I can't wait to read these comments and learn my opinion on this.
With no verdict, prosecutors have four months to decide whether to retry the case or abandon it. If they decide to continue prosecuting, a new jury will be selected, and the trial will be held again at a future date.
One of those cases where the defendant is probably guilty, but proving it is difficult without concrete evidence. Too much of a "he said, she said" case.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply that he should have been found guilty, just that I think he probably is. But opinions shouldn't be enough to convict someone, so I don't blame the jurors if some of them were unwilling to find him guilty based on little evidence. Perhaps the result should have been a "not guilty" verdict instead of a mistrial, but we're not the jurors so that decision isn't up to us.
Does this mean he's going to be on the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson reality show?
"He saves more than he rapes" said one juror.
For those that don't know, a hung jury means that some of the jurors would have voted to convict (return a guilty verdict) and some would have voted to acquit (return a not guilty verdict). Normally the decision of whether to retry a case is based on whether the majority of the jurors would have convicted, but obviously there can be other motives.
More of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said..." case.
(And yeah, the individual cases only directly involve one woman. Joke still stands.)
I mean it's much easier that way, instead of bringing your own opinion to the party and finding out it is wrong.
Yeah, but no more Jello commercials. The only job Cosby could get now is US President.
I'm calling it. He's going to die before they ever put him in jail.
She certainly hid her kid's body and lied to cops about it.
There was very little evidence of a murder and the way the prosecutors approached it was not convincing (trying to paint a picture that the motive was to kill her kid so that she had more time to party, which no one besides Nancy Grace would ever believe).
My belief is that she negligently let the kid fall in the pool or something, then freaked out and tried to cover it up rather than reporting it.
Are you telling me a hung jury doesn't mean that the jurers had huge penises?
Beyond reasonable doubt. This was a near-impossible case to successfully prosecute.
This is the reason date rape cases are so hard to prosecute. Rarely is there sufficient evidence that it was non consensual.
Not only that, but they felt strongly enough about their views that they didn't change them over days of arguing.
The new Trial of the Century
I am a lawyer and I'm not sure what you looked up, but it would seem they conflated some thing. Reasonable doubt is always something the defense raises. It's not a new issue just because of a hung jury. Beyond that, it depends on the jurisdiction, but the mere fact that there was already a trial might not even be admissible to the new jury.
I can believe that odds go down on a retrial, but i imagine that's because any trial that needs a retrial is one that necessarily hung a jury once, meaning that (as compared to the average case) a case being tried for the second time will always be a tough one.
God I love Chappelle...
Need to have victims call police and go to the hospital for blood/physical tests immediately. Even then it's a crap shoot.
He's never going to jail anyway
That's a well hung jury
I don't think many people understand the forensics, there's a reason go to the police ASAP is stressed so much, the unfortunate reality is that if you wait a couple of days the chance of it ever being proven drops hard.
I don't think people understand victim psychology and why it can sometimes take victims a while to go to the hospital or police, if they do at all. Stigma and cultural bias play a huge part, as well as a victim's cognitive ability to process and accept what happened and take the proper next steps. Even when they do, it can still blow up in their face.
Nothing worse than six months later realizing "that redditor I downvoted was right"
Indeed, and especially under the backwards stupid Pennsylvania law, and especially when the alleged victim said a bunch of provably incorrect things in her police report, and especially when the judge did not permit testimony from some 60 other women who also accused Cosby of sexual assault.
I'm not saying this to defend Cosby. I believe he probably did rape this woman and others. But at the same time I am also pretty disappointed that the jury did not outright acquit him in this case. There was very clear reasonable doubt as the case was presented. The fact that the jury was hung tells me that there were some in there who judged the case based on information and presumptions outside of what was presented in the court room. That's not what juries are supposed to do. These people have failed to perform their roles in the justice system fairly, and that's disappointing.
Im not a lawyer or an expert:
I looked up the odds of winning a retrial and it falls substantially, because reasonable doubt is then automatically a issue the defence can claim since they already had a mistrial based on the issue.
It makes it harder for the prosecution to provide further evidence, esspically with a decades plus old rape case without physical evidence.
While I am sure Bill Cosby has done something utterly terrible, I hate this case. You want the crime and the punishment to be somewhat close in time. Too much time has passed for anyone to get a fair trial. Neither party has a fresh recollection of the facts, evidence has gone stale, and the time to make an example of Bill has passed. Yes, he probably used his celebrity to escape justice - and that crime is ours. We gave him the power to do that. And honestly, the man who committed any crimes is gone - he's been replaced by a decaying husk of a famous comic who leveraged his position to his own advantage. Justice has been lost here people.
Finding an impartial jury that has not been swayed by the media circus of this trial for the next trial is going to be difficult.
"stop raping women all the time"
You can give you opinions if you want no one is stopping you and if its downvotes you fear, why? I hate that people are afraid to share how they feel just because of being downvoted, it helps create the hive mind.
It's hard to keep jurors from finding out about things through osmosis, but no it would not have been mentioned during the trial
Basing your votes on whether or not a redditor is right or wrong is a bad way to go about it. Instead, vote on whether they are contributing to the conversation. If someone says something wrong, and it inspires someone else to write a response that has citation and an explanation where their point falls short, than the "wrong" post still has merit. After all, it's likely that they weren't the only one to have that incorrect information, and if their post gets buried, so will the correct post with the clarification, thus allowing the rest of the community with the incorrect stance to continue going on being blindly incorrect.
Even if you go to the police it is extremely hard. My cousin was date raped, she went to the hospital immediately after. She did not even pee. The police were called at the hospital, and evidence was collected.
Still was not even brought to trial, despite the evidence. The rape was rough and she had bruises and abrasions on her mouth and throat from being held down. She said to me earlier in the night "I think I like him, but I can tell he already wants to have sex and I don't want to." In front of my friends. When she came out of the forest where the rape happened (bush party) my friend asked her why she let him take advantage of her like that, and she burst into tears. Even though her rapist, by the investigators admission, had 2 previous complaints on file from other women.
She was 15. She attempted suicide three weeks later. Since then she has been in a string of seriously abusive relationships.
Has it been definitively established that Casey Anthony did it? I know she was acquitted, but was it something like OJ where he was acquitted off technicalities?
Edit: I get it, OJ wasn't let off with a technicality. I figured it out after I was told about it 12 times. No need to tell me again, Reddit.
Usually one of the 12 jurors is more than happy to talk about deliberations (especially in a case like this where a news agency will pay for interviews). I think we will find out.
It's nice when jurors take their responsibility seriously. I'm sure he's guilty, but it sounds like he got a fair trial at least. And what do I know anyway--I wasn't in the court room.
Was the jury allowed to know about the 60 other women? If I were the defense counsel I think I would have done my best to choose jurors who don't have a tv, computer or radio.
Except that's not how it's working out at all. Innocent people are talked into taking plea deals all the time because they are scared into it.
This is a very plausible theory. While she is guilty of being a horrible human being, the prosecutors just couldn't make the case for first degree murder. I think they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction, just based on the circumstantial evidence but that first degree murder with the death penalty was too hard a lift.
(trying to paint a picture that the motive was to kill her kid so that she had more time to party, which no one besides Nancy Grace would ever believe)
I find your naivety a little refreshing. The simple fact of the matter is that lots of bad mothers resent their kids for taking away their care free days. It's not unthinkable at all, when combining in already existing mental illness issues, that a mother could resent and hate her child enough to kill them.
Nope, you're either black, or a white criminal. Can't be both.
All it takes is one jury member who loves Jello Pudding Pops
The legal system is like null hypothesis testing. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove his guilt, and the decision making threshold is extremely tight because we'd rather have the guilty go free than the innocent be convicted.
Oh I definetly understand (well not the details) that "just go to the cops ASAP" is easier said than done, it doesn't change the fact that going to the cops ASAP is the most effective way to get a conviction.
The program used to mine their browser history was flawed. The prosecution relied heavily on the fact that the term "Chloroform" was searched 80+ times on the family computer when in fact it was never searched for at all. Rather, the wikipedia article for chloroform was viewed only once, and that was only because Casey's mother went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole.
The revelation of that mistake came very late in the trial, and was a major reason she was ultimately acquitted.
EDIT: /u/fancyhatman18 provided a link to an interesting article that claims police only searched Internet Explorer data, while Casey Anthony used FireFox to search the term "fool-proof suffication(sic)" on the day her daughter was last seen alive. This fact was not brought up during the trial.
Juries Say the Darndest Things
I'd hate to have someone view all the weird shit I search for. Just a quick glance at my last few searches and you'd think I'm a free market terrorist who want to make homemade rockets in order to re-establish the Ottaman Empire and watch a lot of POV cosplay porn.
Lesson of the day - courts work on evidence
Apparently some of the jurors were asking about the definition of "reasonable doubt," so they probably think he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence.
12 Dangly Men is about a well hung jury.
You would be wrong. Jurors can say whatever they want. There is no confidentiality. However, usually they won't refer to other jurors by name because that's just rude.
I agree with you, because my mother had similar traits of resenting and not caring for her children. She was very self centered. My mom actually even got the same exact tattoo as Casey Anthony, the one that says "beautiful life"... I thought she was insane for that. Needless to say, none of us kids were murdered, but still emotionally and physically scarred. Update: My mother is now out of my life. Thank god.
Are we likely to find out how the jury voted?
I see a lot of people in this thread pushing the narrative that another trial is a waste of money and politically motivated, but it seems to me that another trial makes complete sense if turns out it was just one or two jurors voting for acquittal.
She did it because of Casey Anthony. She was very intrigued by the case the whole time, but also sick in the head enough to make that terrible decision. She told me she got the same one as Casey as soon as she did it. She was excited about it, even. My mom has a LOT of mental problems. Very abusive and manipulative lady. Turns my stomach.
Or the reddior I upvoted was incredibly wrong
I know this is an unpopular opinion on reddit, but I don't believe anyone should be found guilty in a court of law when there is zero evidence.
Right? He had some seriously funny stuff on the Netflix special.
Understanding victim psychology and why someone might not want to go and understanding the necessity of going right away aren't mutually exclusive beliefs.
Out of curiosity at what point does the defense just argue that the first trial was so high profile that it is impossible to find a fair and impartial jury of peers? It seems that regardless of evidence Mr. Cosby has clearly been convicted repeatedly in the court of public opinion.
It's not a difficult argument to make that at this point a fair trial may be impossible.
And it just began
He looked 100 years old today outside of that courthouse.
He had nothin' to say.
All I really wanna know is what Cosby now would tell to his younger self.
That seems to be what probably happened.
Unfortunately, in many cases, it seems to be more a matter of "Call police and go to the hospital, and hope the rapist isn't someone popular, related to a police officer, or on a school sports team. Also, hope the rapist doesn't have a lot of money. Also, hope that neither you nor your rapist are religious, and hope you aren't raped in a town with a highly religious community. Also, hope that your police department actually has the resources to process any evidence and it doesn't just sit in the precinct for six months. Also, hope the officers that come believe you. Oh and if you're hysterical, confused, in shock, drunk, or otherwise impaired, hope that you're not just written off as a crazy person. For damn sure hope your rapist isn't an ex- or current boyfriend/girlfriend. And for the love of god, hope that you didn't get raped that one day you wore less than four layers of clothing, otherwise they might not believe you because you're clearly a slut. And if you're a guy... what the fuck is your problem? Guys can't get raped. Either you're gay or you just got lucky, so stop complaining. Or something like that. Apparently."
So yeah, "crap shoot" is a generous term for it. If you live in a small town, you'd probably need a goddamned miracle just to be able to continue living there without having the entire town vilify you.
I mean, it seems like it takes ten or more victims to come forward before anyone even takes an accusation seriously in many cases.
Exactly. The 2005 deposition from both Cosby and the plaintiff demonstrated that neither one admitted what the drug was that he gave her. Except the plaintiff admitted that she asked Cosby what the drug was, he said he didn't know (her words) and she took it anyway.
There's only one reason for both people to admit they didn't know what it was: It was an illicit drug they were both taking recreationally. And that blows a hole in her claim that she was raped.
Only half wrong, I'm all about those Byzantines.
IMO which is fairly stupid, It is still a he said she said case and even if its 1000 she said there is still no concrete evidence of any of the alleged rapes happening which leaves more than enough room for reasonable doubt.
Remember that one time Nancy Grace had a husband and wife come on the air, hoping to get a stage to help find their missing kid and Nancy (being a prosecutor) tore into the mother and blamed her repeatedly until the mother was in tears... and shortly there after committed suicide... and after that was found to be completely innocent.
Nancy then said she was sorry and did the whole fake apology on her show...
That bitch is a murderer in my eyes, she just used words instead of a gun.
Exactly. I know some people are going to be outraged, but verdicts should be decided based on the evidence and not your emotions.
Maybe a new trial would get a different result. I guess we'll have to see.
They should pick me. I know he's been brought up on charges of rape. That's all I know.
I was raped and what you are saying is spot on. The next morning I was just emotionally wrecked. I was also having a hard time getting a handle on what actually happened to me. It's hard to get people to understand the feelings and thoughts that are going on right after. I went from breaking down crying to trying to put it in the back of my mind and tricking myself into thinking it was all ok. Not soon after I had a friend tell me I wasn't raped, I just regretted it. That hurt and it was what finally made up my mind not to go to the police.
And I know I should have gone to the police it's just at that time I just couldn't deal with a bunch of cops possibly calling me a liar after having to go over every last detail of the experience. But I know I should have went. My rapist went on to rape somebody else and the guilt of that STILL wrecks me. I have even talked to the other victim a lot and apologized profusely. They forgave me right away and even said there was nothing to forgive since they don't think I did anything wrong and they understand very well why I didn't go to the police. It still eats at me though.
So yeah, sorry for the rant here just offering my perspective and letting you know you really got it right.
In a case where the publicity is high in a local area but not elsewhere, the defence can bring an application to change the location of the trial, to a place where the case isn't as notorious.
In a case of national prominence like this, it's unlikely there are any jurisdictions in the US that there isn't a great deal of foreknowledge by potential jurors.
However, in my jurisdiction, we can question jurors about what they've heard about a case, and, if they have heard things, we ask them if they can disabuse their minds of that knowledge, and decide the case on the evidence presented. If they say they can, and the judge believes them, then you can still select that person for the jury.
yes, if I felt the need to reply to him. I always upvote people I reply to, especially if I disagree with them. Replying and then downvoting is worse than shouting into the wind.
If I felt the comment was just trolling and not actually trying to further rational discussion, then I wouldn't reply and simply downvote.
"The jury's dicks are simply too big and too distracting to continue. Mistrial."
You can be black, and a white criminal — a Smooth Criminal
God, I love the Onion.
Not sure about that, but even so they can easily say "of the 12 of us, 7 voted to convict" or similar without revealing personal info on the other jurors.
But he does rape.
Yeah. If I was date raped, I think I'd manage to get myself to the cops ASAP. But then, maybe I'd spend the next twenty-four hours crying in a shower instead! No way of knowing until it happens. The reason to stress "go to the police ASAP" is the hopes of making it an automatic response, a decision that the victim has already made before they're even assaulted. That won't necessarily work every time, but if it helps catch more rapists, it's a good approach.
He admitted it in a deposition in a civil suit. He had a prescription for quaaludes from his doctor and he didn't take them, he got the prescription with the intent to give to women so he could have sex with them. That deposition was introduced as evidence in this trial.
For reference, see the 1995 documentary, Jury Duty, by Pauly Shore
Had Cosby lost, I guarantee that the publicity factor (i.e. the jurors minds already flooded with preconceived notions) would have been an issue taken up on appeal. It usually is in these famous person cases. Though I'm not sure how often it is enough to win on.
I thought it was illegal for juries to give specifics about that kind of thing. Like they can say "we discussed ____ and it concerned some of the jurors" but can't say "Debra Jones said she was voting not guilty"
Im not even saying that, its just a simple he said she said and from my garbage understanding of the legal system, you shouldn't go to jail off of an accusation no matter how many people say it without proof.
Actually the software used to gather her search history erroneously included a LOT of unrelated things and that was a reason that the defense used to their great benefit. There's a docu about it on Netflix I think. It's worth a watch.
Edit: Not on Netflix anymore, although it wasn't long ago that I saw it. It was called Casey Anthony: American Murder Mystery.
Edit edit: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html an article from 2011 detailing what I'm talking about.
It was only near-impossible because Cosby is famous. Non-famous people get convicted in he-said, she-said rape cases all the time. I work in a prison, I talk 2-3 of those people a month.
That 2nd paragraph is SO accurate! I was on the jury for a trial that was HEAVILY covered in the news, and in deliberation it became clear who followed protocol and who had their opinion based off of bias or outside impressions prior to the trial!
You know, I'm not sure why the Pauly Shore series of documentaries don't get any love. The man is practically the American David Attenborough. His thorough and balanced looks into the U.S. Army, the life of a perpetual college student, What life is really like for a scientist in a sealed biosphere, The trials and tribulations of a high school cave-man, and as you said, the American judicial system, put anything a hack like Werner Herzog or Ken Burns cram together and call a documentary to shame.
Doesn't explain the very odd search history in the family though.
No offense intended here but how can you say justice has failed ? Isn't this exactly how justice should work in America ? The evidence was presented to a group of people and it wasn't compelling enough to convict. I'm not from USA but the problem with many justice systems is that it's too easy to be found guilty. I for one am glad that in America, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Man his PR people are so high right now
my friend asked her why she let him take advantage of her like that
she was 15
What the fuck. That question is bad enough on it's own, but at 15? Jesus fuck.
In my opinion, it always hurts the defendant more than the accuser when cases are to far gone to be tried. People can continue to ram Cosby's name through the mud, but he'll never be able to properly defend himself against most of them
I'm confused, did they find any concrete evidence, or is it still "She said, he said"? If they didn't find evidence, what would a retrial do?
I wasn't drunk but I was higher than a motherfucker
something Bill Cosby put in their drinks no doubt
it took her over a month to report her children missing, the search history left on her computer was apparently also incriminating, but the defense probably said it was just curiosity and had nothing to do with her missing kids.
I feel like I should share that I'm in the exact same boat as you. I was told how psychotic I am and that I will be put into an insane asylum and multiple times a week she would pretend that the police were coming to take me away for being a horrible child. She would always play the victim and believed that everyone around her always owed her something. I lived on my own for 3 years during high school and moved out of state the day I graduated.
It was later determined that she has bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. It was a horrible way to grow up.
Would they be wrong?
The same reason people get drunk and screw, get high and screw, do cocaine and screw, etc. It's what a lot of people DO, especially the rich and famous, and it was particularly popular in the 70s and early 80s to take quaaludes.
Interesting. I'm curious what they were hung up on. Guess let's do this all again.
It's hard to keep jurors from finding out about things through osmosis
Actually it's pretty easy. Just keep them away from higher-solute solutions.
Word against word, I thin he's guilty as hell, but I agree with the outcome. His legacy is ruined, that matters more than him spending a few months in jail before dying.
I also feel like we don't fully understand how ineffective the rape kit can be. In college we studied the number of lots used verses the outcome in court. They can argue that the test wasn't done properly or that the evidence simply isn't adequate blah blah blah. The kit is incredibly traumatic for the victim. But after it is done there still ia no guarantee.
So what we need to do. We need to work on the stigma surrounding rape. I understand that sounds awful but we must make the topic more accessible so that justice and the simple number of occurrences goes down. Second we need to bring to light the atrocities surrounding the test and how many people have had the test done than had their data lost or other issue that seems ridiculous. We can be at rape IMHO. But it starts at home. We must stop! We must teach that the behavior is wrong. Simply assuming the logic is there for all has proved frivolous. We must teach respect for all life and on that way we can begin to move forward.
what if your also under the effects? then whos raping who?
How can you (or anybody) be "sure" that he did the terrible things of which he is accused? Is it just because the plethora of allegations, or did I miss some sort of incriminating evidence?
The fact that victims don't usually report it right away, while understandable, is exactly why we stress so much that they should.
It wouldn't be positive to reduce the standards of proof of the judicial system, so going to the police right away is the mostly the only way that victims will get justice.
One of the 60 women said something along the lines of she didn't know why he drugged her cause she would have willing had sex with him. I don't get why he would drug the girls.
That's just disturbing. But good on you for getting out of that.