in this instance: the prosecutor has behaved poorly and the judge has enabled it.
All the posturing of the prosecutor is not going to change the outcome. It's time to have the humility to fold his hand and send the slut home to write her memoir.
- Krumhorn
Expect that I won't see jury duty on a criminal trial anytime soon, after they see my profession, that I have other attys in the family,
My daughter, the FBI agent, thought she would be immediately challenged but she wound up the jury foreman on a case.
I don't believe there are many people on this comment thread who could qualify for the next Cosby jury. Seems like a lot of folks here are convinced that Cosby is guilty not only in this case but in the scores of other cases that have been mentioned in the papers and tabloids. Me? I don't know. I wasn't there.
Spiros Pappas wrote: [Quaestor,] I think your comment is ignorant and racist.
What a coincidence!
Not Guilty in the case of the MN police officer who shot a guy who was "peacefully" reaching for his CC firearm while under the influence of pot or other drugs. In that case it took a week to convince two holdouts that there wasn't enough proof to convict. I wasn't there so I have to depend on the jury, though as one commenter in the Strib said the dead guy must have slept through the concealed carry class portion on not carrying when you have been drinking or doing drugs.
Of course protests all over the place. The cop was Hispanic, not that it matters.
Here's the Cosby defense in a nutshell: Poor Bill Cosby. All the other guys drugged their girlfriends before sex but only he gets taken to court.
Makes me wonder if other famous philanderers, like Tiger and Kobe not to mention all the rock stars, also used drugs to incapacitate their sexual partners. Doubt it.
"used drugs to incapacitate their sexual partners. Doubt it."
Read "You'll never eat lunch in this town again."
"women (who some believe are all just gold diggers)"
All? No. But are there 50 women who are gold diggers? I certainly could be persuaded of that.
A lot of Twitter feminists are saying the volume of accusations against Cosby constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, then I guess the McMartins were guilty of all that satanic pedophilia (and magic and flying), because there were dozens of accusers there too. And those witches in Salem had multiple finger-pointers too. Burn 'em.
"I should note that I just got my first MT jury summons yesterday. Expect that I won't see jury duty on a criminal trial anytime soon, after they see my profession, that I have other attys in the family, and, yes, know several of that dastardly breed (last firm I was in had over 200 of them). And, yes, I have been involved in litigation (duh!). About all I can hope for, after filling out the form, is maybe a nice contract dispute case. Very likely not a criminal case, and probably got not one grounded in tort either. Bummer."
I wouldn't be so sure. When I had jury duty there was an attorney from a large firm on our panel. She was our foreperson. We acquitted, but we would have anyway because it was a B.S. case that was apparently being prosecuted because the alleged victim was the girlfriend of the cop who was the arresting officer (and they both lied on the stand).
It was a police officer called for jury duty who spent his week of jury duty getting thrown off panel after panel. I didn't realize they called cops for jury duty. In my county, you have to be there for at least a week, and they'll keep calling you for cases during that time, and that cop was laughing as he got tossed from juries all week long.
I was on two criminal cases. The first one (which began as a robbery case but the charges were reduced) was a really quick trial, and they didn't screen the jurors very carefully. They examined us much more closely in the second trial, which was a date rape case. That case was weak as well, and also an acquittal.
I came away from jury duty feeling much better about the people called for jury duty, but rather disturbed by the prosecutors going forward with cases they shouldn't have.
I'm not going to be reading a book about Hollywood depravity any time soon. I looked up a couple of summaries of the book "You'll never eat lunch in this town again" and saw it described as the writer's description of her own drug addiction and demise, the degeneracy and typical attitude of male superiority and privilege in Hollywood. I didn't say I doubted the degeneracy of women who flock to bed down with famous and powerful men, my question was how many of those women needed to be drugged into incapacity to engage in sexual relations?
I hadn't followed this case very closely but some of the comments here accusing the women of fraud motivated me to look at some of the accusers and their stories. I found these interviews compelling. Not all were raped, some fought back and escaped, some even blamed themselves for what happened to them. They certainly aren't all gold diggers looking for money, just human beings who wanted to be heard and acknowledged.
I'm not saying their statements constitute proof of Cosby's guilt. I'm not a lawyer or a feminist looking for justice and I'm not even interested in seeing him in jail. I think Cosby caused a lot of hurt and the people he harmed don't deserve to be insulted. I think it's a sad that people who haven't even followed the case automatically question the accusers' motives and attack their integrity because that is the commenter's opinion of women. Very sad. IOW, Cosby deserves the benefit of the doubt but his accusers do not -- some kind of a sick male thing?
R.J., maybe so. But also consider the recent rash of rape hoaxes is coloring many people's skepticism. I haven't formed an opinion only because I haven't followed the case, but already I can feel "Jackie" tugging at my bias.
It may also be in part due to the passage of time. Women tend to not come forward, they don't want to be "raped" publicly again. That's why so often, the first we hear about it, it's one brave woman plus a dozen others from the past saying "me too".
I encountered the Circled Wagons in that SCA case I turned over to the FBI. I learned first hand what it was like for a rape victim to accuse a VIP. I was hounded, shunned by people I thought dear friends, threatened with physical violence, false accusations of adultery to break up my marriage, threats to loved ones - "if you continue to pusue this, people you care about will get hurt". Threats of financial ruin, lawyers - "shut up or be sued for defamation, yes you're innocent but it will cost you $60k to prove it". The whisper campaign was horrible, the malicious gossip - people I never met wanted to hurt me for things I never said or did. There were so many nights I stayed up asking "they are coming for you and you are all alone, are you sure you want to do this?".
I've led a platoon of LAV-25s across minefields in Somalia, but this is the bravest thing I ever had to do.
I wish women would come forward immediately, now I understand why they dont. But this Knight in the SCA had been molesting pre-teen girls for 18 years and none of his victims wanted to come forward. Correction, a few tried and they were shut down by SCA leadership.
But there was a victim #2 only because victim #1 refused to file a police report. There was a victim #6 because victim #1 2 3 4 and 5 were intimidated. And then on March 14th of this year, victim #3 took her own life.
She was in her mid 20s. Taught kindergarten in Florida. I'm not positive it was because of the molestation, but the listed side effects are "loss of faith in authority figures, depression, substance abuse, suicide". So I can't help but believe her rape played a part in that.
But I REALLY wish women would come forward immediately. I know how hard it's is. It takes a TON of courage and the fucking public is going to rape you again emotionally and spiritually. But you have to stop these assholes before they can ruin more lives.
So I'm pissed a Bill Cosby. But I'm also kinda pissed at these women for allowing him to keep raping.
And I wonder if victim #1 has any shame as she looks up the 49 women she let get raped. And victim #2 as she encounters the other 48. And on down the line.
That may be a subconscious reason why people aren't extending much sympathy.
my question was how many of those women needed to be drugged into incapacity to engage in sexual relations?
And how many took "ludes" to get high and have more fun ?
" I found these interviews compelling. Not all were raped, some fought back and escaped, some even blamed themselves for what happened to them."
Too bad none went to the cops and had a rape exam at the time.
I suppose you think 25% of college girls are raped on campus, too.
I'm not recommending Cosby for Father of the Year. He was just one of those guys who took advantage of the situation described by Trump in that notorious tape.
There is no evidence he took advantage but his description was right on.
Prosecutors have unlimited funds and really enjoy being in the news.
"Maybe they brought the OJ jury out of retirement. You know the "we ain't sending no brother to jail" jury."
Saying that show an astounding lack of perspicacity. Cosby was charged because a young black comedian was offended his Uncle Tom coon show and decided he would take down the man with the "...fuckin’ smuggest old black man public persona that I hate,” who dared to criticize The Special People Club by telling them to "‘Pull your pants up black people, I was on TV in the 80s! I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom!"
I mean it was pro-Black to acquit Simpson based on unreasonable doubt, just as it's pro-Black to prosecute Cosby despite lack of probable cause.
Did anyone determine how the jury did decide? I read a comment somewhere there were two holdouts, but then no description of whether they were holding out for acquittal or conviction.
The crux of the Cosby case was this:
http://www.macleans.ca/society/bill-cosbys-trial-calls-experts-on-pink-and-blue-pills/
The first segment read to the court dealt with the Jan. 16, 2005 telephone call Gianna Constand, mother to Andrea, made to the entertainer. Her daughter had just told her Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her after giving her what he’d said was a “herbal medication.” According to Gianna Constand’s testimony on Wednesday, when she asked Cosby what drug he’d given her daughter, Cosby left the line; he returned to say he couldn’t read the prescription bottle label and would mail her the name on a piece of paper, which he didn’t do.
Bill Cosby probably thought this call might have been taped. In his testimony, he seems to have admitted everything except what would make him criminally, and maybe civilly, liable.
If he’d denied having any kind of intercourse with her, or denied giving her any pills, the denial would have been more plausible but he admitted giving Andrea Constand pills.
Continuing the MacLeans article:
In the deposition, Cosby said he told Mrs. Constand he’d mail her pills from the same pack used in Jan. 2004—he still had it a year later, he said. Ten days after that phone call, on Jan. 25, 2005, Cosby was interviewed by Cheltenham Township police as part of an investigation into Andrea Constand’s charge that Cosby drugged and assaulted her. At that meeting, flanked by his lawyers, Cosby told law enforcement the drug in question was Benadryl. At the end of the interview, Cosby surprised the police officers by handing over a white pill, a green pill and one-and-a-half pink pills to law enforcement. The toxicology report on those pills was read in court on Friday. They found no controlled substances in one and two. The third, the pink pills, was determined to be diphenhydramine, better known as Benadyrl.
The results raised more questions. Why didn’t Cosby simply tell Gianna Constand he’d given Andrea the popular over-the-counter sleep aid? Pink Benadryl pills also didn’t match the blue pills Constand reported taking; the court had been told blue Benadryl tablets were sold in 2004. It also wasn’t clear why Cosby gave police pink pills when 10 days earlier he’d told Gianna Constand he’d mail her pills from the same pack.
The blue-pill, pink-pill mystery will likely remain unresolved.
In the Cosby case, I think everyone accepted the idea that, all other things being equal, consent was a possibility, especially since she’d known him for some time, and had lied.
It’s quite clear that Andrea Constand lied when she initially said:
1) That it was the first time she had been alone with Bill Cosby in his home.
2) That it was the last time she had been in more than minimal communication with him.
3) That it took place on a date in March 2004 after a dinner in a restaurant.
She probably did that to stengthen the case for the prosecution or increase the possibility it would be prosecuted.
She picked the date in March because there was some record they were together. She says now that was after the assault, and it was the third time she was alone in his house when he gave her the pills and she had declined intercourse the first two times.
But this day she had told him she was leaving the area soon (that meant it was maybe his last chance.)
You could say Cosby did this because he knew he would never have another chance – with her and that he didn’t do it before because he knew he could this only one time with each woman.
Now she told him she was going away so it was anyway his only chance.
Bill Cosby did not testify but he testified earlier in the civil court case before it was settled (under the assumption that he could not claim the 5th amendment because there was no chance for prosecution.
If he’d denied having any kind of intercourse with her, or denied giving her any pills, the denial would have been more plausible.ut he admitted giving her pills.
The question was what were the pills, and what effect did it have and what did he expect?
There were 3 counts and the jury was deadlocked.
One count was penetration after administering an intoxicant without the subject’s knowledge. Well, it wasn’t without her knowledge. But maybe it was without knowledge of what it was. The jury asked for clarification on this point and the judge wouldn’t give it.
The prosecution had actually put on a witness who tried to say that all the effects that Andrea Constand claimed could be produced by Benadryl!
Another count was penetration while unconscious. But she wasn’t exactly unconscious.
And the remaining count was penetration without consent. It’s hard to be guilty of that without being guilty of one of the other two. And do we know there was penetration?
The defense wanted to put on a witness (a Temple employee) whom they said would say that Andrea Constand had told her she had made up the story of the assault, but the judge would not allow it. The NYT story that I read does not say anything further about that. There must be stories about it that would allow us to assess its credibility.
There was also Bikk Cosby's admission of prior acts decades before [he was careful about lying when telling the truth wouldn't make him criminally liable] plus the fact of other accusations.
The judge allowed one example, from 1996, eight years earlier, to be brought into evidence.
Andrea Constand said he had told her they were herbal pills, and that the effect was like nothing she knew. It sort of paralyzed her and left her drifting in and out of consciousness. She said she stayed in contact with Bill Cosby because she wanted to find out what those pills were, but, however much he tried to make it up to her, he would never tell her what they were. And all she knew was that they were blue.
Cosby evenually turned over some pills, one of which was Benadryl. Cosby claimed he lied to her because she wod prefer something natural. 9but that it wasn't incapacitate her)
The prosecution actually ttied to argue all the effects Andrea Consand complained about might have come from Benadryl. The prosecution evidently never identified a candidate for what the pills might have been.
I think that was a problem.
The Godfather said...
I'm skeptical about the tweet that there was a lone holdout. However, the prosecution says it will retry the case, so they must think they sold their case to most of the jurors.
Or, the Prosecutor thinks there's political advantage to be had by trying the case again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा