3 ms·
The article doesn't get into any of the reasons. Do you have a link to something that explains why?
by Elof 5y ago
The article doesn't get into any of the reasons. Do you have a link to something that explains why?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoI saw a different article (sorry, don't have the link handy) that said that a previous agreement with the prosecutor barred Cosby from being prosecuted in this case.
- macspoofing 5y agoYes it does. From the article: In their 79-page opinion, the judges wrote that a “non-prosecution agreement” struck with a previous prosecutor meant that he should not have been charged in the case, and that Mr. Cosby should be discharged. They barred a retrial in the case. In 2005, Mr. Cosby was investigated in the case of Ms. Constand, and a former district attorney of Montgomery County had given Mr. Cosby his assurance that he would not be charged in the case. The former district attorney, Bruce Castor Jr., has testified that while there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution, he had given Mr. Cosby the assurance to encourage him to testify in a subsequent civil case brought by Ms. Constand. In that testimony, Mr. Cosby acknowledged giving quaaludes to women he was pursuing for sex — evidence that played a key part in his trial after Mr. Castor’s successors reopened the case and charged Mr. Cosby in December 2015.
- Elof 5y agoSo weird. I swear the latter part of the article wasn't loading when I clicked on it yesterday