The criminal sexual assault case against Bill Cosby could be in jeopardy after his defence said the prosecutor who examined the same claim in 2005 had given his word the comedian would not be charged.
Cosby’s lawyers have asked for the aggravated sexual assault charges against him to be dismissed, contending that they “violate an express agreement” with the district attorney at the time which they say constitutes an immunity deal.
It’s becoming almost Clintonesque in its discussions of what the meaning of is is, isn’t it?
The deposition in Ms Constand’s 2005 civil law suit has been cited by prosecutors as the impetuous for re-opening the case in a criminal court.
Dunno if Bill Cosby is guilty or not, but the Torygraph is raping the English language on a daily basis now.
Is “is” is? It follows that “isn’t” isn’t isnt .
Oh, I’m sure we can find an activist judge who can wave that away. Perhaps Obama can use an Executive Order.
Oral agreements not being worth the paper they’re written on and all that, if Cosby’s lawyer didn’t get a firm commitment from the Feds in writing then he’s an incompetent jackass. But it does complicate the prosecution’s case.
It pays to rewatch the video by James Duane on YouTube periodically. Don’t talk to the cops without immunity. If they won’t give you immunity, then say nothing. Of course since PACE this doesn’t work nearly as well in the UK, but keeping schtum is still a good idea.
Given that the Cosby case is
a) in the USA, land of litigation and lawsuits
b) involves a celebrity, aka known locally as “fair game”
c) clearly involves Sour Grapes over a near-archeological social and cultural timespan
d) is in the U.S of A , land of the gold-digger
e) the argumantation is already so convoluted that actual *facts*( which should at leat form the basis for any form of judgement) are effectively non-existent.
I wonder why people bother with it at all, other than as an example of the ease with which a random idiot can do you over in the US legal system.