• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cosby trial declared "mistrial"

I don't entirely blame the jury. They are a symptom of the system ill equipped to handle these cases.

I'm afraid that no truly fair system can handle these cases better than our current one.

Sexual abuse is not a problem that is best solved through punishment. Like so many other cruelties, it must be solved through education. Teaching our sons the value of consent from the earliest age, removing long standing stigmas surrounding sex and sexuality, becoming a society where "good touch, bad touch" and the "bathing suit area" are as common knowledge as 1+1=2.

Those who place their own pleasure over the safety and well being of others must become relics of the past, but the only way to ensure this is to better educate the young men and women of the future.
 

Madness

Member
Expected. The prosecution's evidence was very shaky, and most of the other womens' allegations were far too old to be admissible.

With zero concrete evidence and a very complex relationship between Constand and Cosby, putting him away is impossible.

This. Aside from the hysteria surrounding the case, you are talking about things from 30-40 years ago with little evidence beyond he said, she said testimony. Anyone who believed it was an open and shut case needs to really reflect on what a trial actually involves these days. More guilty people are let go everyday than any innocents are convicted with modern trials, reasonable doubts and burden of proofs. The truth about Cosby is out there though. I am hearing they will try to retry the case, but as some point the DA has to see whether the resources they'll spend will bring any fruitful results beyond what already happened.
 
Its not even about critical thinking, its about the fact that jurors don't even use "reasonable doubt" anymore....people today are so stuck in their own worldviews that no matter what evidence or facts are present to them they'll stick to their own opinions rather than conforming to the groups decision to make a verdict...

What dynamite piece of evidence was there to secure conviction?
 

darkinstinct

...lacks reading comprehension.
Ultimately, as of yesterday, the jury was deadlocked with an even split. I'd be surprised to hear that it shifted from that after 3 days to just one juror being stumped after 4 days.

Where do you get that info from? It was never announced, it would probably even be illegal to give out that info. All they ever said was they cannot find a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts. All it takes for that is one stubborn juror.
 

slit

Member
It was really a longshot anyway. I guess we'll have to be happy that his legacy and status is destroyed.
 
Considering there is zero actual proof that he did anything, I'm surprised it took this long for this outcome.

The next trial will end the same way, as it should, if no evidence other than circumstantial is put forward.
 
I'm afraid that no truly fair system can handle these cases better than our current one.

Sexual abuse is not a problem that is best solved through punishment. Like so many other cruelties, it must be solved through education. Teaching our sons the value of consent from the earliest age, removing long standing stigmas surrounding sex and sexuality, becoming a society where "good touch, bad touch" and the "bathing suit area" are as common knowledge as 1+1=2.

Those who place their own pleasure over the safety and well being of others must become relics of the past, but the only way to ensure this is to better educate the young men and women of the future.
Fuck that. Victims of rape deserve justice. Yes more needs to be done on a macro level but a shit ton needs to be done for the individuals affected.
 

DOWN

Banned
Bill acknowledges that he gave her pills and alcohol and had sex with her but they really think she's lying about it having impairment on her?? Bill's defense didn't even try to deny any of the events but simply claimed she consented wtf
 

PillarEN

Member
Fuck that. Victims of rape deserve justice. Yes more needs to be done on a macro level but a shit ton needs to be done for the individuals affected.

I'm pretty sure they agree with you. Just that to have less of these cases you have to go to the root of it before these people even start thinking about sex in any way.
Though I'm not sure it really works out that way. Plenty of people grow up in well meaning families or general environments where they are taught that sexual abuse is wrong (whether it be their neighborhood, class, work, type of people they surround themselves with) and yet they still tune it out for a moment of their own satisfaction without caring about the person on the receiving end. Though I imagine in places where such standards are not the very strict norm, sexual assault of all kinds is more common than in places where it's given an extremely harsh taboo.

But yes. More work and standards of teaching what is right and wrong from childhood is a good thing of course.

EDIT: Like I remember listening to an episode of This American Life where a college campus had a session for men to teach them what is right and wrong. The meaning of yes and no. Blew my mind that this would be so grey area for 18 year olds. Seemed obvious to me if I was being a scumbag or not when it comes to someone else even before highschool
 

n64coder

Member
It was a tough case to get a conviction. Hopefully they will have better luck next time.

I'm surprised that Cosby's wife Camille is still with him after all of the accusations.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Bill acknowledges that he gave her pills and alcohol and had sex with her but they really think she's lying about it having impairment on her?? Bill's defense didn't even try to deny any of the events but simply claimed she consented wtf

He admitted to alcohol, but not to drugging her. Or did I miss major bombshell where his defense sided with prosecution and admitted to drugging?
 

tcrunch

Member
I was part of the jury on a case similar to this, a man charged with X crime against a woman, to not be specific, and we nearly came to a mistrial.

The bulk of the evidence was the woman's testimony. The defense lawyer tried to discredit her over something as simple as wrongly estimating the time it takes to drive down a particular street. One of the other jurors told me "Black women exaggerate!" (he was black). Another one had just gotten off a nasty divorce and was sort of vicariously angry at the victim.

In the end we had some additional material evidence and were able to come to a decision about what level of crime the defendant committed and so on. But in a case where the main evidence is the victim's testimony, I can very easily see mistrials and even innocence, doubly so when a celebrity and a good defense lawyer are involved.

People think juries are scholarly or at least open to change like 12 Angry Men, that you can come to the most rational and just decision through sufficiently passionate debate about your position. To some extent, again based on my experience, I think that's true. But remember, juries are composed of that idiot going 20mph in the left lane, or the one who turns right off a sidestreet right in front of you, or the one who never uses their signal for anything. Think about all the people who when they get in a car, they never appear to notice or care about anyone else on the road besides them - that's your jury.

They all vote, too.
 
Just in case anyone doubted that Camille was anything but gross:

How do I describe the District Attorney? Heinously and exploitively ambitious. How do I describe the judge? Overtly and arrogantly collaborating with the District Attorney. How do I describe the counsels for the accusers? Totally unethical. How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truths for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life.

Historically, people have challenged injustices. I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence; which is the rightful way to make a sound decision....ultimately, that is a manifestation of justice, based on facts, not lies. As a very special friend once stated, “truth can be subdued, but not destroyed.”

Moreover, I express humongous gratitude to counselors Brian McMonagle and Angela Agrusa for their hard work. Mr. McMonagle for his passionate and powerful articulations of truths; Ms. Agrusa for her thorough research to bolster Counsel McMonagle; to Mr. Andrew Wyatt for his unequivocal skills in public relations; to our team, who worked diligently and intelligently; to our staffs for their continuous commitment to our family and me....and to our children, grandchildren, and other family who loves us...and to our dear friends and supporters, who never gave up on us, despite it all.

Camille Cosby

http://deadline.com/2017/06/bill-co...evin-steele-camille-cosby-retrial-1202115356/
 

Xero

Member
I was part of the jury on a case similar to this, a man charged with X crime against a woman, to not be specific, and we nearly came to a mistrial.

The bulk of the evidence was the woman's testimony. The defense lawyer tried to discredit her over something as simple as wrongly estimating the time it takes to drive down a particular street. One of the other jurors told me "Black women exaggerate!" (he was black). Another one had just gotten off a nasty divorce and was sort of vicariously angry at the victim.

In the end we had some additional material evidence and were able to come to a decision about what level of crime the defendant committed and so on. But in a case where the main evidence is the victim's testimony, I can very easily see mistrials and even innocence, doubly so when a celebrity and a good defense lawyer are involved.

People think juries are scholarly or at least open to change like 12 Angry Men, that you can come to the most rational and just decision through sufficiently passionate debate about your position. To some extent, again based on my experience, I think that's true. But remember, juries are composed of that idiot going 20mph in the left lane, or the one who turns right off a sidestreet right in front of you, or the one who never uses their signal for anything. Think about all the people who when they get in a car, they never appear to notice or care about anyone else on the road besides them - that's your jury.

They all vote, too.

You use the 12 angry men example but that kid was likely guilty as well, they just didnt have reasonable doubt.
 
From what I've seen there isn't any hard evidence against him, just he said she said. If the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty then they shouldn't convict him.

I didn't follow the trial AT ALL but did the judge allow the testimonies of the other like 10+ women who claimed they were assaulted as well?

So it's not he said vs. she said, it's he said vs. she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she said.
 

Daffy Duck

Member
I'm afraid that no truly fair system can handle these cases better than our current one.

Sexual abuse is not a problem that is best solved through punishment. Like so many other cruelties, it must be solved through education. Teaching our sons the value of consent from the earliest age, removing long standing stigmas surrounding sex and sexuality, becoming a society where "good touch, bad touch" and the "bathing suit area" are as common knowledge as 1+1=2.

Those who place their own pleasure over the safety and well being of others must become relics of the past, but the only way to ensure this is to better educate the young men and women of the future.

Nah, the type of abuse by the likes of Cosby and Saville are not down to poor education, they are sexual predators and no amount of education would stop them.
 

E92 M3

Member
Better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man behind bars. I expected this mistrial. The events happened years ago and there wasn't any proper evidence.

The jury can't convict based on "feelings." This is our system working.
 

tcrunch

Member
You use the 12 angry men example but that kid was likely guilty as well, they just didnt have reasonable doubt.

You mean they did have reasonable doubt. You can't make a guilty conviction if you have a reasonable doubt, which is why they found the kid innocent.

I didn't follow the trial AT ALL but did the judge allow the testimonies of the other like 10+ women who claimed they were assaulted as well?

So it's not he said vs. she said, it's he said vs. she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she said.

In my trial I was on the jury for (and most criminal trials I assume), evidence is limited strictly to the crime/charges the trial is for. In my case the defendant actually had another pending trial for charges about another incident immediately after this one that I didn't find out about until I read it in the paper later. You don't get to see anything that might predispose you to thinking anything in particular about the defendant, you review only the evidence of the particular crime on trial.
 
Utterly ridiculous
X0UQ2eW.gif

Oh my god
 
Its not even about critical thinking, its about the fact that jurors don't even use "reasonable doubt" anymore....people today are so stuck in their own worldviews that no matter what evidence or facts are present to them they'll stick to their own opinions rather than conforming to the groups decision to make a verdict...

I mean, that's not how jury's should work. If you are on a jury and you have a strong reasonable doubt on something, you shouldn't conform to the rest of the group just to reach a verdict. A mistrial is always better than a verdict for verdict's sake.

It's likely that so many wrongful convictions were handed down because jurors who had doubts thought to themselves, "Well, everybody else is so convinced he did it... He probably did do it," and they didn't stick to their doubts. Juries aren't deliberating between guilt and innocence, but guilt and non-guilt, if you have a reasonable doubt, then it's worth sticking to instead of surrendering it just to "make a verdict."

I didn't follow the trial AT ALL but did the judge allow the testimonies of the other like 10+ women who claimed they were assaulted as well?

So it's not he said vs. she said, it's he said vs. she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she said.

No, this case is about one particular allegation from 2005, but it's the one the few that was filed at the time of the alleged sexual assault . Other victims were also in the court room but, to my knowledge, they did not testify as they couldn't corroborate this event. It also wasn't the judge's decision... Prosecution could have brought other victims to the stand (assuming defense didn't prevent it), but that can be a risk for the prosecution too. This trial will kick back off in time and Cosby could still be brought to trial for other allegations, but this one was the clearest to bring to trial.
 

Exile20

Member
Its not even about critical thinking, its about the fact that jurors don't even use "reasonable doubt" anymore....people today are so stuck in their own worldviews that no matter what evidence or facts are present to them they'll stick to their own opinions rather than conforming to the groups decision to make a verdict...

Do you know how juries work? What you said is kinda insane.
 

mr jones

Ethnicity is not a race!
His defense sided with prosecution and admitted that he drugged her?

What?

He admitted as much.

It gets complicated when they have romantic history. She consented to taking the quaaludes. She admits to originally having a large amount of trust in Cosby. That's what makes it hard to say he took advantage of her. After she was out of it, then yeah, he most likely abused her trust and sexually assaulted her. But that's her word against his, and you can't convict a person of a crime based on a couple people's testimony. There's no direct evidence.

You will probably just have to settle with the fact that his character and reputation has been destroyed. No one will be comfortable around him with the exception of his closest friends and family. All of his achievements and accomplishments now come with a HUGE asterisk. And there's always the chance that someone decides to take matters into their own hands. He'll have to start looking over his shoulder a bit more often.
 
I didn't follow the trial AT ALL but did the judge allow the testimonies of the other like 10+ women who claimed they were assaulted as well?

So it's not he said vs. she said, it's he said vs. she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she and she said.

Presumably, the prosecutor could have brought in additional witnesses but one also has to consider the risk. The more witnesses you bring in, the more opportunities you give the defence to poke holes in cross examination.

The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to gain a conviction in trials like this. The situation amounts to a 'he said, she said' with no physical evidence. Hence, getting past the reasonable doubt threshold becomes an almost impossible proposition. See: the Rolf Harris trials for an equivalent phenomenon.
 

Giolon

Member
He admitted as much.

It gets complicated when they have romantic history. She consented to taking the quaaludes. She admits to originally having a large amount of trust in Cosby. That's what makes it hard to say he took advantage of her. After she was out of it, then yeah, he most likely abused her trust and sexually assaulted her. But that's her word against his, and you can't convict a person of a crime based on a couple people's testimony. There's no direct evidence.

You will probably just have to settle with the fact that his character and reputation has been destroyed. No one will be comfortable around him with the exception of his closest friends and family. All of his achievements and accomplishments now come with a HUGE asterisk. And there's always the chance that someone decides to take matters into their own hands. He'll have to start looking over his shoulder a bit more often.

At the bolded, yes, you can. I was on a criminal jury and the judge gave the specific instruction, "The testimony of a single person is enough evidence to convict if you believe that person."

It still comes down to reasonable doubt though.
 
Wasn't this always a really uphill care to successfully prosecute given the time past and lack of physical evidence?

Certainly not defending him, but this always seemed like a long shot to prosecute.

Correct. It was *highly* unlikely. I don't think most people realized this was just one victim bringing this case and she just barely made it inside the statute of limitations. By days if I recall correctly. All the other women's cases are too old to bring charges.

This all rests on the strength of one woman's case based on an encounter something like 15 years ago. No further proof or evidence beyond her word and Cosby's admission that he gave women drugs. As far as I know anyway. I didn't follow the case closely but I'm pretty sure about those things. Just not enough there, guys.
 

The Llama

Member
Presumably, the prosecutor could have brought in additional witnesses but one also has to consider the risk. The more witnesses you bring in, the more opportunities you give the defence to poke holes in cross examination.

The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to gain a conviction in trials like this. The situation amounts to a 'he said, she said' with no physical evidence. Hence, getting past the reasonable doubt threshold becomes an almost impossible proposition. See: the Rolf Harris trials for an equivalent phenomenon.
The DA tried to have a lot of additional witnesses testify and the defense tried to have none testify. The judge only allowed one. It's basically a balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial value. The judge found that allowing more than one would be too prejudicial to the defense while not really allowing much more probative value.

(Was he correct? That'd be for the appellate courts to decide, if that issue ever got there, but personally I think it was the right ruling; this case is only about one victim, allowing so many victims to testify would risk turning it into a kangaroo court without resolving the issue of whether the victim was raped by the defendant)
 

mr jones

Ethnicity is not a race!
At the bolded, yes, you can. I was on a criminal jury and the judge gave the specific instruction, "The testimony of a single person is enough evidence to convict if you believe that person."

It still comes down to reasonable doubt though.

That's fucking scary. So you're saying if no one is around when a person dies, and a cop says that I'm the one who killed that person, with no other evidence showing that I was even in the area, that's enough to convict beyond the sheer subjectivity of "reasonable doubt"?
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
No one should be surprised at all really. It's not like OJ where they had his damn DNA with physical evidence both at the crime scene and his house.

All of the evidence (that i read about at least) seemed circumstantial. Not enough to nail him. Either way he's a piece of shit.
Circumstantial evidence can still be enough to nail someone if the jury is savvy. Hans Reiser is a good example.

Some juries drop the ball. I still can't believe "my dick is a murder weapon" guy got away with it.
 
Nah, the type of abuse by the likes of Cosby and Saville are not down to poor education, they are sexual predators and no amount of education would stop them.

With all due respect, this perspective is wrong.

Early childhood education that effectively ingrains the value of consent into the minds of young men and women could absolutely have prevented even the most prevalent serial abusers from developing their malformed ideologies. In addition to a sex problem, this is also an issue with a lack of empathy, which requires a different and equally important approach to early intervention.

People have raped and abused each other for millennia, and those abusers faced all manner of punishments and retribution that did nothing to address the issue on a macro level. Only the dawn of modern mental health care, the rise of sex education and the concept of abuse prevention and awareness have stemmed the tide.

By introducing these concepts very early in a child's life, they shape their worldview with a level of gravity that simply cannot be achieved later on. It's also worth noting that the best programs are about teaching what's right in addition to what's wrong, and emphasizing the positive elements of touch that empower kids to truly internalize the difference between things that make them feel loved and things that make them feel strange.
 
Top Bottom