Posts
6706
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Moses Lake, WA
US
Edited Date/Time
6/21/2022 5:54pm
he wants to see how deep your rabbit hole goes??
P
That one cracked me up. Like a bad Lifetime script.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sammy-davis-jr-s-ex-girlfriend-katherine-mc…
Good old Reddit...
This one isn't quite as funny; not quite Lifetime material.
Bill Cosby admitted under oath that he got a sort of sedative for the purpose of giving the drug to young women with whom he wanted to have sex, newly released documents show.
The documents date back to 2005, and they stem from a lawsuit filed by one of the many women who have publicly accused the comedian of sexual assault. The records were made public Monday after The Associated Press went to court to compel their release.
According to the documents, Cosby was asked by attorney Dolores Troiani: "When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?"
Cosby answered yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/bill-cosby-allegations-sedative/
The Shop
good times but usually ending bad.
The fakes had the same markings but the font size and the not so clean lines of the markings were the tell tale sign.
How long before all the Nickelodeon kids and child actors start coming out of the woodworks and telling all on the Hollywood elite?
Pit Row
Do you think he needed the drugs to get the prize?!
Still those Cosby Kids were little rascals.. Ol Mush Mouth.
Paging Michael. .. FTE can you make sense of this "agreement" loop hole ?
edit: I see a thumbs down ... let me explain, as I read the article it stated that prosecuting attorney 1 had what seemed to be a gentleman's agreement with prosecuting attorney 2, and that #2 would not proceed with the case.
Upon further information made available to #2 he then decided to proceed with the prosecution.
I just want clarification of what happened.
You have to follow the bouncing ball to tie the pieces together:
1. In 2005, the DA did not have enough evidence to bring Cosby to trial, but he still believed that Cosby was guilty and didn't want him to get off scot-free, so he devised a plan.
2. His plan involved promising Cosby that he would not be criminally charged. The reason for this promise was that then a civil suit could be brought against Cosby and Cosby could be forced to answer questions that might normally be incriminating and waived off using the 5th amendment... but since the deal existed Cosby was in no jeopardy and he was forced to provide answers.
3. Cosby was deposed for the civil trial, forced to answer all questions and in his answers he made several incriminating statements.
4. The civil trial never happened, there was a cash settlement and Cosby's deposition was sealed.
5. In 2015 the deposition was unsealed and a new DA saw the incriminating statements that Cosby made and he brought forth a Criminal trial using those statements as evidence. That is where his 5th amendment rights were violated. If Cosby would have known that he was being a witness against himself he never would have been forced to make incriminating statements in the deposition and those statements wouldn't have existed to be used against him.
Post a reply to: Pill Cosby?