|
Post by Bearcata on Jul 1, 2021 4:51:39 GMT
PS: who did Crosby's Estate pay off?
Why was this issue of not using what he said not brought up during the initial trial?
|
|
|
Post by Bearcata on Jul 1, 2021 5:00:35 GMT
FYI:
Nearly three hours after voicing her support for Cosby, Rashad issued another tweet responding to backlash over her initial statement.
"I fully support survivors of sexual assault coming forward," Rashad said in her follow-up. "My post was in no way intended to be insensitive to their truth. Personally, I know from friends and family that such abuse has lifelong residual effects. My heartfelt wish is for healing."
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 1, 2021 5:39:18 GMT
Pennsylvania’s highest court threw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction and released him from prison Wednesday in a stunning reversal of fortune for the comedian once known as “America’s Dad,” ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case was bound by his predecessor's agreement not to charge Cosby.
The suburban Philadelphia prosecutor who originally looked into Constand's allegations, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor, considered the case flawed because Andrea Constand waited a year to come forward and stayed in contact with Cosby afterward. Castor declined to prosecute and instead encouraged Constand to sue for damages. Questioned under oath as part of that lawsuit, Cosby said he used to offer quaaludes to women he wanted to have sex with. He eventually settled with Constand for $3.4 million
Cosby was arrested in 2015, when a district attorney armed with newly unsealed evidence — the comic's damaging deposition in a lawsuit brought by Constand — filed charges against him just days before the 12-year statute of limitations was about to run out.
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Wednesday that District Attorney Kevin Steele, who made the decision to arrest Cosby, was obligated to stand by his predecessor’s promise not to charge Cosby, though there was no evidence that agreement was ever put in writing.
Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on the previous district attorney's decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in Constand’s civil case.
The court called Cosby's subsequent arrest “an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was forgone for more than a decade.” It said justice and “fair play and decency” require that the district attorney's office stand by the decision of the previous DA.The justices said that overturning the conviction and barring any further prosecution “is the only remedy that comports with society’s reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.”
Four Supreme Court justices formed the majority that ruled in Cosby's favor, while three others dissented in whole or in part.
In a statement,Kevin Steele, the district attorney, said Cosby went free “on a procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime.” He commended Constand for coming forward and added: “My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims.”
Even though Cosby was charged only with the assault on Constand, the judge at his trial allowed five other accusers to testify that they, too, were similarly victimized by Cosby in the 1980s. Prosecutors called them as witnesses to establish what they said was a pattern of behavior on Cosby's part. A total of 60 women had come forward after the release of Cosbys testimony during the lawsuit brought by Andrea Constand.
In his 2018 sentencing the trial judge had declared Cosby a sexually violent predator who could not be safely allowed out in public and needed to report to authorities for the rest of his life. Cosby recieved 3 to 10 years in jail.
On Wednesday, Therese Serignese, one of Cosbys victims said the new ruling andCosbys release “takes my breath away. I just think it’s a miscarriage of justice. This is about procedure. It's not about the truth of the women,” she said. Serignese said she took solace in the fact Cosby served nearly three years behind bars: "That’s as good as it gets in America” for sex crime victims."
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 1, 2021 6:04:55 GMT
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby’s 2018 sexual assault conviction on Wednesday in a 6–1 decision. By a 4–3 vote, the court also prohibited the future prosecution of Cosby for his crime, forestalling the possibility of a new trial. Because Cosby is, beyond doubt, a sexual predator, Wednesday’s ruling may feel unjust. But the fault here does not lie with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It lies, rather, with Bruce Castor, the Republican former district attorney who promised not to prosecute Cosby in 2005. Castor’s dubious deal—which two justices implied to be corrupt—formed the basis of the court’s conclusion that prosecutors violated Cosby’s due process rights. The decision is a dispiriting reminder of the damage that prosecutors can inflict when they wield their power as recklessly as Castor did 16 years ago.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/bill-cosby-bruce-castor-pennsylvania-supreme-court.html
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 1, 2021 6:06:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Jul 1, 2021 6:13:00 GMT
Because she's a famous person who's forever linked to Bill Cosby. That's why she felt she could say something. Should she have said something? No. She should have kept her mouth shut. She was just appointed Dean of the College of Fine Arts at Howard University (like last month, IIRC). I'll be curious to see if there's any blowback from HU about her tweets. Not a good look for a university to have a dean supporting a serial rapist, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jul 1, 2021 10:34:24 GMT
Because she's a famous person who's forever linked to Bill Cosby. That's why she felt she could say something. Should she have said something? No. She should have kept her mouth shut. She was just appointed Dean of the College of Fine Arts at Howard University (like last month, IIRC). I'll be curious to see if there's any blowback from HU about her tweets. Not a good look for a university to have a dean supporting a serial rapist, IMO. Phylicia Rashad Tweet on Bill Cosby Disavowed by Howard University
|
|
|
Post by waywyrd on Jul 1, 2021 12:08:18 GMT
Oh, they "disavowed" her idiotic tweet. Whoopee.
This whole thing is complete and utter bullshit and a slap in the face to all the women that came forward. Here's hoping the universe sends some karma Cosby's way since the justice system is broken.
|
|
|
Post by ibot2much on Jul 1, 2021 14:25:26 GMT
Curious to see how long before she is "disavowed" by Howard.....people have lost jobs for ill-advised social media posts. Set the clock!!!
|
|
|
Post by justCoz on Jul 1, 2021 14:25:56 GMT
I think there was mention of this when he was being prosecuted because I wondered at the time how that could possibly be legal for them to use his statements against him after promising him they wouldn't in order to get him to talk. While I fully believe he's a serial rapist who deserves to be in jail, I also believe the Pennsylvania supreme court did the right thing in this case - not for Bill Cosby's sake but for the rule of law. It always seemed wrong to me that the second prosecutor was able to use that against him. Our fifth amendment is a big deal and should be respected by all sides. Just because the second prosecutor didn't like the deal his predecessor made doesn't mean he should be able to use the info obtained.
I say this, not because I'm happy he got out, but because I think it's such an important right we have that is not to be messed with. The same as I'm always wondering why the police get so angry when people lawyer-up. When I watch real crime shows I'm often surprised at how angry they get. I also get frustrated with people who don't use their right to an attorney, especially when they're innocent and end up getting questioned for hours and subsequently give false confessions. So, in the interest of justice I think what their supreme court did was the only right thing because of the facts of the case, not because he deserves to be out.
One good thing is that he spent any time behind bars, and another is that he has been impacted financially. It's not a perfect punishment by any means, and I'm not trying to imply that it is.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jul 1, 2021 16:31:32 GMT
I agree, justCoz, that, as frustrating as his release is, it was probably the correct thing according to the law (though three justices dissented either fully or in part, so it wasn't clear-cut). I just feel so bad for all of the survivors this is re-traumatizing. As for people who don't lawyer up, they are usually too poor to hire a lawyer and often get crappy free ones who don't give them good advice.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 1, 2021 16:51:58 GMT
Curious to see how long before she is "disavowed" by Howard.....people have lost jobs for ill-advised social media posts. Set the clock!!! It's a tricky spot for an academic institution to be in. A place like Howard should be somewhere that people come together to exchange ideas and debate. So it's a pretty bad practice for such a place to start firing people for opinions that others don't like.
|
|
|
Post by ibot2much on Jul 1, 2021 17:34:06 GMT
In theory, the openness of a university may be true. However, today, there really just is one POV that is tolerated.
They already said that her opinion is not the one they hold.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 1, 2021 18:06:53 GMT
In theory, the openness of a university may be true. However, today, there really just is one POV that is tolerated.
They already said that her opinion is not the one they hold. That's somewhat my point - there is a real problem with an institution of higher learning embracing the idea that only one POV is tolerated. I disagree with what Rashad tweeted completely, and have no problem with the University making it clear that she speaks for HERSELF and not for the university where she's employed now. Voicing disagreement should be welcome. And while I disagree with her and don't think it was necessary at all for her to speak out, I can also understand that she has experiences that differ greatly from mine and led her to seeing Cosby differently than most people do. So I think that Howard voicing disagreement without punishing her, which in my eyes would be silencing different ways of thinking, is the right way to go. No one is served by universities expressing dissent by yelling shut up.
|
|
|
Post by dagwood on Jul 1, 2021 19:23:22 GMT
I agree, justCoz , that, as frustrating as his release is, it was probably the correct thing according to the law (though three justices dissented either fully or in part, so it wasn't clear-cut). I just feel so bad for all of the survivors this is re-traumatizing. As for people who don't lawyer up, they are usually too poor to hire a lawyer and often get crappy free ones who don't give them good advice.Most public defenders are not crappy attorneys and they give great advice. I am biased because I work for the public defender's firm in Salt Lake County, and I know people at the Utah County firm, they are pretty good, too. The chant around here is if the police ask if you want to talk, the answer is no. Lawyer up.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 1, 2021 23:05:04 GMT
I think there was mention of this when he was being prosecuted because I wondered at the time how that could possibly be legal for them to use his statements against him after promising him they wouldn't in order to get him to talk. While I fully believe he's a serial rapist who deserves to be in jail, I also believe the Pennsylvania supreme court did the right thing in this case - not for Bill Cosby's sake but for the rule of law. It always seemed wrong to me that the second prosecutor was able to use that against him. Our fifth amendment is a big deal and should be respected by all sides. Just because the second prosecutor didn't like the deal his predecessor made doesn't mean he should be able to use the info obtained. I say this, not because I'm happy he got out, but because I think it's such an important right we have that is not to be messed with. The same as I'm always wondering why the police get so angry when people lawyer-up. When I watch real crime shows I'm often surprised at how angry they get. I also get frustrated with people who don't use their right to an attorney, especially when they're innocent and end up getting questioned for hours and subsequently give false confessions. So, in the interest of justice I think what their supreme court did was the only right thing because of the facts of the case, not because he deserves to be out. One good thing is that he spent any time behind bars, and another is that he has been impacted financially. It's not a perfect punishment by any means, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. That is how the court ruled. 7-6. Now, it can be argued since the suppossed deal was never put in writing(it was put forth in a newspaper article put together by original prosecutor in order to get Cossby to talk at a settleme4nt agreement with Andrea Charmand). The original prosecutor wouldn't prosecute Cosby because he was under the delusion Andrea came forward too late to make a good witmess in a criminal case. So, this whole thing in the paper was to lure him into a deposition for , again a settlement.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 1, 2021 23:24:23 GMT
While the ruling makes sense-although it's important to note nothing was put into writing regarding the deal-the problem of victims fearful of coming forward is never going to end. THe blame goes to the original prosecutor. He chose not to prosecute Cosby because, in his antiquated, sexist opinion, noone would believe the victim. I kind of just give up. BTW, Howard has a huge problem with how they handle sexual assault. Rashads comment was a slap in the face to Howard University students. Why Howard entertained hiring her , considering, her feverent public posts supporting Cosby while calling the 60 women liars who were conspiring against him, is beyond me. Furthermore, Cosby admitted over and over to drugging and raping women-though to him it wasn't rape blah blah blah...-I fail to understand how she could explain that away. Free speech? Sure. Reprocutions? Absolutley.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jul 1, 2021 23:44:31 GMT
I agree, justCoz , that, as frustrating as his release is, it was probably the correct thing according to the law (though three justices dissented either fully or in part, so it wasn't clear-cut). I just feel so bad for all of the survivors this is re-traumatizing. As for people who don't lawyer up, they are usually too poor to hire a lawyer and often get crappy free ones who don't give them good advice.Most public defenders are not crappy attorneys and they give great advice. I am biased because I work for the public defender's firm in Salt Lake County, and I know people at the Utah County firm, they are pretty good, too. The chant around here is if the police ask if you want to talk, the answer is no. Lawyer up. Good to know! Thanks for setting me straight! I wonder why people don't do that, then. Do police sometimes use unfair intimidation tactics to make people think they don't have that right? Or do people sometimes just not know that there are free public defenders?
|
|
|
Post by Kao on Jul 2, 2021 1:09:50 GMT
Most public defenders are not crappy attorneys and they give great advice. I am biased because I work for the public defender's firm in Salt Lake County, and I know people at the Utah County firm, they are pretty good, too. The chant around here is if the police ask if you want to talk, the answer is no. Lawyer up. Good to know! Thanks for setting me straight! I wonder why people don't do that, then. Do police sometimes use unfair intimidation tactics to make people think they don't have that right? Or do people sometimes just not know that there are free public defenders?Sadly, the answer is yes for both.
|
|
|
Post by Critical on Jul 2, 2021 1:36:23 GMT
In theory, the openness of a university may be true. However, today, there really just is one POV that is tolerated.
They already said that her opinion is not the one they hold. That's somewhat my point - there is a real problem with an institution of higher learning embracing the idea that only one POV is tolerated. I disagree with what Rashad tweeted completely, and have no problem with the University making it clear that she speaks for HERSELF and not for the university where she's employed now. Voicing disagreement should be welcome. And while I disagree with her and don't think it was necessary at all for her to speak out, I can also understand that she has experiences that differ greatly from mine and led her to seeing Cosby differently than most people do. So I think that Howard voicing disagreement without punishing her, which in my eyes would be silencing different ways of thinking, is the right way to go. No one is served by universities expressing dissent by yelling shut up. The problem with that is that Phylicia Rashad is not just speaking as herself, she's speaking as the incoming dean at a university. Universities are, unfortunately, rife with sexual assault. Any student on that campus who's raped will know that their very well-known dean spoke in support of a serial rapist. How do you think that would a) make them feel and b) affect their decision to report that rape to campus authorities?
What Cosby did is not in question here. By all accounts, the 80 women who came forward are not alone. Janet Hubert tweeted about personally knowing 5 who hadn't come forward. He was a predatory monster. Yes, PR had a personal relationship with Cosby that is different from most people. However, if someone who held that kind of place in MY life was revealed to be a serial rapist, I wouldn't be publicly supporting him....or supporting him, period. It's beyond the pale. Whether or not she has personal feelings about him is irrelevant at this point, IMO. If she was just an actress, I would chalk it up to being out of touch and heartless. Because she's also a university dean, the standards are different.
This isn't just someone having a civil disagreement about politics. This is about showing support someone who's drugged and raped dozens and dozens of women.
Whether Howard decides to fire her or not, I do question her ability to do her job effectively now. I know that I wouldn't respect a dean of my university of he/she had made statements like PR has.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 2, 2021 1:46:10 GMT
That's somewhat my point - there is a real problem with an institution of higher learning embracing the idea that only one POV is tolerated. I disagree with what Rashad tweeted completely, and have no problem with the University making it clear that she speaks for HERSELF and not for the university where she's employed now. Voicing disagreement should be welcome. And while I disagree with her and don't think it was necessary at all for her to speak out, I can also understand that she has experiences that differ greatly from mine and led her to seeing Cosby differently than most people do. So I think that Howard voicing disagreement without punishing her, which in my eyes would be silencing different ways of thinking, is the right way to go. No one is served by universities expressing dissent by yelling shut up. The problem with that is that Phylicia Rashad is not just speaking as herself, she's speaking as the incoming dean at a university. Universities are, unfortunately, rife with sexual assault. Any student on that campus who's raped will know that their very well-known dean spoke in support of a serial rapist. How do you think that would a) make them feel and b) affect their decision to report that rape to campus authorities?
What Cosby did is not in question here. By all accounts, the 80 women who came forward are not alone. Janet Hubert tweeted about personally knowing 5 who hadn't come forward. He was a predatory monster. Yes, PR had a personal relationship with Cosby that is different from most people. However, if someone who held that kind of place in MY life was revealed to be a serial rapist, I wouldn't be publicly supporting him....or supporting him, period. It's beyond the pale. Whether or not she has personal feelings about him is irrelevant at this point, IMO. If she was just an actress, I would chalk it up to being out of touch and heartless. Because she's also a university dean, the standards are different.
This isn't just someone having a civil disagreement about politics. This is about showing support someone who's drugged and raped dozens and dozens of women.
Whether Howard decides to fire her or not, I do question her ability to do her job effectively now. I know that I wouldn't respect a dean of my university of he/she had made statements like PR has.
Questions about how she’d handle sexual assault charges brought against a faculty member are justified. There are also ways to address that - most universities address those things with a panel rather than having a single person make the decision. And let’s be honest - she wasn’t brought into the role for her administrative / management experience. I think that Howard effectively addressed concerns in the messaging to students and any possible victim on the campus by making the statement separating the university from her view.
|
|
|
Post by dagwood on Jul 2, 2021 14:04:53 GMT
Most public defenders are not crappy attorneys and they give great advice. I am biased because I work for the public defender's firm in Salt Lake County, and I know people at the Utah County firm, they are pretty good, too. The chant around here is if the police ask if you want to talk, the answer is no. Lawyer up. Good to know! Thanks for setting me straight! I wonder why people don't do that, then. Do police sometimes use unfair intimidation tactics to make people think they don't have that right? Or do people sometimes just not know that there are free public defenders? I don't know. The Miranda warning is very clear that if they can't afford an attorney one will be appointed. I think it is more they think if they talk they will be let go.
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Jul 2, 2021 14:14:38 GMT
But, when arrested and read, how alert and cognizant are they? Do they even hear the words?
|
|
|
Post by justCoz on Jul 2, 2021 18:10:02 GMT
I think many people think if they have nothing to hide there's no harm in talking without an attorney... But if the police have tunnel-vision thinking you did it that's possibly the worst thing you can do.
On the crime shows, both real and fictional, they often say you shouldn't need an attorney if you have nothing to hide. On the real ones it seems a lot of police get angry if people lawyer-up. Everyone should understand and take it as a precious right to avail themselves of getting an attorney and/or not incriminating oneself. (And I mean even ones that aren't even guilty but may say something inadvertently that shifts blame/more blame to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by dagwood on Jul 2, 2021 19:37:30 GMT
But, when arrested and read, how alert and cognizant are they? Do they even hear the words? Good question. I have never heard an interview where the Defendant was not very alert so I am not sure how they handle the less alert ones. I would hope they would put off any questioning because of that frame of mind. Pollyanna lives in me, I know.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jul 2, 2021 21:57:25 GMT
I think many people think if they have nothing to hide there's no harm in talking without an attorney... But if the police have tunnel-vision thinking you did it that's possibly the worst thing you can do. On the crime shows, both real and fictional, they often say you shouldn't need an attorney if you have nothing to hide. On the real ones it seems a lot of police get angry if people lawyer-up. Everyone should understand and take it as a precious right to avail themselves of getting an attorney and/or not incriminating oneself. (And I mean even ones that aren't even guilty but may say something inadvertently that shifts blame/more blame to themselves. I should definitely never talk without an attorney present. Whenever I'm explaining something, I tend to give way too many details beyond the question the person asked me, which could be dangerous in a legal situation. LOL Answering only the specific question asked is not one of my strong points.
|
|
|
Post by dagwood on Jul 7, 2021 14:55:45 GMT
I think many people think if they have nothing to hide there's no harm in talking without an attorney... But if the police have tunnel-vision thinking you did it that's possibly the worst thing you can do. On the crime shows, both real and fictional, they often say you shouldn't need an attorney if you have nothing to hide. On the real ones it seems a lot of police get angry if people lawyer-up. Everyone should understand and take it as a precious right to avail themselves of getting an attorney and/or not incriminating oneself. (And I mean even ones that aren't even guilty but may say something inadvertently that shifts blame/more blame to themselves. I should definitely never talk without an attorney present. Whenever I'm explaining something, I tend to give way too many details beyond the question the person asked me, which could be dangerous in a legal situation. LOL Answering only the specific question asked is not one of my strong points. A lot of people are like that. It's like the cops turn on ramble mode in people.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Jul 8, 2021 7:56:27 GMT
In theory, the openness of a university may be true. However, today, there really just is one POV that is tolerated.
They already said that her opinion is not the one they hold. I would hope not. She is and has openly supported a RAPIST. This isn't about a University only tolerating one POV.It's about making it clear the University does not support a Rapist. Howard University made a absolutley unfathomable decision in hiring her as Dean. It is no secret, takes little investigation vuia the web to fiind her tweets damning the victims as liarsb and conspirators out to get Cosby. As a woman, I expect my dean to not be a crackpot ranting about rape victims being liars and a convicted rapist being the victim here. Also, Howard is her employer and she, as Dean is the face of the college-they have every rigfht to dissavow her opinion as it goes beyind academics-it goes to her joyously supporting a criminal. Who left in his wake 60 victims.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 8, 2021 10:55:49 GMT
I realize this is an unpopular opinion and I tread lightly in expressing it - but I think it’s unfair to simplify Rashads point of view as simply being that she supports a rapist. Yes, Cosby is a rapist and she tweeted in support of him, so it’s not untrue. However, her relationship with him and the things she knows about him go far deeper than that. He was there for her in a big way at some major turns I her life and when she judges him she judges him on those things too. She knows a hell of a lot more about him than we do, and I think it’s unrealistic to look to her to judge him just on what we know. I just think it’s unfair to look at the people who are closest to criminals and expect them to stop seeing anything but the crime. I’ll extend her a bit of grace here.
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Jul 8, 2021 21:08:30 GMT
I realize this is an unpopular opinion and I tread lightly in expressing it - but I think it’s unfair to simplify Rashads point of view as simply being that she supports a rapist. Yes, Cosby is a rapist and she tweeted in support of him, so it’s not untrue. However, her relationship with him and the things she knows about him go far deeper than that. He was there for her in a big way at some major turns I her life and when she judges him she judges him on those things too. She knows a hell of a lot more about him than we do, and I think it’s unrealistic to look to her to judge him just on what we know. I just think it’s unfair to look at the people who are closest to criminals and expect them to stop seeing anything but the crime. I’ll extend her a bit of grace here. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, even an unpopular one. Even horrible nasty criminals have family & friends who care about them. Example: Bill Cosby. Where she went wrong is stating this opinion in a public place, knowing as well as we do what he's done. He got out because of a legal trial technicality, not because he didn't do it. Sometimes even friends/loved ones, have to keep their big mouths (or posts) shut & keep silent. What she did was a public insult to all sexual assault victims. She did this to herself.
|
|