I never looked into the case. I have no comment on that. I do remember a quote from him though: "I don't know the key to success; but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."
Most people unfortunately seem to believe that one is guilty unless they can prove their innocence, whereas in fact the law in most countries says the oppose. The reason the law provides that one is innocent until proven guilty, is that the prosecution should be required to properly prove its case, so as to prevent innocent people being convicted.
People also seem to assume a trial is just there to hand out a sentence. They also take the view that where a defendant is acquitted, they must have: "got off on a technicality".
The above attitudes can also summarize the responses on this discussion-thread. People who express such views only do that about other people; they would not have such an attitude were they themselves or someone in their family, to be accused.
Those so-called "technicalities" typically tend to refer to the legal procedures and rules which are there to protect every one of us, so that we should receive a fair trial if accused of something.
When someone has been convicted, but subsequently have had their conviction quashed (cancelled) on appeal, it is then the same as if they had never been convicted; they are, and always then have been, innocent of the crime of which they were accused.
This post was edited by Robert at June 30, 2021 5:34 PM MDT
I agree with your comments. Having said that, Mr. Cosby was brought to trial and a jury of his peers decided that he was guilty of the charges brought by the prosecution. Whatever technicality has now been offered by the defense which caused the verdict to be overturned is something that should have been brought to light at the original trial, assuming the defense was aware. What agreement with the prosecutor could the defense have entered into which would, at this late date, exonerate Mr. Cosby?
The state apparently made an agreement underwhich evidence was to be given in a civil case, in exchange for no prosecution.
By complying with this agreement it left the person concerned open to possibly incriminating themselves in the evidence they gave in the civil case.
Subsequently, the State did not honor the agreement, and the subsequent Appeal court therefore ruled, that the criminal trial should never have taken place.
If the state cannot keep to its agreements, who can?
Individuals must be protected against being tricked by the state into possibly incriminating themselves.
I believe that it is possible that the court had legitimate, legal reasons for the decision. Is that not sufficient, or must the proverbial pound of flesh be extracted regardless of the law?
Apparently, the court overturned the conviction based on an agreement Cosby's lawyers made with the original prosecutor in the case who agreed not to prosecute Cosby if Cosby agreed to plead guilty in the case brought by Ms. Constand. The court found that the original agreement should have been honored and that the current prosecutor did not have had standing to bring the later case.
It's important to understand that overturning the conviction does not mean that Cosby isn't guilty, merely that he shouldn't have been brought to trial. Sufficient evidence was given by many, many women about his conduct that the jurors found him guilty. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has run on acts he may have committed on any woman subsequent to those in this lawsuit, so they won't be able to try him for anything new as well as not being able to re-try him on this case because of double jeopardy attaching.
OK, so that means there was a legitimate legal reason for the decision. It doesn't absolve Cosby of anything he did, but it means that the decision isn't some horrible injustice.
Correct. The testimony he gave in the Constad case was self-incriminating and the second DA used that testimony to convict him in the second trial. That was why the court found that the prosecutor had violated Cosby's civil rights - the right against self-incrimination. The court's ruling was justified. Unfortunately, we all know that Cosby is guilty as he admitted so himself.
No. When someone has been convicted, but subsequently have had their conviction quashed (cancelled) on appeal, it is then the same as if they had never been convicted; they are, and always then have been, innocent of the crime of which they were accused; whatever anyone's opinion may be. These are concepts designed to protect individual rights. Do not seek to deny the same rights to one individual, when it could be that one day one may need them oneself ! > > > > > > > > > >
This post was edited by Robert at July 2, 2021 5:54 AM MDT
You missed the part that he admitted his own guilt, statements that were the basis for overturning his conviction. Ergo, he is not innocent. That isn't my opinion, that is his stated fact.
Contributor SpunkySenior missed the part that the subsequent criminal trial should not have been held according to law, as confirmed by the appeal court.
I didn't miss anything. As a matter of law, perhaps he should not have been prosecuted, not that he is not guilty. By his own admission, he did the dastardly deed.
People admit things all the time. An admission does not become a criminal conviction unless the law makes it so. If the law does not make it so, then the person is innocent of the offence whatever the person may admit.
I don't believe I said his admission of guilt became a criminal conviction. All I said was that his admission makes him guilty whether he is tried and convicted or not.
Contributor "SpunkySenior" wrote: "I don't believe I said his admission of guilt became a criminal conviction. All I said was that his admission makes him guilty whether he is tried and convicted or not."
My response: A person is only "guilty" if they are found guilty under the law. An admission does not become a criminal conviction unless the law makes it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This post was edited by Robert at July 3, 2021 1:46 PM MDT
It's apparent to me that one or more things are at play here: looking for attention, looking for an argument or needing to have the last word. You may have the last word because for me to respond to this would only continue the circle-jerk. Have a pleasant day.
SpunkySenior 