mike tyson innocent or guilty?

Nobody in this website has the same access of information as the courts did, and they convicted him so that ends up being the bottom line.

I suspect he got railroaded on this and it appears that he had ineffective counsel, but I also suspect he's done enough illegal activities in his life that this was some kind of justice, even if it may have been misdirected.

Kind of reminds me of a book I once read called Contract Killer, in which the author said "sure I killed numerous people, but honest to god I didn't kill the guy I was convicted of killing."

 

Your answer works for me...

 

Only 2 people in the World were in the room that night so ask them and you will get 2 different stories..

If i had to pick i would say he was innocent of ****, guilty of being a thug, stupid jackass , and lets be real a jury in Conservative Indiana full of White racist Republicans are not gonna give. Black man the benefit of the doubt, aint happening...

Tysons criminal past convicted him, he was a sadist, alcoholic, criminal, and a pervert, even admitted it in his book, and his Lawyer if you wanna call him that was too old and senile, too handle such a complex case...

 

It is highly likley that he did it, but I do not think that the burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" was met.

 

From everything I've read, heard and know about Tyson I'd say he definitely did it. The guy is a complete scumbag and had a history of abusing women.

 

Hes innocent. I studied that case up and down and that trial was a complete sham. It still blows my mind how weak that case was.

 

Unreal, wasn't it? That's the system for you. If they want to make an example out of you they will, with dirty players involved in the game.

Karma was involved, always is. But Mike got shafted for all the wrong reasons. If any of you have read the book The Inner Ring by Tyson's former bodyguard Rudy Gonzalez you'll understand a bit more to the story. Was Tyson set up by Don King?

 

We are effectively asking two separate questions here:

A. Did he do it on the balance of probability?
B. Did the prosecution meet its burden of proof?

The answer to A might very well be yes, but the answer to B is no!

 

:huhWhy would Don King set up Tyson? Tyson was his cash cow.

 

There is ***ism in your post. As in a case when only woman comment on an incindiary matter like this, there is likely to be bias involved.

Though so far the guys here have been reasonable & circumspect.
There is no good way to determine what happen. Tyson admitted doing many bad things, insists he is innocent, may have been, & the process not served him in that case.

He said how his best shot sent Robin Givens banging against the walls, no reason not to believe him-except no, not that he really hit her better/harder than any opponent, but he was a sick, abusive man.

Monica's conversations were secretly recorded & she betrayed by an older "friend" Linda Tripp. It was absurd for our nation to be made an Int'l joke due to a lioteral Fedral, impeachable cas ebeing made against the President for the usual Sins of Man, infiidelity. But still Clinton was self-destructive & dishonorable for both LYING about it-he should have refused to answer or answrered-& being deceptive "It depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

But puring all your greviences into the convenient scapegoat of Woman is immoral & wrong.

 

I dont think Tyson did it and I certainly dont think the state met its burden of proof.

 

I agree with this. Pretty sure the prosecuting lawyer actually said that if Tyson would have had anyone else representing him he would not have been convicted.

 

I can't stand the race card. Same **** with saying all Republicans are rich racist whites. Bull****.