On the second day of its deliberations at the Montgomery County Courthouse in this town northwest of Philadelphia, the jury returned to convict Mr. Cosby of three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand, at the time a Temple University employee he had mentored.
The three counts - penetration with lack of consent, penetration while unconscious, and penetration after administering an intoxicant - are felonies, each punishable by up to 10 years in state prison, though the sentences could be served concurrently.
It was the second time a jury had considered Mr. Cosby's fate. His first trial last summer ended with a deadlocked jury after six days of deliberations.
Mr. Cosby sat back in his chair after the verdict was announced and quietly stared down. Several women who have accused Mr. Cosby of abusing them, and attended the trial each day, briefly cheered, then fell silent. Judge Steven T. O'Neill praised the jurors, calling it "an extraordinarily difficult case" and adding, "You have sacrificed much, but you have sacrificed in the service of justice."
Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele asked that Mr. Cosby's $1 million bail be revoked, suggesting he had been convicted of a serious crime, owned a plane and could flee, prompting an angry outburst from Mr. Cosby, who shouted, "He doesn't have a plane, you asshole."
"Enough of that," said Judge O'Neill who said he did not view Mr. Cosby as a flight risk and said he could be released on bail, but would have to surrender his passport and remain in his nearby home.
In recent years, Mr. Cosby, 80, had admitted to decades of philandering, and to giving quaaludes to women as part of an effort to have sex, smashing the image he had built as a moralizing public figure and the upstanding paterfamilias in the wildly popular 1980s and '90s sitcom "The Cosby Show." He did not testify in his own defense, avoiding a grilling about those admissions, but he and his lawyers have insisted that his encounter with Ms. Constand was part of a consensual affair, not an assault.
The verdict now marks the bottom of a fall as precipitous as any in show business history and leaves in limbo a large slice of American popular culture from Mr. Cosby's six-decade career as a comedian and actor. For the last few years, his TV shows, films, and recorded stand-up performances, one-time broadcast staples, have largely been shunned and with the conviction, they are likely to remain so.
At his retrial in the same courthouse and before the same judge as last summer, a new defense team argued unsuccessfully that Ms. Constand, now 45, was a desperate "con artist" with financial problems who steadily worked her famous but lonely mark for a lucrative payday.
The prosecution countered that it was Mr. Cosby who had been a deceiver, hiding behind his amiable image as America's Dad to prey on women that he first incapacitated with intoxicants. During closing arguments Tuesday, a special prosecutor, Kristen Gibbons Feden, had told the jury: "She is not the con. He is."
The defense's star witness was a veteran academic adviser at Temple, Mr. Cosby's alma mater, who said Ms. Constand had confided in her in 2004 that she could make money by falsely claiming that she had been molested by a prominent person. Mr. Cosby paid Ms. Constand $3.38 million in 2006 as part of the confidential financial settlement of a lawsuit she had brought against him after prosecutors had originally declined to bring charges.

The case was the first high-profile trial of the #MeToo era. Candidates were required during jury selection to provide assurances that the accusations against scores of other famous men would not affect their judgment of Mr. Cosby. Mr. Cosby's lawyers referred to the changed atmosphere in American society, warning it and the introduction of accounts from multiple other accusers risked denying Mr. Cosby a fair trial by distracting jurors' attention. "Mob rule is not due process," Kathleen Bliss, one of Mr. Cosby's lawyers told the jury.
Then she spent much of her closing argument urging the jury to discount the accounts of the five supporting witnesses. One was a failed starlet who slept around, she suggested, another a publicity seeker. "Questioning an accuser is not shaming a victim," she told the jury.
The remarks inflamed Ms. Feden, the prosecutor, who called the attacks on the women the same sort of filthy and shameful criticism that kept some victims of sexual assault from ever coming forward.
When Ms. Constand came forward to testify, she took the stand as something of a proxy for the other women, more than 50, who have accused Mr. Cosby of abuses, often with details remarkably similar to Ms. Constand's account. A few of those women attended the trial.

But Mr. Cosby is facing civil actions from several accusers, many of whom are suing him for defamation because, they say, he or his staff branded them as liars by dismissing their allegations as fabrications.
The suits have mostly been delayed, pending the outcome of the criminal trial and are likely to draw momentum from the guilty verdict.
The case largely turned on the credibility of Ms. Constand, who testified that in a visit in early 2004 to Mr. Cosby's home near Philadelphia, when she was 30 and he was 66, Mr. Cosby gave her pills that left her immobile and drifting in and out of consciousness. He said he had only given her Benadryl.
"I was kind of jolted awake and felt Mr. Cosby on the couch beside me, behind me, and my vagina was being penetrated quite forcefully, and I felt my breast being touched," Ms. Constand said. "I was limp, and I could not fight him off."
Adding weight to her accusations was the revelation that a decade earlier, in a deposition in Ms. Constand's lawsuit against him, Mr. Cosby had admitted to having given women quaaludes in an effort to have sex with them.
But perhaps most damaging was the testimony by the five additional accusers, which took up several days of testimony. In Mr. Cosby's first trial, last summer, only one other accuser had been allowed to add her voice to that of Ms. Constand. At the retrial, the accusers included the former model Janice Dickinson, who told jurors Mr. Cosby assaulted her in a Lake Tahoe hotel room in 1982, after giving her a pill to help with menstrual cramps. "Here was America's Dad on top of me," she told the courtroom, "a happily married man with five children, on top of me."
The defense suggested in its cross-examination that Ms. Dickinson had made up the account and pointed to the fact that in her memoir she had recounted the meeting without making any mention of an assault. But Ms. Dickinson's publisher testified that she had told her the rape account and it was only kept out of the book for legal reasons.
Another accuser, Chelan Lasha, told how Mr. Cosby invited her to his suite at the Las Vegas Hilton in 1986 when she was 17 to give her help with her modeling career. Mr. Cosby, she said, gave her a pill and liquor, and then assaulted her.
In court, Ms. Lasha, who was often in tears, called across the courtroom to the entertainer, who was sitting at the defense table.
"You remember," she asked, "don't you, Mr. Cosby?"
As in the first trial, Mr. Cosby's legal team insisted Ms. Constand was lying about a consensual, sexual relationship. But while his lawyers last summer had depicted Mr. Cosby as a flawed man, an unfaithful husband who shattered his fans' illusions, but committed no crime, his lawyers this time focused on the financial struggles they said Ms. Constand was experiencing that led her to extort money from a man who had been trying to help her with a career in broadcasting.
"You are going to be asking yourself during this trial, 'What does she want from Bill Cosby?' And you already know the answer: 'Money, money and lots more money,'" his lead lawyer, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., told the jurors as he opened his defense of Mr. Cosby. "She has a history of financial problems until she hits the jackpot with Bill Cosby."
The defense emphasized inconsistencies in the version of events Ms. Constand had given the police, saying, for example, at one point that the assault had taken place in March, 2004, then later changing that January 2004.
Mr. Cosby's lawyers cited her phone records to show she had stayed in touch with him after the encounter and they produced detailed travel itineraries and flight schedules in an effort to show that Mr. Cosby did not stay at his Philadelphia home during the period she said the assault occurred.
"He was lonely and troubled and he made a terrible mistake confiding in her what was going on in his life," Mr. Mesereau said.
Under cross-examination, Ms. Constand explained the lapses in her accounts as innocent mistakes, and said her contacts with Mr. Cosby after the incident were mostly cursory, the unavoidable result of her job duties.
Mr. Steele told the jury that with the pills he gave her, Mr. Cosby took away Ms. Constand's ability to consent, and that their later contacts were irrelevant.
When Ms. Constand's mother called to confront Mr. Cosby about a year after the incident, the prosecution argued, the defendant's apology, and his offer to pay for her schooling, therapy and a trip to Florida, were evidence he knew he had done something wrong.
Mr. Steels, the district attorney, also worked to rebut the defense claims. He said that Mr. Cosby, a member of Temple University's board of directors and the university's most famous alumnus, set his sights on Ms. Constand, an employee in the university's athletic department who considered Mr. Cosby a mentor.
"This case is about trust," Mr. Steele had told the jurors. "This case is about betrayal, and that betrayal leading to a sexual assault of a woman named Andrea Constand."




Reader Comments
HFL: "So Bill Cosby has been found guilty, then".
Mme HFL: "Bing Crosby?
HFL: "No, Bill Cosby".
Mme HFL: "Ohhhh.... I don't even know who he is."
LOL.
R.C.
By your logic, if Mme HFL didn't think Beethoven was a dog, that would mean she'd be about 200 years old, eh Sherlock?
That's the average SOTT reader for you: Several times stupiderer than anyone you can meet in everyday life, ten times dumberer than a dog that barks at the TV.
I know I won't get any blow-back from this comment. Everyone who reads it will think I'm talking about someone else.
I don't give a f**k how high stung you are you goddam snowfake. There, see the difference ?
Sure, there's generally not one on murder, (which makes sense as the victim isn't available to complain) . . .But on Rape?
Rape? That most subjective - and instantly damning of CLAIMS? My GOD, they're going to be coming out of the woodwork against anyone who subsequently got rich!!!
Typical of US officially approved insanity. (Too bad he wasn't a cop; it would never have gotten past a prosecutor's secretary.)
R.C.
Also, My GOD, they're going to be coming out of the woodwork; and not just against Bill Cosby, but against anyone who subsequently got rich!!! (Or merely 'rich in the eyes of the accuser.')
R.C.
" California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that ends a statute of limitations on prosecuting rape cases. The bill is widely believed to be inspired by allegations against comedian Bill Cosby, after some of his accusers came forward long after the alleged sexual assaults took place. Cosby has repeatedl"
Well guess what? One: An SOL is a substantive law, and cannot be applied retroactively. (Thus it can't be revived after it expired; indeed, whatever the SOL was at the time of the alleged crime for that time forward and forever applies. So if it was in 2004 and a 6 year SOL, the last time to charge him was 2010.)
I can't believe the idiot judge didn't dismiss the case on a Motion to Dismiss whichj almost certainly occurred. (Maybe it was idiot supremo: "Lance Ito")*
Additionally, given the above quote (that Cosby was the CAUSE of the change of the statute) means that, at least as to him, this law was an unconstitutional 'Bill of Attainder."
If it doesn't end up as ruled above, then America is absolutely a country OF MEN, NOT LAWS.
Just FYI.
R.C.
*He only needed the letters 'i' and 'd' for his name to be complete: 'idiot.'
RC
This makes me wonder how we ever wound up with such a statute in the first place. Sheesh.
Really, you think rape is just subjective, and the rich should get a free pass (they think they can get away with it because they are rich and famous)? You think it is fun to go through a long drawn out trial like this as a victim?
Sadly necessary introductory note: (It sucks, as a person who tries to objectively discuss an issue is always then identified as approving of the facts that happened, even when their points are how, in a flawed human system of Justice, can it be directed towards ensuring innocents are found such. I personally know a guy framed for 24 years who the cops claimed was a rapist, and though he's about 5'4" and the victim's initital statement was that the rapist was 5'2", the cops managed to hide the DNA that proved his innocence, and convinced her that the guy was SHORTER THAN SHE WAS!")
(Like every decent soul, I detest rape. I shouldn't have to start with that, though, at least in a fair discussion. See, for example, every tactic applied by the MSM to critics of its story line re Syria, and or... Jordan Peterson... etc.) That is the way issues are decided most accurately and fairly by we flawed humans.
M&J: It’s kind of you (I presume) to agree that he had a right to a trial? That said, you like the Bill of Rights? The DOI? The principles they stand for? (If you disagree with these points, please advise. If not, your non comments on those particulars will be assumed as such.)*
So, maybe the thought, "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", is something you are either unaware of or disagree with? After all, it is, theoretically at least, still the law in America - which goes right along with the entire concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.
So what would you do if congress passes a law tomorrow that says anyone who states these words under the names as below...
Name Words
Name: Mark:
Words: "Did it ever cross your mind that in many instances the statute of limitations works to protect predators, sociopaths, and psychopaths"
[R.C.: Actually, SOL's are designed to protect folks from 'charges of subsequent opportunity' such as here. As I noted, if he was a cop, this wouldn't have gotten past the prosecutor's secretary's desk. Also, if she really was raped, - rather than, say, bragged to her friends how she slept with B.C. and did 'ludes with him - Why didn’t she gripe way back then, when she should have and all the witnesses memories were fresh and her blood tests and rape tests would have proved it? That would be in accord with a fair trial.]
Name: Josi'
Words: "You think it is fun to go through a long drawn out trial like this as a victim?" [R.C.: Clearly, she was the only one in charge of 'drawing it out' she could have filed the complaint the next day. She didn't... for FOURTEEN YEARS! I bet she got some good work from B.C. during that time, also.]
So, again . . . say Congress passes a law re your words, saying ‘life imprisonment’ for any so typing as above and made it retroactive to 01/01/2018. (Believe it or not there have been worse laws out there - still are.)*
What would you say? “That’s not fair!” True enough. “ Give me a lawyer? I want my Bill of Rights?” If so, why would you deny the same to Mr. Cosby?
If you think the average rape case looks like this one, then you’ve been watching too much TV, are dead wrong, and ought to go to your local felony court and watch the action.
Most cases are the police/prosecutorial team working together to pressure real wrong doers (of malum in se crimes, like theft, robbery, rape - who do no time to speak of, rape or not) so that they can ultimately steal assets from someone who’s committed no real crimes, but whom they dislike because their target smokes pot. Why? The cops want to steal the things the other person earned through a half life or saving. (Research Civil Forfeitures. Read ‘ Drug Warriors and Their Prey ’ by Miller, comparing the drug warriors’ approach with the tactics of Nazi Germany, as per the seminal work on what went wrong there: “identification, isolation, concentration, elimination/extermination.”)
While it’s been said that “The law is an ass’**, that doesn’t mean that we should then saddle up and ride. *** It’s only the publicity that Cosby got that achieved this result. My predictions as above stand, though I wouldn’t be surprised to find a chicken appellate court claim to resolve it on the super specific facts so as to avoid ruling the law unconstitutional, something all too prevalent these days. (Example: No aspect of the BLATANTLY unconstitutional Patriosh*t Act nor the NDAA, has been ruled unconstitutional, save by an exceptionally ethical and brave female US District Court Judge, whose stay-pending-appeal was instantly overruled on an emergency basis by the appellate court.) Were dealing with fair and easy to know laws. It’s the same legal issue here. (Note how I point out how it makes sense to have no SOL for murder due to victim being unable to complain.)
I last represented criminal defendants around 1991. (Please note my initial, sadly necessary these days, points at top.) In that time, I walked one falsely charged ‘rapist’ (who was looking at life); and I nigh concurrently had to plead out a sixteen year old (at time of arrest) who was charged as an adult, because he bought and sold crack, (In that order!) from the police. So at 17 he was sent to Florida State Prison - home of death row for ‘only a year and a day.’ (He was facing 15 years!) But we can guess what his life since then has been like, eh?
I worked on two child molestation cases. In one the guy - a teacher accused of wrongfully touching a child in front of class! (By a kid who’d been prepped by mom the day before) etc. - he was completely innocent (odds way over 99%.) In the other, the odds of innocence were - to my insider’s mind 51/49 in favor of guilt - not enough to beat the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. (No child molester admits guilt even to their attorney, due to the 25 year penalty.)
The results of those cases? The innocent teacher got 25 years and the most likely guilty guy walked. (I didn’t do the teacher trial, but did work the ‘likely guilty’ guy’s trial and brought the witness that saved the day. I did all the discovery, depositions and motions on both.)
It’s the same thing as in Afghanistan, where neighbors would turn over a neighbor to get his land, wife/wives, sheep and goats, and the poor bastard would die in some black site CIA prison. That is the type of law we are aiming for in America. That’s the plan.
It isn’t the laws that create this situation, but simply a bad side of human society in that most people are followers and hop on the latest bandwagon. While it may be long, the below certainly covers this point of humanity’s nature, as later proven in the 1960's by Stanley Milgram (though Zionists fight his conclusions.) It is that selfsame human nature that has allowed this politically correct law creation so as to convict Crosby. This, in the end, proves the old truism that “hard cases make bad laws.”
THE FLOODGATES ARE ABOUT TO OPEN.
If you’re a guy, hopefully you do not have in your past an angry psychotic vindictive female; and, if so, in your present, you have made money from working hard. (The facts hardly give inspiration to work hard.) What happened to the right of a speedy trial?
R.C.
*I intentionally didn’t list the US Constitution, (save the BOR as a part of it), as it included (until the 14th? Amendment) that for population and House Representation purposes, slaves counted as 2/3 of a human, and as such, I detect that such is an example of a law that you disagree with.
**(Dickens, Oliver Twist.
**TM, C., Tom F. & RC 2018
RC
I personally know a guy framed for
2422 years who the cops claimed was a rapist, and though he's about 5'4" and the victim's initial statement was that the rapist was 6'2" (6 feet, 2 inches) (188 cm.) (or more), and yet:- the same prosecutor / cop team forcefully convinced her that their man was the guilty one, even though the guy was significantly SHORTER THAN SHE WAS!" (I think she was 5'6".)
- the cops intentionally hid the DNA evidence that proved he was absolutely innocent and they knew it - they simply had no concern of proving the 'truth' & (all-too-typically) were psychopaths who simply wanted to 'close the case', and they also disliked the poor guy. (This was an early DNA wrongful conviction case.) See, generally the 'Innocence Project' which has proven innocent another Brevardian, William Michael Dillon, (who did 27.5 years) and who was framed for murder by the same 'team' which consisted of a corrupt 'dog handler' John Preston, whom the cops fed inside information to so that the dog could prove its magical abilities. The term 'frame up' doesn't BEGIN to summarize what happens in MOST cases!
In my home county we have these two 'famous' "Innocence Project" cases, while the Law Enforcement and Prosecutors continue to stone wall any other investigations that were framed up by this magic dog (and pony) show, as it might 'lower their conviction rates'...How? By RELEASING INNOCENT FOLKS WHO WERE FRAMED!
(And yet, certain overly emotional and/or underinformed SOTT readers, with no clues about the flaws in human systems - most especially political or judicial systems - like to believe that 'every CLAIMED rape victim always tells the truth - and the system always sees through it as enforced by heroic prosecutor/cops such as seen on Law & Order - it ain't that way! Not even close!)
The same 'team' that framed my acquaintance did the following on the guy that they framed for murder, as revealed when the DNA proved him thoroughly innocent. (This is a summary of the hearing where the poor SOB's attorneys proved the level of the lies that cops will sustain to get a wrongful conviction. (They - the cops and prosecutors here - had (and, I'm sure still have) absolutely no empathy, sympathy, concern for others . . . and yet they sleep well and still get full pensions!) So let's hear about another evil rapist/murderer... (not- merely accused, and the presumption of innocence was lost in the media hype):
As we chronicled here on Tuesday, Roger Dale Chapman, who testified during William Dillon’s 1981 trial that Dillon made a jailhouse confession, attended Dillon’s compensation hearing on Monday to set the record straight. The news reports don’t really do this riveting moment justice. So I wanted to recount what occurred from my perspective at counsel’s table:
While Dillon was on the stand, he was asked about his time in the county jail. He noted that while he in jail after arrest, he was in a large cell with upwards of 20 inmates and a story about the Dvorak murder came on the TV. Many people asked him about it and Bill stated that he told them “I had nothing to do with that there.”
Dillon also stated that he did not know Roger Dale Chapman, and therefore didn’t know if he had ever spoken with him at the jail. The first time he found out about Chapman was when Chapman was on the stand testifying to the jailhouse confession at trial.
Then Dillon was dismissed and counsel called Roger Dale Chapman to the astonishment of the hearing officers and just about everyone in the room. Chapman stated that he was in the county jail after being falsely accused of rape. A Sheriff’s Office Agent, Thom Fair, came to him in the jail and made him an agent of the State for the purposes of soliciting damaging admissions from Dillon. Fair threatened Chapman with jail time if he didn’t comply.
Chapman then stated that he went into the “bullpen” where Dillon was being held with many other inmates and, when the story of the murder came on the TV with a picture of Dillon, he asked Dillon whether he did it and Dillon protested his innocence vehemently.
Several days later, Fair came back to the jail to meet Chapman. At this point Fair already knew that medical testing came back which demonstrated that Chapman could not have committed rape. Yet, when Chapman stated that Dillon didn’t give him anything and maintained his innocence, Fair held out his hand and stated “I have your life in the palm of my hand and if you don’t give me something on Dillon, I can make that rape charge come back.”
Fair also told Chapman that they had Dillon as their “fall guy.”
Chapman then stated that he didn’t have anything to say so Fair decided to record a statement by Chapman which would implicate Dillon, only when Fair asked the questions about the specifics of the crime, another investigator held up the answers so Chapman could parrot them back for the recording and the eventual transcribed statement.
Dillon’s counsel also entered into evidence secret handwritten notes from Dean Moxley, the Chief Assistant State Attorney, indicating that Chapman may have been made an agent of the State and that they already gave him a bond reduction and they should probably enter into a deal with him.
Chapman then testified at trial that Dillon confessed to him in jail with detail about the crime. Chapman’s rape charge was dropped in exchange.
After this testimony, Chapman apologized to Dillon for contributing to his wrongful conviction.
Obviously, none of this was turned over to the defense before trial and at trial, the State insisted that there was no deal.
This is the most pernicious kind of misconduct. Law enforcement had their mind made up and then just needed to fabricate the evidence to fit that preconceived notion. We call this tunnel vision.
This misconduct seems to have been the norm in Brevard County in the 1980s and the John Preston+snitch formula worked for the State in (my acquaintance) and Dillon, and we’ll find out whether it worked in the case of Gary Bennett.
Either way, this is the beginning of the pulling back of the curtain of the muck that regularly served to cause wrongful convictions in Brevard. I suspect it won’t be the last we hear.
(Here's the link: http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=1586)
Oh Josie and Mark: what are your thoughts on these points? Have your impressions of the 'fairness' of our police and prosecutors perhaps been awakened?
As I noted below: go down to your local felony court (e.g., arraignments, motions, trials, just call the judge's secretary or the clerk and they'll tell you how to do it.) and tell me if you still say that prosecutors' claims MUST BE TRUE, and that they only work with honorable cops.
As a veteran of this malevolent war dedicated to imprisonment - not establishing guilt or innocence - I hope I've perhaps opened your - and others' - awareness and minds.
R.C.
some blow-back MF
My apologies Mr Cocoan. Please forgive me for the misspelling your name. And sorry to confuse you with lowlaying highland fluke leek whose commentary I took to offend me.
he stated he knew he wouldn’t get any feedback I just wanted to try and educate him. He’s wrong.
i hope the editors of SOTT will delete my previous comment misspelling Rowan Cocoan’s name.
i regret I confused that sott reader with highland flute.
Goodnight!
Though I your comments are well-taken, they don't have much to say about Cosby. There's a saying that every cloud has a silver lining. I think the cloud of PC group think and the deeply-flawed 'justice' system that serves its twisted ends just flashed silver with this conviction.
Thank you for retracting your ad hominem comment re my name*, which is of course, rather immature, no matter whom its target was, agreed?
Though I guess you've been here a while, I've never seen any comment from you (at least not one worth remembering) and the first thing I see is the accusation of “Troll”. (Things that make one say, “Hmm....” )
To recount the above:
HFL commented about how his lady, Mme HFL was aware of Bing Crosby but not Bill Cosby.
demore then stated, in reply to HFL's comment: “Me thinks you are older than your avatar ”
I'm fairly confident that demore volunteered this irrelevancy in a lost joke effort (he’s probably American) in that here, folks are as aware of Bill as of Bing. I dare say that’s different in the UK. My guess was he was jokingly trying to say that HFL is old, decrepit and unknowingly uninformed, or such and therefore more aware of Bing and Bob (Hope) as opposed to Bill Cosby. Or, as perhaps read by HFL, both him and very importantly, Mme. HFL!
A problem was that what might have been demore’s ultimately misplaced fun-making - as I guess from his emoji - was that it was nonetheless ad hominem. (This is especially since I personally know that HFL really is Michael Caine, after all.** And guess what? Michael Caine doesn’t look that young anymore, either!)
More specifically, demore, please note that HFL’s comment brought in Mme HFL; the first I’ve ever heard him mention her, which would cause me to hesitate to make fun about anyone's comment that introduces their lady. (When I read it, I hoped we’d have a new commenter named “Mme HFL” or such.) Thus, the iffy taste begins in demore’s failing to put himself in HFL’s shoes, as from HFL's perpective, I can easily understand why he replied sharply. For I detect (but certainly am not sure), that there may be there, like here - good old Chivalry (original, there, albeit Florida-Southern-Redneck in its current form here - as to any slight, no matter how accidental or slight, directed at me and my lady, even indirectly or ‘indirectly-indirectly,’ (as here); well, 'Them's fighting words!'
Yet even In HFL’s sharp reply, please note how he nonetheless doesn't lower himself to that first diversionary standby of 'ad hominem'*** to make his point. Contrast that with your attempts/words.
So HFL ended with “I know I won't get any blow-back from this comment. Everyone who reads it will think I'm talking about someone else.” That was, you say, what upset you. However, I hope you realize that when you posted your final three new reader comments at the bottom, rather than as comments on a comment, your actions PROVED HFL’s Point! ****
Your apology is accepted.
R.C.
*E.g., "K-Y-Jelly-Basalmic"; Is there no balm in Gilead?, (Poe); Etc.
** I don't know, but who does? SOTT, I'd guess.
*** Ad hominae is not ad hominem.
****Some helpful hints: First, you should have placed your text as comments on HFL’s comment; (you hit the “Arrow turning up and left button just to the right of each comment and it will ‘auto fill” the commenter’s name; and NOT via new comments down here, quite distant from HFL’s comment about the inabilities of SOTT readers,)
Subsequent comments or clarifications of your own comments should usually be attached to your original, (contra three originals in a row), unless they bring up a new matter, reply to something, or are simply too complex to be restricted to being merely a comment on a comment, which is why I’ve posted this as a new comment discussing several different comments from different places, rather than as a comment on yours. Just general stuff you may well know, so, FYI.
You're welcome.
RC
good on you kksalm
As to the above too-long commentaries, they really took little time as I type fast and was discussing what I've written about for over 37? years. I have been a witness to the nearly infinitely sad squelching of what was, for my first ten years of it (85 - 95) still the best legal system in the world.
It then still made sense, and it hasn't for a long time. Those are the last criminal cases I ever did, because I couldn't stand the results being caused more by the 'who's' and not the 'whats,' with the overriding, absurd fixation with the 'Drug War' that no one would question - for the same reasons as Twain wrote of.
Please read the all too typical facts of criminal law here, in this one example re the Florida Innocence Project, discussed above. { floridainnocence.org/content/?tag=brevard-county. You'll have to copy (control C) and paste (control V).}
I was about nine when I first questioned the inconsistency of how the drug 'alcohol' was dealt with via prohibition - it required a constitutional amendment to make illegal, and another to end it -(and left America with a long lasting (still) criminal group, in addition to congress*
If that was the valid case, how could all these other drugs be made so easily 'illegal'? (See the book I referenced above.) (And nowadays, Congress has unconstitutionally given the Executive Branch (the FDA/DEA) the ability to make drugs illegal without so much as a hearing. ABSURD! (Especially since, as more people are finally learning, 'our' government and PTB do NOT care for OUR best interests!)
I was and remain angry that 'evil 'drugs' were and are used as a cover excuse to dismantle our justice system as part and parcel of the contemporaneous and intentional creation of what is now a police state. (I was saying that in Jr. High School.) I mean if they really were trying to "protect" Americans from themselves:
1) Such is phenomenally stupid, as no one can protect a competent adult better than that selfsame person; and,
2) If they really cared, they'd start with the drugs that kill the most - alcohol, tobacco, etc. The fact they haven't showed - and shows - that the claimed 'health concerns' were just for show, and that the real purpose was for the PTB to gain power for themselves, and control over others. (Again, I've been arguing these points long before my occupation became such; it certainly didn't change my personality as I've always been rather expressively analytical** and opinionated about such things, and can type relatively fast.
And nowadays, what do I finally hear?*** "OMG, R.C., you were always so right!" I sure wish I'd not been.
I've detested P.C. since that plague began, and pointed out why, as I still do.
With best wishes, I remain,
Your Fellow SOTTite,
R.C.
*Twain:
-It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress . &
-It is the foreign element that commits our crimes. There is no native criminal class except Congress
** Folks would try (and fail) to tease me by saying "Analyze it, R.C."
***(Note: I still know at least one hundred kids I went to school with because this is a place folks don't tend to move away from)
RC
from Scott Greenfield @ Simple Justice blawg "Cosby convicted, but why?"
[Link]
The conviction of Bill Cosby for conduct committed in 2004 may be the first #MeToo conviction. At least, that’s how some are trying to spin it.
"Today’s guilty verdict in the sexual assault case against Bill Cosby closes a chapter left unresolved by last summer’s deadlocked jury. A retrial typically looks much like the first go-round. But in this case, the #MeToo era began between the two trials. So the second trial has become a litmus test of the movement’s impact. Because the jury convicted this time around, it is tempting to think that #MeToo is already improving the criminal justice system’s notoriously poor handling of sexual violence."
This was written by a former DANY prosecutor, now lawprof at Northwestern. Deborah Tuerkheimer. The headline given the op-ed sets the tone: The Cosby jury finally believed the women . Not believed the facts. Not believed the evidence. Not even believed Constand, whether described as “accuser,” “victim” or even “survivor.” Not woman. Women.
"I would urge caution about generalizing in this way. In many respects, this was no ordinary sexual assault prosecution. The case featured a celebrity and dozens of accusers. The two trials involved different witnesses, different lawyers and different jurors. Even with these caveats, I do see the conviction as a mark of progress — progress that is best understood in relation to the work of #MeToo."
She doesn’t “urge caution” about convicting an individual defendant in the name of the cause, to vindicate the complaints of women that they weren’t believed whether they were telling the truth or their truth . Rather, her caution is that this may not be enough to show that the #MeToo movement has gained sufficient momentum, sufficient acceptance, to guarantee that every person accuse by a woman will be convicted.
"First, Andrea Constand, the main accuser in the case, was believed. She did not face the “credibility discounting” that usually confronts women who make allegations of sexual assault and harassment. As I have described in a recent paper, police officers, prosecutors and jurors tend to default to doubt when evaluating the credibility of an accuser. Even abundantly corroborated allegations of sexual assault may not result in prosecution, much less conviction. Credibility discounting helps to explain research showing that sexual assault very rarely results in criminal justice accountability."
There was a time when “default to doubt” was considered a foundational virtue of the legal system. Don’t believe because you believe, but believe because the facts support the belief. But that resulted in accusers being questioned and challenged, which made them feel devalued, as if people didn’t believe them. Of course, just because someone says so doesn’t make it so, but when it came to accusations of rape and sexual assault, that was no longer the paramount concern. At least not for women. Not for their allies. Not for the people of Salem.
M+J, try to listen to people with real EXPERIENCE, ( even if they ramble on a bit)..like our friend RC.
And whilst I may ‘Ramble On,’ it’s because I’ve long spoken such points and can type them faster than one’s average bear - especially given the thickness of their paws.
And.... importantly . . . R.C.
* For guitarists: While the Zep song was recorded - I’d guess - with an open tuned guitar, one can cheat it well by making a fifth fret D bar chord (using all four fingers), while leaving the high and low E strings open. Then slide up a D bar chord at frets V & VII, up to the E at the VII and IX position. (Slide all four fingers up from the D to the E, whilst strumming both open E strings throughout; you’ll hear it.)
RC
LOL.
Mmme HFL is French. In general, the French have never heard of Bill Cosby.
I think they get Bing Crosby at Christmas, just like everyone else.
J'ai confiance que vous parlez - et lisez - le français aussi? (Et elle, vice versa, aussi?)
As to moi, me no hable el francaiso. (I.e., that was google translating.)
R.C.
*I trust you'll pardon the informality, and my accidentally giving away your real identity.
RC
Uh?
Who the f@%& is Mike?
LOL.
"J'ai confiance que vous parlez - et lisez - le français aussi? (Et elle, vice versa, aussi?)".
Moi? Un peu.
I seem to recall that quite some time ago (i.e., years) I guessed that the image was from 'The Italian Job,' which I had just stumbled onto while watching U.S. football on TV, and I seem to recall you disagreed? Or not? (Whatever. I'm far from certain on that recollection of a thoroughly unnoteworthy event.)
However, I just did manage to find that image linked as from T.I.J. though I won't link it.
So that's the joke, Michael - 'Mike'; and if it took this much to make it, I guess it was less of a joke than I hoped for.
Cheers, mate. And same to Mme HFL.*
R.C.
*Count me envious - an emotion I'm mostly unfamiliar with - as at present, I'm just me and my cat and work.
RC