Cheltenham
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit attached to Document 310-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It presents an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby. The text analyzes whether former D.A. Castor had a valid non-prosecution agreement with Bill Cosby, concluding that the interaction was an 'unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity' that did not comply with Pennsylvania statutes. This legal precedent regarding immunity deals is likely being cited in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings to argue the validity or invalidity of similar non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004832.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated July 2, 2021, detailing the history of Bill Cosby's case. It reproduces a trial court's summary of testimony from a 2016 habeas corpus hearing, focusing on former District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr.'s 2005 decision-making process. The text recounts Castor's testimony about his investigation into Andrea Constand's allegations, including his rationale for assigning specific detectives and his assessment of the case's weaknesses, such as the delayed reporting and inconsistencies in statements.
DOJ-OGR-00004831.jpg
This document is a filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text specifically discusses the legal history of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, detailing how a former District Attorney (Castor) issued a non-prosecution declaration to force Bill Cosby to testify in a civil suit without Fifth Amendment protection. It describes how subsequent District Attorneys (Ferman and Steele) reopened the case and charged Cosby, leading to a habeas corpus petition based on the alleged non-prosecution agreement—a legal precedent likely being cited by Maxwell's defense regarding her own non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004830.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically referencing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion regarding Bill Cosby ([J-100-2020]). It details former D.A. Bruce Castor's explanation to D.A. Ferman regarding his 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby; Castor explains this was a strategic move to strip Cosby of his 5th Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. This document was likely filed by Maxwell's defense to establish legal precedent regarding the binding nature of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).
DOJ-OGR-00004825.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing a historical press release or statement by District Attorney Castor regarding the investigation into Bill Cosby. The text details the chain of custody for the complaint (Canada to Philadelphia to Cheltenham), the cooperation of all parties, and the subsequent investigation including a search of Cosby's home. Ultimately, DA Castor announces the decision to decline criminal charges due to insufficient admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while noting that a civil action remains possible.
DOJ-OGR-00004822.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Commonwealth v. Cosby case regarding District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. The text details Castor's reasoning, citing Andrea Constand's delay in reporting, inconsistencies in her statements, lack of forensic evidence found at the Cheltenham residence, and her continued contact with Cosby after the alleged assault. It notes that the pills provided by Cosby were confirmed to be Benadryl.
DOJ-OGR-00004817.jpg
This document is Page 5 of 80 from a court filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from a legal opinion or summary of facts regarding the case of Commonwealth v. Cosby (referencing Bill Cosby and Andrea Constand). It details a January 2004 incident where Cosby allegedly drugged Constand with three blue pills and wine at his Cheltenham residence.
DOJ-OGR-00004816.jpg
This document is a page from a filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), but the text itself recounts the narrative of the Bill Cosby sexual assault case (Commonwealth v. Cosby, [J-100-2020]). It details the progression of the relationship between Andrea Constand and Bill Cosby, including meetings at Temple University, dinners at Cosby's Cheltenham residence involving unwanted physical contact, and a trip to Foxwoods Casino in late 2003. This document was likely filed in the Maxwell case as legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements or evidence of prior bad acts.
DOJ-OGR-00004814.jpg
This document is a page from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (Commonwealth v. Cosby) written by Justice Wecht, decided on June 30, 2021. While the text concerns the prosecution of Bill Cosby and District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence, the header indicates this document was filed as an exhibit (Document 310-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which is the federal criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Cosby case was likely cited in the Maxwell proceedings as a legal precedent regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity