Mike Tyson - A Good Article about him.

[Parody]

If Mike didnt go through all of this, he would have had a better career.

[Yogi]

So, WHY did the young cheerleader woman go up to his room? That's not to say that the cheerleader would deserve to be ****d, if it happened; but it does strongly suggest that Tyson had been set up

You can bet that if Tyson had been an ordinary Black guy instead
of a high profile, rich Black athlete -- and his accuser was an
ordinary Black woman, no one, not the police, not the press,
not the judge, and not most people would have really cared
or taken it that seriously -- especially where the objective evidence was lacking or totally not clear -- that he was accused of ****. In Tyson's case, the judge and jury essentially just took the woman's word for it.

I don't have time to go over the whole trial in this post, but here's a couple of things in response;

First off, your making an assumption of "strongly suggest" without even knowing the particulars as to why Washington went up to his room at the Canterbury Hotel...The reason she went up to his room was because they were on an actual date with plans to go to a couple of celebrity filled parties, and before they were to go to the parties, Tyson said he had to stop to "pick something up" from his room. What isn't left to assumptions is the fact that both Desiree and Tyson's own limousine driver, ******ia Foster, testified that when she went up to Tyson's room, she was carrying a camera with her (which was to be used later to take some celebrity photos for herself)...If Desire is said and seen to be holding a camera (by one of Tyson's own employees, no less), that would then make the story of them going out to celebrity parties afterwards entirely believable. Now if the two were on a date and had plans to continue the date (which was the case), wouldn't it make sense to think that it's entirely reasonable for her to accompany Mike to his room so he could "pick something up"? And I guess it's also worth noting that Tyson & Washington weren't the only two that had made the trip from the limousine to Tyson's hotel room, as Mike also had his bodyguard with him, Dale Edwards (who stood right outside the door), who could've backed up his story of what happened...Yet, when it came time for him to testify on Mike's behalf, Mr. Edwards was no where to be found and didn't back up Tyson's story in court (I wonder why?)

Ok, I don't know how much sense I'm making because my writing skills aren't all that great, but I'll try to point out a couple of things in the second paragraph of your's that I quoted...

First off, there was objective & physical evidence pertaining to the trial, as the day after the ****, Desiree did get checked out and did have ******* abrasions that were considered by a gynecologist to be consistant with at least the party having "rough sex" (or ****). There was also Tyson's limousine driver, ******ia Foster, who not only confirmed Desiree's story of her having a camera with her...but also testified that after the **** happened, she saw Desiree running out of the hotel in a "distraught" & "clearly distressed" state of mind, and had driven Desiree back to her own hotel (and in the limo drive, Desiree continued to show that she was very upset, according to Foster).

This wasn't just a he said/she said type of trial, as there was evidence presented in the case (and much more than I described, but I'm tired of typing right now). But even in the contexts of it being a he said/she said argument, there was only one of the two parties who were 100% consistent from the time the allegations were first brought to the police, 'til the time it was brought up in court...And it definately wasn't Tyson, who, in court, changed his story drastically from the very first police report.

[kerrminator]

The line between **** and sex you regret is very fine and the only people who will ever truly know what went on in that room are Washington and Tyson.

There are so many different if's and but's surrounding the whole case, especially one which involves celebrities, but if O.J got a not guilty when everyone felt he was a murderer, wouldn't it be possible for Tyson to go down for a lesser charge even if he was innocent???.

there is only so much a court room can do and im sure in the past there have been thousands of innocent people went down due to false evidence etc but on the other hand there are also thousands of guilty people walked free.

Although boxing is the highest paying sport in the world, its also a fairly well known fact that over 70% of the worlds population class it as a barbaric sport which leads you to believe that they assume barbarians are involved in this barbaric sport, therefore it could be safe to assume that over 70% of the jury involved in the trail would clas Tyson as a barbarian even before the case began.

The thought of a group of strangers off the street deciding your fate is a method that should be disregarded as im sure they get it wrong more than the authorities like to admit.

[Yogi]

there is only so much a court room can do and im sure in the past there have been thousands of innocent people went down due to false evidence etc but on the other hand there are also thousands of guilty people walked free.

Although boxing is the highest paying sport in the world, its also a fairly well known fact that over 70% of the worlds population class it as a barbaric sport which leads you to believe that they assume barbarians are involved in this barbaric sport, therefore it could be safe to assume that over 70% of the jury involved in the trail would clas Tyson as a barbarian even before the case began.

I'm sure there have been quite a few innocent people who were charged and convicted of a crime, and vice versa, where guilty people were found innocent by the courts...But wouldn't you trust that the justice system is correct much, much more often than they are incorrect? Regardless though, I don't see what a completely different and seperate case(s) has to do with the one we're discussing. It should be judged on it's own evidence and testimony, rather than compared to other cases heard in court.

And as far as your second paragraph here...Tyson's own lawyer painted him as a "sexually predator" during the trial, so there was no need for the jury to come up with their own picture. A fair amount of Tyson's defense made by his lawyer, was along the lines of "Desiree should've known better than to accompany him" considering Tyson's past when he had quite a few sexual allegations made against him (starting from the time Jim Jacobs had to pay out over a hundred grand to a young girl's family, well before Tyson turned pro, because Tyson supposedly had forced himself on the girl and continueing on from there...Tyson was far from being an angel, even before he became famous). Whether or not the jury saw Tyson as being "barbaric" is pretty irrelevant considering, but it's safe to assume that %100 of the jury thought Tyson was a sexual predator, because that's exactly how Fuller portrayed him as. Tyson even portrayed himself as such, when on the witness stand, he stated he was basically making sexual passes, and grabbing the asses of a vast number of the pageant contestants the day before (which was confirmed by those same contestants).

[kerrminator]

Iv'e grabbed a few asses myself but im no rapist.

as for Tyson being accused in the past for trying his luck with young girls before he went pro then that suggests that he was very young himself, remembr Tyson turned pro when he was still a teenager.

Im not defending him im just stating that such a high profile case could be filled with lots of false testimonies from both parties ie. people paying people left, right and centre to get the desired results.

You could argue that Tyson was well off and Washington wasn't but remember there were alot of people against Tyson who could easily afford to pay cash to a select few.

no-one will know.........ever!


As for your claim that Jury's get it right most of the time I dont really agree as most people plead guilty when the evidence is stacked against them,therefore a jury doesn't get to decide their fate.

Out of the cases that go to a jury I would suspect there are more than you might think where the verdict is wrong.

Im from scotland in the UK (suppose the Scott Harrison avatar gives it away ) but I disagree with the death penalty as although alot of people might deserve it, alot dont, and who are we as men to play god.

The reason the death penalty is no longer in use within the UK is because the Government accepts that its not ok to kill innocent people(nor guilty people imo)therefore admiting that the courts DO get it wrong