Did Buster Douglas Really Beat Mike Tyson??

[billeau2]

Actually he sucks at that too.

Yes but compared to his legal analysis....His boxing analysis comes off as quite splendid!

[billeau2]

If his defense was so brilliant, how did he end up in prison? And what about the fact that Desiree Washington accused another guy before this? Anyone see Tyson's one man show? It was on Broadway and aired on HBO. He said he was innocent. I don't know, he sounded convincing and he was honest about everything else in that show, so hard to tell if he's telling the truth there.

Was there ever any fluid or DNA evidence?

heres the thing Anthony my brutha with a modicum of sense ahem!!!!!

I would not necessarily trust Tyson because he has his motivations, but what you say about Washington is indeed true! Also, a principle if jurisprudence is what a "reasonable person" would do and we can assume that an African American women from an urban environment would know that going up to a hotel room was an invitation to a sexual liason...so at the very least this girl had an idea and was not the innocent projected any more than Tyson was the total sociopath monster projected.

I will say that if Tyson had been given civil penalties to pay a fee to miss Washington then I could have lived with that because the standard of proof is much less rigid.

[Anthony342]

So was there any actual physical evidence or was this pretty much circumstantial "he said, she said" and the jury just believed her over Tyson's lawyer?

[SBleeder]

If his defense was so brilliant, how did he end up in prison? And what about the fact that Desiree Washington accused another guy before this? Anyone see Tyson's one man show? It was on Broadway and aired on HBO. He said he was innocent. I don't know, he sounded convincing and he was honest about everything else in that show, so hard to tell if he's telling the truth there.

Was there ever any fluid or DNA evidence?

Brilliant defenses don't always end with acquittals. Sometimes the state's case is simply too strong.

The bolded is inadmissible. If we're going to consider that in forming our own opinions about the case, then we need to consider Tyson's subsequent behavior toward women (i.e. telling a female reporter that he wouldn't do an interview unless they 'fornicated' first.)

Nobody ever admits to sex offenses. Murderers admit to murder before rapists/******ers admit to sex crimes.

It wasn't in dispute as to whether or not intercourse took place, so the presence of DNA wouldn't have any bearing on the case. The issue was consent.

[SBleeder]

So was there any actual physical evidence or was this pretty much circumstantial "he said, she said" and the jury just believed her over Tyson's lawyer?

You're confusing testimonial evidence with circumstantial evidence.

If your wife's purse was snatched in a dark alley- no witnesses other than your wife, no DNA, no traffic cameras, no other CSI nonsense- just your wife's word.

Do you not think that a jury should be able to convict based solely on your wife's testimony?

[billeau2]

Brilliant defenses don't always end with acquittals. Sometimes the state's case is simply too strong.

The bolded is inadmissible. If we're going to consider that in forming our own opinions about the case, then we need to consider Tyson's subsequent behavior toward women (i.e. telling a female reporter that he wouldn't do an interview unless they 'fornicated' first.)

Nobody ever admits to sex offenses. Murderers admit to murder before rapists/******ers admit to sex crimes.

It wasn't in dispute as to whether or not intercourse took place, so the presence of DNA wouldn't have any bearing on the case. The issue was consent.

inadmissable true, but if we want to try to understand meta-legally who was responsible for that situation the information bares scrutiny.

Tyson said a lot of things.....would he have eaten a child?

Tyson also had a history of these offenses....so it gets murky for sure.

Bleeder I suspect you are a legal eagle so let me ask you...I forget the name of the principle but it basically states that when a situation is adjudged regarding the conduct involved the guiding principle is what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the situation....and I know this is usually applied to civil matters but it seems awful relevent in this case.

If I walk up to a Pitbull with a steak in my pocket and grab his owner by the neck....and then ask for damages....If I go into an African American neighborhood and start a discussion yelling the N word and am jacked.....If I am a girl and decide to go up to the hotel room with a known sociopath who beats people up for a living.....see where I am going with this?

[SBleeder]

inadmissable true, but if we want to try to understand meta-legally who was responsible for that situation the information bares scrutiny.

Tyson said a lot of things.....would he have eaten a child?

I wouldn't put it past him.

Tyson also had a history of these offenses....so it gets murky for sure.

Bleeder I suspect you are a legal eagle so let me ask you...I forget the name of the principle but it basically states that when a situation is adjudged regarding the conduct involved the guiding principle is what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the situation....and I know this is usually applied to civil matters but it seems awful relevent in this case.

The reasonable person standard.

If I walk up to a Pitbull with a steak in my pocket and grab his owner by the neck....and then ask for damages....If I go into an African American neighborhood and start a discussion yelling the N word and am jacked.....If I am a girl and decide to go up to the hotel room with a known sociopath who beats people up for a living.....see where I am going with this?

Was Tyson a known sociopath at the time? Not a rhetorical question; I don't know much about his legal history prior to the ****.

Even if he was, the law does not provide a defense for foolish conduct of the victim. If it did, someone could mug me if I was walking in a bad part of town and simply claim that I put myself in that situation. It doesn't work that way. Ms. Washington may have been foolish in going up to Tyson's hotel room, but Tyson's legal defense ends the moment she said "Stop".

[billeau2]

I wouldn't put it past him.


The reasonable person standard.

Was Tyson a known sociopath at the time? Not a rhetorical question; I don't know much about his legal history prior to the ****.

Even if he was, the law does not provide a defense for foolish conduct of the victim. If it did, someone could mug me if I was walking in a bad part of town and simply claim that I put myself in that situation. It doesn't work that way. Ms. Washington may have been foolish in going up to Tyson's hotel room, but Tyson's legal defense ends the moment she said "Stop".

"wouldn't put it past him.

Thanks I know it is usually applied to civil matters


Yes he was a known sociopath in that he had been charged with crimes and had demonstrated a history of acting with no regard for the self interest of others...including the famous Teddy Atlas situation where he allegedley tried to make the moves in Atlas' niece who was under age...(i think it was a niece).

Well....more murky ground because who can say when Washington said "stop" we really only have her credability to go on.

I do think it would have been appropriate to have civil penalties under these conditions...But actually you seem to understand the law and its applications quite well so I would defer to you on this matter.

Speakig if which what do you think of the Italian triple,quadruple jeaperdy system? I know I know the final verdict was pending appeals but christ almighty! they keep dragging the cases on and on its crazy! do you think Knox was guilty? I don't.

[Anthony342]

You're confusing testimonial evidence with circumstantial evidence.

If your wife's purse was snatched in a dark alley- no witnesses other than your wife, no DNA, no traffic cameras, no other CSI nonsense- just your wife's word.

Do you not think that a jury should be able to convict based solely on your wife's testimony?

No, I think a jury should have some evidence to work with to prove the person accused actually committed the crime. Isn't that why it's called "the Burden of PROOF"?

[lane99]

Double Jeopardy.

Although the "Did Buster Douglas Really Beat Mike Tyson" thread may have temporarily morphed into a "Did Mike Tyson **** Desiree Washington" thread, by coincidence the answer is the same in both cases.