|
Post by MattyJam on Jun 19, 2021 19:25:49 GMT
Not overly fussed by this. The readings from those tests aren't entirely reliable, which is why their results can't be used as evidence in court.
I guess. That tweet got a number of replies from anti-polygraph accounts, which makes you wonder what happened to these people that they run an entire account about the subject. I've heard differing accounts pertaining to polygraphs, some people say that statistically it is actually a very reliable tool, others dismiss it as a pseudo-science. I honestly don't know the truth, but to be fair, I guess I would be reluctant to take one if ever asked in case it gave a false reading.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Jun 19, 2021 21:09:17 GMT
Not overly fussed by this. The readings from those tests aren't entirely reliable, which is why their results can't be used as evidence in court.
I guess. That tweet got a number of replies from anti-polygraph accounts, which makes you wonder what happened to these people that they run an entire account about the subject. I've heard differing accounts pertaining to polygraphs, some people say that statistically it is actually a very reliable tool, others dismiss it as a pseudo-science. I honestly don't know the truth, but to be fair, I guess I would be reluctant to take one if ever asked in case it gave a false reading. I’m just surprised there’s dedicated Twitter accounts to that! Never woulda thunk.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Jun 30, 2021 19:48:46 GMT
So Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction has just been overturned by the supreme court because of a technicality (explanation here). You all know how everyone brings up OJ getting off when they talk about Michael? You know, to show “”celebrities get away with it””? Well, now they’re going to talk about that fucking dog of a rapist Bill Cosby too I bet. Great. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Jun 30, 2021 21:22:26 GMT
So Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction has just been overturned by the supreme court because of a technicality (explanation here). You all know how everyone brings up OJ getting off when they talk about Michael? You know, to show “”celebrities get away with it””? Well, now they’re going to talk about that fucking dog of a rapist Bill Cosby too I bet. Great. 🙄 I've noticed a lot of black people online seem to support Bill Cosby and believe he's innocent. I don't know too much about the ins and outs of his case (although I do recall Mesereau was on his defense team), but is there a legitimate argument to be made in his defense?
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jun 30, 2021 21:27:55 GMT
So Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction has just been overturned by the supreme court because of a technicality (explanation here). You all know how everyone brings up OJ getting off when they talk about Michael? You know, to show “”celebrities get away with it””? Well, now they’re going to talk about that fucking dog of a rapist Bill Cosby too I bet. Great. 🙄 I've noticed a lot of black people online seem to support Bill Cosby and believe he's innocent. I don't know too much about the ins and outs of his case (although I do recall Mesereau was on his defense team), but is there a legitimate argument to be made in his defense? Not sure why anybody thinks he's innocent. Over 60 women came forward about his abuse.
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 30, 2021 22:07:57 GMT
i believe he did it but i don't believe he did everything that was said. if bill did this to 60 women then he should of got arrested a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Jun 30, 2021 22:53:40 GMT
So Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction has just been overturned by the supreme court because of a technicality (explanation here). You all know how everyone brings up OJ getting off when they talk about Michael? You know, to show “”celebrities get away with it””? Well, now they’re going to talk about that fucking dog of a rapist Bill Cosby too I bet. Great. 🙄 I've noticed a lot of black people online seem to support Bill Cosby and believe he's innocent. I don't know too much about the ins and outs of his case (although I do recall Mesereau was on his defense team), but is there a legitimate argument to be made in his defense? Not really. He was put into prison because he self-admitted in a 2005 testimony to giving his victim pills that rendered her semiconscious and unable to move, at which point he started touching her breasts and genitals, as well as putting her hands on his penis. He gave this testimony because it was promised verbally that that testimony would not be used in a criminal trial against him and that it would also be sealed (hence it would not be found out by the public until it was unsealed a decade later). The fact this agreement was not signed was later ruled by a judge to be allowed as testimony a decade later anyway, and hence he was thrown into prison. The Supreme Court however today ruled that there was still a verbal agreement, that it must be enforced and therefore he is free to go.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jul 1, 2021 7:38:44 GMT
There was also a mention about witnesees who shouldn't have been allowed to testify. Possible to do with the prior bad acts ruling? Which is an intresting one.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 1, 2021 10:04:47 GMT
So Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction has just been overturned by the supreme court because of a technicality (explanation here). You all know how everyone brings up OJ getting off when they talk about Michael? You know, to show “”celebrities get away with it””? Well, now they’re going to talk about that fucking dog of a rapist Bill Cosby too I bet. Great. 🙄 I'm not sure what Cosby's reason to be released has to do with MJ's acquittal. MJ was found not guilty fair and square. In Cosby's case it was ruled he didn't get a fair trial and that's why he was released. Having said that, I hear that besides his agreement with the prosecutor, there was an also an issue with the use of prior bad acts witnesses. This actually reminded me of MJ's trial because his trial too was very unfair, actually a lot more unfair than Cosby's, re "prior bad acts evidence", which was called out by some legal experts already back then, like here: supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-ruling-in-the-michael-jackson-case-allowing-testimony-about-past-molestation-allegations.htmlAt least in Cosby's case it were the alleged victims themselves who testified against him, while in MJ's case the whole prior bad acts session relied on third party "witnesses" with the exception of Jason Francia. Jordan Chandler refused to testify and the three other alleged victims denied abuse. Like Spilbor wrote in the above article: "Perhaps what is most confounding about the judge's decision allowing these third party witnesses to take the stand, is that they will do so in place of -- and instead of -- the alleged victims themselves. Jackson has a Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers -- not the accusers' mothers, friends, dogsitters, caddies or housekeepers. To gain a conviction, the prosecution is putting on evidence that Jackson, molested in total, it says, six boys. But only two of those boys will testify, and be subject to cross-examination. One can hardly imagine a more blatant Confrontation Clause violation." Judge Melville was lucky that MJ won, because I think his decisions would have been dragged through the mud on appeal, and rightfully so. He repeatedly allowed the prosecution get away with violation's of MJ's fundamental rights. Had MJ been convicted he would have had good grounds to appeal and win. I don't know if Cosby is guilty or innocent, but even if you think someone's guilty the end doesn't justify the means. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. That's fundamental in a civilized legal system. If he wasn't given one and this is now what backfires it sucks for his victims (if he's guilty), but this is something to think about for the prosecutors and his first Judge then. MeToo fervor shouldn't overwrite fairness.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Jul 1, 2021 10:41:14 GMT
I'm not sure what Cosby's reason to be released has to do with MJ's acquittal. MJ was found not guilty fair and square. In Cosby's case it was ruled he didn't get a fair trial and that's why he was released. It doesn't mean anything - and you and I both know that. What I'm referring to is how there are a good number of people who are under the impression that being rich/famous gets you off crimes, when it doesn't. Quite often I see people bringing up OJ Simpson to explain how MJ 'got off' scot-free on all his charges in 2005. Now some will probably throw Bill Cosby's name into the mix because sure he got thrown into jail, but then they let him off scott-free 1/5th into his sentence. Of course, examining the three individual cases will show how completely different they are, but people don't often do that.
And while I am, of course, quite annoyed that someone like Bill Cosby is now walking free, I do understand the legal reasons for why the Supreme Court has revoked his sentence. It's frustrating because of what he did, but I do get it.
That article you linked to with MJ is an interesting one and expanded upon what I had been read earlier, so thanks for that. I totally agree that if you are going to accuse someone of something, you should be present in one way or another (even if behind a screen for protection as stated in the article - that is fine) so it was definitely troubling in MJ's case for these third party witnesses to come into play. Like you said, at least with the Cosby trial it was first party witnesses.
I can see both sides of the argument. Certainly in cases where tangible evidence is not so common, as it is with sexual cases, I get why they might bring in other people who claim to have been subjected to similar crimes by the prosecuted to establish who the prosecuted is as a person. Often people who do commit crimes of these fashion do not merely act once or twice so it makes sense to establish a pattern (which, in MJ's case, is also bizaare that of the literal hundreds and hundreds of children he interacted with and invited to Neverland Ranch over the years, they struggled to find any accusers during the second trial). But then at the same time, it complicates matters because in the court of law where innocence is presumed over guilt, those crimes may not yet have been proven. And also just because the person on trial might have committed those crimes, it doesn't necessarily mean they committed the crime that the whole trial is actually about. So I can see why that gets to be a slippery slope in court.
Back to Cosby specifically, my understanding is that a key piece of evidence that led to his sentencing was his self-admitting of the crimes. I'm not too sure how much these 'past victims' came into play for his trial, but even if we ignored these past accusers of Cosby, he did still admit to the crime at hand. It just can't be used legally against him.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jul 1, 2021 13:37:57 GMT
Totally agree respect .well said. Its about a point of law. I dont like seeing these celebs etc tweeting saying its a disgrace. It's not a disgace when the ruling is made based on the law. You might not agree with what the law is but the justice system is the cornerstone of society and if the law wasnt followed which then caused a breach then legally the ruling is correct however much it leaves a bitter taste for some.
A question though why would the D.A give cosby such a deal in the first place. As the depo,was a civil case and made no difference to any future crim one.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 2, 2021 8:22:20 GMT
I know it's Breitbart but they prove to be more sane regarding MeToo issues than the mainstream media. This is actually a great summary on what the Cosby verdict is about anyld why it's the right decision: www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/07/01/nolte-were-all-safer-when-the-constitution-protects-a-bill-cosby/This part sums it up perfectly: BTW, it's the same author (one of the very few in the media) who defended MJ during the LN frenzy. Re. Cosby he doesn't say he's innocent, but constitutional rights do matter and they shouldn't succumb to mob rule. And I agree with this point totally.
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Jul 3, 2021 1:08:38 GMT
I understand why he was released on a technicality but I'm not gonna call it the right decision lol.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 3, 2021 6:34:43 GMT
I understand why he was released on a technicality but I'm not gonna call it the right decision lol. If a fair legal system and process is important for you then it was the right decision. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, you can't say: "we are sure this guy is guilty so it's okay to violate his fundamental rights in order to get a conviction". I also wouldn't say the right to a fair process is "a technicality". Of course, this ruling doesn't mean he's not guilty, this isn't an acquittal. But the fact he didn't get a fair trial isn't "just a technicality" either. This is why prosecutors and courts need to operate within the laws and rules of fairness, so that potential criminals don't get get away due to an unfair process and trial like this. The end doesn't justify the means.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jul 3, 2021 7:03:06 GMT
I understand why he was released on a technicality but I'm not gonna call it the right decision lol. If a fair legal system and process is important for you then it was the right decision. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, you can't say: "we are sure this guy is guilty so it's okay to violate his fundamental rights in order to get a conviction". I also wouldn't say the right to a fair process is "a technicality". Of course, this ruling doesn't mean he's not guilty, this isn't an acquittal. But the fact he didn't get a fair trial isn't "just a technicality" either. This is why prosecutors and courts need to operate within the laws and rules of fairness, so that potential criminals don't get get away due to an unfair process and trial like this. The end doesn't justify the means. Hogwash. He wasn't released from prison because he didn't get a fair trial, he was released because of a highly questionnable plea-deal he struck with prosecutors many years before his trial. That's why people are saying it's a "technicality".
|
|