Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion
If BC could manage to get a grand jury to acquit him I would be the first to apologize for suspecting that there might be something to the twenty-some women who have come forward with accusations.

However, given his record of settling out-of-court and paying off his accusers rather than facing a jury of his peers, I somehow doubt he will attempt to go to court to clear his name

57 posted on 12/08/2014 11:01:53 AM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: tjd1454

A Qrand Jury would HAVE to acquit him because no law enforcemententity has enouqh probable cause to even present a case to a Qrand Jury. The only DA who had an alleqed crime reported to him said there wasn’t enouqh evidence to press charqes.

That’s why this is beinq tried in the “court of public opinion”. It doesn’t have even the most basic rudimentary level of evidence to make it to a Qrand Jury.

Yet you are qoinq to presume he’s quilty.

Sad.

These accusations don’t even list dates. How is ANYBODY supposed to prove a neqative when they don’t even have a DATE that the event supposedly happened? And as lonq as the accusations were based on dates that these women really did see Cosby, what evidence is he supposed to present at this late date that would exonerate him? It’s he said, she said? How do you prove you DIDN’T touch somebody? The whole idea of this is ridiculous - which is why it is the person who claims the act DID happen who bears the burden of provinq that.

This is basic, core principles of our system of justice, and if people are beinq fair-minded they would follow the same principles. What is so hard to understand about this?

I have no interest in hashinq out the Cosby thinq. The reason I mentioned it is because the qeneral principle of “quilty until proven innocent” and “always trust an accusation” is nonsense - in Berkeley, in UVA, in Tawana Brawley, in Duke lacrosse, in Lena Dunham, and in Bill Cosby. The only way you’re qoinq to NOT qive accusers a free pass to corruptly make false accusations AND not qive rapists a free pass to rape.... is if BOTH parties are subject to scrutiny of the evidence. And that is the very foundinq principle of our system which CA is tryinq to throw out.

Danqerous, danqerous stuff, which is understood by anybody who truly understands what tyranny is and how a society qets there.


61 posted on 12/08/2014 3:34:31 PM PST by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: tjd1454; butterdezillion
However, given his record of settling out-of-court and paying off his accusers rather than facing a jury of his peers,

Do you know how many celebrities pay off their accusers rather than going to court ? Same question for politicians.

Are you saying that every one who settled out of court is automatically guilty ?

McDonald's settled out of court with the woman who spilled coffee on her lap, and sued because she didn't understand that the coffee might be hot. Were they guilty ?

Guilty he may be, but I don't believe that settling out of court implies guilt.

87 posted on 12/12/2014 2:17:23 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson