Donjeta. It seems like you want Camille to be held responsible. So what do you think she should tell us since our United States citizens have the right to remain silent. Especially to some one that is 75 years old. So WHAT Do You Want To hear Camille state. Just asking. Did she provide the hook up or drugs or plot? What.
FWIW CC is responsible for appearing for a deposition just like anybody else when ordered to do so by the court. She is responsible for answering questions truthfully because she is testifying under oath. Her counsel will be present to advise her during the process, and to make sure that her best interests (as opposed to BC's best interests) will be served. In her professional roles and influence in BC's career, she is a logical person of interest as a witness to his behaviour, his financial dealings, his travel schedules, and so on. As a deponent, CC has the right to review the complaint, the pleadings, and the answer in order to understand the substance of the litigation. In addition, she has the right to know what other witnesses and expert have said. This information can give her some understanding of the logic behind certain questions that may be asked of her. CC is, of course, free to prepare or not to prepare. I believe that if CC realizes she has made an error in an answer, she has the opportunity to make a correction which will be in the official transcript of the deposition.
If I understand it correctly, the Fifth Amendment is applicable in criminal cases. It prevents the accused from becoming a witness in his/her trial, unless the accused decides to testify. In which the protection of the Fifth Amendment is waived. So this could, I think, only be used if CC believed her answers could lead to her facing criminal charges. So, if CC did help cover up his criminal activity, for instance, and could be criminally liable, she could certainly use this constitutional protection. (This deposition is for a civil, not a criminal case.) Neither does the Massachusetts spousal privilege law apply since this is not a criminal cases, nor is it trial testimony. It is my understanding that CC is instead opting to use the Massachusetts marital disqualification law, which protects her from testifying the content of private conversations between herself and her husband. I believe CC would have discussed all her options fully with both her own legal representation and her husband's legal advisors. If she was involved in hooking the alleged victims up with BC, if she supplied the drugs, if she arranged the meeting places, if she cleaned up the evidence, if she hired middle men to deliver payoffs to buy silence from the alleged victims, if she obstructed police investigations, then she should be, IMO, wrapping herself in the constitution and refusing to answer any questions.
Camille Cosby was born March 20, 1944. Her age does not make her incapable of answering questions in a legal proceeding.
As far as I know, the curiosity of the public is the last thing that will influence the structure of the questions asked during the deposition, the motivation for the questions' designs, the manner and order in which the questions are asked, or the tone in which the questions are presented. CC is supposed to make a clear verbal response to the questions to enable the accurate recording of her answers. She is answerable to the court, not the public, for the way in which she chooses to engage with the lawyers who have requested the deposition.
CC's position as manager of BC's career during the time period in which the alleged crimes took place have made her a witness who might well have(either unknowingly or knowingly) become aware of facts which could help determine the legitimacy of assertions by BC and/or his alleged victims named in this litigation. Her age, IMO, does not make her an incompetent witness. Nor should it, IMO, be a shield to protect her from being an honest participant in this deposition.
