It took its sweet ass time but Cosby has been found guilty on 3 counts of sexual assault. Given that he's 80 right now, he'll probably die in prison. 

Small little tidbit: He's losing honorary degrees left and right but Temple university (where he had a board seat for 32 years apparently) are refusing to follow suit


edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/us/bill-cosby-trial/index.html

I was wondering if someone would be able to provide the source of data they used to prove his guilt? Was there DNA evidence? How were they able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did it?

He won't get that long of a sentence. It's not like he was in possession of marijuana.

Apr 27, 2018 12:02:45 GMT nazzer said:

I was wondering if someone would be able to provide the source of data they used to prove his guilt? Was there DNA evidence? How were they able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did it?

You mean except for all the cross-examined witnesses whose stories were thought credible by a jury of his peers?
How about the fact he admitted under oath in 2015 to purchasing Qualudes to give to young women for "consensual" sex?

He's guilty, not that I see anyone as 100% innocent who goes back to a celebrities room for "drinks" but it doesn't mean they consented to what happened.
It's not that they drank too much and it was he said she said... He drugged them, he admitted to it.
Applying Occam's razor, how likely do you think it is all fabricated and these women actually wanted to be drugged and have his fat fingers penetrate them?

Apr 27, 2018 14:54:26 GMT iNCY said:

Apr 27, 2018 12:02:45 GMT nazzer said:

I was wondering if someone would be able to provide the source of data they used to prove his guilt? Was there DNA evidence? How were they able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did it?

You mean except for all the cross-examined witnesses whose stories were thought credible by a jury of his peers?
How about the fact he admitted under oath in 2015 to purchasing Qualudes to give to young women for "consensual" sex?

He's guilty, not that I see anyone as 100% innocent who goes back to a celebrities room for "drinks" but it doesn't mean they consented to what happened.
It's not that they drank too much and it was he said she said... He drugged them, he admitted to it.
Applying Occam's razor, how likely do you think it is all fabricated and these women actually wanted to be drugged and have his fat fingers penetrate them?

Only question now is whether the verdict will hold up on appeal.    It will depend on how the previous bad act statutes are written in Pennsylvania  because those 5 witnesses that were allowed to testify because of previous bad acts were likely the difference in this trial from the last one.    

Now....when is Weinstein going to court?

Apr 27, 2018 19:38:21 GMT Mistress said:

Now....when is Weinstein going to court?

I doubt he'll ever go. But if he does go, then that will open the doors to alot of celebs. 

Apr 27, 2018 14:54:26 GMT iNCY said:

Apr 27, 2018 12:02:45 GMT nazzer said:

I was wondering if someone would be able to provide the source of data they used to prove his guilt? Was there DNA evidence? How were they able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did it?

You mean except for all the cross-examined witnesses whose stories were thought credible by a jury of his peers?
How about the fact he admitted under oath in 2015 to purchasing Qualudes to give to young women for "consensual" sex?

He's guilty, not that I see anyone as 100% innocent who goes back to a celebrities room for "drinks" but it doesn't mean they consented to what happened.
It's not that they drank too much and it was he said she said... He drugged them, he admitted to it.
Applying Occam's razor, how likely do you think it is all fabricated and these women actually wanted to be drugged and have his fat fingers penetrate them?

I am sorry my question caused you to be so angry. I genuinely didn't know anything about the COsby situation other than many others had attempted to have huim convicted of a similar crime and he was found not guilty or not charged. I find it confusing to understand how someone can be accused 15 years after the event. 

"cross-examined witness whose stories..." is not evidence, that is heresy. 

Apr 27, 2018 19:38:21 GMT Mistress said:

Now....when is Weinstein going to court?

After he does something illegal.

Apr 28, 2018 5:23:49 GMT theend said:

Apr 27, 2018 19:38:21 GMT Mistress said:

Now....when is Weinstein going to court?

After he does something illegal.

Pressuring women for sexual favors and using his influence as a producer isnt illegal?

Apr 28, 2018 10:49:35 GMT Mistress said:

Apr 28, 2018 5:23:49 GMT theend said:

After he does something illegal.

Pressuring women for sexual favors and using his influence as a producer isnt illegal?

Unfortunately it is not. 

Apr 28, 2018 3:29:32 GMT nazzer said:

Apr 27, 2018 14:54:26 GMT iNCY said:

You mean except for all the cross-examined witnesses whose stories were thought credible by a jury of his peers?
How about the fact he admitted under oath in 2015 to purchasing Qualudes to give to young women for "consensual" sex?

He's guilty, not that I see anyone as 100% innocent who goes back to a celebrities room for "drinks" but it doesn't mean they consented to what happened.
It's not that they drank too much and it was he said she said... He drugged them, he admitted to it.
Applying Occam's razor, how likely do you think it is all fabricated and these women actually wanted to be drugged and have his fat fingers penetrate them?

I am sorry my question caused you to be so angry. I genuinely didn't know anything about the COsby situation other than many others had attempted to have huim convicted of a similar crime and he was found not guilty or not charged. I find it confusing to understand how someone can be accused 15 years after the event. 

"cross-examined witness whose stories..." is not evidence, that is heresy. 

I'm not angry that's my standard operating mode since I turned 40

Fkr the record when multiple witnesses tell identical stories of their personal experiences thats pretty much what evidence is, it's not heresay
We did convict people before  DNA evidence was discovered 

Apr 28, 2018 10:49:35 GMT Mistress said:

Apr 28, 2018 5:23:49 GMT theend said:

After he does something illegal.

Pressuring women for sexual favors and using his influence as a producer isnt illegal?

That makes you an A class sleaze and asshole but it's not illegal 

Interesting to me is the number of women who got their big breaks in Weinstein movies have been silent on this topic... How many of them rode his crusty ass?
The only one who has a right to press charges from all the stories I have heard is that pot plant 

Apr 29, 2018 0:44:59 GMT iNCY said:

Apr 28, 2018 3:29:32 GMT nazzer said:

I am sorry my question caused you to be so angry. I genuinely didn't know anything about the COsby situation other than many others had attempted to have huim convicted of a similar crime and he was found not guilty or not charged. I find it confusing to understand how someone can be accused 15 years after the event. 

"cross-examined witness whose stories..." is not evidence, that is heresy. 

I'm not angry that's my standard operating mode since I turned 40

Fkr the record when multiple witnesses tell identical stories of their personal experiences thats pretty much what evidence is, it's not heresay
We did convict people before  DNA evidence was discovered 

Only problem with that is Cosby was not on trial for ANY of those incidents and none of those women had anything to offer on Andrea Constands's charges, which Cosby WAS in court for.   So like I said it really depends on how Pennsylvania's prior bad acts laws are written.

Apr 28, 2018 3:29:32 GMT nazzer said:

Apr 27, 2018 14:54:26 GMT iNCY said:

You mean except for all the cross-examined witnesses whose stories were thought credible by a jury of his peers?
How about the fact he admitted under oath in 2015 to purchasing Qualudes to give to young women for "consensual" sex?

He's guilty, not that I see anyone as 100% innocent who goes back to a celebrities room for "drinks" but it doesn't mean they consented to what happened.
It's not that they drank too much and it was he said she said... He drugged them, he admitted to it.
Applying Occam's razor, how likely do you think it is all fabricated and these women actually wanted to be drugged and have his fat fingers penetrate them?

I am sorry my question caused you to be so angry. I genuinely didn't know anything about the COsby situation other than many others had attempted to have huim convicted of a similar crime and he was found not guilty or not charged. I find it confusing to understand how someone can be accused 15 years after the event. 

"cross-examined witness whose stories..." is not evidence, that is heresy. 

They did not attempt to have him convicted of a similar crime, he was charged with this same crime.  It started in 2005 when civil charges were pressed against Cosby but not criminal charges were.  This case was settled out of court.  In 2015 when other people said he assaulted them, the 2005 case was revived and combined with the new cases, leading to criminal charges.  Then it went to trial.  The jury in the first trial resulted in a hung jury, which means the jury could not come to a verdict.  So the first trial was voided and a new trial was started.  Here he was founded guilty.  So this is the first case against him.  They may be more.

As for the evidence, the most damning part of case was from the 2005 pre-trial.  Cosby in his deposition admitted that he sometimes gave girls Quaaludes make them more cooperative when he wanted sexual relations with him.  He said he obtained the Quaaludes for this purpose and knew it was illegal.  The charges against Cosby were that he drugged girls and then sexually assaulted him.  So the stories matched.  Usually for a high profile rape case to go to court the evidence is pretty damning.   

I believe three more civil suits remain for Cosby.  Several cases he settled out of court over the years with settlements, and others he bullied until the accusers withdraw their cases due to the cost of bringing him to trial being too high.  In the US bringing someone to trial requires the accuser to pay for their own legal fees, so a valid method to avoid trial is to ramp the legal costs with needless paperwork until the accuser can no longer afford to pay their attorney or the attorney decides the case is not worth the percentage of the settlement they agreed to work for.

Apr 28, 2018 5:23:49 GMT theend said:

Apr 27, 2018 19:38:21 GMT Mistress said:

Now....when is Weinstein going to court?

After he does something illegal.

There is a new lead prosecutor on his NYC case.  Charges are expected soon against him by the NYC DA as there is a serious of acquisitions against him the NYC have received over the years and now there is a hard press from two of the girls for the NYC DA office to determine if criminal charges will be filed or not so they can issue civil lawsuits.  In the past there was one or two cases the NYC DA got hit hard for because it looked like they had evidence but it was not strong enough to be a sure fire case so they did not press charges.

He did some shit he shouldn't have. Simple. Considering the celebrity, and the ripple effect it will have and considering the current tone and the environment, trying to make sense of it all is useless. That's the world we live in. Hollywood needs villains. He did the wrong thing, many times over and should be held accountable, regardless.

The Weinstein case is different, using his power and influence in exchange for sexual favors. He wouldn't be the first or the last in any industry. Let's not forget about the likes of David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Steven Tyler who all did some depraved shit over the years. Instead, what should be established first in this case, if what was/is sexual assault and what is a regrettable sexual encounter. Considering it's Harvey Weinstein, there's probably a bit of both.

Apr 29, 2018 5:56:23 GMT NATH45 said:

He did some shit he shouldn't have. Simple. Considering the celebrity, and the ripple effect it will have and considering the current tone and the environment, trying to make sense of it all is useless. That's the world we live in. Hollywood needs villains.

[

Hollywood needs sexual harassers to have “villains”?
Are they needed in the workplace to?

Apr 30, 2018 3:52:44 GMT System said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:56:23 GMT NATH45 said:

He did some shit he shouldn't have. Simple. Considering the celebrity, and the ripple effect it will have and considering the current tone and the environment, trying to make sense of it all is useless. That's the world we live in. Hollywood needs villains.

[

Hollywood needs sexual harassers to have “villains”?
Are they needed in the workplace to?

No.

If it ain't sexual harassers, it's the Russians. Hollywood, the media, the celebrity world needs villains. Because villains make heroes. And that's what makes the story. That's Hollywood.

Apr 30, 2018 8:20:48 GMT NATH45 said:

Apr 30, 2018 3:52:44 GMT System said:

[

Hollywood needs sexual harassers to have “villains”?
Are they needed in the workplace to?

No.

If it ain't sexual harassers, it's the Russians. Hollywood, the media, the celebrity world needs villains. Because villains make heroes. And that's what makes the story. That's Hollywood.

You know the stories in films are fictional and have nothing to do with the inner workings?

By that logic, people should sexually harass people in the workplace so a hero can arise and save the day.

Apr 30, 2018 17:38:56 GMT System said:

Apr 30, 2018 8:20:48 GMT NATH45 said:

No.

If it ain't sexual harassers, it's the Russians. Hollywood, the media, the celebrity world needs villains. Because villains make heroes. And that's what makes the story. That's Hollywood.

You know the stories in films are fictional and have nothing to do with the inner workings?

By that logic, people should sexually harass people in the workplace so a hero can arise and save the day.

He did bad things. No word of a lie. But.. You'd be naive in thinking that this world, that being that of Hollywood and the media isn't has constructed or contrived as a work of fiction. Whether it's Cosby, Weinstein, Trump - Hollywood creates it's villains. Yet, we excuse the actions of others? Why? Someone like David Bowie or Steven Tyler - if Trump had been sleeping with under-age girls when he was a young man, Hollywood - the left - would crucify him. And there's others. Yet, Rock-stars do what all three of these men of being accused of and what Cosby has been committed of. Yet, it's OK. Because, they're " cool " right. I'd bet the house on it, for some mega names in Hollywood - it wasn't also the aura of celebrity that bedded so many young girls. Anthony Kiedis even wrote about committing statutory rape with no repercussions. Roman Polanski is still celebrated by Hollywood even after a conviction. 

And not all stories are fiction, it's called 'non-fiction' - there's any entire part of the book store dedicated to it.

I see him having house arrest for life. He's in too poor of health to serve long. Or he'll be in private sector if he does.

Cosby always rubbed the wrong way. He came across very condescending to me. As if was the moral arbiter for black people. Cosby is a monster.