Arrest warrant issued for Bill Cosby

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

This doesn't seem to have yet hit US MSM sites yet, so DailyMail it is:

Bill Cosby charged with sexual assault: Comedian to appear in court over attack on woman he 'drugged at his mansion in 2004'
By CHRIS SPARGO FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 10:00 EST, 30 December 2015 | UPDATED: 10:24 EST, 30 December 2015

An arrest warrant has been issued for Bill Cosby for the sexual assault of Andrea Constand.

Cosby is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting Constand at his mansion in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania in January 2004 while she was an employee at Temple University.

The 78-year-old comedian previously said under oath that he had consensual sexual contact with Constand.

A previous district attorney declined to charge Cosby in 2005.

Cosby will be arraigned at 4pm Wednesday afternoon in Elkins Parks on a charge of aggravated indecent assault.

Constand, the former director of operations for Temple's women's basketball team, launched her legal suit against Cosby, a man she called her 'mentor', in March 2005.

Now 42, she said she first met Cosby, a Temple alum, in November 2002 and the pair became friends and she was a frequent guest at dinner parties at his home.

Authorities in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, followed up with an investigation, but in February 2005, they declined to press criminal charges due to a lack of evidence.

Cosby settled that sexual abuse lawsuit for undisclosed terms in 2006.

After the lawsuit became public earlier this year, Constand tweeted out 'YES!' followed soon after by 'SIR!'

Cosby meanwhile released his own statement.

'The only reason Mr Cosby settled was because it would have been embarrassing in those days to put all those women on the stand and his family had no clue,' his camp said in a statement.
'That would have been very hurtful.'

Glad to see he's finally going to see some criminal charges. False allegations of rape are statistically nearly nonexistent, so I'd be a fool not to believe these women, but even if 90% of them are making it up - which I can't imagine anyone can claim with a straight face - that's still like 5 rapes.

There are running updates in this thread at Jezebel, which reports it was actually NBC which broke it. The Jezebel link is actually better but I'll leave this one as is anyway.

**whembly**

Good.

These ladies need their day in court.

<must.resist.clinton.snark>

**Dreadclaw69**

Glad to hear that he is finally being charged.

**curran12**

Can someone more experienced explain to me how statue of limitations works in this instance?

**KaptinBadrukk**

Good. In freshman year, we had a humor day in health class, and watched a comedy by Bill Cosby. I have to say I didn't like it very much.

**Ouze**

curran12 wrote:
Can someone more experienced explain to me how statue of limitations works in this instance?

It's not a factor in this case.

The statute of limitations varies wildly by state and by crime. Murder famously has no statute of limitations nearly universally, for example. In New Jersey, there also is no statue of limitations on sexual assault*. In other states, recognizing that sometimes victims of sexual assault will not remember the assault due to age or pyschological factors, the clock starts ticking when the victim first is aware of the assault.

In this specific case, the assault allegedly occurred in January 2004, and Pennsylvania has a 12 year statute of limitations. The police once had a case and closed it for lack of evidence, and then he settled a civil case out of court - which doesn't preclude criminal charges of course for this victim. The Jezebel article indicates there is "new evidence" of which is not expanded upon which caused this case to be reopened.

*which is IMO appropriate, there is no reason that sexual assault should have a statue of limitations, none.

**Chute82**

curran12 wrote:
Can someone more experienced explain to me how statue of limitations works in this instance?

I believe they said its 12 years here in PA and if the DA didn't file charges quick time was running out in weeks. I glad they finally got this sick bastard

**easysauce**

Hopefully they start holding all celebrities and figures of power to the same standards as us plebs.

For instance Bill Clinton was accused multiple times of rape and also settled outside of court in at least one case.

It would be nice to see them all have their day in court and less sweeping of this sort of thing under the rug along with all the other homicides/rapes/ect that our nobility seem to get away with.

**Ouze**

Stop trying to make fetch happen. It's not going to happen.

**easysauce**

Why not?

Idiocracy already went from comedy to painfully accurate documentary.

If not fletch, can we at least make canadian bacon a real thing?

**motyak**

What does Canadian Bacon or Idiocracy have to do with Bill Cosby? I'm not too familiar with either movie. If you have a reason it is relevant shoot me a PM and I'll let you know if it's really worth discussing here

**Relapse**

motyak wrote:
What does Canadian Bacon or Idiocracy have to do with Bill Cosby? I'm not too familiar with either movie. If you have a reason it is relevant shoot me a PM and I'll let you know if it's really worth discussing here

I think he misunderstood fetch for Fletch and started bringing in other movie titles. Fetch is oddly enough, a very common phrase here in Utah for decades.

**motyak**

Thanks for that

Now we've figured it out, let's head back to the main topic

**Steve steveson**

easysauce wrote:
Hopefully they start holding all celebrities and figures of power to the same standards as us plebs.

For instance Bill Clinton was accused multiple times of rape and also settled outside of court in at least one case.

It would be nice to see them all have their day in court and less sweeping of this sort of thing under the rug along with all the other homicides/rapes/ect that our nobility seem to get away with.

Hopefully this will have the same effect as the Jimmy Savil case has in the UK, with people starting to talk and investigations being started and not dismissed so quickly because of fame.

**jhe90**

Steve steveson wrote:
easysauce wrote:
Hopefully they start holding all celebrities and figures of power to the same standards as us plebs.

For instance Bill Clinton was accused multiple times of rape and also settled outside of court in at least one case.

It would be nice to see them all have their day in court and less sweeping of this sort of thing under the rug along with all the other homicides/rapes/ect that our nobility seem to get away with.

Hopefully this will have the same effect as the Jimmy Savil case has in the UK, with people starting to talk and investigations being started and not dismissed so quickly because of fame.

Also had as negative.
There's been a witch hunt of some. Some rather less solid accusations have caused alot of hurt.

There needs to be a balance

**Breotan**

The more Cosby's attorney speaks, the lower my opinion of the man becomes. :/

**SagesStone**

Breotan wrote:
The more Cosby's attorney speaks, the lower my opinion of the man becomes. :/

Cosby or the attorney?

**Breotan**

n0t_u wrote:
Breotan wrote:
The more Cosby's attorney speaks, the lower my opinion of the man becomes. :/

Cosby or the attorney?

Heh... Cosby. Nothing either of them have said can be construed as "moral high ground".

**LuciusAR**

jhe90 wrote:

Also had as negative.
There's been a witch hunt of some. Some rather less solid accusations have caused alot of hurt.

There needs to be a balance

I agree, the post Savile series of investigations have been largely fruitless and dragged a large number of peoples names through the mud for no good reason.

The only genuine abusers now behind bars as a result are Hall and Harris. Dave Lee Travis' conviction was dodgy to say the least (It would never have made it to court outside of the context of savile) and Davidson, Starr and recently Dr Fox all ended up being cleared but only after having suffered huge a huge financial and professional cost.

Who whole thing strikes me an attempt to save face after failing to catch Savile.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Interesting article on the Cosby case here: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cosby-showtrial-is-the-accuser-holy-now/17766#.VopbExPnnIU

If Cosby is guilty, then he deserves to rot in jail, but the author makes the point that this Cosby trial is in danger of turning into a witchhunt, and that Cosby may not get a fair trial, which should concern anybody who believes in due process and all that.

Innocent until proven guilty seems to have went out the window.

key quotes for anybody who doesn't wade through that article:

The effect of this rush to judgement is compounded by the complexity of the Cosby case. The truth of the allegations against him is far from clear. In 2004, Constand accused Cosby of drugging and fondling her. She claimed that Cosby had been a ‘mentor’ to her and that she had attended his property on numerous occasions. On two of these occasions, she claims, Cosby urged her to drink wine and take pills until she was unable to move. Cosby then sexually assaulted her. Unusually, Constand accepts that after these two alleged assaults she returned to Cosby’s address on a friendly basis, a fact that his lawyers have pointed to as ‘significant’.

The district attorney at the time decided not to pursue any criminal case, on the basis that there was no credible material upon which to found a prosecution. Constand brought a civil case against Cosby, which he settled in November 2006. The evidence that Cosby supplied in these civil proceedings has now been unsealed by those investigating the criminal case. In that evidence, Cosby conceded to ‘offering women Quaaludes’ prior to sexual acts. He maintains that this was consensual and that Quaaludes (strong sedatives) were not nearly as unusual in the past as they are now.

The decision to prosecute Cosby is further complicated by the process of selecting prosecuting lawyers in the US. In the US, district attorneys are elected. The original attorney who decided against prosecuting Cosby was replaced by a new incumbent who had campaigned on the basis that he would prosecute Cosby. In an interview with CBS, Cosby’s lawyer argued that the district attorney prosecuting Cosby was ‘hungry’ and keen to ‘follow up on a campaign promise’. In Cosby’s case, evidence that was first deemed to be unreliable has been rendered more credible by a different lawyer, in light of new evidence that has emerged since the primary evidence was first considered. In other words, the key evidence has been deemed more reliable based on Cosby’s own concessions and the allegations of other women. While there is likely to be significant disagreement as to whether the new allegations should go before a jury, the protracted media showtrial against Cosby means it will be hard to find any juror who does not know about the new allegations.

As the author says, it's a complex case, and rushing to judgment only harms the justice system, IMO.

**Polonius**

No offense, but that's no a particularly interesting or insightful article. It's written from a painfully obvious bias that actually detracts from pointing a few genuine problems.

First, the fact that a woman would maintain a relationship with a man that raped her is not significant. It's pretty common for acquaintance rape (or incest), and says more about their relationship prior to the alleged events than it does about the events.

That said, rape trials are notorious for becoming He said/She said contests, with the only useful evidence being anything that can bolster or limit the credibility of the only real witness: the victim. Given that criminal trials required 12 people to all agree to convict, all the defense needs to do is convince one person of 12 that the victim is making it all up.

Cosby is going to fight full throttle, because time is on his side. He's 78, with plenty of money. He doesn't need to be acquitted, he just needs to stay out of jail for a few more years.

And yes, there have been witch hunts and bursts of hysteria, but it's tough to look at literally dozens of accusations and attribute them all to some sort of psychosis.

**Buttery Commissar**

How's the public attitude towards the fella over there these days? It seemed a sort of amused disbelief a couple years back when this stuff first reared its head. I'm curious, has it changed?

**Ouze**

As the list of accusers slowly began to exceed the number of players on an entire NFL team, it became increasingly difficult for the American public to disbelieve.

**Chongara**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
How's the public attitude towards the fella over there these days? It seemed a sort of amused disbelief a couple years back when this stuff first reared its head. I'm curious, has it changed?

The general mood I've observed is that he is already considered guilty and a trial at this point is viewed as something along the lines of an inconvenient formality.

**hotsauceman1**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
How's the public attitude towards the fella over there these days? It seemed a sort of amused disbelief a couple years back when this stuff first reared its head. I'm curious, has it changed?

Its more like all his older stuff is tainted. I dont believe that, but I know stuff like TV land has removed the cosby show from the lineup.
It mostly obseved that he is guilty, but that is the problem with how we treat sexual assault, if enough people yell, its a forgone conclusion that it happened.

**jreilly89**

Chongara wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
How's the public attitude towards the fella over there these days? It seemed a sort of amused disbelief a couple years back when this stuff first reared its head. I'm curious, has it changed?

The general mood I've observed is that he is already considered guilty and a trial at this point is viewed as something along the lines of an inconvenient formality.

That's my biggest concern. If he's guilty, then he deserves all the punishment according to law, but if he's not and he just gets charged and sentenced because enough people said he did it, then I've lost faith in the legal system. Innocent until proven guilty and all.

**Chongara**

jreilly89 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
How's the public attitude towards the fella over there these days? It seemed a sort of amused disbelief a couple years back when this stuff first reared its head. I'm curious, has it changed?

The general mood I've observed is that he is already considered guilty and a trial at this point is viewed as something along the lines of an inconvenient formality.

That's my biggest concern. If he's guilty, then he deserves all the punishment according to law, but if he's not and he just gets charged and sentenced because enough people said he did it, then I've lost faith in the legal system. Innocent until proven guilty and all.

The issue is that a presumption of Innocence is at least to some extent an assumption of the accusers being liars or at minimum mistaken. That's something that is a best complicated for people given the current broader cultural discussion around sexual assault that's been going on these days.

I mean just check the OP:

Glad to see he's finally going to see some criminal charges. False allegations of rape are statistically nearly nonexistent, so I'd be a fool not to believe these women, but even if 90% of them are making it up - which I can't imagine anyone can claim with a straight face - that's still like 5 rapes.

You'd be a fool to be framing this as "Is he guilty?" instead of " He is guilty. How many more than the bare minimum of 5 is he guilty of?". Either we must fill juries with fools, we must disbelieve accusers by default, or we must presume guilt until innocence is proven. I'm not sure anyone is comfortable with any of those options.

**Ouze**

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.

**hotsauceman1**

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

**Ouze**

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