The jurors must be imbeciles. The preponderance of evidence should be reason enough for a person not to have doubts.
I haven't followed this trial at all. Was there actual evidence, or was this the classic "she said, he said" situation?
This case MAY not meet the requirements for a criminal case, but were it a civil case it would have been open and shut.
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.
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...
They probably are imbeciles, at least some of 'em. I have only been on local municipal court juries, but there's always some dumbasses in there. What I heard on one jury was "I don't think the prosecution proved his case". By "proved", they practically expected to have a filmed record of the crime so that there was no doubt whatsoever. I explained that "no trial is going to prove something 100%. That's why you are here. You are supposed to sift the evidence and make a decision. The prosecution isn't going to do it for you." I think too many jurors picked up a lot of this BS from the O.J. trial.
Those are two different standards. Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Please admit your ignorance when being screened for jury duty.
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).