It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?" Troiani asked. Cosby's attorney objected and told him not to answer the question.
While Cosby admitted that he acquired seven prescriptions of Quaaludes with the intent to give the sedatives to young women he wanted to have sex with, he has not admitted to actually drugging any of his accusers. He did say he gave drugs to "other people," but when Troiani began to ask Cosby if he gave other people Quaaludes knowing they were illegal, Cosby's attorney interjected and said that his client acknowledged giving them only to a woman whose name is redacted. Cosby later testified that he "misunderstood. Woman, meaning (the woman whose name is redacted), not women" -- even though Troiani had used neither word in her question. "You gave them to other people?" Troiani had previously asked, to which the comedian replied, "Yes."
Several women allege Cosby used cappuccino, soft drinks, wine or other beverages as vehicles to drug them, but accusers Constand, Serignese, Janice Dickinson, Tamara Green, Victoria Valentino, Donna Motsinger and a woman identified only as Chelan have alleged Cosby gave them capsules or pills -- sometimes billing them as medication -- before assaulting them.
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: TinySickTears
I dont like Cosby. Never have. If he is a rapist, which its looking like it from where I stand, then do what we do to him.
The argument of being put through this as punishment could be valid. It wouldnt be the first time someone was made out to be a sexual deviant as a form of revenge. Thats what gets me about the way peoples reputations are destroyed before the facts are heard.
Still, I would like to wait before spit balling too much about what could be.
Also, Yolandi is a Goddess.
originally posted by: craterman
Jeopardy of the defendant begins when the jury is seated, so when a second jury is seated, THAT is double jeopardy! Regardless weather Cosby is innocent or guilty, this BS of continually trying a case is just that BS. In common law, the prosecutor has abandoned the case. The defendant should have objected at the judge declaring a mistrial. Guilty in a criminal case is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Obviously the jury seated sees 'reasonable doubt'. In common law this fact prevented a malicious prosecution because even a hung jury ended the matter forever. Our 'legal system' has turned into a for profit (even prisons for profit) tool of enrichment. From family court with its federal matching funds to the victim-less made up drug crimes of the legislatures with its prisons for profit. It is a satanic, disgusting mess!!
originally posted by: Boadicea
Bravo!!! This is exactly right. If even one juror votes not guilty, then guilt has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- OBVIOUSLY. Therefore, there is no mistrial... the prosecution failed to prove guilt and a second trial is, by definition, "double jeopardy."
originally posted by: Montana
Wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court was wrong.