The Cosby Trial 2017

Sloe Djinn

Sloe Djinn

Idiot with Internet Access.
MBTI
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Hey hey hey! Have some Benadryl I keep in this bottle of barbiturates pretty lady!

*fails at finding a picture of Fat Albert talking to a woman*

So it looks like the jury is deadlocked at the moment. My gut feeling is that he has engaged in this kind of behavior multiple times (I can't say for sure in this specific case), and that you don't get such a concerted outcry from so many alleged victims without there being some truth to the matter. While I was surprised to hear that about him in particular, I can't say that it's really so surprising in the grand scheme of things. Having skeletons in the closet is not exclusive to celebrities. They just tend to have more money and influence to maintain their veneer.

I thought that a conviction would be difficult seeing as how the case is so old and how (to my knowledge) there is little to no forensic evidence. I don't buy that the victim talking to him frequently after the fact should influence the inherent criminality of the acts of drugging and raping people.

I think that he deserves to go to jail, but I can acknowledge and accept that there may be no requisite conviction. Additionally, I think that regardless of whether or not he does, the damage to his reputation has really placed the nails in his coffin of his persona. Though I don't see any practical value in his being jailed, I think that it's symbolically necessary to show that no matter how famous you are, there are consequences to such predatory behavior.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
 
I agree with most of what you've said.

Have you seen the Dave Chapelle piece on this? It touched on how complicated the issue is because Cosby did so much good for the Black community, which is really depressing.

Concerning why the victims did not speak out when it happened and why they may have interacted with him after the incident: At the time, rape and sexual assault were overlooked in society. Men got away with these crimes very often. If women spoke out, it was often the woman's reputation that was ruined. Rape and sexual assault are not uncommon crimes, it's just not reported. We are finally reaching a time when women believe they will be heard if they speak up and people understand there will be consequences.

The is a famous case in NY State from the 80s where some of the men openly admitted they raped the woman and they still were not convicted!

There are so many women with similar stories about him that it is probable he is guilty, at least of some of it. This is not simply a witch hunt because he has fame and money. They're taking down a philanthropist who did a lot of good in this world... but also, allegedly, caused just as much suffering.
 
@Asa

I've probably seen the Chappelle piece but I don't remember it. I'll have to look it up. Yeah, it's so crazy that back then (and really, still today in many places) the crime can be trivialized like a game of tag or a prank. "GOTCHA! Haha!" I'm sure that it's still an uphill battle in many cases just for the victim to make it known because there's an automatic societal stigma of shame and weakness attached to it that discourages the victim from retaliating.
 
Asa said:
I hope he serves time, too. Rapists who aren't famous and/or rich barely serve time. That needs to change.
Click to expand...
Isn't he blind now? Rich and blind, so again I'll be surprised if he serves actual prison time. Probably house arrest at best.
 
giphy.gif

I haven't been following this. Just did a quick search to get myself up to speed and found this gif.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the jury is deadlocked. I don't get this. Cosby is guilty by his own admission.
 
I think he should go but fortunately the law doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Sending people to prison without hard evidence would set a precedent that would allow the law to be abused. It could end up being used as a weapon by people who simply hate an individual and want to harm them.
 
sprinkles said:
I think he should go but fortunately the law doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Sending people to prison without hard evidence would set a precedent that would allow the law to be abused. It could end up being used as a weapon by people who simply hate an individual and want to harm them.
Click to expand...
Did not Cosby himself admit to drugging unknowing women? Isn't that enough evidence?
 
sprinkles said:
I think he should go but fortunately the law doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Sending people to prison without hard evidence would set a precedent that would allow the law to be abused. It could end up being used as a weapon by people who simply hate an individual and want to harm them.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Did he give her a Benadryl or a Quaalude? I think I read that in this particular case, he gave the woman 1 1/2 Benadryl. If that is true, then I would slam my hand on the table emphatically and declare, "Not guilty! He got off. He got off scott free for all of 'em!" and I would shake my head. And sigh. Deep sighs.

But seriously, I don't think this case is strong. Could not convict.
 
sprinkles said:
I think he should go but fortunately the law doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Sending people to prison without hard evidence would set a precedent that would allow the law to be abused. It could end up being used as a weapon by people who simply hate an individual and want to harm them.
Click to expand...

It's not "hard evidence" here, it's "reasonable doubt".
 
So what would constitute "hard evidence" or a "strong enough case" for you guys? Can you be more specific? A video of him stripping and banging an inert victim maybe? Because that kind of thing could be totally staged.
 
From what I know, and I don't know a bunch, this is one person's word against another's. Cosby should be judged only for this case, not his other alleged molestations and abuses of power (I had to put alleged. *eye roll*). He didn't use Quaaludes in this case; yes, he did in others, but not in this case. I do not believe Benadryl affected this lady as she described. I don't know what happened, really. I mean, it's been a long time, events and facts are accidentally distorted, there's no physical evidence. I think he's a rapist, and he very well may have raped her. But the evidence is just storytelling, as I hear it.

I couldn't have convicted Casey Anthony for 1st degree murder, either. The prosecution can't just rely on how situations appear. "Hell, come on, you know it had to be that way!" makes sense rationally. To take away another's freedom, though, that should be a hell of an uphill battle. Concrete, hard facts needed, or else the likely guilty person walks. The prosecution knows they have the burden of proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top