Posted on 06/16/2017 9:11:06 AM PDT by ColdOne
The jurors must be imbeciles. The preponderance of evidence should be reason enough for a person not to have doubts.
You know he’s gonna walk... No , saunter out the door.. Nobody’s gonna convict Fat Albert.
FREE COSBY.
I haven't followed this trial at all. Was there actual evidence, or was this the classic "she said, he said" situation?
O J trial all over again? “If the d**k didn’t fit, you gots to acquit.”
By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
Cementjungle wrote:
I haven’t followed this trial at all. Was there actual evidence, or was this the classic “she said, he said” situation?
I haven’t followed the trial, either.
Asked, ‘Was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes on young women that you wanted to have sex with, plural’ he responded, ‘Yes.’
That alone should be enough, IMO
This case MAY not meet the requirements for a criminal case, but were it a civil case it would have been open and shut.
Heck no!
Seems to me if you have to ask what it is then you probably have a reasonable doubt.
Was he playing doctor, dispensing pharmacutals?
“This case MAY not meet the requirements for a criminal case”
You mean the sworn testimony of about forty women means nothing? As Jay Leno says, even the Muslims only require four.
I think you may be judging these jurors too harshly. The victim did change stories apparently, which may be reasonable doubt to a lot of jurors.
This isn’t anything like that.
The accusations of 40 women doesn't equal sworn testimony. I never saw or heard of any evidence indicating that all .. or even most or a large number .. of the women made any sort of sworn statements, just accusations.
I thought this case pertained to one girl in one specific incident. I also recall one of the girls (perhaps this one?) had requested Qualudes from him. Ask yourself this.... if a woman comes to your hotel room, asks for party drugs and wants to "hang out and party" with you... would you possibly have sex on your mind too?
Again... I don't know ANY specifics on this particular girl/incident... just asking questions that pop into my mind on the thing.
“Judge, they are such dammed liars we did not know which one to believe!”
When a celebrity worth hundreds of millions is getting sued Gloria Alred can conjure up 40 "victims" in a heartbeat... and indeed, she did just that.
From your lips to God’s ears. I hope you are right. The problem is that everyone is so PC now a days that this jury could convict just to prove Woman power or some crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.