The Hollywood Sexual Harassment/Abuse/Assault Thread

[sabad66]

The odd thing is that the agreement with the first DA was never in writing. Surprised they accepted his word about it, but maybe all the drama with the judge made it more believable.

[benyl]

yGrw79Cvols

Bill's still got it lol

Holy fuck. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[D'z Nutz]

Haha that's pretty fucking hilarious :rofl:

[flipstah]

Lmao

[rage2]

The odd thing is that the agreement with the first DA was never in writing. Surprised they accepted his word about it, but maybe all the drama with the judge made it more believable.
It doesn’t need to be in writing. During the deposition for the civil trial, he was told that he doesn’t have 5th amendment protection as there are no criminal charges to be laid, so he had to testify truthfully or lie and face perjury. You can’t strip someone of their rights like that, then use the evidence gathered from removing that right to prosecute him afterwards.

The surprise is that they prosecuted him in the first place to be honest.

[rage2]

No it doesn't get better than that Norm clip with Jerry.
Gold, Jerry, gold!


yGrw79Cvols

Bill's still got it lol
Talk about a hold my beer post lol.

[max_boost]

Lol crazy. Had no idea.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This is completely incorrect. 15 years ago, the DA issued a press release stating that Cosby won't be prosecuted because he felt there was no way to get a conviction. The reason for this was so that he was forced to waive 5th amendment (can't self incriminate when there's a promise not to prosecute) and forced him to testify in the civil case which Constand won. It was to help her in the civil case because it was impossible to get a conviction. The new DA used the testimony from the civil case to prosecute Cosby. Cosby's lawyers argued that they can't do that in the case but failed. PA Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Basically, if the old DA never promised to not prosecute Cosby, he wouldn't have had to testify all the juicy bits in civil case because he would invoke the 5th, and none of this would've came out anyways or had a conviction. The original DA used a loophole to strip Cosby of his 5th amendment rights, and the new DA using the results of losing the 5th amendment to prosecute him. You can't do that, and I was shocked he was prosecuted in the first place.


They can't prosecute him again because of above.

Interesting - that is different than what I read though. Not sure which is correct. This is from the article I was reading on BBC "In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court judges also found that testimony from accusers unrelated to the case had tainted the trial."

[rage2]

Interesting - that is different than what I read though. Not sure which is correct. This is from the article I was reading on BBC "In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court judges also found that testimony from accusers unrelated to the case had tainted the trial."
I mean, I can’t even accuse you of only reading headlines. The whole section from your BBC article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57671012


What did the court say?
The judges' reasoning is complex - their written finding is 79-pages long.

They cite a written agreement reached by Mr Castor, the former prosecutor, stating that he would not charge Mr Cosby if he testified in Ms Constand's civil lawsuit.

In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court judges also found that testimony from accusers unrelated to the case had tainted the trial.

"There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred", the finding released on Wednesday reads.

"We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here."

A spokesman for Mr Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, thanked the court in a statement.

"This is the justice Mr Cosby has been fighting for. They saw the light," Mr Wyatt said. "He was given a deal and he had immunity. He should have never been charged."
It’s odd you missed the core explaination but read the also? :nut:

[killramos]

It doesn’t need to be in writing. During the deposition for the civil trial, he was told that he doesn’t have 5th amendment protection as there are no criminal charges to be laid, so he had to testify truthfully or lie and face perjury. You can’t strip someone of their rights like that, then use the evidence gathered from removing that right to prosecute him afterwards.

The surprise is that they prosecuted him in the first place to be honest.

Isn’t that basically the kind of BS cops like to try and pull on the regular

[ThePenIsMightier]

I searched for an existing thread on his allegations, but couldn't find one. Please merge if I missed it as I don't think this is really worth a standalone thread.

Anyways, it sure was well published and front page news when the allegations came out, but I don't see one tenth the coverage about the fact that Kevin Spacey has apparently beaten the final charges.

Is this the apex of Cancel Culture wrongdoing?

Non-scholarly video:


https://youtu.be/_3f_kCDALEM

[killramos]

Can we get house of cards final season remade then?