(October 4, 2018 at 11:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 9:09 am)OakTree500 Wrote: How do you know it doesn't exist if you haven't looked for it? 

Because all I have to do is look at why the jurors said they convicted him to know there was no evidence of any rape.

Juror says Bill Cosby's own words led to his conviction 

 

Well there's your evidence right there. His own words. What do you not understand about self incrimination?

Quote:

Quote:Harrison Snyder, in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Monday, said he believed Constand's claim that Cosby assaulted her in 2004 at his home in a Philadelphia suburb.

And, Snyder, said, the testimony of five other accusers who testified was not necessary for the conviction. "I don't think it really necessarily mattered that these five other women were here because he said it himself -- that he used drugs for other women," Snyder told "GMA."

 
bold mine. Again - self incrimination. 

Quote:So this Jurors believes he was guilty because he gave drugs to women who took them of their own free will, remember this was in the 70's, it has NOTHING to do with Constand which occured in 2004. Also in that very same deposition he stated he never had sex with Constand.




So basically the Juror believes he was guilty based on what happened in the 70's, long past the statute of limitations. If the deposition is what broke the camels back, then what actual evidence could they possibly of had?

 

First of all, showing only four lines of transcripts doesn't make the entire trial. I believe you're twisting things to make your point. Second of all, that's not what it says above. Again - you're twisting things to suit your own agenda. [/quote]

(September 30, 2018 at 11:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 30, 2018 at 10:26 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: "Things can be complex" is not an idea that has found much ground in the religious sphere. 
Simple, easy answers for everything.

Hey dummy, in the case of Cosby's accuser she initially told police that contact with Cosby was "brief and rare" following the incident, but according to her phone records she contacted him 72 times.

So yeah that's pretty simple to see for what it is.

If you want to read through the list of contradictions, be my guest.

http://www.yc.news/2017/06/12/cosby-tria...testimony/

I had no choice. He was more or less part of my life for 50 fucking years.

(October 4, 2018 at 4:58 pm)Dom Wrote:

(September 30, 2018 at 11:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Hey dummy, in the case of Cosby's accuser she initially told police that contact with Cosby was "brief and rare" following the incident, but according to her phone records she contacted him 72 times.

So yeah that's pretty simple to see for what it is.

If you want to read through the list of contradictions, be my guest.

http://www.yc.news/2017/06/12/cosby-tria...testimony/

I had no choice. He was more or less part of my life for 50 fucking years.

Huh?

(October 4, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 4:58 pm)Dom Wrote: I had no choice. He was more or less part of my life for 50 fucking years.

Huh?

Ugh. Not used to the quotes here. The conversation was cut off - the reply was to Huggy asking if the raped continued contact with the rapist. Now I can't even find the post.

(crawls under rock and consumes coffee)

(October 4, 2018 at 5:09 pm)Dom Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Joods Wrote: Huh?

Ugh. Not used to the quotes here. The conversation was cut off - the reply was to Huggy asking if the raped continued contact with the rapist. Now I can't even find the post.

(crawls under rock and consumes coffee)

  You'll get it eventually. In the meantime, allow me to put this here IV in your arm for quicker caffeine absorbency.

(October 4, 2018 at 5:09 pm)Dom Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Joods Wrote: Huh?

Ugh. Not used to the quotes here. The conversation was cut off - the reply was to Huggy asking if the raped continued contact with the rapist. Now I can't even find the post.

(crawls under rock and consumes coffee)

I remember the post, and I responded to it. I'm really fucking tired of rape being nullified if a victim talks to their abuser after the fact. Like, do kids whose parents kick their asses all of a sudden have no claim to abuse because they continue a relationship with them?

(October 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 5:09 pm)Dom Wrote: Ugh. Not used to the quotes here. The conversation was cut off - the reply was to Huggy asking if the raped continued contact with the rapist. Now I can't even find the post.

(crawls under rock and consumes coffee)

I remember the post, and I responded to it. I'm really fucking tired of rape being nullified if a victim talks to their abuser after the fact. Like, do kids whose parents kick their asses all of a sudden have no claim to abuse because they continue a relationship with them?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Kids have no choice in having to deal with family members.

I see no reason why grown ass adult who was raped by someone she was acquainted with would continue to contact this person after the fact, especially every valentines day. That's seems to be behavior consistent with a consensual relationship.

If not then how else do you expect one to prove consent 18 years after the fact?

(October 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm)Shell B Wrote: I remember the post, and I responded to it. I'm really fucking tired of rape being nullified if a victim talks to their abuser after the fact. Like, do kids whose parents kick their asses all of a sudden have no claim to abuse because they continue a relationship with them?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Kids have no choice in having to deal with family members.

I see no reason why grown ass adult who was raped by someone she was acquainted with would continue to contact this person after the fact, especially every valentines day. That's seems to be behavior consistent with a consensual relationship.

If not then how else do you expect one to prove consent 18 years after the fact?

You know you can be raped in a consensual relationship, right? You know you can have Stockholm Syndrome, low self-esteem, lack of intelligence and any number of other qualities that lead you to continue contact with your assailant? My ex punched me, picked my up by my neck and body-slammed me, literally ripped a door off its hinges and threw it at me, intimidated me constantly, cheated on me, gaslit me, and so on. I stayed with him for 10 years. The many and varied reasons are none of anyone's business and do not at all diminish what happened. He's still guilty of everything he did. Me making a phone call one or 100 times does not at all change a single damn thing about it. Sexual abuse is no different. I know women personally who stay in contact with men who've sexually assaulted them. I say women because there are about a handful of them that I know of. I don't have a lot of close friends, Huggy. That should tell you how common it is for a person to stay in contact with an abuser. It's a known psychological phenomenon.

Huggy, you do not understand what you're talking about. He may or may not be guilty, but you clearly don't know anything about how victim's behave and maybe should find another angle to argue your point. This angle is not a good one. It's not logical.

(October 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm)Shell B Wrote: I remember the post, and I responded to it. I'm really fucking tired of rape being nullified if a victim talks to their abuser after the fact. Like, do kids whose parents kick their asses all of a sudden have no claim to abuse because they continue a relationship with them?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Kids have no choice in having to deal with family members.

I see no reason why grown ass adult who was raped by someone she was acquainted with would continue to contact this person after the fact, especially every valentines day. That's seems to be behavior consistent with a consensual relationship.

If not then how else do you expect one to prove consent 18 years after the fact?

Hugster, as a kid who was emotionally and physically abused I can say you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

I attempted to keep contact with the person responsible for my abuse well into my “reasonable” adult years, for reasons I can barely articulate. I eventually ended that relationship, to my betterment.

You are not taking emotion and trauma into account. You cannot know the mind of the people you’re talking about, but by all means continue the peanut gallery conversation you’re having with yourself.

(October 4, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You're comparing apples and oranges.

Kids have no choice in having to deal with family members.

I see no reason why grown ass adult who was raped by someone she was acquainted with would continue to contact this person after the fact, especially every valentines day. That's seems to be behavior consistent with a consensual relationship.

If not then how else do you expect one to prove consent 18 years after the fact?

You know you can be raped in a consensual relationship, right? You know you can have Stockholm Syndrome, low self-esteem, lack of intelligence and any number of other qualities that lead you to continue contact with your assailant? My ex punched me, picked my up by my neck and body-slammed me, literally ripped a door off its hinges and threw it at me, intimidated me constantly, cheated on me, gaslit me, and so on. I stayed with him for 10 years. The many and varied reasons are none of anyone's business and do not at all diminish what happened. He's still guilty of everything he did. Me making a phone call one or 100 times does not at all change a single damn thing about it. Sexual abuse is no different. I know women personally who stay in contact with men who've sexually assaulted them. I say women because there are about a handful of them that I know of. I don't have a lot of close friends, Huggy. That should tell you how common it is for a person to stay in contact with an abuser. It's a known psychological phenomenon.

Huggy, you do not understand what you're talking about. He may or may not be guilty, but you clearly don't know anything about how victim's behave and maybe should find another angle to argue your point. This angle is not a good one. It's not logical.

Again, we aren't talking about the same thing. Emotional and physical abuse I get, but the Cosby case is not that.

Constand DID contact the police but before she contacted police she was already searching for a lawyer who specialized in sexual assault lawsuits, not to mention she's contradicting all types of testimony she gave to the police initially. Generally when someone is telling the truth, their story remains consistent.

So again, if we're just going to abandon all reason when it comes to allegations of sexual assault, how is one suppose to defend themselves, especially 18 years later? Not to mention the fact that no one can point to one shred of evidence that was presented in the case that proves Cosby raped Constand.

If we can't judge her based on her actions, can we judge her based on her testimony?