Jury finds Bill Cosby guilty on all charges in sex assault retrial

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**

cuda1179 wrote:
That and the event possibly didn't occur at the time the prosecution said it did. If that's true, it puts it just past the statutes of limitations, and thus Cosby would be unprosecutable, even if he admitted to it.

Boy, that sure seems like a pretty important point for Cosby's highly paid defense teams to have managed to miss... in two seperate trials.

~~What is your source for this?~~ source

**jhe90**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well about half the world doesn't have extradition treaties with the US, that's quite a few.

OK.. True but would a country shelter a man who a convicted rapist, drugged woman, and more. Like come on. Would anyone offer mercy.

Hell no. Even if no treaty, id be kicking them to the door where they can go to there concrete box.

**reds8n**

well..

https://embassy-finder.com/ecuador_in_usa

**Disciple of Fate**

jhe90 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well about half the world doesn't have extradition treaties with the US, that's quite a few.

OK.. True but would a country shelter a man who a convicted rapist, drugged woman, and more. Like come on. Would anyone offer mercy.

Hell no. Even if no treaty, id be kicking them to the door where they can go to there concrete box.

While I applaud the idealism, let me give a historic example. Klaas Carel Faber, Dutch SS-er and employed by the Sicherheitsdienst as one of their worst employees. When the war ended the Netherlands sentenced him to death. All good right?

Now comes the terrible part. He managed to escape prison in 1952 and fled to West-Germany. Because of his membership of the Waffen-SS he was automatically granted citizenship and extradition thereby became forbidden. The Simon Wiesenthal centre named him the most wanted Nazi war criminal in 2011-2012. The Dutch state tried to get him extradited again in 2010, which Germany resisted until 2012, the year he died in a German hospital a free man. Out of four Dutch war criminals that fled to Germany only one was eventually put on trial.

Plenty of countries have provided sanctuary to far worse. Cosby is mere peanuts compared to some of the monsters out there who lived out quiet lives.

**jhe90**

reds8n wrote:well..

https://embassy-finder.com/ecuador_in_usa

Disciple of Fate wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well about half the world doesn't have extradition treaties with the US, that's quite a few.

OK.. True but would a country shelter a man who a convicted rapist, drugged woman, and more. Like come on. Would anyone offer mercy.

Hell no. Even if no treaty, id be kicking them to the door where they can go to there concrete box.

While I applaud the idealism, let me give a historic example. Klaas Carel Faber, Dutch SS-er and employed by the Sicherheitsdienst as one of their worst employees. When the war ended the Netherlands sentenced him to death. All good right?

Now comes the terrible part. He managed to escape prison in 1952 and.fled to West-Germany. Because of his membership of the Waffen-SS he was automatically granted citizenship and extradition thereby became forbidden. The Simon Wiesenthal centre named him the most wanted Nazi war criminal in 2011-2012. The Dutch state tried to get him extradited again in 2010, which Germany resisted until 2012, the year he died in a German hospital a free man.

They already got one permanent house guest, I'm sure they Don, t nerd or want to add a pervert on top.. They cannot get rid of the one have already!

True. That is a tricky case...
Though embarisment in modern media age might leverage someone to be in a tricky spot regarding what to do with your unwanted guest.

**cuda1179**

Let's not forget Roman Polanski. He fully admitted to drugging a 12 year-old and forcibly raping her. He then fled to Europe and has been free since.

Maybe all Cosby has to do is make an Oscar worthy movie, then he can have Natalie Portman and Richard Gear support his non-punishment.

**Disciple of Fate**

Well I hope we don't forget about Polanski, as I mentioned him on the previous page

**cuda1179**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well I hope we don't forget about Polanski, as I mentioned him on the previous page

That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.

Seriously though, if there is any merit at all to Cosby's claim that this incident took place a month or more earlier than the prosecutor claim (and there is evidence) then he could very well walk. Really though, even the Prosecutor stated they don't know the exact date it took place, nor could the victim remember. They arbitrarily estimated it to be just on this side of the statute of limitations.

**Disciple of Fate**

cuda1179 wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well I hope we don't forget about Polanski, as I mentioned him on the previous page

That's true, sorry, I forgot you mentioned him. I do find it hilariously hypocritical of many famous people that are denouncing Cosby, while also supporting Polanski.

Seriously though, if there is any merit at all to Cosby's claim that this incident took place a month or more earlier than the prosecutor claim (and there is evidence) then he could very well walk. Really though, even the Prosecutor stated they don't know the exact date it took place, nor could the victim remember. They arbitrarily estimated it to be just on this side of the statute of limitations.

People aren't always the most rational, famous people run all levels of intelligence just like us. Polanski is very good at his profession, which is why he still has many fans and supporters. But just because he is good at what he does shouldn't mean people get to ignore the crimes he commits. But there are so many examples of people committing crimes and being protected and defended by the people around them, just because that person brings home the bacon, awards, medals etc etc. Unlike the wider MeToo movement Polanski is a bit of an odd case. Everybody keeps bringing it up, he's never going to be extradited and his victim keeps being dragged back in. I think the victim's attitude (that he made a mistake and he 's paid for it etc.) towards it now makes it easier for people to justify defending Polanski to themselves. Attitudes towards Polanski might still shift in the aftermath of MeToo, but they better shift quick because he might croak at any moment.

As for Cosby's claim, I don't think it holds that much merit. Why has he only brought it up now? It comes across as a stalling tactic. Cosby is old, a few years of legal back and forth might just see him die in his own bed, which is what I assume they are aiming at right about now.

**Ouze**

I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.

**Disciple of Fate**

True, but he is a good example of someone famous managing to evade justice. Granted Cosby doesn't really have another country to run to like Polanski did.

**Orlanth**

Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.

Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender

**Disciple of Fate**

Orlanth wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.

Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender

Not to rain on your "age checking" parade, but Polanski had asked the mother of the girl if he could do a photo shoot with her. Not only that, apparently he made her pose topless for the first shoot. And then second time he raped her.

But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess

**Dreadwinter**

Orlanth wrote:
Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.

Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender

Yeah, you do not ever get sympathy passes for rape. It doesn't matter what dark things are happening in your life. You never, under any circumstances, get a fething sympathy pass for rape. Holy feth.

**Bookwrack**

Orlanth wrote:
Cosby is on suicide leave as opposed to suicide watch. It is interesting that a man who is extremely likely to receive sentencing sufficient to ensure he dies in prison is home on bail post conviction. This is extremely unusual.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would ever defend Roman Polanski, but that seems like a whole other thread.

Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull.

She was 13. You don't accidentally get 'jailbaited' by a 13 year old.

**Peregrine**

On top of that Polanski drugged and raped her after she said 'no'. This is not a case of "seriously officer, she said she was 18", it was rape regardless of her age. And it amazes me that people will defend him over it.

**Orlanth**

Ok. So there was allegedly more to the case than I was aware of. Or alternately there have been forty years of Chinese whispers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:

She was 13. You don't accidentally get 'jailbaited' by a 13 year old.

Actually that happens more often than you might think. 15-17 is way more common but 13 can happen.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess

There is a lot of spin and rumour on the Polanski case, a lot of he said she said and a lot has been embellished over time. We simply don't know what is true and what is hype. There is enough discrepancy that multiple extradition attempts have failed, and European countries don't harbour rapists without reason.

The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

**Disciple of Fate**

Orlanth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

But good luck with your sympathy pass on raping a 13 year old I guess

There is a lot of spin and rumour on the Polanski case, a lot of he said she said and a lot has been embellished over time. We simply don't know what is true and what is hype. There is enough discrepancy that multiple extradition attempts have failed, and European countries don't harbour rapists without reason.

The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying

And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.

The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.

**Orlanth**

Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying

Decades later. Pople can easily convince themselves of details about events in their youth. It is unsafe evidence.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.

Actually that doesn't happen. the Germans comply with Nazi hunters, they don't have much choice, and prosecute cases that even the Israelis consider unsound prosecutions. However smart Nazis dont advertise their crimes, you have to find them.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.

Just plain humane. Do you have to any idea about how horribly and messily Sharon Tate died, and everything about the case was public? If that happened to someone you loved it would put you over the edge one way or another.
Consequences like this have been an effective moral defence, for good reason. This doesn't make any alleged action by Polanski acceptible, but it does mitigate some of his responsibility.

When you add that to an unsafe prosecution it is understandable why Swiss and French legal authorities have repeatedly refused extradition. France is not a legal la la land, they have justice there, and their legal system has said non to extradition, get over it.

You are just a random joe on 'the internets' who feels salty over Polanski. Those who have refused extradition are lawyers and prosecution services of established sovereign nations, with respect for rule of law. I'll take their expertise over yours.

**Disciple of Fate**

Orlanth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

You're just digging that hole deeper. What I mentioned is what the victim directly stated herself to a grand jury. But I guess the spin includes you thinking she might be lying

Decades later. Pople can easily convince themselves of details about events in their youth. It is unsafe evidence.

Decades later? You do realize her stating this to the grand jury was before Polanski had even been sentenced or fled the country? Spin indeed.

Orlanth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

And European countries have harboured far far worse for no reason. But if that's your defence I'd like to redirect you to my story above about (West-)Germany harboring a convicted Nazi war criminal from the Netherlands until his death in 2012.

Actually that doesn't happen. the Germans comply with Nazi hunters, they don't have much choice, and prosecute cases that even the Israelis consider unsound prosecutions. However smart Nazis dont advertise their crimes, you have to find them.

So that whole story that is independently verifiable by journalist of a convicted Nazi war criminal didn't happen. Man I wonder what it took to make that up, they even got the Jews involved!

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=8940085

Wiesenthal Center Urges Germany to Accede to Dutch European Arrest Warrant for Escaped Nazi Executioner Klaas Faber Living in Bavaria
November 25, 2010

Jerusalem – The Simon Wiesenthal Center today called upon the German authorities to accede to a Dutch European arrest warrant issued yesterday for the incarceration of escaped Dutch SS-executioner Klaas Faber, currently residing in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, who is currently third on the Center’s list of “Most Wanted” Nazi war criminals. In a statement issued today by its chief Nazi-hunter, Israel director Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Center noted that Faber, who was convicted in Holland for his role in the murder of 22 persons after the war, escaped in 1952 to Germany, which has hereto rejected Dutch extradition requests, since Faber was the beneficiary of the infamous “Fuhrer directive” of 1943 which granted automatic German citizenship to foreign Nazi collaborators.

According to Zuroff:

“We welcome this step by the Dutch government and urge the German authorities to arrest Faber immediately so that the can finally serve his well-deserved punishment. The fact that this murderer of so many innocent people has been protected by Germany for so many decades is a travesty and sends a message that even those convicted of multiple murders can escape justice. Faber’s victims, their families, and Dutch and German society deserve that he finally be punished for his crimes.”

Feel free to insert claims of spin now!

Orlanth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

The arbitrary notion of why people deserve sympathy is just plain weird.

Just plain humane. Do you have to any idea about how horribly and messily Sharon Tate died, and everything about the case was public? If that happened to someone you loved it would put you over the edge one way or another.
Consequences like this have been an effective moral defence, for good reason. This doesn't make any alleged action by Polanski acceptible, but it does mitigate some of his responsibility.

When you add that to an unsafe prosecution it is understandable why Swiss and French legal authorities have repeatedly refused extradition. France is not a legal la la land, they have justice there, and their legal system has said non to extradition, get over it.

You are just a random joe on 'the internets' who feels salty over Polanski. Those who have refused extradition are lawyers and prosecution services of established sovereign nations, with respect for rule of law. I'll take their expertise over yours.

Having something horrible happen to you doesn't give you carte blanche to commit horrible acts! How does that in any way mitigate responsibility. He willingly raped a 13 year old and then fled the country. And there is nothing alleged about it, the man got convicted

You do realize France was reexamining his extradition before he fled France too, because France thought maybe they shouldn't be downplaying this? France dropped public support for Polanski back in 2009. The only reason Polanski wasn't extradited from Switzerland in 2010 was because the US made a mistake in the request, not because the man is innocent..

Your claims are based on a lack of knowledge and frankly insane.

**skyth**

For what it's worth, He wasn't 'convicted'. Polanski accepted a plea deal. The judge decided to ignore the plea deal and hit him with the hammer so Polanski fled. It's been suggested that he wouldn't have to serve the sentence if he returned because of what the judge did.

But the judge ignoring the rule of law and acting as a vigilante is one of the reasons that he wasn't extradited.

Not saying that what Polanski did was acceptable. Especially since more accusations have surfaced. But there are reasons that he hasn't been extradited that would not apply to Cosby.

**Disciple of Fate**

Wasn't he convicted of sex with a minor as part of his plea deal?

Yeah the plea deal situation wasn't handled well, but man a plea deal that lets you walk away from raping a 13 year old wasn't much better.

Still though when it comes to Crosby, countries have declined extraditing far worse monsters.

**skyth**

Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yeah the plea deal situation wasn't handled well, but man a plea deal that lets you walk away from raping a 13 year old wasn't much better.
.

You can argue about whether the plea should have been offered or not. Once it's accepted in good faith, having a judge disregard it is beyond the pale. Still, this is not anywhere similar to the Cosby situation as he was actually convicted.

Wasn't he convicted of sex with a minor as part of his plea deal?

I don't count taking a plea deal as convicting someone. People take a plea deal for things they haven't done all the time.

**Disciple of Fate**

skyth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yeah the plea deal situation wasn't handled well, but man a plea deal that lets you walk away from raping a 13 year old wasn't much better.
.

You can argue about whether the plea should have been offered or not. Once it's accepted in good faith, having a judge disregard it is beyond the pale. Still, this is not anywhere similar to the Cosby situation as he was actually convicted.

Of course, that was extremely unprofessional and dangerous to the legal foundation of the whole justice system. Yet it is important to consider if the system isn't too lenient on certain individuals. Would the same have happened to run of the mill other man #1?

Different from Crosby of course. But this whole Polanski bit started off as a notion that somebody famous and recognizable couldn't be on the run, which arguably Polanski was and technically still is. Its possible Crosby could make a run for it, I have no idea how his financials look.

skyth wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Wasn't he convicted of sex with a minor as part of his plea deal?

I don't count taking a plea deal as convicting someone. People take a plea deal for things they haven't done all the time.

Doesn't this needlessly complicate things? People get convicted for being guilty by a jury while it laters turn out they are innocent frequently as well. Both rest on the presumption of guilt, while in neither case it has to be true. In that sense it wasn't "allegedly", he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old as part of his deal. I'm not saying convicted means 100% guilty because that's almost an impossible guarantee, convicted just means convicted.

Its the same line Cosby is running with now, that he got falsely convicted as guilty while the evidence isn't correct.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
For what it's worth, He wasn't 'convicted'. Polanski accepted a plea deal. The judge decided to ignore the plea deal and hit him with the hammer so Polanski fled. It's been suggested that he wouldn't have to serve the sentence if he returned because of what the judge did.

But the judge ignoring the rule of law and acting as a vigilante is one of the reasons that he wasn't extradited.

I don't think that's right...

The Judge don't HAVE to accept ANY plea deal as it's not always between the prosecutor and the defendant.

Not saying that what Polanski did was acceptable. Especially since more accusations have surfaced. But there are reasons that he hasn't been extradited that would not apply to Cosby.

He's famous and "with" powerfully connected people... THATS why he's in a place where extradition isn't possible.

**skyth**

If the judge isn't going to accept the plea deal that needs to be known before the guilty plea is entered not a surprise afterwords. Plus in this case the judge was setting the sentence for the crimes he was accused of which was way more than the crime he pleaded guilty to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I see a big difference between taking a plea deal as compared to going through the trial or just pleading guilty without a deal.

**Disciple of Fate**

skyth wrote:
If the judge isn't going to accept the plea deal that needs to be known before the guilty plea is entered not a surprise afterwords. Plus in this case the judge was setting the sentence for the crimes he was accused of which was way more than the crime he pleaded guilty to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I see a big difference between taking a plea deal as compared to going through the trial or just pleading guilty without a deal.

Fair is fair, I understand why you would have trouble with the term convicted with plea deals. Regardless though, in the case of Polanski he never denied the sex in itself, just the rape part.

**skyth**

Yeah. Not denying he did wrong and deserved to be punished. Like I said, it's possible (And in my opinion you should) take issue with the fact that a plea was offered. But justice has to work for everyone. You can't make exceptions for people who are accused of doing heinous things. Those people, especially, should have things work in an ordered and predictable manner. It's kind of the same thing as convictions being thrown out because evidence was collected illegally.

But getting things back on topic. Holding up Polanski as an example of 'rich famous person who fled and can't be extradited' to say that Cosby could get away with the same thing is not a good match. Cosby had an actual trial where the rules were followed.

**Disciple of Fate**

Well its a bit of semantics but the original argument was because they were famous and well recognized they couldn't run. Not exactly about the extradition. Cosby could just hide in a country without an extradition treaty. But at 80 I don't see him attempt it now, better keep appealing and stay home, who knows how long that might keep him out of prison.

**Peregrine**

Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.