Oh and Independent - to answer what you asked about Cosby - remember the advice we give people on this forum all the time ... do not talk to anyone about the case! That same advice applies to Cosby. If he has a good lawyer (which I imagine he does) that lawyer would be telling him over and over to keep his mouth shut - whether guilty or innocent. They may very well have that smoking gun but it is their privilege and prerogative to keep it to themselves if they choose to. Cosby does not have to prove his innocence - the other side has to prove he is guilty (or at least the last time I knew that was the way the justice system was supposed to be) - that is the whole premise of innocent before being proven guilty. Whether we think these rights are being upheld in our country today is beside the point - if you believe them (the rights) to be just them you have to uphold them in EVERY scenario. When I have heard people on the TV say Cosby should deny these claims or tell us this or that - I holler at the TV and say Cosby keep your mouth shut! LOL And think about it - right now is there anything he could say that would make you believe him? Probably not and that is the same thing that happens when people are convinced to take pleas etc.

That rule applies to him but not to his lawyer in this case. There is no way you sit back and just get lambasted in the court of public opinion if you have a smoking gun that points to his innocence.

Yes there is a presumption of innocence legally before a trial and yes the state has the duty to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt thT he committed these crimes, however that doesn't mean that I as a personal citizen have to suspend my common sense before a trial. Heck there are people that through a trial are legally found not guilty who I beeline to be guilty as sin (I didn't kill my wife but if I did here is how I did it, a book by a popular football player comes to mind). I grant you he is legally innocent as of right now. You would make a great public defender advocate, just as idealistic as district attorney's are but just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

My opinion is just as valid as anyone - just becasue I do not jump on the "He is guilty" bandwagon does make it otherwise. And you are correct, I would rather be on the side that fights for a person rights to be be innocent until proven guilty anytime - one difference I see in the case against Simpson is that WE ALL HEARD the evidence - we do not have the luxury in this case yet. It is really comparing apples to oranges at this point (to compare those two cases). Did I think OJ might be innocent before the case? Yes I thought there was a possibility - after hearing the evidence I did not think so. Do I think his book was a stupid move? Probably but whether it was an attempt to clear his name or a way to ease his conscience I do not not know becasue I have not read it therefore cannot form an opinion on that.

Also, I disagree with your assessment about the lawyer revealing his strategy. Until discovery forces him to he would be a damn fool to release all the information he has.

I agree Hank Moody. That's why I feel there should be no windfalls for abuse victms/accusers. Any money from a lawsuit should go for therapy, and the excess to a general fund for abuse prevention. Let's see how fast most of these types of big name allegations stop.
I mean really, they're no more deserving of money than any other rape victim /accuser because they happ3ned to name a guy with money

I agree with you advocate that there are innocent people on the registry. We are always going to disagree on the amount or the percentage. I tend to fall in with where the researchers believe in around 1-2% actually innocent, even the most liberal of researchers does not put that number above 8%. Even those low percentage numbers is a huge problem, think of how many people like Rew got completely screwed by the system. Even 1% of 700,000 on the registry is still far too many people falsely accused.

The biggest problem now with the registry is how big and unwieldy it is becoming. There are still very dangerous people on the registry, that hasn't changed. What's changed now as compared to 15-20 years ago is that there are more people on it for things that are less and less dangerous to the public in terms of recidivism. You are correct advocate most contact crimes are intra-familial and have a much lower recidivism rate than offenders who commit crimes outside their family.

So now we have a registry that is so big and bloated that the public doesn't know who is dangerous and who is not, so they just assume everyone is. This allows the truly dangerous people to hide out with people with very low recidivism rates and that is what I see is the major problem. We are categorizing offenders based on the crime and not the rate of which they are most likely to Recidivate.

And on Cosby, in general I think you are right, you don't say a word until you have to as the defense. However in this case most of these cases are over the statute of limitations, you don't have much to lose and you have a lot to gain. If I were his lawyer I would let that information leak out or allow a tmz reporter to "break in" to my office to find the information.

No one will believe him if he does speak out and they condemn him for his silence - right now I think he is doing the right thing

Which is why you leak it out, or have someone break in and find the info. I am way more inclined to believe there is no smoking gun if they sit back and say nothing. IF you have evidence that shows blackmail it's much better to have it out to discourage prosecutors from moving forward with the case in the first place. Everyone has dirty laundry if you look hard enough, better to give them reasons not to look. If it is inevitable that it is going to trial then I agree that the lawyer should say nothinf and keep it as the ace up his sleeve.

His show was just canceled here in pittsburgh. One lady started a petition to have it canceled, over two thousand signature's. She stated innocent until proven guilty don't fly here"!

I don't think there is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction in any of these purported incidents by Mr. Cosby. In fact, I know there isn't, but who knows what a jury would do?

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to defendants on trial; it does not apply so much in the court of public opinion as people still have the right to believe what they want.

A person is literally putting their life in the hands of a bunch of jurors by going to trial, and many of those jurors have no common sense or reasoning ability. I found that out.

rewdiazepam