Smug Bill Cosby waves and saunters into court as the jury asks judge 'what is reasonable doubt'

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 6/16/17 | Laura Collins

[Kickass Conservative]

Innocent until Proven Guilty.

[Roccus]

Hey, I don’t disagree with what he said about what’s wrong with the “black community.”
I even still have a couple of his early comedy albums.
But he IS what he is.

[Cementjungle]

Agreed. In any event, being rich and famous, and in a position to jump-start some young lady’s career is a far more powerful drug than any chemical... and probably was what got him the girls all the time. That is sleazy too, but not technically illegal.

[Magnatron]

"The jurors must be imbeciles. The preponderance of evidence should be reason enough for a person not to have doubts."

I'll admit up front that I haven't been following the evidence delivered at the trial, but from a 50,000 foot view: I'm not sure he should be convicted of anything at this point.

It seems to me that all of the accusations are years old -- some over a decade. These women had plenty of opportunity to come forward immediately after their assault, but didn't. I wonder if they didn't because they thought Cosby could do something for them, and when he didn't, years later they came forward.

I'm not skeptical he did these things. I just think you should forfeit your chance to charge someone if you wait too long down the road (excepting murder).

[Valentine Michael Smith]

The term “reasonable doubt” is meaningless. Kentucky bars lawyers from attempting to define it to the jury. However prosecutors will cheat and say, “We’re just talking about what’s reasonable here” which is intended to mislead the jury.

[JAKraig]

its the black jurors vs the white victims...enough said....just like simpson, they’ll let him walk....I hope there will be civil suits...

____________________________________________________________

I’m white. If I were on the jury from what I have heard I could not find him guilty.

They remained romantic friends for over a year after the alleged encounter. You don’t get raped and realize it a couple years later. She took the pill knowingly. She took the pills on purpose, he said because it would make her more relaxed. It did that for sure. If it takes a year to complain it wasn’t rape. It wasn’t rape until he was done with her.

Not guilty.

[Old Yeller]

I bet when he’s acquitted his “blindness” will clear up.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Hard to get worked up over Cosby when Bill Clinton is walking free.

[spetznaz]

I don't know whether you were serious or that was tongue in cheek, but the answer is no. It does not mean much. Now, if the accused is some poor average person who doesn't have access to top-notch legal representation, then it may lead to their incarceration. However, someone with the funds to hire lawyers who know what they are doing MAY be able to waltz off if all the evidence is 'sworn testimony' from people. That becomes a he said/she said type of case, and while that may work in a civil case it should not work in a criminal case.

I personally believe that Bill Cosby probably did rape several women. However, if I were a juror in that case I would be asking for evidence. Unfortunately, considering when it happened and the fact that the women (the real victims as I think some of them are fake) are only coming out now, it is unlikely there is any evidence. Unfortunate since I THINK that Cosby is guilty of at least some/many of those allegations, and it only takes one of them for him to be guilty. However, as a juror I would be basing my decision on evidence rather than what I think, and it would be up to the prosecution to put forth a compelling case that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are unable to do that, I would unfortunately have to let a man I consider guilty free. In a civil case however, the judge would only have to deal with a preponderance of evidence, and Cosby could be found guilty on day one.

[odawg]

“However, as a juror I would be basing my decision on evidence rather than what I think, and it would be up to the prosecution to put forth a compelling case that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

decision on evidence?

You have watched too many CSI shows.

In the history of the human race, eyewitness testimony has always been considered evidence.

In your world, rape could very well be a perfect crime when no evidence is left at the scene, although the woman can identify her attacker.

[spetznaz]

In your world, rape could very well be a perfect crime when no evidence is left at the scene, although the woman can identify her attacker.

If you permit me to use that last example, what's to stop a woman from accusing you of rape? She identities someone as her attacker, no evidence. Based on her word the person should be incarcerated? I seem to remember several cases where a man is accused of rape, and it is found out the whole thing was a lie (or mistaken identity).

It is also not about CSI, and I don't watch the show. It is about the burden of proof for a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the burden of proof for a civil case (preponderance of evidence). In the former, the prosecution has to a significantly higher burden of proof. In the latter, all they need to show is a 51% likelihood.

Anyway, let's see how this turns out. The jury may very well convict him. But the fact that they are asking what 'reasonable doubt' means probably shows that there are some weak spots in the case. And I say this as someone who fully believes that even though some of the women may not be telling the truth, at least several are. Unfortunately, the current legal system relies on evidence not hearsay, and whether the hearsay is true or not it unfortunately may not be enough