The Cosby Trial 2017

[Littlelissa]

@Lurk
false allegations are a problem in any legal case (not to mention those involving celebrity).
But obviously there is no right alternative but to take allegations seriously and have right and proper due process within the legal process to be able to identify where each case lies and what is the truth.
Also you could say drugging someone is not 'proof' of rape but it has to be considered as part of the evidence in the trial- and could be incriminating given other circumstantial evidence. I do not know the facts of this particular case but am applying logic and reasoning to the information explained.

 

[Lurk]

false allegations are a problem in any legal case (not to mention those involving celebrity).
But obviously there is no right alternative but to take allegations seriously and have right and proper due process within the legal process to be able to identify where each case lies and what is the truth.
Also you could say drugging someone is not 'proof' of rape but it has to be considered as part of the evidence in the trial- and could be incriminating given other circumstantial evidence. I do not know the facts of this particular case but am applying logic and reasoning to the information explained.[/QUOTE]

That makes sense to me, esp. considering drugging as incriminating within a context.

Drugging alone, sans solid evidence elsewhere, had me scratching my head.

 

[invisible]

This thread is heated because there is an implicit assumption that every woman who claims Cosby raped or drugged her is telling the truth. Because rape victims are very frequently demeaned and outright slandered (suing for money, for example) -- insult upon injury -- we naturally want to take the alleged victims side. As in, kneejerk, shoot first, questions later.

Surely I don't need to point out why this could be a problem?

Umm, no?

I think the whole system is pretty heavily weighted towards assuming that the victim is not telling the truth, actually. She is put on the stand and there is no real limit to what she can be asked, personal aspects of her life that can't possibly bear any necessary relationship to the genuine merits of her account are placed under the most intense scrutiny.

I make no assumption about whether or not every woman is giving a precise and accurate account of what happened. Considering the stuff that's come out, I just find it quite ridiculously improbable that they're lying. I can't reasonably doubt.

What if I leap to a decision of guilt because I'm sick of seeing women being abused and exploited by men? Am I an Angel of Light?

I don't remember any talk to that effect. There was however quite a bit of talk to the effect that it was right to judge Cosby not guilty because it could have an effect on future trials.

This thread is like a lynch party. Hang 'em high! High on emotion, short on facts.

This thread is just a chat on an internet discussion forum.

 

[invisible]

That makes sense to me, esp. considering drugging as incriminating within a context.

Drugging alone, sans solid evidence elsewhere, had me scratching my head.

Well, you know, you just asked me what convinced me. I wasn't about to write an essay about it.

 

[invisible]

I go over this again in my mind. Cosby himself explained that he fed her drugs that would have a sedative effect on her for the purposes of being intimate with her. I ask myself, why does a woman need to be sedated in order to be intimate? For what reason would a man need to feed a woman medication in order for her to be relaxed enough to be sexual with him?

I consider this in light of her account that he raped her. I consider that he had made previous sexual advances on her that had not achieved her participation. I consider that he describes this relationship as "romantic" in which she had not participated and had been drugged in order to achieve intimacy. Her account sounds credible, while his, incredible and nonsensical, desperate and grasping. I have no reason to doubt her account. It's a reasonable account and it makes sense in light of his pitiful attempts at explanation.

 

[Littlelissa]

I agree drugging someone whatever the intent / reason given seems highly suspect.

 

[Lurk]

Well, you know, you just asked me what convinced me. I wasn't about to write an essay about it.

 

[Lurk]

I think the whole system is pretty heavily weighted towards assuming that the victim is not telling the truth, actually. She is put on the stand and there is no real limit to what she can be asked, personal aspects of her life that can't possibly bear any necessary relationship to the genuine merits of her account are placed under the most intense scrutiny.

I've already written that I agree with you on this point; BUT, it is also possible for an alleged victim to lie. Being a member of a frequently mistreated and disadvantaged group simply means Make absolutely certain these people are well-accommodated and treated fairly, because they are likely to be demeaned, ignored, or exploited. Now. Most, if not all, of Cosby's victims are exactly that, victims. However, anyone, from any group, can lie. I am speaking in generalities now, beyond Cosby.

Did this woman lie? Probably not! But aren't jurors supposed to come in with no bias? None?

And, if you came into that courtroom with no bias, would you be as quick to assume he was guilty?

This isn't hard to understand. I've attempted to reach out, etc. I'm sick of typing.

I make no assumption about whether or not every woman is giving a precise and accurate account of what happened. Considering the stuff that's come out, I just find it quite ridiculously improbable that they're lying. I can't reasonably doubt.

I agree when this is applied to Cosby, but my concern here is that Cosby is still (ridiculous as it is) supposed to be presumed innocent. This is actually a problem that is greater than one guy. The media does not make clear that a person is presumed innocent until found guilty.

How often is "allegedly" used in headlines? Sometimes, but not all the time.

I don't remember any talk to that effect. There was however quite a bit of talk to the effect that it was right to judge Cosby not guilty because it could have an effect on future trials.

Oh, I wasn't aware. That's alarming.

This thread is just a chat on an internet discussion forum.

*nods*

Indeed, you are correct.

To avoid confusion, I used the word "like."

Well, you know, you just asked me what convinced me. I wasn't about to write an essay about it.

Well, you certainly put me in my place.

I'll shut up and return to my corner.

 

[invisible]

I've already written that I agree with you on this point; BUT, it is also possible for an alleged victim to lie. Being a member of a frequently mistreated and disadvantaged group simply means Make absolutely certain these people are well-accommodated and treated fairly, because they are likely to be demeaned, ignored, or exploited. Now. Most, if not all, of Cosby's victims are exactly that, victims. However, anyone, from any group, can lie. I am speaking in generalities now, beyond Cosby.

Did this woman lie? Probably not! But aren't jurors supposed to come in with no bias? None?

And, if you came into that courtroom with no bias, would you be as quick to assume he was guilty?

This isn't hard to understand. I've attempted to reach out, etc. I'm sick of typing.



I agree when this is applied to Cosby, but my concern here is that Cosby

I've already written that I agree with you on this point; BUT, it is also possible for an alleged victim to lie. Being a member of a frequently mistreated and disadvantaged group simply means Make absolutely certain these people are well-accommodated and treated fairly, because they are likely to be demeaned, ignored, or exploited. Now. Most, if not all, of Cosby's victims are exactly that, victims. However, anyone, from any group, can lie. I am speaking in generalities now, beyond Cosby.

Did this woman lie? Probably not! But aren't jurors supposed to come in with no bias? None?

And, if you came into that courtroom with no bias, would you be as quick to assume he was guilty?

This isn't hard to understand. I've attempted to reach out, etc. I'm sick of typing.



I agree when this is applied to Cosby, but my concern here is that Cosby is still (ridiculous as it is) supposed to be presumed innocent. This is actually a problem that is greater than one guy. The media does not make clear that a person is presumed innocent until found guilty.

How often is "allegedly" used in headlines? Sometimes, but not all the time.





Oh, I wasn't aware. That's alarming.



*nods*

Indeed, you are correct.

To avoid confusion, I used the word "like."



Well, you certainly put me in my place.

I'll shut up and return to my corner.

What?

 

[Lurk]

What?

I'm new here, so it's possible I messed up the quotes, or you are just....?

Either way, I'm finished with this discussion.

 

[invisible]

I'm new here, so it's possible I messed up the quotes, or you are just....?

Either way, I'm finished with this discussion.

Am I just....? What?

If it's making you tired to reach out and you are tired of typing, then that's fine, let's not type anymore. I am glad to hear that you are finished with this discussion. It is good that we have resolved these things.

 

[invisible]

"I just shoved a few pills down her throat so she'd relax enough for me to penetrate her". Hahaha. Would I still be as fast to convict him, I hope so.

 

[Littlelissa]

From the victims point of view it is very difficult to prove something like this (being drugged and what exactly has happened to you) especially if alcohol was in the equations as well. If the victim blacks out, they literally wake up and don't know what took place. I have experience of this so I know. This experience illustrates to me how you can't prove a damned bloody thing if you have blacked out. Although I thought I might been spiked, I had no way of knowing it or for sure or being able to proving it.

 

[Happy Phantom]

No evidence, not enough evidence and waiting years after alleged event occurred is what the judge and jury are looking at. This is what @Lurk has been patiently trying to explain via typing words on an internet forum with virtual strangers.

The legal system is and always will be broken. William Kennedy Smith, OJ (initially) Ted Kennedy and Robert Wagner are just a few high profile cases that spring to mind. They all got off because they were famous and now so has Cosby.

From the victims point of view it is very difficult to prove something like this (being drugged and what exactly has happened to you) especially if alcohol was in the equations as well. If the victim blacks out, they literally wake up and don't know what took place. I have experience of this so I know. In my case I knew the person, and I found out what happened because I asked them, however this experience illustrates to me how you can't prove a damned bloody thing if you have blacked out.

Exactly. No solid evidence, legal or otherwise. The end. That is all.

 

[invisible]

I think that it's very difficult for me to approach this in the way that a "regular" person would because I have been surrounded by rape growing up. Mother's childhood rapes, also I witnessed her get raped by my Dad. No one would ever expect Dad to be a rapist, he is a well regarded and highly educated professional, and of course I love my Dad, except that for me there was no mistaking what I witnessed. So rape is kind of an "everyday" thing for me, anyone can do it. I wouldn't exactly describe myself as "emotional" about it, I just find it very easy to accept that women get raped all the time. I'm not like "Oh man, it's so unlikely that this could ever happen!" I'm more like "If the details all match up properly, then why not?"

I don't know how to put it, it's obvious to me that he raped her. His story about what happened is so ridiculous, I can't believe it for a second. If his story had not been so dreadful, I may have doubted what she said. But his story is part of the evidence, I can't pretend that he didn't say that he didn't drug her to relax her so that he could get intimate with her. She's like "You drugged me and raped me!" and he's like "I just drugged you so you would relax a little bit, so we could be intimate properly." How can I take that seriously? It's ridiculous. You can't take it seriously. How can you give that story credibility? "Oh, of course, this was in her best interests, you just wanted her to be able to chill out enough to enjoy your manly attentions properly." What the fuck? What kind of confirmation are you hoping for? You want him captured on film saying to her "Take these pills so I can take advantage of you"? That's not something that a rapist would ever say. A rapist would say something exactly like what Cosby said, which was like "See these 3 little pills? They're your friends. They're going to help you relax."

It's like this like... you know. "Now hang on a minute. I have to be careful that I don't get confused about these details, because there are a whole bunch of other women who are also saying that he drugged and raped them. I have to put those other women out of my mind, because due to legal convention, they are not permitted to enter my understanding." How am I supposed to just dismiss those other women from my mind? I am a human being. Those women exist to me, they're in my mind, I can't get them out of there. Whether I want them to be a part of my decision or not, they're going to be a part of it. I can't pretend that they don't exist. I know that they exist. They're real women, and I know that they're real. I can't pretend that they aren't there.

How do you even know the pills were Benadryl?

 

[invisible]

No evidence, not enough evidence and waiting years after alleged event occurred is what the judge and jury are looking at.

The judge and jury are not looking at "no evidence" or "not enough evidence". There was no point in this case in which "no evidence" or "not enough evidence" were given, there was only a point at which "available evidence" was given. Therefore, these people are looking at "available evidence" rather than "no evidence" or "not enough evidence".

This is what @Lurk has been patiently trying to explain via typing words on an internet forum with virtual strangers.

Thank you @Lurk for patiently typing words on an internet forum to virtual strangers. Please don't think that we don't appreciate your generosity in engaging with us. I just ask you to please not do it again if it is not something that you will get your own measurable benefit from. If it only rewards you with exhaustion, I urge you to please not do it. This is an internet forum, and participation is strictly voluntary. It is for your own enjoyment and benefit only. Please don't be patient for our sake. This place is not a work camp. Your participation is all about you and how you personally benefit. If it doesn't do anything for you to engage with particular or general members here, don't engage.

The legal system is and always will be broken. William Kennedy Smith, OJ (initially) Ted Kennedy and Robert Wagner are just a few high profile cases that spring to mind. They all got off because they were famous and now so has Cosby.

Rather a pessimistic view of society, wouldn't you say? Might as well down tools and forget all about trying to make the world a better place. Everything is destroyed! We cannot fix it! All is lost!

Exactly. No solid evidence, legal or otherwise. The end. That is all.

Precisely. There is nothing more to say. It is not possible to say more. Saying more is simply impossible. The available alternatives of saying more are all now lost. There is nowhere else to go. Don't say anything else. There is no legal stuff. No more disagreement on this topic. Do not disagree. Do not say anything else. The time to say things is over. You may not say more. This is final. Finis. Over. Curtain closes. Lights down. Leave now. Thank you for coming. The usher comes in to sweep up the ticket stubs. Bye. Goodbye. Bye-bye. Seeya. Adios. Get out.

 

[Lurk]

Thank you @Lurk for patiently typing words on an internet forum to virtual strangers. Please don't think that we don't appreciate your generosity in engaging with us. I just ask you to please not do it again if it is not something that you will get your own measurable benefit from. If it only rewards you with exhaustion, I urge you to please not do it. This is an internet forum, and participation is strictly voluntary. It is for your own enjoyment and benefit only. Please don't be patient for our sake. This place is not a work camp. Your participation is all about you and how you personally benefit. If it doesn't do anything for you to engage with particular or general members here, don't engage.

Listen to me. Never, ever speak to me like that again.

You appear to be a condescending, insufferable person -- one who is also apparently unable to apply rudimentary logic to a situation that has an emotional impact on you, however indirect.

(BTW, what evidence convinced you exactly?)

Leave me alone. This is a formal, public request. Back off, don't mention me, don't address me...leave me alone.

 

[Happy Phantom]

The judge and jury are not looking at "no evidence" or "not enough evidence". There was no point in this case in which "no evidence" or "not enough evidence" were given, there was only a point at which "available evidence" was given. Therefore, these people are looking at "available evidence" rather than "no evidence" or "not enough evidence".

Fair enough. Available/not enough. Tomayto/tomahto.

Thank you @Lurk for patiently typing words on an internet forum to virtual strangers. Please don't think that we don't appreciate your generosity in engaging with us. I just ask you to please not do it again if it is not something that you will get your own measurable benefit from. If it only rewards you with exhaustion, I urge you to please not do it. This is an internet forum, and participation is strictly voluntary. It is for your own enjoyment and benefit only. Please don't be patient for our sake. This place is not a work camp. Your participation is all about you and how you personally benefit. If it doesn't do anything for you to engage with particular or general members here, don't engage.

Looking at this from an unbiased standpoint, it appears to me as one INTP's opinion on the subject matter and one INFJ's opinion, which I think is a good thing if we're bringing MBTI types together for discussions on this forum. I view this as a learning experience. I personally don't have to agree with everyone, however I often like to step outside of myself and view things from another person's perspective.

Rather a pessimistic view of society, wouldn't you say? Might as well down tools and forget all about trying to make the world a better place. Everything is destroyed! We cannot fix it! All is lost!

That's not what I said. I don't speak binary. I simply stated how I think how our broken legal system typically works.

Precisely. There is nothing more to say. It is not possible to say more. Saying more is simply impossible. The available alternatives of saying more are all now lost. There is nowhere else to go. Don't say anything else. There is no legal stuff. No more disagreement on this topic. Do not disagree. Do not say anything else. The time to say things is over. You may not say more. This is final. Finis. Over. Curtain closes. Lights down. Leave now. Thank you for coming. The usher comes in to sweep up the ticket stubs. Bye. Goodbye. Bye-bye. Seeya. Adios. Get out.

I understand your feelings regarding this subject and I stated early on in this thread that he should be held accountable for his actions. Burn him at the stake. He probably should be hung, drawn and quartered. I think he's a vile pig. That being said, we can all once again thank our fucked up legal system. And I'm all ears as to how we can fix this outside of voting.

 

[invisible]

Listen to me. Never, ever speak to me like that again.

You appear to be a condescending, insufferable person -- one who is also apparently unable to apply rudimentary logic to a situation that has an emotional impact on you, however indirect.

(BTW, what evidence convinced you exactly?)

Leave me alone. This is a formal, public request. Back off, don't mention me, don't address me...leave me alone.

Would you like me to reply to your "BTW" request? Or should I not reply to it?

 

[Sloe Djinn]

If they're going to be judged as guilty then whether or not that outcome would hurt society shouldn't be a consideration in that. It's extraneous to that judgment.

Right. I'm not saying that it should be a consideration in the case that the person is deemed to be guilty by a given juror who is genuinely convinced by available evidence. I'm saying that it should be a consideration in the case that a person is deemed to be guilty by a given juror who is not quite convinced of the evidence but chooses to jump to the conclusion of guilt regardless, for example, "Because I think he's a creep and I bet he did it at some point, even if not in this case."

The jury is supposed to be impartial, and are therefore supposed to disregard whatever is not presented directly by the prosecution/defense. As such, the number of accusers and their accounts may not be applicable depending on what each side presented.

As far as I know, "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the jurors' estimation of defendant's guilt, not of the plaintiff's accusation. You may be right that this is weighted against the accuser.