[Chi_archie]

pudding pops, all around!!!!

[jjgold]

He is sick
Will do again

[carolinakid]

he is so gross looking today

[Doug tushyterror]

[eidolon]

I agree he's definitely guilty JJ but let's be practical.. He didn't kill anybody & he's gonna be 84 in 2 weeks. What's the sense in keeping him locked up at that age? Let the guy live out his last few years in peace as a social pariah while getting drained financially with a bunch of civil suits.

As well as his social security taken away. Let him piss and shit on the streets like millions of others.

[carolinakid]

i seen this clown yrs ago at the harrah's in lake tahoe, had to be one of the worst shows i ever seen

[lonegambler23]

what a joke this is. probably a black judge and all black jurists

[KVB]

He is sick
Will do again

[jackpot269]

Welcome back, Bill!! I'm going to have a Coke and a smile.

Did you say lets do some coke and smile!!

[d2bets]

what a joke this is. probably a black judge and all black jurists

It was the PA Supreme Court. Don't know the racial composition, but I doubt it's majority black.

What's crazy is the time and money spent on two different trials, and now they say that even arrest should have been precluded in the first place. I wonder why the attorneys couldn't have brought this issue up on an interlocutory appeal even before trial.

[d2bets]

Based on how this come out, I also wonder if Epstein shouldn't have been prosecuted based on Acosta declining to prosecute him earlier. Seems similar. Bruce Castor. Alex Acosta. Sexual assaults. What do they all have in common.

[d2bets]

Ultimately, Cosby bought his way out of prison. If you believe the argument, the Castor only declined to prosecute because Cosby would sit for a civil trial in which he'd end up paying a lot of money. If Cosby was a broke dikk fukk, no deal because no money to sue for.

Surely, this will become (f it isnt't already) the go-to maneuver for the rich to buy their way out of prosecution. Agree to waive the 5th in civil suit if prosecutor promises to never prosecute the crime.

[pavyracer]

[Allure]

Who gives a shit that he's gonna be 84? What if someone had killed people 20 years and is 84 now? Rape is not murder however in this case you could argue that it was fukking 20 years ago and he hasn't killed anyone since and is almost 84.

But then again, that whore Casey Anthony got away with the most obvious murder ever and is enjoying life, so why shouldn't good ole Bill do the same?

[Heltah Skeltah]

He had the right skin color. They get away with everything these days.
It is what it is.

[Heltah Skeltah]

Who gives a shit that he's gonna be 84? What if someone had killed people 20 years and is 84 now? Rape is not murder however in this case you could argue that it was fukking 20 years ago and he hasn't killed anyone since and is almost 84.

But then again, that whore Casey Anthony got away with the most obvious murder ever and is enjoying life, so why shouldn't good ole Bill do the same?

I see your Casey Anthony most obvious murder And raise you a O.J. Simpson double murder.

[Allure]

I see your Casey Anthony most obvious murder And raise you a O.J. Simpson double murder.

Alright alright.... But the gloves didn't fit!!!

[RoyBacon]

Ultimately, Cosby bought his way out of prison. If you believe the argument, the Castor only declined to prosecute because Cosby would sit for a civil trial in which he'd end up paying a lot of money. If Cosby was a broke dikk fukk, no deal because no money to sue for.

Surely, this will become (f it isnt't already) the go-to maneuver for the rich to buy their way out of prosecution. Agree to waive the 5th in civil suit if prosecutor promises to never prosecute the crime.

You should read the decision before you get your woke pantys in a wad.

It was a multiple prong situation that in it’s entirety denied the defendant a fair trial.

Maybe that one prong was enough but it doesn’t appear so. The one dissenting Justice said in dissent that issue was not enough but allowing a parade of witnesses who had no knowledge of the crime was.

Reading between the lines the prosecution had a hung jury when they were allowed one such witnesses. To then allow a parade of 5 was a reach too far and denied the defendant of a fair trial.

[slayer14]

The illumanati got him out

[INVEGA MAN]

We all know this is Biden's fault! Impeach him so we can get Trump back in as our president. This is the opening we been waiting for

[d2bets]

You should read the decision before you get your woke pantys in a wad.

It was a multiple prong situation that in it’s entirety denied the defendant a fair trial.

Maybe that one prong was enough but it doesn’t appear so. The one dissenting Justice said in dissent that issue was not enough but allowing a parade of witnesses who had no knowledge of the crime was.

Reading between the lines the prosecution had a hung jury when they were allowed one such witnesses. To then allow a parade of 5 was a reach too far and denied the defendant of a fair trial.

I actually did read (or at least skim) the entire majority, affirm/dissent and dissent rulings. I saw that part of the affirm/dissent. You've misrepresented. The affirm/dissent did agree with majority on that issue - only disagreed on the remedy. Suppression vs. no charges ever. Also added that the justice would be inclined to toss in any case based on the witnesses - but that wasn't a ruling. That's called dicta. And we have no idea whether a sufficient number of other justices agree with that.

My point remains. If Cosby was a broke dikk random dude, the civil suit never happens. And without that the whole notion of the DA agreeing not to prosecute in exchange for deposition in civil trial would never have happened.

[Runeblade]

I think he should immediately go on CNN and demand reparations.

[RoyBacon]

I actually did read (or at least skim) the entire majority, affirm/dissent and dissent rulings. I saw that part of the affirm/dissent. You've misrepresented. The affirm/dissent did agree with majority on that issue - 9only disagreed on the remedy. Also added that the justice would be inclined to toss in any case based o the witnesses - but that wasn't a ruling. That's called dicta.

My point remains. If Cosby was a broke dikk random dude, the civil suit never happens. And without that the whole notion of the DA agreeing not to prosecute in exchange for deposition in civil trial would never have happened.

Ok. I haven’t read it yet but heard accounts.

Your point is fine but it would be rendered irrelevant if the case is tossed because of a parade of immaterial witnesses. It certainly wasn’t tossed sole based on the deposition used from the civil case.

Rich people deserve a fair trial too. Everyone does. And that trial was not. I think or at least hope we can both agree on that.

[KVB]

...Surely, this will become (f it isnt't already) the go-to maneuver for the rich to buy their way out of prosecution. Agree to waive the 5th in civil suit if prosecutor promises to never prosecute the crime.

No reason for this. They can already prosecute criminally and when it's all said and done do it again in a civil case with less burden of proof required.

The victim can continue to harass until there's no tomorrow.

They could always fall back on the civil case of the criminal one doesn't pan out. Like the OJ drama.

My worry here is that judges like this one allow trials to continue on, with blatantly inadmissable evidence, for the sole purpose of getting everything "legally" in the open in what becomes a trial in the public, not a courtroom.

Because in the end the courtroom significance gets overturned, but the public heard stuff they never legally should have.

That's not a good thing in general.

[d2bets]

Ok. I haven’t read it yet but heard accounts.

Your point is fine but it would be rendered irrelevant if the case is tossed because of a parade of immaterial witnesses. It certainly wasn’t tossed sole based on the deposition used from the civil case.

Rich people deserve a fair trial too. Everyone does. And that trial was not. I think or at least hope we can both agree on that.

Yes it was. Or more precisely, it was tossed because Cosby detrimentally relied on the DA's assertion that it wouldn't prosecute when he was deposed in the civil case and didn't assert the 5th. I mean, that's probably true, although I'm not sure it was reasonable. If that really wasn't the agreement, why the fukk didn't Cosby's attorneys demand that in writing. That's the part that I don't get.

The middle dissent also made a strong point that the acting DA cannot just unilaterally declare that there will never be a prosecution. The DA doesn't posses a pardon power. The difference here is that Cosby detrimentally relied and taking it back would violate his due process.

So I guess the moral is if the DA says they won't prosecute you, make sure you go out and detrimentally rely on that so that a successor DA can't prosecute you. lol kinda fukked up.

[d2bets]

No reason for this. They can already prosecute criminally and when it's all said and done do it again in a civil case with less burden of proof required.

The victim can continue to harass until there's no tomorrow.

They could always fall back on the civil case of the criminal one doesn't pan out. Like the OJ drama.

My worry here is that judges like this one allow trials to continue on, with blatantly inadmissable evidence, for the sole purpose of getting everything "legally" in the open in what becomes a trial in the public, not a courtroom.

Because in the end the courtroom significance gets overturned, but the public heard stuff they never legally should have.

That's not a good thing in general.

Not sure what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is a rich defendant in this situation facing both a criminal pros and a civil suit can bargain their way out of the criminal pros by saying "I'll waive my right to take the 5th in the civil suit if you (pros) agree to never prosecute me criminally.". That happens and as you can see can happen and can effectively shield from prosecution.

But it's something only a person with resources can do, because broke dikks don't get sued civilly, because it's pointless. See what I'm saying? This is the kind of potential get out of jail card that only a rich person can pull out. Cost Cosby like 3 million or something. Peanuts to him. This happens in other settings when rich people (and corps) agree to fines instead of prosecution. It happens. Without question. Not saying rich always get off, but it does show how money can sometimes buy out of prosecution. Rich people will definitely take notice.

I get your point about evidence admissibility. A different issue.

[JIBBBY]

He is sick
Will do again

To old, can't do it again even if he wanted to. He'll never leave the house and live out his days on his sofa taking naps.

[JIBBBY]

Based on how this come out, I also wonder if Epstein shouldn't have been prosecuted based on Acosta declining to prosecute him earlier. Seems similar. Bruce Castor. Alex Acosta. Sexual assaults. What do they all have in common.

Epstein got next. These pervs have money and hire the best and most powerful lawyers money can buy. Then the lawyers find ways to get em out on technicalities.

[KVB]

Not sure what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is a rich defendant in this situation facing both a criminal pros and a civil suit can bargain their way out of the criminal pros by saying "I'll waive my right to take the 5th in the civil suit if you (pros) agree to never prosecute me criminally.". That happens and as you can see can happen and can effectively shield from prosecution...

I'm saying there is no reason, they can always prosecute criminal first, then civil.

The rich guy can be on the hook for both. A wealthy person can't force the civil trial first and there is literally no benefit to trying to sign away the right to criminally prosecute.

For the civil case, getting the defendant to testify is hardly necessary.

Only reason to agree is if you had no criminal case and made up the charges, or are only bringing them, for money.

[wikkidinsane]

good to see you guys views are aligned with cancel culture.

[DrunkHorseplayer]

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this case, but I've always wondered why a statute of limitations didn't apply. Isn't there a certain amount of time that you can prosecute a supposed rapist?

I believe that in PA it's 12 years; I think he was charged a week before it expired.

[d2bets]

I'm saying there is no reason, they can always prosecute criminal first, then civil.

The rich guy can be on the hook for both. A wealthy person can't force the civil trial first and there is literally no benefit to trying to sign away the right to criminally prosecute.

For the civil case, getting the defendant to testify is hardly necessary.

Only reason to agree is if you had no criminal case and made up the charges, or are only bringing them, for money.

Eh, the pros thought the crim case would be too difficult to make (and pro don't like to lose), but that she could get him to settle in civil. Hence, the deal. But if he wasn't rich, no deal, because no civil suit. Not hard to figure out.

[Booya711]

We taxpayers shoukd also give him reparations for when he was a slave FFS

[JIBBBY]

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby should be buried in the same grave together one day as they both will probably rot in hell.. Bill Cosby can't even apologize for his wrong doings, all he can say is I'm innocent as almost 60 women accused him of rape and drugging. OJ Simpson the same, I'm innocent.


Epstein waiting for all of them now in that special place down below IMO..

[reppin_the_847]

Epstein got next. These pervs have money and hire the best and most powerful lawyers money can buy. Then the lawyers find ways to get em out on technicalities.

The Epstein party lasted a long, long time. But I'm not sure what expedited his demise in the end for sure. I think that the powers that be finally took him down once they saw that there was a risk of the guy going to trial with their secrets. He likely did have too much dirt / blackmail info on some of the most powerful folks on the planet, and they weren't gonna let that information come to light. I do believe he's dead (and not hiding out in Tel Aviv / Israel or what not), but I highly doubt that he really killed himself. In the end, dead folk can't talk.