Ah so you HAVE done research then, fair enough.
I mean I'm new here, so maybe I'm missing the point to this thread and some of your responses. Your argument seems very much "this needs to be looked into again, because he's a black man who's been convicted due to some sort of white person agenda" which in fairness I understand to an extent (and I get that vibe from any other evidence that you feel relates to this, often features comparison to a white person and a black person in similar circumstances), when the view point should be "This needs to be looked into again, because something has happened that should not be allowed, to ANY PERSON". If something has been done wrong/incorrectly, I would imagine the appeal process would pick that up?
I agree that if that juror became the deciding factor in the Cosby trial, because they'd made their mind up about him PRE-TRIAL, it should 100% be looked into again. Does that have anything to do with race? I really don't know, and isn't really my place to say.
Would replacing him with a Black juror over a white juror make any difference to the outcome? [I mean that answer wholly depends on why that person would offer an alternate view on Cosby; IE if they honestly thought the evidence was sufficient or if they say 'Not Guilty' solely because it's a fellow black person, which would not be a good decision]. And to be fair even then, you would think a person is not selected for jury due to skin colour alone.....but I don't know how that works in the US.
There is a whole lot about this trial I don't know, (I know who Bill Cosby is, but he's not as famous in the UK and we've only had snippets of the details), so maybe I'm very much mis-informed, so I'll do my own research on this.
I mean I'm new here, so maybe I'm missing the point to this thread and some of your responses. Your argument seems very much "this needs to be looked into again, because he's a black man who's been convicted due to some sort of white person agenda" which in fairness I understand to an extent (and I get that vibe from any other evidence that you feel relates to this, often features comparison to a white person and a black person in similar circumstances), when the view point should be "This needs to be looked into again, because something has happened that should not be allowed, to ANY PERSON". If something has been done wrong/incorrectly, I would imagine the appeal process would pick that up?
I agree that if that juror became the deciding factor in the Cosby trial, because they'd made their mind up about him PRE-TRIAL, it should 100% be looked into again. Does that have anything to do with race? I really don't know, and isn't really my place to say.
Would replacing him with a Black juror over a white juror make any difference to the outcome? [I mean that answer wholly depends on why that person would offer an alternate view on Cosby; IE if they honestly thought the evidence was sufficient or if they say 'Not Guilty' solely because it's a fellow black person, which would not be a good decision]. And to be fair even then, you would think a person is not selected for jury due to skin colour alone.....but I don't know how that works in the US.
There is a whole lot about this trial I don't know, (I know who Bill Cosby is, but he's not as famous in the UK and we've only had snippets of the details), so maybe I'm very much mis-informed, so I'll do my own research on this.
"Be Excellent To Each Other"
