A prosecutor has attacked US star Bill Cosby’s defense witness, claiming her testimony was “fictional”.
Stewart Ryan rounded on Marguerite Jackson, a Temple University academic adviser who testified that Cosby’s chief accuser, Andrea Constand, once spoke of falsely accusing a high-profile person of sexual assault so she could file a lawsuit.
He called it a “fictional conversation”.
Mr Ryan also rejected the defence explanation that the 80-year-old US star paid nearly 3.4 million dollars (£2.4m) to settle Constand’s civil lawsuit in 2006 because it was a nuisance and he feared bad publicity.
Cosby is charged with drugging and assaulting Constand at his home outside Philadelphia. He says their sexual encounter was consensual. His lawyers say Constand framed him so she could file suit.
Prosecutors said the star used his good-guy image as America’s Dad to gain unsuspecting women’s trust before knocking them out with powerful drugs and violating them.
Delivering closing arguments Kristen Feden said Cosby is “nothing like the image that he played on TV”.
She said Cosby led a secret life that ran counter to the wholesome image he projected as Dr Cliff Huxtable on his top-rated 1980s sitcom.
The star’s wife of 54 years was in the courtroom for his lawyers’ arguments.
They urged a jury to acquit the star claiming the charges are based on “flimsy, silly, ridiculous evidence”.
They branded Constand a “pathological liar and highlighted more than a dozen inconsistencies in what Constand has said over the years about her relationship with Cosby and her allegations that he drugged and molested her at his suburban Philadelphia home.
The jury is expected to get the case later Tuesday.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here