Andrea Constand continues to bring reasonable doubt to jurors and spectators a week after her interesting testimony, which contradicted a number of prior statements and reports made.
Jurors have deliberated for more than 10 hours without a verdict on whether Cosby, 79, is guilty of drugging and molesting Constand, 44, at his Pennsylvania home in 2004
The stenographer of Judge Steve O’Neill read back the original police complaint filed with the Durham Police Department in Canada back in 2005, along with the testimony Constrand gave last week, which could be found here.
Constand either lied to police or committed perjury – regardless, the jurors must decide which truth, or lie, to believe.
The jury returned to the deliberation room at 4:59 p.m. to continue deliberating.
The jurors now have Constand’s contradicting testimony in their heads and are most likely discussing this issue as it raises question on her credibility and intentions to file a civil lawsuit after that was the final question before jurors returned to their deliberations.
This marks Day Two of deliberations and the seventh day this jury has been away from their homes in Pittsburg as they’ve been sequestered from the real-world throughout the trial.
The courthouse complex is filled with media outlets from around the world as they prepare for the second most high profile case since People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. We caught up with Fox 29’s Dave Schratwieser outside of the courthouse steps where he compared the mass media coverage to his experience covering the O.J. trial in 1995.
7:35 a.m. (Monday): “My Three Little Friends”
The first question asked on Monday, just after 7:35 p.m., was in regards to what Mr. Cosby meant by know what the context was when Mr. Cosby said the pills were his friend – referring back to when Cosby called the Benadryl his “three little friends.”
11:20 a.m.: Jurors Asked Judge to Define “without her knowledge”
The second question the jurors posed was in regards to what ‘without her knowledge’ means in the context of the count 3 in aggravated sexual assault charge: Lack of Consent. Judge Steven O’Neill said he could not define it for them and instructed them to return to the deliberation room.
3:45 p.m.: The Contradicting Police Report vs. Constand’s Testimony
The final question jurors posed to the court related to Constand’s police report filed in Durham, Canada. The court also read the defense’s line of questioning which showed a clear contradiction of almost every line in the original report which was filed just one year after the alleged assault.