Oh no doubt he'd be risking a #### storm to do the shows, but I don't think he'd be doing it for the money, he's already rich as ####, not like they took any assets when he went to jail. It'd be purely for the ego.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Dude needs to follow Kevin Spacey's lead and just disappear.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Oh FFS. Nevermind... idiots. Just take your millions and go fade into anonymity somewhere.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Justice in the strictest legal sense was served, you can't promise someone criminal immunity for testimony then say oh sorry we're going to use everything you said against you.
Of course actual justice was not served but blame the morons that gave Cosby that deal.
I forget who alluded to it earlier, but giving Cosby that deal likely led to more justice being served than if they hadn’t. What would have happened if they didn’t offer Cosby that deal? It seems better that he had to settle with a victim and serve 3 years than nothing at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Justice in the strictest legal sense was served, you can't promise someone criminal immunity for testimony then say oh sorry we're going to use everything you said against you.
Of course actual justice was not served but blame the morons that gave Cosby that deal.
except they apparently didnt promise Crosby anything, the appeal was on the basis of a press conference that when asked if he planned on prosecuting Crosby the Prosecutor said no he didnt plan on persuing charges, that's it, nothing more.
No, that's not quite true (although that's essentially the prosecution's argument that was originally accepted by the trial court).
But they had a press conference and then afterwards, and apparently at the request of the accuser's lawyer, the former DA Castor released an extremely unique signed press release. He testified that the request was so the accuser could take the signed press release to a judge for the civil trial as proof that Cosby was not undergoing an investigation and there would be no criminal trial. The civil suite was filed shortly after.
But the major issue is that Castor is adamant about his purpose with the press release. In no uncertain terms, he testified that his purpose was to remove Cosby's ability to plead the fifth in the civil suite. He conferred with Cosby's criminal lawyer, in which they agreed that in doing so he had no fifth amendment protection. And Cosby's criminal lawyer then told Cosby's general counsel.
Cosby's general counsel testified that he believed Cosby had immunity as it related to Constand and therefore no fifth amendment protection for the deposition. He said he would have never let his client sit for that deposition if there was a chance that the criminal case could be reopen (because duh). Importantly the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania noted that Crosby did refuse to answer questions but was compelled to by the trial court at the time without invoking his fifth amendment.
So Cosby went into the deposition believing he had no fifth amendment protection. That much is pretty obvious. The former DA said that was the plan. Cosby's lawyer asserts that as well. And most importantly, I think, is Cosby's answers are just so damaging that no one in their right mind would not plead the fifth (I mean he admits to crimes).
But the problem isn't whether Cosby actually had 'immunity' (also read: no fifth amendment rights) but whether it was reasonable for him to assume so. They found that Castor telling Cosby's lawyers and Cosby relying on his lawyers was reasonable. Ultimately the majority found that it would be ridiculous if the DA, as the representative of the State (Commonwealth), could trick defendants or revoke plea deals.
I haven't read the dissents but I'm persuaded by the majority opinion. Sucks that we know a guilty person got out, but the alternative of allowing the State to renege on deals at their whim would be an absolute cluster####.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
except they apparently didnt promise Crosby anything, the appeal was on the basis of a press conference that when asked if he planned on prosecuting Crosby the Prosecutor said no he didnt plan on persuing charges, that's it, nothing more.
No, that's not quite true (although that's essentially the prosecution's argument that was originally accepted by the trial court).
But they had a press conference and then afterwards, and apparently at the request of the accuser's lawyer, the former DA Castor released an extremely unique signed press release. He testified that the request was so the accuser could take the signed press release to a judge for the civil trial as proof that Cosby was not undergoing an investigation and there would be no criminal trial. The civil suite was filed shortly after.
But the major issue is that Castor is adamant about his purpose with the press release. In no uncertain terms, he testified that his purpose was to remove Cosby's ability to plead the fifth in the civil suite. He conferred with Cosby's criminal lawyer, in which they agreed that in doing so he had no fifth amendment protection. And Cosby's criminal lawyer then told Cosby's general counsel.
Cosby's general counsel testified that he believed Cosby had immunity as it related to Constand and therefore no fifth amendment protection for the deposition. He said he would have never let his client sit for that deposition if there was a chance that the criminal case could be reopen (because duh). Importantly the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania noted that Crosby did refuse to answer questions but was compelled to by the trial court at the time without invoking his fifth amendment.
So Cosby went into the deposition believing he had no fifth amendment protection. That much is pretty obvious. The former DA said that was the plan. Cosby's lawyer asserts that as well. And most importantly, I think, is Cosby's answers are just so damaging that no one in their right mind would not plead the fifth (I mean he admits to crimes).
But the problem isn't whether Cosby actually had 'immunity' (also read: no fifth amendment rights) but whether it was reasonable for him to assume so. They found that Castor telling Cosby's lawyers and Cosby relying on his lawyers was reasonable. Ultimately the majority found that it would be ridiculous if the DA, as the representative of the State (Commonwealth), could trick defendants or revoke plea deals.
I haven't read the dissents but I'm persuaded by the majority opinion. Sucks that we know a guilty person got out, but the alternative of allowing the State to renege on deals at their whim would be an absolute cluster####.
I guess the obvious question is then did they use any of his testimony to aid in his conviction?
I haven't read the dissents but I'm persuaded by the majority opinion. Sucks that we know a guilty person got out, but the alternative of allowing the State to renege on deals at their whim would be an absolute cluster####.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sidney Crosby's Hat For This Useful Post:
I guess the obvious question is then did they use any of his testimony to aid in his conviction?
Yes. It's almost entirely all they had. There was no physical evidence a year after the incident when it was first reported (Happened in January 2004, reported January 2005). There was nothing new found over a decade later except his damning testimony in the deposition.
And without the deposition, I think Cosby has it in the bag. "Yep, this was the third night she came back to my house. I gave her some Benadryl, she fell asleep. We continued a working relationship, including other dinners, for a year after before she went unexpectedly to the police after our negotiations to pay for her school fell through" Keep in mind the first trial resulted in a mistrial as the jury couldn't come to a consensus even with Cosby saying he drugged women in his deposition.
“It was his deposition, really,” Snyder says. “Mr. Cosby admitted to giving these Quaaludes to women, young women, in order to have sex with them.” Snyder says he entered the retrial with no knowledge of the allegations against Cosby, but believed Constand after hearing her testimony.
