Did Buster Douglas Really Beat Mike Tyson??

[Scott9945]

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.

Not exactly. I have video of Tyson losing to Douglas. There is no video of an alleged ****.

[SBleeder]

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"?

Testimony IS evidence. And in the vast majority of criminal cases, that's the only type of evidence available.

Of course, my career consists of pointing out the "weaknesses" in the state's cases by asking "Where's the DNA? Where are the carpet fibers? Where are the red light cameras?"

[lane99]

...The bolded is inadmissible...

It's admissible here. The real problem with it is that it's not true.

Meanwhile, if Tyson doesn't want to admit that he ****d her, fine. He did his time. But he should keep his mouth shut and quit lying about it. Every time he lies about not raping that poor girl he re-victimizes her. Shame on him.

[Anthony342]

Testimony IS evidence. And in the vast majority of criminal cases, that's the only type of evidence available.

Of course, my career consists of pointing out the "weaknesses" in the state's cases by asking "Where's the DNA? Where are the carpet fibers? Where are the red light cameras?"

Testimony is evidence? How when it doesn't prove anything? By that logic, I could put on makeup and give myself a fake bruise or have someone punch me in the eye and claim that you assaulted me and if you didn't have an alibi, that should somehow convict you? That might be the law but I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense. And if there was a ****, there would be injuries and tears in the ******* walls. So were there any doctor's reports from any hospital with such injuries, proving a **** occurred? I wouldn't be surprised if Tyson was guilty, he probably was, knowing how he was back then. What I'm saying is it seemed like Tyson was convicted more because of who he was, rather than any physical evidence meaning the jury just seemed to like Desiree Washington a lot more than they did Tyson and believed her testimony. And that line Tyson said about not talking to women reporters unless he fornicated with them came later.

[billeau2]

Testimony is evidence? How when it doesn't prove anything? By that logic, I could put on makeup and give myself a fake bruise or have someone punch me in the eye and claim that you assaulted me and if you didn't have an alibi, that should somehow convict you? That might be the law but I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense. And if there was a ****, there would be injuries and tears in the ******* walls. So were there any doctor's reports from any hospital with such injuries, proving a **** occurred? I wouldn't be surprised if Tyson was guilty, he probably was, knowing how he was back then. What I'm saying is it seemed like Tyson was convicted more because of who he was, rather than any physical evidence meaning the jury just seemed to like Desiree Washington a lot more than they did Tyson and believed her testimony. And that line Tyson said about not talking to women reporters unless he fornicated with them came later.

Thats the way it works though. Horrible as that fact may be. Watch 12 angry men....great movie about how people assume so much.

Now Anthony there are plenty of times when testimony is consistant with a timeline, evidence, etc....But the jury can be influenced by factors like how much they like a person, thats unfortunately true and sociapaths are great at manipulating that stuff.....

Yet, people are more objective than many percieve....there was a statistic about Black Juries (for example) after the OJ trial and it turns out that majority black juries often convict, which shot down the notion that OJ got off because of a poor jury.

[Anthony342]

Well then, that's a law that should be changed, damn. I read recently that 12 Angry Men wasn't accurate in the sense that a juror is not allowed to further investigate a case, still a great movie though. I always thought Tyson did it though. I don't like that he doesn't admit it in his show either, which seems to be over now. I would still recommend watching though, for those here who haven't. The guy seems to be in a better place overall, doing better financially, happily married and now friends with Holyfield. I still gotta check out his reality show. I believe it's called Being Tyson.

As for OJ, I agree with Chris Rock that that case was more about fame than black and white. People still bought into that squeaky clean image from the Hertz commercials and movies. Plus Cochrane, as much as I didn't like him, had a hell of a defense. He played the race card and made the jury forget about all the blood evidence. At least OJ did finally go to prison and will probably live the rest of his life there. So much for his search for the real killer.

[billeau2]

Well then, that's a law that should be changed, damn. I read recently that 12 Angry Men wasn't accurate in the sense that a juror is not allowed to further investigate a case, still a great movie though. I always thought Tyson did it though. I don't like that he doesn't admit it in his show either, which seems to be over now. I would still recommend watching though, for those here who haven't. The guy seems to be in a better place overall, doing better financially, happily married and now friends with Holyfield. I still gotta check out his reality show. I believe it's called Being Tyson.

As for OJ, I agree with Chris Rock that that case was more about fame than black and white. People still bought into that squeaky clean image from the Hertz commercials and movies. Plus Cochrane, as much as I didn't like him, had a hell of a defense. He played the race card and made the jury forget about all the blood evidence. At least OJ did finally go to prison and will probably live the rest of his life there. So much for his search for the real killer.

Chris Rock is brilliant. The case got filtered through a prism of racial attitudes but fame did have a lot to do with it....I doubt anyone here would have convicted OJ on that jury due to the prosecution screwing up so bad!

[The Surgeon]

I love the sheer belief some people still have in the legal system....

Buster beat the **** outta Mike end of.

[thebrownbomber_]

Yes he did- Tyson himself admitted it.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think there's a lot of merit to the argument that Tyson's career was essentially over with the death of Cus and subsequent King/Robins takeover that followed. Tyson wasn't the fighter he had been only a few short years before.


But against Douglas that night he also took a big step up in competition. Douglas did what no one else had dared to do, he entered the ring looking to beat Tyson. Everyone else had simply hoped to survive. Again, not the best version of Tyson, but how much Tyson had declined is often exaggerated to excuse the loss.

Would things have gove different if Cus were still running the show? Sure. But Tyson pretty much met his ceiling. Douglas showed how far Tyson was willing to go before he didn't want to be there any more.