So, over 60 women come out and accuse this man of , all the the accusations very similar as far as method and somehow, people think they're either lying or it wasn't actually . this kind of shit shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. i mean, he's doctor huxtable - dr huxtable would never anyone. disgusting. that's my opinion. totally disgusting.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
When so many, who don't know each other, haven't talked to each other, don't know what the others have said,
but say almost the exact same things, even before any of the details were commonly known to anyone in the public media?
Then Ockham's Razor surely applies.
Ockham's Razor: All things being equal, of many possibilities, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
The simplest explanation is that he's guilty.
I think that the prosecution was simply unable to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The passage of time may well have been the key issue. I am struck by the similarities with the British Netflix series National Treasure. I would be shocked if there really is a retrial.
"After just over an hour of deliberations on Saturday, the jurors informed the court that they were still “hopelessly deadlocked” on all the charges.
“After 52 hours of deliberation, probably one of the most courageous acts I’ve ever seen, I’m compelled to grant a mistrial,” said Judge O’Neill to the packed courtroom. Constand and several police officers who worked on the case were in the courtroom when the mistrial was announced today, as was Bill Cosby."
Which was it, 1 hour or 52? Those errors are in all likelihood why criminal cases fail, rather than any cause of evidence as to guilt involved as the criteria for "not guilty" is not proof of innocence but demonstrating a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Imho that fact is why our criminals go free, because lawyers can manipulate emotions and feelings into a case not to demonstrate a person's innocence but to OJ Simpson a jury.
I would cynically say the lawyer's function in this endeavor is to squeeze out as much money as possible, for the least work needed to be done as the majority of their job was accomplished by the prosecutor in the criminal trial. A civil suit is much lower standard of evidence whereby the civil suit work is to procure the greatest amount of damages which increases the lawyers paycheck.
Just another indication of the ambulance chasing lawyer standards, all out to make a buck, with very little ethical standards to serve justice. It's all about the paycheck.
My universe may not necessarily agree with your's, but you have every right that you live happily in both.
Respect mine and I will respect yours. I fought and risked death for the right to be whom I am, even if I am clueless as to whom that may be.
I do not like the dark spots in My brain, but the spider webs are even worse.
Combat Veteran covers a vast arena, third degree burns from friendly fire with a disgruntled shipmate, stab wound from someone who felt is was permissible to hit a Lady with a twelve pack of alcohol; hit by a pickup truck by an individual on heroin. Was very quick to disabuse them of those ideas. Its all about control, only need physical contact in approximately 7 points of the body to enact terminal velocity upon those vermin.
His attorneys took a page out of the OJ Simpson trial and added a hint of racism.
This is a travesty.
Why not just shoot him instead whole world knows he's guilty
It's a travesty. Over 60 women, without prior knowledge of each other, somehow banded together and for reasons known only to them, decided to destroy a wonderful entertainment icon's legacy.
I feel greasy just writing that. Obviously, the prosecution's case was at fault for the mistrial.
'Innocent until proven guilty' counts only in our judicial courts. The court of public opinion is a whole 'nother thing. Guilty as hell. There's WAY too much smoke for there to be no fire. He must be retried, with whatever holes in the prosecutions case that allowed for reasonable doubt resolved.
First I want to make it clear I do not condone any type of forced sexual encounters. Also any one convicted of any kind of sexual misconduct should receive the maximum amount of punishment the law allows.
I was obviously not in the court room to hear all the evidence and I doubt any of y'all were there either. I did hear a few news cast and talk radio about some of the issues. The main one I heard, if in fact, it is a fact, was that it is her word against his. There are no other witnesses to the act. He claims it was consensual and does not deny there was a sexual encounter. I would also have a problem with her waiting so long to make the claim of . As for the others not knowing about the situation I don't buy that at all. I heard about this in the news at least 5 or 6 years ago about him supposedly drugging the women. I personally know about more cases where the girl or woman claimed and it was later found out it was consensual, than I know women who were actually . I only know of one woman that was actually .
Like most people Hubbie and I thought OJ did it too. Until We watched Forensic Scientist Lee's documentary on examining the evidence. OJ's blood found at the scene had the preservative used when blood is drawn for lab work. Confirming it was planted at the scene.
I am actually tired of people claiming they know better than the jurors who sat through the whole trial. Especially with the way most of the news media reports the so called news. Ever since the newspaper reported their manipulated "facts" about an auto / train accident to put Hubbie, who was the engineer, and the railroad in the wrong. They reported people near the tracks did not hear the whistle blowing. The accident happened a little after midnight in the middle of summer. The people they interviewed were asleep inside their houses. They refused to report the witness' testimony that was working in his open garage that lived on the corner of the street the car was on and the RR tracks. He actually witnessed the whole accident, and heard the whistle blowing long before the accident. There was a few other times we were directly involved in the issue the newspapers miss reported the facts to support their sale of the paper. We knew about the fake news over 30 years ago and have not bought a newspaper since.
Every body in the USofA is innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
Brandie
Very well put, Peri. IMO, he should not be retried, unless new evidence is uncovered that removes the reasonable doubt. The county taxpayers should let the DA know that they won't pay for it.
.jpeg)
