2015 Off Topic Thread

[Svino]

I've heard that claim before, that this wasn't the first time Washington had accused someone of rape. So what's the deal, she just has the bad luck that everyone wants to rape her?

I obviously don't know if he did it or not but I don't think he did. And as he said, I think that once the accusation was made the conviction was guaranteed simply because he was the person that he was at the time.

I also don't think he did it; I was convinced by the account written up in one of Alan Dershowitz's books (he was Tyson's lawyer on the appeal).

You might be interested in reading it if you're curious about the case:
https://books.google.com/books?id=XN...page&q&f=false

He concludes it like this:

"Of all the appeals I have argued, this should have been the easiest one to win. The law clearly required a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. I am convinced—and I think most observers were convinced—that at a second trial, with all the new evidence before the jury, Tyson would have been acquitted. But this was Indiana. They had a trophy in Tyson. The conviction was affirmed on a 2–2 tie vote by the Indiana Supreme Court, with the chief justice disqualifying himself from participation in the decision on a phony pretext. I believe that the real reason he disqualified himself was that his own previous decisions would have required him to vote for reversal, and if he did, the public would be reminded that he himself had been accused of sexual impropriety by a fellow judge. In my forty years of practicing law throughout the world, I have never encountered a more thoroughly corrupt legal system than I did in 1992 in Indiana and a less fair trial than the one accorded Mike Tyson."

That said, I'm not shedding too many tears for him. He's pretty much admitted to committing other violent crimes for which he was never caught or punished.

[SPX]

->Spoiler Alert!<-

I also don't think he did it; I was convinced by the account written up in one of Alan Dershowitz's books (he was Tyson's lawyer on the appeal).

You might be interested in reading it if you're curious about the case:
https://books.google.com/books?id=XN...page&q&f=false

He concludes it like this:

"Of all the appeals I have argued, this should have been the easiest one to win. The law clearly required a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. I am convinced—and I think most observers were convinced—that at a second trial, with all the new evidence before the jury, Tyson would have been acquitted. But this was Indiana. They had a trophy in Tyson. The conviction was affirmed on a 2–2 tie vote by the Indiana Supreme Court, with the chief justice disqualifying himself from participation in the decision on a phony pretext. I believe that the real reason he disqualified himself was that his own previous decisions would have required him to vote for reversal, and if he did, the public would be reminded that he himself had been accused of sexual impropriety by a fellow judge. In my forty years of practicing law throughout the world, I have never encountered a more thoroughly corrupt legal system than I did in 1992 in Indiana and a less fair trial than the one accorded Mike Tyson."

That said, I'm not shedding too many tears for him. He's pretty much admitted to committing other violent crimes for which he was never caught or punished.

That's a pretty interesting quote. I may have to pick that book up. One thing I know is that our justice system is fucked. But like I said to Luke earlier, I just don't know what would be a better system. Every system is liable to suffer from corruption and human error.

I actually read Tyson's new biography last year. It was very interesting for sure.