zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 13, 2015 10:09:56 GMT -5
Ah. Well, that won't do them much good now, I'm thinking. Talking to someone isn't proof. I could say it happened to me but it didn't and even if it had, after all this time, where's the proof?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 10:35:22 GMT -5
Witnesses? Someone witnessed him drugging and raping someone and didn't report it? I missed that. Who knows. Maybe someone knows who he bought the drugs from. Or were told about the incidents at the time and can vouch for the women. Or heard him talk about the incident.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 10:36:41 GMT -5
Ah. Well, that won't do them much good now, I'm thinking. Talking to someone isn't proof. I could say it happened to me but it didn't and even if it had, after all this time, where's the proof? Actually someone vouching that you told them about it at the time and being able to speak to why you didn't move forward then is very helpful in court. At least according to Law and Order
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 10:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 13, 2015 13:21:00 GMT -5
Witnesses? Someone witnessed him drugging and raping someone and didn't report it? I missed that. Who knows. Maybe someone knows who he bought the drugs from. Or were told about the incidents at the time and can vouch for the women. Or heard him talk about the incident. I'm pretty sure hearsay and double-hearsay isn't admissible in court. But maybe that's only in criminal cases.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jan 13, 2015 13:43:59 GMT -5
Who knows. Maybe someone knows who he bought the drugs from. Or were told about the incidents at the time and can vouch for the women. Or heard him talk about the incident. I'm pretty sure hearsay and double-hearsay isn't admissible in court. But maybe that's only in criminal cases. There is a laundry list of hearsay exceptions -- not all hearsay is inadmissible. And hearsay is defined as an "out of court statement offered for truth of the matter asserted" -- so although a statement like "Cosby told me he drugged those women" wouldn't be admitted to prove that he had actually drugged the women, it could be admissible for a variety of other reasons.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 13, 2015 19:24:41 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure hearsay and double-hearsay isn't admissible in court. But maybe that's only in criminal cases. There is a laundry list of hearsay exceptions -- not all hearsay is inadmissible. And hearsay is defined as an "out of court statement offered for truth of the matter asserted" -- so although a statement like "Cosby told me he drugged those women" wouldn't be admitted to prove that he had actually drugged the women, it could be admissible for a variety of other reasons. Do you think there's the faintest glimmer of a hope of a case against Mr. Cosby? It was my understanding that the statute of limitations for criminal charges ran out decades ago, hence it would have to be civil litigation of some kind. Then there's the problem of lack of physical evidence, but what you're saying here seems to suggest that hearsay could in some fashion be used to supplement the plaintiffs' case. I'm currently of the same mind as AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: I don't see how a court case against Mr. Cosby could really go anywhere.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 13, 2015 19:30:26 GMT -5
Yes, and some 90 year old guy can be torn to shreds by a half way decent lawyer. He's not someone I'd want as a witness for me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 19:35:36 GMT -5
I'm not saying not to investigate claims like this, I'm saying that it is now impossible. When it's impossible, the accused gets the benefit. Just the way it is. In those cases we will talk about it and cause the accused personal grief. Just the way it is. And when the accused is actually innocent (like the Duke Lacrosse team turned out to be)... that's a good attitude how? (I'm not saying Cosby IS innocent, just that no proof has been provided, this question is meant "generally")
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 19:37:11 GMT -5
Witnesses? Someone witnessed him drugging and raping someone and didn't report it? I missed that. I missed it too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 20:54:13 GMT -5
In those cases we will talk about it and cause the accused personal grief. Just the way it is. And when the accused is actually innocent (like the Duke Lacrosse team turned out to be)... that's a good attitude how? (I'm not saying Cosby IS innocent, just that no proof has been provided, this question is meant "generally") It tooks weeks or months to prove the Lacrosse team innocent. With all his resources Cosby hasn't been able to prove his innocence in 40 years. Things that make you go hmmmm.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 21:05:33 GMT -5
And when the accused is actually innocent (like the Duke Lacrosse team turned out to be)... that's a good attitude how? (I'm not saying Cosby IS innocent, just that no proof has been provided, this question is meant "generally") It tooks weeks or months to prove the Lacrosse team innocent. With all his resources Cosby hasn't been able to prove his innocence in 40 years. Things that make you go hmmmm. Yeah, and they were proving their innocence DAYS after the alleged incident took place... not DECADES. I guess you wouldn't understand the difficulties that difference in time makes. Just as it makes it difficult for them to prove he did it, it also makes it difficult to prove he didn't. Here's a thought... if someone does something bad to you... REPORT IT THEN, when they do it, as soon as you get away. Don't wait 40-odd years. That's probably too difficult for you to understand too though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 21:14:58 GMT -5
It tooks weeks or months to prove the Lacrosse team innocent. With all his resources Cosby hasn't been able to prove his innocence in 40 years. Things that make you go hmmmm. Yeah, and they were proving their innocence DAYS after the alleged incident took place... not DECADES. I guess you wouldn't understand the difficulties that difference in time makes. Just as it makes it difficult for them to prove he did it, it also makes it difficult to prove he didn't. Here's a thought... if someone does something bad to you... REPORT IT THEN, when they do it, as soon as you get away. Don't wait 40-odd years. That's probably too difficult for you to understand too though. You have added a personal insult to every single post that you have addressed to me. I'm going to go back now and report every single one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 21:19:58 GMT -5
Yeah, and they were proving their innocence DAYS after the alleged incident took place... not DECADES. I guess you wouldn't understand the difficulties that difference in time makes. Just as it makes it difficult for them to prove he did it, it also makes it difficult to prove he didn't. Here's a thought... if someone does something bad to you... REPORT IT THEN, when they do it, as soon as you get away. Don't wait 40-odd years. That's probably too difficult for you to understand too though. You have added a personal insult to every single post that you have addressed to me. I'm going to go back now and report every single one of them. Actually I haven't included any insults. Your lack of understanding has been proven by your repeated "misinterpreted" rewrites of things I have said throughout this entire thread. "Report" to your heart's content. Honorable people will give the reports the appropriate amount of consideration they deserve: none.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 21:26:00 GMT -5
Not as many as I thought on the last few pages. I'll have to review the thread tomorrow. Gotta run right now.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 13, 2015 21:35:48 GMT -5
@richardintn, just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't automatically follow they're not able to understand. If you can't disagree civilly, don't bother. We've seen enough of this kind of insult.
mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 13, 2015 21:40:01 GMT -5
There is a laundry list of hearsay exceptions -- not all hearsay is inadmissible. And hearsay is defined as an "out of court statement offered for truth of the matter asserted" -- so although a statement like "Cosby told me he drugged those women" wouldn't be admitted to prove that he had actually drugged the women, it could be admissible for a variety of other reasons. Do you think there's the faintest glimmer of a hope of a case against Mr. Cosby? It was my understanding that the statute of limitations for criminal charges ran out decades ago, hence it would have to be civil litigation of some kind. Then there's the problem of lack of physical evidence, but what you're saying here seems to suggest that hearsay could in some fashion be used to supplement the plaintiffs' case. I'm currently of the same mind as AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: I don't see how a court case against Mr. Cosby could really go anywhere. Hearsay exceptions are very particular- I would start with the presumption it is not going to be allowed.
But it doesn't matter- there is a statute of limitations in civil cases as well- and probably shorter than the criminal.
The only consideration I can think of is anything that can toll the statute (put it on pause or even reset it). That would require a bit of digging. But even that has a limit. I would think around 10 years and he is untouchable- depending on state law of course.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 13, 2015 21:49:16 GMT -5
You two obviously aren't going to reach any kind of consensus on the credibility of Mr. Cosby's accusers. Moreover, anybody having read your discussion up to this point has already made up their mind about whether Later is vilifying/distorting Richard's arguments, hence I'll boldly suggest the wiser individual is the one who either walks away or moves onto a new topic first.
Mr. Cosby is apparently going to appear here in Toronto at a major show in the next while, hence if you're really gung ho on talking about him, that might make an interesting new arc: Is Bill Cosby done like dinner, or will he survive and retain a healthy chunk of his fan base?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 13, 2015 21:51:01 GMT -5
Do you think there's the faintest glimmer of a hope of a case against Mr. Cosby? It was my understanding that the statute of limitations for criminal charges ran out decades ago, hence it would have to be civil litigation of some kind. Then there's the problem of lack of physical evidence, but what you're saying here seems to suggest that hearsay could in some fashion be used to supplement the plaintiffs' case. I'm currently of the same mind as AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: I don't see how a court case against Mr. Cosby could really go anywhere. Hearsay exceptions are very particular- I would start with the presumption it is not going to be allowed.
But it doesn't matter- there is a statute of limitations in civil cases as well- and probably shorter than the criminal.
The only consideration I can think of is anything that can toll the statute (put it on pause or even reset it). That would require a bit of digging. But even that has a limit. I would think around 10 years and he is untouchable- depending on state law of course.
OK, thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 22:27:00 GMT -5
Do you think there's the faintest glimmer of a hope of a case against Mr. Cosby? It was my understanding that the statute of limitations for criminal charges ran out decades ago, hence it would have to be civil litigation of some kind. Then there's the problem of lack of physical evidence, but what you're saying here seems to suggest that hearsay could in some fashion be used to supplement the plaintiffs' case. I'm currently of the same mind as AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP: I don't see how a court case against Mr. Cosby could really go anywhere. Hearsay exceptions are very particular- I would start with the presumption it is not going to be allowed.
But it doesn't matter- there is a statute of limitations in civil cases as well- and probably shorter than the criminal.
The only consideration I can think of is anything that can toll the statute (put it on pause or even reset it). That would require a bit of digging. But even that has a limit. I would think around 10 years and he is untouchable- depending on state law of course.
Doesn't it reset or is considered continued or something if he sues them over it? I'm pretty sure I saw something like that on Law & Order.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jan 13, 2015 22:35:47 GMT -5
That's odd - when the scandal first broke, you were saying how much you admire the man.
Unfortunately, going back decades, or years, none of he women got tested (rape kits weren't even developed yet in some cases).
They had to live with their shame - many were too embarrassed to speak out - while the man continued on with his career and being idolized by the public as the upstanding family man "Huxatble" persona or clean-cut comedian.
He can deny til the cows come home - I don't buy it. There's too many who are now willing to finally stand up and speak.
They can't all be lying or out for a "piece of the Cosby pie". A lot of other celebrities and comedians are now coming forward and saying they don't believe he's innocent of the allegations.
If Mr Bill doesn't get charged, he should just take his bank account and silently slip away and retire instead of trying to continue with this concerts.
Many of the people in Ontario can't even re-sell their previously purchased tickets now that they don't want to attend. Others don't want to buy them.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,809
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 13, 2015 22:45:06 GMT -5
I think if there are lawsuits it will be under the libel/slander laws which are within one year of it happening. So the clock would start sometime at the end of last year or later.
Libel or slander. The defendant defames you in print, writing, or pictures (libel) or verbally (slander). California Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c). 1 year from the date of injury
www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 13, 2015 22:45:22 GMT -5
Hearsay exceptions are very particular- I would start with the presumption it is not going to be allowed.
But it doesn't matter- there is a statute of limitations in civil cases as well- and probably shorter than the criminal.
The only consideration I can think of is anything that can toll the statute (put it on pause or even reset it). That would require a bit of digging. But even that has a limit. I would think around 10 years and he is untouchable- depending on state law of course.
Doesn't it reset or is considered continued or something if he sues them over it? I'm pretty sure I saw something like that on Law & Order. - Law and Order. But a damn fine point.
He would be suing for defamation- the worst that would happen is he would lose. Can't undo the statute.
BUT there are always exceptions- the only one I can think of that would relate is if he made a statement admitting the crime- and I base that on debt collection law where the statute of limitations can restart if the person admits they owe the debt. An answer to that question costs $500/hour. If he has a competent attorney though- he isn't going to do anything that dumb.
I do remember one situation where if the person you want to sue is out of state and cannot be served the statute is tolled until you can actually serve them- but that is limited as well. The law is a freaking mess and there is a good reason it might take weeks of research to figure it out- it gives me the same kinds of headaches that calculus did. The best I can explain legal research on something like this is with the internet- you have an article on just what you want- but they are conditioned on links, that have links, that have links.
In other words to understand a SCOTUS case- you have to understand all the cases referred to, and the cases they referred to, etc. etc. and that is why there are law clerks
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 22:50:13 GMT -5
EVT1 him losing would mean that the women would have validation. That's a big deal.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 13, 2015 22:57:35 GMT -5
EVT1 him losing would mean that the women would have validation. That's a big deal. Why would he sue? That would be the dumbest move ever. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
But maybe his ego will do him in.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 23:05:14 GMT -5
EVT1 him losing would mean that the women would have validation. That's a big deal. Why would he sue? That would be the dumbest move ever. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
But maybe his ego will do him in.
That is the point I was trying to make. Paul said he would sue.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 13, 2015 23:28:09 GMT -5
Paul would be a horrible lawyer.
Once you get in that mindset- and you see it all the time with highly opinionated people- then logic goes out the window and some sort of revenge takes over.
You see this crap all the time, take any of the recent abuse of force police complaints- you see comments like 'those lying ^&$@ they should be arrested and prosecuted!
If the right can pull it off- their new narrative will be, like they did with the war, the patriots and good Americans support them.
Well, not me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 23:57:52 GMT -5
@richardintn, just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't automatically follow they're not able to understand. If you can't disagree civilly, don't bother. We've seen enough of this kind of insult. mmhmm, Administrator It's not about disagreement. It's about misattribution and/or misrepresentation of the facts... and intentional at that. If she just disagreed, I would have no issue with her comments. It's when she represents me as stating something I most certainly have NOT stated that she proves her lack of understanding. I can easily disagree civilly (just look at my disagreements with djAdvocate over on the Politics subforum, for proof).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 14, 2015 0:01:14 GMT -5
@richardintn, just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't automatically follow they're not able to understand. If you can't disagree civilly, don't bother. We've seen enough of this kind of insult. mmhmm, Administrator It's not about disagreement. It's about misattribution and/or misrepresentation of the facts... and intentional at that. If she just disagreed, I would have no issue with her comments. It's when she represents me as stating something I most certainly have NOT stated that she proves her lack of understanding. I can easily disagree civilly (just look at my disagreements with djAdvocate over on the Politics subforum, for proof). That may be the way you see it, Richard. However, that does not excuse accusing someone of being "unable to understand". That isn't going to be tolerated. No more need be said about it. mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 11:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 0:36:31 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|