ShareThis Page
Celebrity News

Bill Cosby lawyer paints accuser as unrequited lover

| Monday, April 16, 2018, 1:09 p.m.
Bill Cosby, right, arrives for his sexual assault trial, Monday, April 16, 2018, at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa.
Bill Cosby, right, arrives for his sexual assault trial, Monday, April 16, 2018, at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa.

NORRISTOWN — Bill Cosby's chief accuser spent late nights at the comedian's home, drove four hours to see him at a casino and called him twice on Valentine's Day, about a month after she says he drugged and molested her, jurors learned Monday as the defense sought to undercut her account.

Andrea Constand took the witness stand for a second day Monday and said under cross-examination that her phone calls to Cosby were about basketball and had nothing to do with romance.

Constand, 45, testified last week that Cosby knocked her out with pills and then sexually assaulted her at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004. Cosby, 80, says Constand consented to a sexual encounter. His first trial last year ended with a hung jury.

The defense is trying to cast Constand as an unrequited lover who acted inappropriately by showing interest in the long-married Cosby. She has testified that she saw the former TV star as a mentor and had no romantic interest in him.

Phone records show Constand, the former director of women's basketball operations at Temple University, made brief calls to Cosby around the time of a Temple home game on Feb. 14, 2004, the month after the alleged assault.

“You think you called Mr. Cosby to talk about basketball?” Mesereau asked her.

Constand testified that she felt a duty to answer Cosby's inquiries since he was a powerful alumnus and trustee.

Picking up where he left off Friday, Mesereau questioned Constand about inconsistencies in her police statements and prior testimony.

Mesereau said Constand told police in 2005 that she called Cosby from her university-issued cellphone just before she arrived at his house on the night of the alleged assault to ensure the gate would be open. But Constand's phone records show she did not make any calls to Cosby's mansion that month.

Constand explained that she may have been mistaken, that there were times Cosby told her in advance that the gate would be open and that she often reached him at another number.

Mesereau opened the retrial last week with a blistering attack on Constand, telling jurors that she is a “con artist” who framed the comedian and cashed in with a $3.4 million settlement.

On Monday, the defense lawyer suggested Constand broke her 2006 confidential settlement agreement with Cosby by agreeing to cooperate with law enforcement in the reopened criminal case.

“Didn't you think when Mr. Cosby paid you this large sum of money he was hoping it was all go away?” Mesereau asked, wondering in front of jurors if she'd ever offered to give back the money.

Prosecutors have called five other women to the stand who said Cosby drugged and assaulted them too. The defense has called the other accusers irrelevant to the case.

If convicted, he could get up to 10 years in prison on each of three charges of aggravated indecent assault.

The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, which Constand has done.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me