https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/bill-cosby-is-going-on-trial-again-everything-we-know/ar-AAXCuPv?ocid=uxbndlbing
This was in the mid-1970s, before he became "America's Dad".
What is a 16 year old girl doing at the Playboy's Mansion anyway? Where were her parents? 🤔
shareThe fact that her parents seem to have been idiots doesn't remove any responsibility from Cosby himself.
As for the girl herself, she was probably just doing what all kids of 16 do... trying desperately to look cool and grown up. And that's why we don't let kids of that age drink, or vote.
And that's why we don't let kids of that age drink, or vote.
what is?
whats why we don't let kids of that age drink, or vote?
..but you let them castrate themselves.
shareAt least in the US, parents are the ones officially making medical decisions for 16-year-olds, they're the ones signing the consent and taking legal responsibility.
Unless the kid is an emancipated minor, has a court order, or there's some other circumstances I don't know about, kids aren't doing anything that irreversible and unwise on their own. And don't let's get into this on this forum. I probably agree with you in general terms, although obviously I'm better informed.
Very fishy.
The accusation changed last moment, moving the event from 1974 to 1975, so any research and preparation made by the defense goes straight to the bin. In practice, the defense has been given zero time to prepare the trial, and given that nowadays you're guilty until proven otherwise and it's you the one who needs to prove his innocence, this is a serious issue.
The trial should have been delayed to give time to prepare the defense. It hasn't.
Fishy. It smells like another witch-hunt.
Why should statue of limitations only apply for criminal matters but not for civil matters? 1975 is the stone ages. How the hell do you prove something happened from that long ago? You would need semen sample, rape kit, etc. Words and feelings aren't going to do it.
shareThe fact finder can credit someone’s testimony enough to make a finding without any of that other evidence you mentioned.
shareI guess it's due to civil being less important and having lesser consequences than criminal. You can't go to jail because of a civil suit, for example.
Of course, here it doesn't make any sense. This case should be either criminal or not be. The judge accepting it as a civil suit to bypass statue of limitations smells fishy. And then the accusation is changed last minute, any preparation made by the defense becomes useless, but the judge doesn't delay sessions to give defense due time. Fishy again.
This is similar to Cosby's criminal trial where the judge was basically corrupt and allowed in evidence he shouldn't have. It was a Kangaroo's court. Hence, Cosby's being exonerated.
shareA California jury has found that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted Judy Huth at the Playboy Mansion in 1975 when she was a teenager. Huth, now 64, was awarded $500,000 after four bizarre days of deliberations.
https://www.aol.com/entertainment/bill-cosby-sexually-assaulted-teen-231454322.html
Cosaby's spokesperson: "This was a huge victory for us because they [were] looking for millions of dollars. That amount will not cover the legal bills and we will be appealing that matter. However, Mr. Cosby will not be paying punitive damages,"
Huth, who was 16 at the time of the incident, testified that Cosby molested her inside a bedroom and forced her to perform a sex act on him. She said she met the entertainer when he was filming a scene for the movie Let's Do It Again. He invited her and a friend to the Playboy Mansion.
Although Cosby's been accused of sexual misconduct by 60 women, this was the first civil case to reach trial. Cosby, who denies a sexual encounter occurred, did not attend the trial in Santa Monica.
That's crazy that she won! How do you prove something happened especially sexual in nature happened way back in 1975?! This reeks of Kangaroo court.
shareI think we need more powerful laws to say that when things get that abd we have tomact earlier!
sharejavie (1131) a few seconds ago
I think we need more powerful laws to say that when things get that abd we have tomact earlier!
"...when things get that abd we have tomact earlier!"
Try it again, in English this time.
If you consider a big hurry and low batteries in the keyboard the result is:
"I think we need more powerful laws to say that when things get that and we have to act earlier!"
Nope, this person isn't a German. 😉
Like, is that person calling for reduced statutes of limitations?
Why the hell would any rational person want to make it easier for criminals to get away with crimes???
Back of the net.
I don't know the context of this visit to the Playboy mansion, but Hefner used to have family parties there, where people would come with their kids and everything was G-rated. In his memoir, Leonard Maltin talks about going there with his wife and daughter.
share