Heavens forbid! Anyway, thank God I’m only semi retired on the educational front. I’ll be fully retired from that part of the business when the furlough well dries up and the company coffers are empty. 
Bill Cosby
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,700
- Reaction score
- 2,629
- Country
Like the lawyers dealing with my niece's house purchase.
She rang them up to ask what the delay was in completing.
Waiting for the funds, they said.
What, said my niece, the funds you received last week?
And you pay through the nose for this kind of service.....
They used to hold onto clients funds in order to collect interest.
They did it with me, i settled a compensation case years ago, the barrister said that once i agreed to the amount offered, it would be about 8 weeks before i would receive the money.
I told me dad what the barrister said, my dad said to me that the barrister was talking nonsense.
He said that they do that in order to hold on to your money for as long as possible in order to collect interest on it.
My dad told me to phone my solicitor the following week to inquire if the money had arrived yet, he said that the solicitor is not allowed to lie to you, so, if it had arrived he would have to tell you.
I phoned the following week and was told the solicitor was in court and would phone back, he never did, but 2 days later my compensation cheque arrived.
Sponsored Links
From the BBC:
The judges' reasoning is complex - their written finding is 79-pages long.
They cite a written agreement reached by Mr Castor, the former prosecutor, stating that he would not charge Mr Cosby if he testified in Ms Constand's civil lawsuit.
In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court judges also found that testimony from accusers unrelated to the case had tainted the trial.
"There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred", the finding released on Wednesday reads.
"We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here."
A spokesman for Mr Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, thanked the court in a statement.
"This is the justice Mr Cosby has been fighting for. They saw the light," Mr Wyatt said. "He was given a deal and he had immunity. He should have never been charged."
The judges' reasoning is complex - their written finding is 79-pages long.
They cite a written agreement reached by Mr Castor, the former prosecutor, stating that he would not charge Mr Cosby if he testified in Ms Constand's civil lawsuit.
In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court judges also found that testimony from accusers unrelated to the case had tainted the trial.
"There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred", the finding released on Wednesday reads.
"We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here."
A spokesman for Mr Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, thanked the court in a statement.
"This is the justice Mr Cosby has been fighting for. They saw the light," Mr Wyatt said. "He was given a deal and he had immunity. He should have never been charged."
No different from government/public departments or companies making deals to pay 'compensation' without admitting liability...
Or someone agreeing to non disclosure clauses in order to get a payout...
It swings both ways!
They also state that evidence was given by unrelated accusers, which contributed to his jailing, and shouldn't have been part of the trial.
Cosby's first trial ended as a mistrial because the evidence presented was inconclusive and the jury couldn't make a decision.
Now that it is clear he made a deal earlier he was definitely guilty, and the question which needs to be asked is should deals like this be acceptable and allowed?
Cosby's first trial ended as a mistrial because the evidence presented was inconclusive and the jury couldn't make a decision.
Now that it is clear he made a deal earlier he was definitely guilty, and the question which needs to be asked is should deals like this be acceptable and allowed?
Even those who are actually guilty and as criminally culpable as a Tory MP can make a deal with prosecutors. Plea deals for example occur frequently in the US.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
The best advice I was
Problem is simple. Prosecutors have limited budgets vs the endless millions of the accused. Just like the US we have cut funding for the legal aid, courts and the legal system. So now we have a legal system which can be used to protect the rich and punish the less well off.
Yet people keep voting for cuts.
Problem is simple. Prosecutors have limited budgets vs the endless millions of the accused. Just like the US we have cut funding for the legal aid, courts and the legal system. So now we have a legal system which can be used to protect the rich and punish the less well off.
Yet people keep voting for cuts.
Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial...
Deals are done and that is the US way.
But if a person is then declared innocent because of a 'technicality', then by default he/she is not actually 'definitely guilty '...
And there have of course also been many cases of false/coerced confessions due to inducements.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,034
- Reaction score
- 2,995
- Country
Is it in Scotland that they have "Not Proven" verdict ? It basically means they are fairly sure you're guilty, but can't actually prove it.
Does that suggest if a new victim comes to light, he can be charged and a new trial initiated?
'mmmm
careful use of the words "on these particular charges"
I'm told that sex offenders tend to have a lifelong habit, although they may only be caught a few times, and perhaps prosecuted even more rarely, if at all.
Publicity often brings victims out to report a crime they had been ashamed to divulge all their lives, and may have felt personally guilt about since childhood.
I've heard that people of middle age and older, when approached during an investigation, often have a doorstep conversation like this:
"Hello, I'm Detective Constable Smithers from Darlingham police. I'm investigating-
"It's about Father Brown, isn't it?"
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
