Ouze wrote:
Well, that's your assumption. The prosecution says they have new information which was not previously available; which has not yet been released.

 Ouze wrote:
While I wouldn't be able to convict him until I've heard the evidence, I nonetheless feel like I'm free to draw my own conclusions on a personal level from what is already publicly known.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ah, there does lie the issue of how to treat his material if he is found guilty. His media work is no less valid or enjoyable for his crimes (a painting can be beautiful even when created by a bastard)...
But when this arose in the UK with Rolf Harris who was found guilty of sexual crimes against children, many people felt their childhood and memories were violated and sullied.

I settled on the thought that Harris in this case has two personas, the stage act and the private life. Being taken in by the acting and enjoying it is completely acceptable.
I mean I wouldn't play his music at a public kids' disco, but I'm not about to burn his CDs or books.

 d-usa wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ah, there does lie the issue of how to treat his material if he is found guilty. His media work is no less valid or enjoyable for his crimes (a painting can be beautiful even when created by a bastard)...
But when this arose in the UK with Rolf Harris who was found guilty of sexual crimes against children, many people felt their childhood and memories were violated and sullied.

I settled on the thought that Harris in this case has two personas, the stage act and the private life. Being taken in by the acting and enjoying it is completely acceptable.
I mean I wouldn't play his music at a public kids' disco, but I'm not about to burn his CDs or books.

I think part of the problem is that for many people Cosby was a voice of morality in the black community, including the lessons of his TV shows.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ah, there does lie the issue of how to treat his material if he is found guilty. His media work is no less valid or enjoyable for his crimes (a painting can be beautiful even when created by a bastard)...
But when this arose in the UK with Rolf Harris who was found guilty of sexual crimes against children, many people felt their childhood and memories were violated and sullied.

I settled on the thought that Harris in this case has two personas, the stage act and the private life. Being taken in by the acting and enjoying it is completely acceptable.
I mean I wouldn't play his music at a public kids' disco, but I'm not about to burn his CDs or books.

I think part of the problem is that for many people Cosby was a voice of morality in the black community, including the lessons of his TV shows.

Ah crap, that is definitely a mindfuck for anyone emotionally invested.
I don't know anything about Cosby outside of him being a "safe" family entertainer and wearing sweaters.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That certainly is your right, but its a problem when charges are only brought because of public pressure and not evidence.

 d-usa wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Ah, there does lie the issue of how to treat his material if he is found guilty. His media work is no less valid or enjoyable for his crimes (a painting can be beautiful even when created by a bastard)...
But when this arose in the UK with Rolf Harris who was found guilty of sexual crimes against children, many people felt their childhood and memories were violated and sullied.

I settled on the thought that Harris in this case has two personas, the stage act and the private life. Being taken in by the acting and enjoying it is completely acceptable.
I mean I wouldn't play his music at a public kids' disco, but I'm not about to burn his CDs or books.

I think part of the problem is that for many people Cosby was a voice of morality in the black community, including the lessons of his TV shows.

Ah crap, that is definitely a mindfuck for anyone emotionally invested.
I don't know anything about Cosby outside of him being a "safe" family entertainer and wearing sweaters.

His early stuff and stand-up was pretty raw and rough and really not at all like what his later work ended up being like (Mother, Juggs & Speed is a good example of that). But his later stuff was more focused on him being a good role model and a lot of his talks and writings are about morals, communities, parenthood. Lots of stuff along the lines of this: http://www.rense.com/general82/ana.htm

For many it's like watching a pastor or trusted teacher being accused of these crimes.

 d-usa wrote:
His message is still valid, and really doesn't become less important even if he is a predator that took advantage of his celebrity status and persona. But if the messenger is tainted people often discard the message, no matter how valid it may be.

Bill Cosby wins in Pennsylvania court; defamation lawsuit dismissed

(CNN)It was a win for Bill Cosby in court on Thursday.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania sided with the disgraced comedian and granted Cosby's motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit, according to court records.

Renita Hill, one of the more than 50 women who have publicly accused Cosby of assault, filed the civil suit in October alleging that the actor and his lawyer defamed Hill in the media, court records show.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab dismissed the three claims against Cosby, ruling that the statements "do not support a claim for defamation as defined by Pennsylvania law," according to the ruling.

Email may derail case against Bill Cosby

Hill's claims of defamation cite three instances in which Cosby and his team said the accusers needed to be fact-checked.

In November 2014, following Hill's public accusation of rape, Cosby and his lawyer told The Washington Post that the women coming forward had "unsubstantiated, fantastical stories."

That same day, Cosby declined to respond to the "innuendos" being made about him to Florida Today, stating that "people should fact-check."

Shortly afterward, the comedian's wife, Camille Cosby, wrote a letter to The Washington Post claiming that news organizations failed to "vet" her husband's accusers.

In the ruling Thursday, Schwab found no grounds for defamation, writing that the multiple claims were "pure opinion" and a "far cry from labeling [Hill] (and the other women who have made similar public assertions) as liars or extortionists."

"None of the facts alleged by [Hill] supported her claims for defamation, false light, or intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law," Cosby's lawyers said in a statement after the ruling. "It is our hope that courts in other jurisdictions with similar matters will respond in like manner."

Hill's lawyer said the decision will be appealed.

"We are disappointed, but remain committed to seeking justice in this matter. We strongly disagree with the judge's reasoning that Cosby's statements are constitutionally protected opinions," George Kontos, Renita Hill's lawyer, told CNN.

Opinion: How strong is the criminal case against Cosby?

Cosby is in the middle of a litany of lawsuits, ranging from defamation to sexual assault, with several women who have publicly accused the actor of drugging and sexual assault.

In December, a Pennsylvania district attorney charged the comedian with "aggravated indecent assault" for the 2004 alleged sexual attack on Andrea Constand.

Cosby's lawyers say that case is "unjustified."

Cosby loses bid to dismiss sex-assault case
Updated: FEBRUARY 3, 2016 — 6:28 PM EST
by Laura McCrystal and Jeremy Roebuck, STAFF WRITERS.

A Montgomery County judge on Wednesday rejected Bill Cosby's motion to dismiss his sex assault case, ruling that a promise from the county's former district attorney was not legally binding and didn't bar prosecutors from ever bringing charges against the comedian over an alleged 2004 attack.


The ruling by Common Pleas Court Judge Steven T. O'Neill, after a two-day hearing, means the first criminal case filed against Cosby can now proceed to a preliminary evidentiary hearing on March 8.

The 78-year-old comedian's lawyers could appeal, but did not immediately say Wednesday if they will.

The judge's decision capped a widely-watched proceeding focused largely on Cosby's claim that his arrest in December violated a 2005 decision by former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. not to charge him. At the time, Castor concluded that the evidenice was insufficient to prove Andrea Constand's claims that Cosby had drugged and sexually assaulted her at his Cheltenham mansion.

Castor said his public announcement that he was declining prosecution was meant to remove Cosby's incentive to plead the Fifth Amendment and ensure Constand could depose him for a civil case and possibly win a large judgement.

But Kevin Steele, the current district attorney who last summer helped revive the case, challenged Castor's testimony. He noted that Castor's account of his decision-making changed more than once, and he questioned why there was no proof of a non-prosecution deal.

"It's not reasonable to not have this in writing," Steele told the judge at one point on Wednesday. "A secret agreement that permits a wealthy defendant to buy his way out of a criminal case isn't right."

One of Cosby's attorneys countered that the oral agreement Castor described was sufficient.

"A promise of a prosecutor- even an oral promise -is one that is absolute, 100 percent enforceable," said Christopher Tayback.

O'Neill also denied a motion by Cosby's lawyers to disqualify Steele or his office from prosecuting the case. The defense contended Steele's decision to charge Cosby was political, and that he had used an implied promise of prosecution to get elected last year.

But even as he rejected their arguments, O'Neill offered a glimpse of another strategy Cosby's lawyers may consider in an attempt to blunt the charges. He said if the case moves toward a trial, they could move to suppress Cosby's 2006 deposition, portions of which were released last summer and became a building block in the current case.

In it, Cosby acknowledged acquiring quaaludes with the intent of using them in consensual sexual encounters with women.

The hearing was the first major proceeding in Cosby's case, the only prosecution he faces despite similar claims by dozens of women nationwide. Scores of reporters crammed two coutrooms and heard two days of testimony not about the alleged attack, but what happened when Constand first reported it.

Castor told the judge inconsistencies in Constand's 2005 statements and the timing of her complaint - she waited a year and first called a civil lawyer before contacting police - convinced him that he couldn't win a conviction. He said that when he first declared he wouldn't pursue charges against Cosby, he was declaring none of his successors would, either.

"Mr. Cosby was not getting prosecuted at all - ever - as far as I was concerned," Castor said. "My belief was that I had the power to make such a statement."

Constand's lawyers have denied that they were aware or agreed to any such agreement, and she has filed a defamation suit against Castor for his remarks.

Now a Toronto resident, she didn't attend the proceeding, but her attorney took the stand for prosecutors on Wednesdsay.

Dolores Troiani testified that during settlment negotiations on the lawsuit, Cosby's lawyers wanted Constand to promise never to cooperate with a criminal investigation of him.

Ultimately, she said, Constand agreed only not to initiate any futher investigation of her claims. But she was free to cooperate if law enforcement contacted her. Other terms of her settlement, including any payout, have remained confidential.

Cosby spent much of the proceeding sitting quietly next to his lawyers. They have previously denied the allegations by Constand and dozens of other women nationwide, contending that any contact was consensual.

If convicted of aggravated indecent assault, he faces five to 10 years in prison.