What the actual fuck? Seriously? Words fail.
I dunno if the appeal was legit or not since it comes off like “Pennsylvania’s highest court has overturned Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction after finding that he was rich and popular enough with white middle class people to qualify as rich white male, and thus immune from prosecution for sexual assault for purposes of judicial review.”
/s
:-/
Trump Jr. is garbage, but the chatter in right wing circles is less that Cosby is actually innocent, but more that Cosby is getting out because black folks get preferential treatment in society.
This story is horrible in a million different ways…
Good grief, the rightwingers have some serious projection issues.
(directed at them, not you, Bugger)
I feel the same. Right wing land is increasingly some alternate reality, where basic obvious facts about the world are reversed.
Given how many women Cosby has assaulted it seems incredible that any one prosecutor would even be in a position to cut such a deal.
God fucking damn it all.
I mean, he’s getting out because of reversible error at his trial. In the first trial, the judge said he’d only allow 1 accuser’s testimony for the one count being tried, because any more would prejudice the jury unfairly regarding the count being tried.
In the second trial, the same judge said he’d allow “in the interest of justice”, five accusers and the accuser for the current case to testify to “establish the pattern.” It was unfair in the first trial, but fair in the second?
Now, I believe Cosby’s a rapist and I wished he had stayed in jail forever, but honestly, this was going to get reversed. You can’t say , as a judge, “this is going to be a fair trial” and then change it to be more unfair by your own definition just because it didn’t turn out how you wanted it to. Ugh. Frustrating.
Permitting testimony from other accusers is not the basis for overturning Cosby’s conviction. From the article linked below
“The justices said Cosby had relied on the former district attorney’s decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in the Constand’s civil case.”
And
“But the court declined to say whether five other accusers should have been allowed to testify[.]”
This is bullshit. The promise to not prosecute was never in writing. It was verbal only and made by a different DA. Prosecutors make “promises” like that all the time to get information or cooperation. We have a formal method of promising not to prosecute, it’s called granting immunity and requries actual written promises. Relying on a verbal promise the DA will not prosecute would not result in overturning a conviction for someone else.
Ah, okay, I was trying to get the ruling and was going off what an earlier report had said.
Of course, now the report I was reading was updated, and doesn’t say what it used to say.
But it did get out their first! So… ugh.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
