Constand
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Cosby
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Accuser defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Defendant victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Victim defendant cited case |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Accused accuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bruce Castor
|
Prosecutor complainant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Sexual contact disputed nature |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Mentor mentee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Cosby
|
Sexual encounter |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cosby
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal event (depositions) | Cosby testified in four depositions in Constand’s civil case without ever invoking his Fifth Amen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alleged assaults involving prior bad acts witnesses (in Cosby case) | Pennsylvania (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cosby providing drugs to women. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual encounter between Cosby and Constand. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Tour of renovated basketball facilities | The university | View |
| N/A | N/A | First dinner at residence; Cosby touched Constand's thigh | Cheltenham residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Second dinner at residence; Cosby attempted to unbutton Constand's pants | Cheltenham residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dinner at Foxwoods Casino | Foxwoods Casino, Connecticut | View |
| N/A | Legal settlement | A civil action against Cosby was settled for a significant amount of money. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cosby's deposition testimony in Constand's civil suit, where he decided not to invoke the Fifth A... | N/A | View |
| 2005-03-08 | N/A | Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2005-02-01 | N/A | D.A. Castor reviewed interviews and written answers to assess prosecution viability. | District Attorney's Office | View |
| 2004-03-01 | N/A | Dinner and subsequent confrontation at Cosby's residence regarding the pills used in the January ... | Philadelphia restaurant and... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Sexual assault incident where Cosby drugged and assaulted Constand. | Cosby's residence | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Constand visited Cosby's Cheltenham residence. Cosby provided wine and three blue pills, claiming... | Cheltenham residence | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Incident with Constand in Cosby’s Cheltenham residence. | Cheltenham residence | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Incident involving Cosby and Constand. | Unspecified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00004886.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling overturning Bill Cosby's conviction), which is being cited as a precedent. It discusses the principles of 'fundamental fairness' and 'detrimental reliance' regarding non-prosecution agreements/decisions by District Attorneys, arguing that the Montgomery County DA must abide by the former DA's promise not to prosecute Cosby. This was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement should similarly protect her.
DOJ-OGR-00004880.jpg
This legal document argues that Bill Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during civil depositions because he reasonably relied on District Attorney Castor's decision not to prosecute him. This reliance led Cosby to provide incriminating testimony about his past drug use, which hindered his defense in the civil action brought by Constand and resulted in a significant financial settlement. The central legal question raised is whether Cosby's reliance on the prosecutor's assurance was reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00004879.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Exhibit 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text itself contains a legal opinion analyzing the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* case, specifically discussing Bill Cosby's inability to invoke the Fifth Amendment during civil depositions after criminal charges were no longer pending. It details how Cosby was compelled to provide testimony regarding his history of supplying women with central nervous system depressants.
DOJ-OGR-00004877.jpg
This legal document analyzes D.A. Castor's decision and press release concerning Cosby, asserting that Castor's intent was to induce Cosby's reliance, which led Cosby to testify in Constand's civil case without invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. The text further discusses the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, highlighting the right against self-incrimination as an "essential mainstay" of criminal justice, citing the Supreme Court case *Malloy v. Hogan*.
DOJ-OGR-00004857.jpg
This legal document details the Superior Court's decision to reject Cosby's appeal for immunity from prosecution. The court ruled that any promise made by D.A. Castor was not legally binding without a formal court order, and it was unreasonable for Cosby, being represented by counsel, to rely on such an informal assurance. The court also found insufficient evidence that Cosby waived his Fifth Amendment rights in a civil deposition specifically because of Castor's promise.
DOJ-OGR-00004855.jpg
This document is page 43 of 80 from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents from the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby), focusing on the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence, Rule 404(b), and the use of drugs (Quaaludes vs. Benadryl) to establish mens rea. It appears this case law is being cited to support arguments regarding evidence admissibility in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed July 2, 2021. It contains a legal argument citing *Commonwealth v. Tyson* and the Bill Cosby case to discuss the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence ('prior bad acts') to establish a common plan or scheme. The text details the legal reasoning for admitting evidence of a prior rape conviction in the *Tyson* case despite a twelve-year gap, using this as precedent to discuss Constand's allegations against Cosby.
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances,' heavily citing Pennsylvania case law involving Bill Cosby (Commonwealth v. Cosby) and Andrea Constand. The text argues that the similarity of crimes can outweigh the remoteness in time between incidents.
DOJ-OGR-00004849.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It appears to be quoting a legal opinion regarding the Bill Cosby case (specifically referencing case J-100-2020 and Commonwealth v. Hicks), discussing the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances' to prove lack of mistake or accident in sexual assault cases. The text analyzes Cosby's modus operandi involving intoxicants and mentions Andrea Constand and 19 other witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00004848.jpg
This document page discusses the legal reasoning behind admitting "prior bad act" testimony and deposition evidence regarding Quaaludes to establish a common plan or scheme by Cosby. It highlights similarities between past incidents and the current allegations, such as the victims' age, relationship establishment, and consumption of substances, while citing Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding character evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00004844.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the procedural history of the Bill Cosby sexual assault case. It details the mistrial in 2017, the subsequent motion to include 'prior bad acts' witnesses, and specifically introduces the testimony of Janice Baker-Kinney regarding an incident in Reno, Nevada in 1982. This document was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent regarding the admission of testimony from prior accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00004842.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It discusses the court's rejection of Bill Cosby's claim that he had a non-prosecution agreement with former D.A. Castor. The court found that Cosby voluntarily spoke to police without invoking the Fifth Amendment and that reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity was unreasonable, especially since his attorneys failed to obtain the promise in writing. This legal precedent is likely being cited in the Maxwell case to argue about the validity or scope of non-prosecution agreements.
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-00004836.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), though the text itself details the legal history of the Bill Cosby non-prosecution agreement (Commonwealth v. Cosby). It describes communications between former DA Bruce Castor and DA Risa Ferman regarding a 2005 agreement where the Commonwealth promised not to prosecute Cosby so that he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil deposition. This document was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue legal precedent regarding the enforceability of non-prosecution agreements.
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-00004826.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Bill Cosby. It details the history of D.A. Bruce Castor's verbal non-prosecution decision in 2005, noting that because Cosby believed he had immunity, he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during civil depositions. This legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) was likely used by the defense or prosecution in the Maxwell/Epstein case to argue the validity or scope of Epstein's own non-prosecution agreement.
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-00004818.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal opinion (likely Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details the narrative of Andrea Constand's sexual assault by Bill Cosby in January 2004, her departure from his residence the following morning, and a subsequent confrontation in March 2004 regarding the pills he gave her.
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.
Request for cooperation
Asking her to cooperate with efforts to prosecute Cosby.
Dessert invitation
Asked her to meet him for dessert in his [room]
Recorded conversations
Constand recorded telephone calls with Cosby.
Renovations
Several telephone conversations concerning the renovations
Dinner invitation
Dinner at a Philadelphia restaurant.
Career decision
Discussion regarding Constand leaving her job at Temple and returning to Canada.
Temple University athletics
Discussion about issues involving Temple University athletics.
Temple athletics and sports broadcasting
Discussions on customary topics in Cosby's room.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity