June 23, 2017

Is CBS trying to say — without taking responsibility for saying — that the 2 holdout jurors in the Cosby case were black?

The article, which went up last night, is titled "Prosecutors "really screwed it up when it came to the charges" against Cosby, juror says." Here's the key paragraph:
The jury was comprised of seven men and five women, and two jurors were African American. The juror told CBS News that they were not split down gender lines or age lines. He said the jurors' ages ranged from 21 to 86.
A comment from JerryK2B at the link:
The writer states "The jury was comprised of seven men and five women, and two jurors were African American. The juror told CBS News that they were not split down gender lines or age lines. He said the jurors' ages ranged from 21 to 86." So is this code for the two holdouts were African American? If it is then shame on you CBS.
Why, exactly, is it shameful?

1. Because we shouldn't talk about race? We should be colorblind? If it's okay to talk about the differences between individuals in terms of gender and age, what's wrong with talking about their race? A jury is supposed to represent the different kinds of people in the community, and we purport to value different points of view. Why shouldn't we want to think about the point of view of black people when a white woman accuses a black man of sexual assault?

2. Because it's coy? Either it's acceptable to talk about it or it's not. By using "code," CBS displays shame. It's shameful to do what you think is shameful, even if it wouldn't be shameful to do it if you were not ashamed. If you think it's wrong to say something, then don't find some sneaky way to say it. Either speak straightforwardly or keep it to yourself.

3. Because we've been given information in a form that is unclear enough that we are not able to talk about it. We are roped into the secretiveness and shame.

Meanwhile... Bill Cosby is not participating in the mainstream media shame agenda:
“Mr. Cosby wants to get back to work,” his spokesman Andrew Wyatt said on WBRC’s “Good Day Alabama” in Birmingham. “We’re now planning town halls and we’re going to be coming to this city sometime in July … to talk to young people because this is bigger than Bill Cosby. This issue can affect any young person, especially young athletes of today, and they need to know what they’re facing when they’re hanging out and partying, when they’re doing certain things that they shouldn’t be doing. And it also affects married men.
Birmingham, Alabama — so central to the Civil Rights Movement — has a population that is 73.4% black.

Birmingham, Alabama... young athletes... Is the Cosby spokesman speaking in code?

90 comments:

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

AReasonableMan said...

I was told that blacks disliked Cosby because he had conservative social views, including apparently his views on grabbing women by the pussy.

Biotrekker said...

More important to me is the continued misuse of "comprised". It should be: "the jury comprised" or "the jury was composed of". Even major (fake) news organizations and "journalists" routinely make this error.

Kevin said...

It's shameful because sometimes race is the central fact and sometimes it's dismissed. It's shameful because it highlights how race is simply a tool to move an agenda that's not about race.

Ann Althouse said...

re "comprised"

I know. That bothered me too.

The best rule for "comprise" is: Just don't use it. You're probably going to use it incorrectly, and if you use it correctly, people will be confused because they've heard it incorrectly more than they've heard it correctly.

The only reason anyone feels the urge to use it is that it sounds kind of educated compared to the alternatives. It's intellectualish. But that's another reason not to use it.

Michael K said...

"I was told that blacks disliked Cosby because he had conservative social views,"

I suspect that "those" who told you that are leftists like you.

Do you know where the largest majorities of voters were on the gay marriage proposition in California were ?

Black churches.

Humperdink said...

Cosby having town hall meetings is not as bad as OJ "searching for the killer" upon his acquittal, but it's the same mindset. Cosby needs to retire quietly.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...when they’re doing certain things that they shouldn’t be doing...

...like drugging and raping white women.



traditionalguy said...

If we should stop speaking falsely now since the hour is getting late, then I would point out that a Jury of one's peers in Defendant Cosby's case would be 12 black, dirty old men. But the Courts don't like speaking frankly. That is a dangerous standard.

Richard said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4611776/Woman-faces-2-years-prison-fake-rape-claims.html

Athletes and frat guys need to be more cautious.

This case is similar to the Hofstra case of several years ago except there were only two guys.

traditionalguy said...

New word of the day: Intellectualish. We surrender.

David Begley said...

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Ann Althouse said...

There's such a thing as jury nullification. It's crazy to nullify for OJ Simpson. 2 people were murdered.

But in an aged claim of sexual assault against an aged man who has already suffered an intense public beating, it's not such a terrible idea. Some people will feel motivated by empathy and a sense that he has suffered enough.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I was told that

At-thay asn't-way at-whay ou-yay ere-way old-tay.

Doc, please be advised, ARM is under the Interdict. Silent treatment. Either to the death, or till he levels out and stops trolling, or until he changes his nick.

If you can't stop yourself, please confine interactions to the quality of interaction he himself offers. I have adopted Igpay Atinlay. Let's see how he does starved of the attention he craves, denied the opportunity to waste everybody's time by invoking serious replies to his nonsense.

Notice that the lefties never(ish) talk to him or vice versa.

Michael K said...

"denied the opportunity to waste everybody's time by invoking serious replies to his nonsense. "

Sorry. Lost my head.

My only excuse is that I'm in the Midwest this week.

Eleanor said...

What's mostly missing from all of the conversations about Bill Cosby and other men like him is an honest discussion of "consent". When a man a woman knows is married invites her to his hotel room or to his house when his wife isn't at home, "consent" is given when a woman accepts the invitation. To try to say otherwise is disingenuous. If a married man wants to enjoy a lively conversation or explore a woman's brilliant mind, he meets her in a very public place or invites her home to meet his wife. I'm so very sick of women pretending they were not complicit. Good luck to Bill Cosby on his talking tour to young man, whatever their skin color is. Now if someone would just do the same thing for young women, too.

traditionalguy said...

NB: Jury nullification is another word(s) for brilliant trial lawyer at work.

Crazy Jane said...


Biotrekker said:

More important to me is the continued misuse of "comprised".

Thank you, Biotrekker!

Better phrasing: "Seven men and five women comprised the jury. Two jurors were African American." As the professor suggests, that seems to be the point (not) being made in the article.

Basic grammar and word usage are step two or, at most, step three on the 10-step journey to thoughtful writing. It is difficult to take seriously stories that do not cross this very low hurdle.

dreams said...

Yeah, enough already and good for Cosby to get back out there.

Todd said...

Because we shouldn't talk about race? We should be colorblind? If it's okay to talk about the differences between individuals in terms of gender and age, what's wrong with talking about their race?

To a point, you are correct. It is no longer acceptable to talk about race unless:

case 1: A) the person or group under discussion is non-white AND b) it is a positive story or victim story.

case 2: A) the person or group under discussion is white AND b) it is a negative story

This is similar to the Republican/Democrat news rule in that whenever possible party affiliation will always be used if Democrat did good or Republican did bad and it will be avoided at all costs if the Republican did good or the Democrat did bad.

We.Must.Protect.The.Narrative...

AReasonableMan said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Doc, please be advised


These pitiful attempts to shut down discussion exist because you are frustrated over the fact that no one pays sufficient attention to you. You act out, like a troll, in order to gain the attention that you think you deserve but is not otherwise not forthcoming due to your lack of intellect. It is sad that someone of your advanced age has so little insight into your own psychology. The good news is that you will soon tire of this particular self-defeating behavior and move on to some other form of pathology, the bad news is that you will continue on this path until you die, blind to your own insecurities.

Fernandinande said...

The jury was comprised of seven men and five women, and two jurors were African American.

Maybe the entire jury was black - it doesn't actually say otherwise.

The juror told CBS News that they were not split down gender lines or age lines.

The don't quote the juror; no doubt he said something else.

Fernandinande said...

Todd said...
We.Must.Protect.The.Narrative...


"Two jurors were teens."

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Thanks to Darrell: If the jury was actually about 50/50 for acquittal, that helps to remove the impression that blacks won't convict a black celebrity (especially one who's made it in the world of white celebrities?). I agree with our host: this is very different from OJ. If two adults go to a hotel room together, they may both be thinking that something consensual and fun might happen. If one person uses drugs to render the other passive, a jury might think this means not bothering to get consent, or that consent wasn't possible. But: it was a long time ago, ambiguous evidence, etc. What is Cosby's advice going to be? Don't arrange to be alone with someone unless they have signed a disclaimer? The old joke: both parties need to have an attorney with them at all times: my client proposes to try x; my client agrees, and then you can try y but not z.

surfed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

If you come from a comfortable background, it's easy to contemplate life with a certain amount of smugness. A highly developed sense of morality, like a highly developed sense of fashion, is dependent upon a surplus amount of money. Some people like to be not just well dressed but better dressed than their contemporaries. In like way, some people like to be not just moral but morally superior to the common ranks of mankind. All people wish to be superior in some regard, but only some people have the means to develop that superiority or the leisure to contemplate it......Then there are the people who do not come from comfortable backgrounds. In the way that comfortable people develop smugness, the discomfited nourish their resentments. All their bad decisions and inadequacies can be explained as due to the machinations of the oppressor class. Resentment can distort one's vision of life just as much as smugness........The story is told of those who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. There's another story of those who strike out because they show up for the game with a hangover and think the umpire doesn't know the strike zone.

surfed said...

Living in the South and working/hanging with Af-Ams my whole life I'm here to tell you they are a socially conservative bunch if not poltically regardless of the apparent dichtomy. They dont particularly care for abortion or LGTB issues and they believe in the heavy hand of corporal punishment when it comes to disciplining children. Their young men who become athletic superstars definitely need to have their situational awareness elevated when it comes to young women taking advantage of their naivete. As a high school ball coach I've watched young females sharpen their game of hypergamy on young men who are almost clueless to the repercussions of their rising social status due to sports. I've watched young women almost literally line up to take a run at them because of that status - wanting to share the athlete'slimelight in high school/college and then the large paychecks as they turn pro. Bill Cosby might be just the man to provide that warning.

William said...

Then there are those who can hit the ball out of the park without half trying and to whom the umpire grants an extremely narrow strike zone. There are people with absurd amounts of both privilege and resentment.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

True story, Richard Scrushy ran a huge and growing healthcare company in the Birmingham area. He was caught overstating earnings to keep up the value of the stock. He faced federal charges and he knew the jury pool would be pulled from Birmingham residents.

So, he joined a black church, started a TV show (he paid for the time) and started making donations to various charities and churches in the city.

He beat the rap. However, you never escape the feds, so they got him later on another charge.

Bob Boyd said...

"so they got him later on another charge."

Obstruction of Justice.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I didn't hear the evidence, but if you charge someone for a crime that took place 20-30 years ago and most of the "evidence" is essentially he said vs she said, it's not surprising that the prosecution has a hard time overcoming "reasonable doubt." And I seem to recall that the jury did ask for instruction on just what constituted reasonable doubt.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Bob Boyd

Nope, he "donated" $100,000 to some charity or the other that was some how linked to the then governor who appointed Scrushy to the board that controlled whether or not a new hospital could be built via finding if it was "needed" or not.

Since Scrushy was building a new hospital at the time, the feds decided to charge the governor and Scrushy with bribery. Sent both of them to jail.

In the prior case Scrushy essentially got away with jury tampering.

I don't know why anyone wants to become governor of Alabama. They seem to go to jail fairly regularly.

Michael K said...

I'm so very sick of women pretending they were not complicit. Good luck to Bill Cosby on his talking tour to young man, whatever their skin color is.

Yes and Cosby could do a good job of telling them how easy it is to get into a lot of trouble with young women.

I've watched young females sharpen their game of hypergamy on young men who are almost clueless to the repercussions of their rising social status due to sports.

The same applies to Hollywood. Charlie Sheen, for example, ended up with AIDS.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Brothers know a ho when they see one.

Kevin said...

"so they got him later on another charge."

Using his civil right to a trial by jury.

n.n said...

[class] diversity policy under Pro-Choice/dignity has set human relations back several generations.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Ron Winkleheimer

Yup.
Among other things.

"Scrushy was indicted...by a federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama...The indictment included 30 counts of money laundering, extortion, obstruction of justice, racketeering, and bribery...Scrushy pleaded not guilty to all charges, but was convicted along with Siegelman in June 2006."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Scrushy

surfed said...

Eleanor up thread has it exactly right.

glenn said...

I was fortunate to have a father who gave me good advice when I got my first job. He said "Son, never put your p**** with your paycheck. In my working life I encountered three harassment accusations. One was completely legitimate, one had a lot of gray area and one was obviously bogus. The bogus one involved a young lady who's position was being eliminated finding out from the HR manager with whom she was sleeping about the pending layoff and deciding to enhance her severance package. My conclusions watching this. Dad was right.

David Baker said...

Didn't Cosby predict he wouldn't be convicted, that is, after he saw the composition of the jury?

To put it another way, even I predicted the outcome of the OJ trial, and I wasn't paid (although the Brooklyn putz, Jeffery Toobin, was paid). So how in the world did anyone expect a conviction of Dr. Hucksterble?

Moral: If you want a conviction, seat an all-white jury. Otherwise spit in the proverbial wind.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Bob Boyd

"Scrushy was convicted of bribery, conspiracy, and mail fraud, while Siegelman was convicted of bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice.[8]"

I know some people who buy into the theory that the prosecution was a Republican plot to remove a Democrat governor. Which is ridiculous. Federal prosecutors don't like losing, especially high profile cases where everybody in the state hates the defendant.

wildswan said...

I agree that when you go to a hotel room alone with a guy or to a frat party without a wingman girl friend you know what comes next. But I say that you are looking for fun. You don't know that you will be drugged so no fun for you. That makes what Cosby did more crimey. The same with a woman in a drunken stupor. Maybe Cosby should be going around to young women and explaining that in certain circumstances men don't care whether you are conscious or not. So if you care then stay away from entertainers, athletes, politicians and frat boys. Woman must decide their fate.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...1. Because we shouldn't talk about race? We should be colorblind? If it's okay to talk about the differences between individuals in terms of gender and age, what's wrong with talking about their race? A jury is supposed to represent the different kinds of people in the community, and we purport to value different points of view. Why shouldn't we want to think about the point of view of black people when a white woman accuses a black man of sexual assault?

Political correctness has been described as "the art of not noticing." The when you've got two groups the Media defines as victim classes (African Americans and women/women who were allegedly sexually assaulted) there's a balancing act. The Media needs to make sure they don't notice that members of one group might side with their own group over members of another group--that'd implicitly criticize one of the "victim" groups and that's not allowed. It's shameful, to the Left, to say "blacks sided with a black person over a white victim of rape." It's only allowable to note black racial solidarity in cases where blacks are standing up against evil racists (white people)--the black people on the OJ jury, for example, can be acknowledged to have sided with a black man over a female victim since what they were REALLY siding against was the racist LAPD. See? In cases where there's not a clear non-Left approved bogeyman we're not supposed to notice things like racial solidarity or any kind of tribalism other than bad, evil, ugly white racism or "institutional" white racism (or sexism, etc).
A current example is the terrible murder of Nabra Hassanen--when the story was "muslim girl killed, possibly by racist white person in hate crime" it was a big deal. Now that an illegal immigrant from El Salvador has been arrested and charged with her murder, it's not that big of a case. We're not supposed to notice that lots of illegal immigrants are young men who turn out to be violent and commit criminal acts, so the Media's instinct to play up crimes against Muslims is overcome by the Media's instinct to not "demonize" (by, you know, telling the truth) illegal immigrants...

In short, you "shouldn't think about" that because it might lead you to conclusions that the Left finds distasteful. If you think about it you might have a doubleplusungood thought, and that can't be permitted.

Unknown said...

"The jury was comprised of ..."

Aaaarghhh! The jury comprised...

Gretchen said...

I don't completely disagree with Eleanor, however young girls are being educated otherwise. They are being told going to a man's bed, taking off your panties and saying "do it to me", then texting the guy for two weeks begging for more isn't consent if they decide they shouldn't have done/the guy doesn't text back/their boyfriend finds out it two months later. They are also being taught sex can be a powerful weapon against a guy you regret sleeping with with the added bonus of getting sympathy from the community.

This case was somewhat different, the question at hand is that Cosby apparently drugged this woman without her knowledge, which makes me think he thought she wasn't a willing participant. He didn't just grab her pussy, he drugged her and grabbed her pussy, because she was incapacitated. Maybe the woman would have consented to sexual contact without being drugged, but the drugging made it a violation.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...2. Because it's coy? Either it's acceptable to talk about it or it's not. By using "code," CBS displays shame. It's shameful to do what you think is shameful, even if it wouldn't be shameful to do it if you were not ashamed. If you think it's wrong to say something, then don't find some sneaky way to say it. Either speak straightforwardly or keep it to yourself.

Louis CK: Offended by the "N Word"

(Language NSFW, obviously).

Also, back to your point 1.)-- your question is whether it's shameful because we're not "supposed to talk about race." That's basically it, but for the relevant values of "talk about." The Left uses the "we have to talk about X" framing a lot, and frequently applies it race; remember Attorney General Holder saying we're a nation of cowards for not being more willing to talk about racial issues? All of us, though, know what's meant by "talk about race." All of us understand that your'e allowed to have one opinion and one POV only: that of the Left. Mind you, the acceptable opinion the Left holds today is likely to be very different from the one it held yesterday, but that doesn't matter. You're allowed to listen to the approved Left line and to speak it back, but anything else isn't allowed. So yeah, it's shameful to talk about race in an unapproved way. You can talk about race, but watch what you say!

Michael K said...

"To put it another way, even I predicted the outcome of the OJ trial,"

That wasn't hard once the DA (Th present LA Mayor's father) moved the case to downtown LA from Santa Monica where it should have been.

Todd said...

wildswan said...
Maybe Cosby should be going around to young women and explaining that in certain circumstances men don't care whether you are conscious or not. So if you care then stay away from entertainers, athletes, politicians and frat boys. Woman must decide their fate.

6/23/17, 9:16 AM


Woah, woah, woah! Hold it right there buster! That is some strong "victim blaming" you got going on there! Don't you know you don't have the right to warn women about risky behavior! Today's modern, PC practicing, intersctionality studying, feminist leaning woman is all about the personal empowerment that allows them to do anything they want, when ever they want and how ever they want with ZERO repercussions. They possess the "zero accountability" card and use it like it has no limit. Common sense? Lord what a neanderthal. Back to the re-education camps for you!


You have no right to tell any woman that she should watch out for her self! She is

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tola'at sfarim said...

love the reasoning, quoted in diff story abt why judge released names
"The document states that a disclosure of anything said or done during deliberations "would have a chilling effect upon future jurors in this case and their ability to deliberate freely."

As if releasing their names wont have a chilling effect. Bec if people find out who didnt want to convict.....

Yancey Ward said...

I have long stopped tilting at the comprise windmill- I suggest others do the same.

I took the comment to mean CBS should have been ashamed at coding the information rather than simply outright stating it as the view of the juror. However, maybe the juror didn't want to state it outright either.

Like Darrell in the first comment, I have read counterclaims from other jurors about how it was split at the end and now simply assume we will never know the truth.

rcocean said...

"To put it another way, even I predicted the outcome of the OJ trial, and I wasn't paid"

Very few people got the OJ trial right, because no one could believe that a black jury would let such an obvious killer off, despite a mountain of evidence. Bloody glove, bloody sock, bloody expensive Italian shoes, hair evidence, DNA evidence, motive, opportunity, etc.

So much evidence that the only defense was that the LA police framed OJ. Simply finding Goldman's blood in OJ's car should have been enough.

rcocean said...

BTW, what is the statue of limitations on sexual assault? I was surprised this crime wasn't well past it.

rcocean said...

I wasn't surprised at the Cosby verdict. It was all just he-said she-said, and her chumminess with Bill Cosby after the alleged sexual assault made her story unbelievable.

rcocean said...

I don't like "composed of" - it reminds me of compost.

n.n said...

[class] diversity is code for racism, sexism, etc. or judging/discriminating between people based on the "color of their skin", rather than the "content of their character" (e.g. principles).

Earnest Prole said...

The closing argument by Cosby’s defense attorney was widely criticized by journalists who have no idea how a lawyer actually goes about getting guilty people off. His closing argument correctly predicted that Cosby’s only hope would be for a couple of jurors to hold out against conviction, and that racial solidarity was the best way to accomplish that. I would be more than somewhat surprised if it turns out that the jury did not break along racial lines.

Snark said...

I know my head did that math right away - that they were down to two holdouts at one point, and there were two black jurors. Its a sensitive topic for obvious reasons, but in reality it shouldn't be. Juries are all about bringing a diversity of experience to the pool, and black people may bring the experience of feeling an internal and external pressure to protect their black icons or otherwise move the scales of justice into balance. It's potentially distorting of course, but so are a bunch of other classes of life experience. Misogynists, cynics, self-hating or excessively catty women etc. etc. are all scattered liberally through society and are just as likely to screw up a sexual assault verdict as people with a too-blind fealty to their race. Generally it seems to me that juries take their oaths seriously and try to do their best, and until there is reason to think otherwise I'll assume that the Cosby jury did their very best.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
There's such a thing as jury nullification. It's crazy to nullify for OJ Simpson. 2 people were murdered.

But in an aged claim of sexual assault against an aged man who has already suffered an intense public beating, it's not such a terrible idea. Some people will feel motivated by empathy and a sense that he has suffered enough.


Althouse doesn't need to infer anything with this; a juror said as much in the last paragraph of this story.

But it is disgusting to me as a trial lawyer. Cosby's "career" and financial damages weren't in evidence. It should never be considered. If I were part of the jury and a fellow juror suggested that, I'd cut him or her off on the spot. Not in evidence. Not to be considered. Quit talking about it, and don't consider it.

By the way, the only thing that I found "shameful" in the reporting was the apparent failure to ask (or to report, if asked, as I expect it was) the simple questions: "Was the jury divided in any way along racial lines? Were there racial considerations in the deliberations?" Then just give the clear answer. With that, I expect agreement from Althouse.

Then, we can discuss Batson v Kentucky.

Jupiter said...

"This issue can affect any young person, especially young athletes of today, and they need to know what they’re facing when they’re hanging out and partying, when they’re doing certain things that they shouldn’t be doing."

I think what Cosby is saying, is that the young men in question need to learn how to drug women before they rape them. And his is certainly the voice of experience.

traditionalguy said...

Defeated southern District Attorneys sometimes get petulant ..like re-indicting and trying my acquitted client for Perjury because he swore under oath at the first trial that he did not commit the crime. It's The South, Jake.

But don't tell Mueller about that move.

JAORE said...

"It's crazy to nullify for OJ Simpson. 2 people were murdered"

So, double murder = crazy

Old case of multiple drugged,rape = not crazy

I'd sure like to know where the break point is located.

Snark said...

"So, double murder = crazy

Old case of multiple drugged,rape = not crazy

I'd sure like to know where the break point is located."

Me too. And, the logic was upside down anyway. The public shaming comes in large part in response to the perception that Cosby hasn't been held to account in the standard way. And who can blame them? Look at how he responds. Look at how his wife responds. You want to make sure Cosby suffers, let him continue to have gotten away with sexual assault and take martyr-y trips to Birmingham.

readering said...

Were they trying to keep juror ID secret? If so saying only 2 AA jurors were holdouts kinda blows cover.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Very few people got the OJ trial right, because no one could believe that a black jury would let such an obvious killer off, despite a mountain of evidence. Bloody glove, bloody sock, bloody expensive Italian shoes, hair evidence, DNA evidence, motive, opportunity, etc

The defense ran some focus groups and found out that middle aged black women are most sympathetic to a older black male athlete, especially one who may have killed a pretty white gal and a Jew.

That and when the jury toured his house, the defense team took down the photos of him and his white golfing buddies, and put up civil rights era artworks.

FullMoon said...

Cosby forced open her mouth and stuffed one and one-half benadryl tablets down her throat. Lucky she didn't go into a coma.
Then, he fingered her. Lucky she didn't get pregnant,
Did any of the accusers actually say he put his dick inside of her? If not, I'm gonna say that Bill has a tiny member,or is a 20 second finisher and prefers sleeping beauties who cannot reveal his shortcomings.

FullMoon said...

The public shaming comes in large part in response to the perception that Cosby hasn't been held to account in the standard way. And who can blame them? Look at how he responds. Look at how his wife responds. You want to make sure Cosby suffers, let him continue to have gotten away with sexual assault and take martyr-y trips to Birmingham.

6/23/17, 12:20 PM


He had settled the Andrea Constand suit, back in 2006, paying an undisclosed amount of money for silence. And it might have stayed a closed matter had Cosby not embarked on a cross-country speaking tour in the mid-2000s, lambasting African-Americans on their lives and morals. In part because he had become “a public moralist” while in the center of a sex scandal, a judge in 2015 ordered the release of previously sealed documents

FullMoon said...

In Cosby’s view, it was an evening of consensual sex. “I don’t hear her say anything,” he would later say of the encounter. “And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped.”

“I go inside of her pants,” he said. “She touches me . . . . She then took her hand and put it on top of my hand to push it in further. I move my fingers. I do not talk. She doesn’t talk. But she makes a sound which I feel was an orgasm.”

Around four A.M. the next morning “I offer her a blueberry muffin on a plate,” he said. “I offer her tea, she agrees. I go into the cappuccino room, I make tea for her, Red Zinger, she says she likes it . . . . She sits and we talk. Not a lot of talk, but we talked.”

“I walk her out,” he would say. “She does not look angry. She does not say to me, don’t ever do that again. She doesn’t walk out with an attitude of a huff, because I think that I’m a pretty decent reader of people and their emotions in these romantic sexual things, whatever you want to call them.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/bill-cosby-andrea-constand-sexual-assault-trial

Earnest Prole said...

I think that I’m a pretty decent reader of people and their emotions in these romantic sexual things

Fellas, I'm ready to get up and do my thing
I wanna get into it, man, you know
Like a, like a sex machine, man
Movin', doin' it, you know?

David Baker said...

"That wasn't hard once the DA (Th present LA Mayor's father) moved the case to downtown..."

Apparently it was hard, very hard, because virtually no one got it right. And I kept thinking; is everyone colorblind? And what about all those liberals who claimed they had black friends, which put the lie to that piece of nonsense the minute the verdict was read.

I even went so far as predicting the time the jury would take to find OJ not guilty; 2 hours. And on this point I was completely and utterly alone. (I believe the official time of the actual deliberations was 1hr/50min)

But in my analysis, I grossly underestimated how heavily people were invested in a guilty verdict. Even now, 22 years later, I have at least one "friend" who still won't talk to me. Yet he and others asked me what I thought at the time, so I told them.

Meanwhile, the whole experience was tremendously fascinating, certainly the most captivating television before or since - even though the outcome seemed preordained.

But then comes along Bill Cosby, who couldn’t shine OJ’s bloody, “ugly-ass” shoes.

Fen said...

I think it's a reflex by the media to censor race if it reflects poorly on blacks.

There's a drinking game that if the MSM omits the race of an alleged criminal, it's a safe bet he's black.

That's been extended to terror attacks. The perp is described as an immigrant youth or Canadian to hide the religious motivation of the terrorist.

Had a test of my theory today. On the radio, an ABC News blurb about FBI reward for any info leading to arrest of serial bank robber, with detailed description of perp.

Wife asks: Why did they leave out his race? That would be helpful indentifying information.

Me: Because he's black. At least that's the theory. Let's test that by looking for his pic online.

And guess what? ... :)

Fen said...

Also, I'm tired of the cumbersome African-American term. No one refers to me as European-American. LOL the former is even in my spell check reservoir, the latter is not.

I am defined as white. So they should be defined as black.

Rabel said...

Three cheers for the 86 year old who hung in for 52 hours of emotional deliberations.

Fen said...

Hoodlum makes a good point. The coding is a result of the rise of "Intersectionalism" dogma. The Left is heavily invested in Victim Groups and wants the unified against White Males. Black on Feminists is counter-productive.

Michael K said...

But in my analysis, I grossly underestimated how heavily people were invested in a guilty verdict.

I was in New Hampshire during the trial and was getting another degree at Dartmouth. I was also getting over back surgery that had forced my retirement. I had an early satellite dish and watched the afternoon sessions of the trial every day as I would come home and lie down for a while to rest my back.

I was not convinced of his guilt, either. The prosecution was inept. The jury called for a replay of the limo driver testimony and I agreed there was a question of the timing.

The guy who convicted OJ was the civil lawyer, Petrocelli. He found the shoe photo. The DA team was made up of clowns. Plus, of course the judge was an idiot.

TML said...

Editors...

"The jury was comprised of seven men and five women..."

should;t that be:

"The jury comprised seven men and five women..."

Big Mike said...

There's such a thing as jury nullification.

If I'd been on the jury I'd have held out for acquittal. As a septuagenarian I find it very easy to picture some old girlfriend from forty-plus years ago showing up insisting she was drunk when we made the beast with two backs ( God, but Shakespeare could write!). I probably wouldn't even remember her.

Besides, us septuagenarians have to stick together against the gold diggers.

TML said...

Dammit. Reading back I see this was covered. Sorry.

I was taught that comprise = contains (basically). Not hard. Good word. Richer for having it, aren't we?

Snark said...

Shamefully, I had no idea that "comprised of" was wrong. I'm very happy to be schooled, so thanks Althouse/commenters. My true kryptonite is it's/its. I know the correct usage, but I constantly realize after the fact that I chose the wrong one on automatic. It always requires thought for me - it's not automatic for me like their/they're/there is, for example, or you're/your. It's more like effect/affect where I have to stop and think for a moment, and it's/its is such a common word that I forget to think about it too often. I kind of hate it as it's one of those things that can make one look stupid, when one actually isn't stupid at all.

hombre said...

Maybe CBS is concerned about backlash. You know that folks will think African-Americans will forgive shabby, criminal behavior from black celebrities as they forgive black politicians and murderous young black men who slaughter their peers.

Peter said...

"The juror noted that there were "40 to 60 women" who came forward with allegations against Cosby."

The judge didn't instruct the jury to consider only what was presented in the courtroom, or the judge did but the juror didn't care? Considering how much adverse publicity exists here, do courts need to be more diligent in insuring Cosby's right to a fair trial?


(And, yes, everyone (but especially news organizations) has become shy when it comes to discussing race because doing so has become a field of "gotcha" mines, and who wants to risk stepping on one?)

hombre said...

Eleanor @ 7:44 AM: Exactly right! The refusal to acknowledge this is more of the current BS that women aren't responsible for their lives, particularly their sex lives. Extrapolation mine, not Eleanor's.)

Regret getting laid? Cry rape! Get pregnant from unprotected sex? Kill the baby!

Michael K said...

"Besides, us septuagenarians have to stick together against the gold diggers.

6/23/17, 2:12 PM"

Now, you tell me !

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

" Exactly right! The refusal to acknowledge this is more of the current BS that women aren't responsible for their lives, particularly their sex lives. Extrapolation mine, not Eleanor's.)

Regret getting laid? Cry rape!"

I see this case and one like it in exactly the opposite terms. When a women initially chooses not to report sexual assault by someone she knows it is very often a choice to steer her own ship forward. Women may weigh the costs and benefits of the attendant shame and discomfort, the disruption and losses to their personal and professional lives, and the low likelihood of a successful outcome, and choose the comfortable inertia of the status quo. When she changes her mind - and she can - a crime after all remains a crime regardless of when or why it is reported - it is often then that she is punished for previously taking responsibility for her own life and choosing a course. Then she is not a tidy enough victim who fits into a tidy box whose parameters others have defined for her.

Mark said...

The fact is -- white jurors tend to favor the prosecution, and black jurors are more distrustful of the police and prosecution. In that sense, black jurors better understand the whole purpose of the jury system.

In addition, white jurors generally will tend not to give black defendants the same presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt than they would a white guy. Instead, coupled with their pro-police/prosecution view, they will look at the black defendant already with some measure of suspicion, just as when they see a black guy on the sidewalk they might tend to become more cautious.

hombre said...

Snark: "I see this case and one like it in exactly the opposite terms. When a women initially chooses not to report sexual assault by someone she knows it is very often a choice to steer her own ship forward."

We are talking about very different things. Please reread my post in the context of Eleanor's 7:44 post. I am not talking about delayed reporting of sexual assault.

Ken B said...

He is saying it is shameful to imply black jurors might be prejudiced.

Bad Lieutenant said...

These successful attempts to shut down a troll exist because I suck...

FIFY


...You act out, like a troll, in order to gain the attention that you think you deserve but is not otherwise not forthcoming due to your lack of intellect. It is sad that someone of your advanced age has so little insight into your own psychology...

Eep-day oughts-thay. Ou-yay ee-say early-clay eh-whay ou-yay ook-lay in-way e-thay irror-may.

IOW-way, lassic-cay rojection-pay.


Whew, still going:

...The good news is that you will soon tire of this particular self-defeating behavior and move on to some other form of pathology, the bad news is that you will continue on this path until you die, blind to your own insecurities.

O-nay, ou-yay ill-way.

Michael said...

Of course the hold outs were black. The self imposed censorship has been going on for a long while in the media. Not naming the race of suspects is a good example. Blacks have solved that problem with their creative names, however, so even a little imagination can be used to spot a black suspect. You know the answer by the information left out. Most journalists are not smart enough to have a larger agenda than the PC agenda.