Mike Tyson Wants To Rape

stonemonkts · May-29th-2003, 08:58 AM

Sorry for the awful-sounding thread title, but it was better than the one I originally had in mind, such as "Mike Tyson - An Argument for the Death Penalty". This news item appeared a few minutes ago:

Tyson Says He Would Rape Victim Now

May 28, 8:21 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press

Mike Tyson hasn't lost his penchant for saying the outrageous.

In a television interview scheduled for broadcast Thursday, Tyson again denied he raped Desiree Washington in 1991 in an Indianapolis hotel room. But he said the burden of being labeled a convicted rapist makes him want to do it now.

"I just hate her guts. She put me in that state, where I don't know," Tyson said. "I really wish I did now. But now I really do want to rape her."

Tyson made the comments during a recent interview in Miami Beach with Greta Van Susteren, who was taking a look back at the circumstances of Tyson's 1992 trial that ended with him convicted of rape and sentenced to six years in prison.

He served three years of the sentence before being released on parole.

A call for comment to Tyson's adviser, Shelly Finkel, was not immediately returned.

The interview will be shown Thursday night (9 p.m. EDT) on "The Pulse" on the Fox network.

Mike Tyson and Fox, perfect together. (I added that, of course).

Uli · May-29th-2003, 09:32 AM

He did the time. He could as well commit the crime.

lynn · May-29th-2003, 10:00 AM

This guy is certifiable. Maybe not the death penalty, but certainly lifetime containment.

patricia · May-29th-2003, 10:11 AM

Tyson's comment about hating Desiree Washington and therefore wanting to rape her was interesting.
I think that it illustrates just what rape is. It has nothing to do with sex, but is the most personal expression of real hatred of women. I worked, as a volunteer, at a rape-crisis centre and that was the most important thing I learned about this very personal and violent kind of assault. It's not about sex at all.
I would agree that Tyson has a dangerous, real problem with hatred of women. Get him off the streets, IMO.

Uli · May-29th-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by patricia
Tyson's comment about hating Van Susterin and therefore wanting to rape her was interesting.
.

I am not sure where you are gettin that form, Patricia. In the article he sez he would like to rape Desiree Washington.

Dr Dave · May-29th-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stonemonkts
Mike Tyson hasn't lost his penchant for saying the outrageous.

Yup, that about gets it. Mike's interview will get big ratings; Mike retains his crazyman reputation, Fox scores big. I love America.

SinginSumo · May-29th-2003, 11:20 AM

Ditto to all posts above.

lynn · May-29th-2003, 11:23 AM

I understand exactly what Patricia is saying, even if she transposed the names of the victims. Her point is valid and the guy needs to be nuetered, which unfortunately would not cure him of his viciousness nor violence towards women.

Uli · May-29th-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lynn
I understand exactly what Patricia is saying, even if she transposed the names of the victims. Her point is valid and the guy needs to be nuetered, which unfortunately would not cure him of his viciousness nor violence towards women.

I understood what Patricia was saying as well. As a matter of fact her mixin up the names made it even easier to understand. I just don't share her views. For me Tyson's conviction was always a bit questionable. Don't remember all the details. One of them however was that the victim had made up a similar story before. I always had the feeling that Tyson was more convicted for who he was than for a crime he comitted. Especially since at about the same the Kennedy boy got off in a case were I felt there was substanitally more evidence.

stonemonkts · May-29th-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uli
I understood what Patricia was saying as well. As a matter of fact her mixin up the names made it even easier to understand. I just don't share her views. For me Tyson's conviction was always a bit questionable. Don't remember all the details. One of them however was that the victim had made up a similar story before. I always had the feeling that Tyson was more convicted for who he was than for a crime he comitted. Especially since at about the same the Kennedy boy got off in a case were I felt there was substanitally more evidence.

I agree with you about the Kennedy kid. But I don't think Tyson was ever wrongfully prosecuted/persecuted. I think a guy like Tyson blurs any distinctions when it comes to forcible sex/rape and how he acts with women in general. The guy is a dangerous brute. He needs a full frontal lobotomy, at the very least. My opinion towards abusers of women are a bit harsher than some, for personal reasons. I become enraged whenever I get even the slightest whiff of it. Tyson REEKS in this regard. Anyway, we bandy the word "hate" around a lot, but in this case, I truly hate the MF. I'd Love to see him in a hole.

shrugs · May-29th-2003, 11:50 AM

I forget a lot of the details as well. But it seems to me we have a few experts right here on this thread.
Please fill us in. No pun intended.

patricia · May-30th-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uli
I am not sure where you are gettin that form, Patricia. In the article he sez he would like to rape Desiree Washington.

Sorry guys. I edited the name of the victim in my comment, but the rest stands.

jazzfiend · May-30th-2003, 03:17 PM

OK, we'll let you slide this time. But please be more careful in the future. That was really embarrassing (and disconcerting)!

patricia · May-30th-2003, 03:37 PM

Thanks jazzfiend.

Salvador Dali Lama · May-30th-2003, 04:31 PM

hurray for the champ!

my favorite is still "i wanna eat his children, praise be to allah!"

or

"i'll fuck you until you like me!" to a male reporter

David I · May-30th-2003, 05:57 PM

His own lawyer, who was Don King’s Tax Lawyer, did in Tyson. You ask any criminal lawyer about the type of defense Tyson got and they will laugh. With all the money at Tyson disposal and how important he was to King why he chose his Tax Lawyer to defend him I don't think anyone knows.

Tyson is up for rape and his Lawyers entire defense is that Tyson is an Animal with a reputation as an Animal. That Washington should have known what she was getting into when she went to his bedroom that late. The last thing you want in any juries mind if you’re the defendant’s lawyer is that your client is an animal that is prone to be aggressive with women.

Tyson's lawyer also didn't get into a lot of evidence that would have helped Tyson's case. Every single one of the Jury after hearing about this evidence after the trial said they would have found Tyson innocent. Indiana brought in a special prosecutor to try Tyson and King brought in a Tax Lawyer who has never tried a criminal case in his life before that point and since that case.

Of course it is disgusting for Tyson to say he wants to rape her now. But if he is really innocent of raping her you can't blame him for remaining so angry over having to spend 3 years of his life in prison that he would say something this. His life has not been anywhere close to being the same since being in Prison.

It should also be brought up that Greta Van Susteren was the one that brought up Washington in the interview. She knew how he would react and was hoping to get something that would get her show some attention. Tyson is not exactly someone that speaks eloquently or even properly. And it is very well known he still insists he is innocent and is angry over the whole situation.

Most people if they where innocent but had to spend time in prison for a crime they didn't commit because of someone else would normally say something about wanting to kill that person. When you're angry you say a lot of stupid things that you don't mean and if you're already not exactly the smartest person around it's going to be even stupider than normal.

Having watched the trial and knowing the evidence that wasn't allowed in I think Tyson was innocent.

jazzfiend · May-30th-2003, 06:58 PM

I agree, but how are we going to convince Patricia?

Much easier said than done!

Captain Hate · May-30th-2003, 08:25 PM

I think it was Mitch "Blood" Green that did it; he's the only person dumber than Tyson. If what David I posted is true then Tyson should want to rape that murdering scum Don King.

David I · May-30th-2003, 11:26 PM

Captain Hate,

Tyson has no love for King as well. In fact in the same interview with Greta he goes off on King as well. It's just that his comments about Washington where the only ones that made publicity. Tyson is currently suing King for embezzlement of I believe of 150+ million.

There was a book written about the Tyson trial and the terrible defense he got. It was written by one of the ESPN trial experts that covered the case for ESPN at the time. Will try to find the name of the book.

One of the things that was not allowed in the case was at least one witness possible more who claimed Washington told her/them that she was going to go after Tyson. Other witness' claimed they saw both kissing in public, something she claims never happened in her testimony. There are several other things that his lawyer really didn't push properly to get admitted. Most of which would have shown that Washington was possibly lying about several parts of her testimony.

David I · May-31st-2003, 03:19 AM

The name of the book I was talking about is Down for the Count : The Shocking Truth Behind the Mike Tyson Rape Trial by Mark Shaw, who is a lawyer. He covered the case for ESPN.

Here is a Synopsis from of the book,

Down For The Count provides an inside look at the rape trial of heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson, but more importantly a perspective of the legal system in the early 1990s. Through a series of bizarre events, the Tyson trial, held weeks after the William Kennedy Smith acquittal, and weeks before the first Rodney King trial, proved that an African American celebrity could not get a fair trial in the United States. Despite little evidence to convict, Tyson was found guilty and served time in prison for a crime he did not commit. Jurors later admitted they based the verdict on an erroneous premise, but appeals courts looked the other way.

Some more info on the book,

This book, written by Mark Shaw, explores the rape trial of Mike Tyson v. Desiree Washington. Shaw begins by exploring the reasons why Mike Tyson was convicted versus the acquittal of defendants in four other nationally recognized cases: Clarence Thomas, William Kennedy Smith, L.A.P.D. in the Rodney King beatings, and Lemrick Nelson, Jr. He questions whether the deck was stacked against the defense from the beginning of the trial. On the prosecution side, Shaw begins by talking about the critical evidence that the prosecution tried to conceal from the jury, and the pro-prosecution Judge Patricia Gifford. He also points out how the prosecution attorney Greg Garrison tried to lay out Washington's image before getting into the her testimony, "Successful in [Garrison's] quest to portray Washington as a model citizen, Garrison now began to carefully guide Washington towards the fateful meeting with Tyson" (Shaw 50). Shaw is recognizing that this trial was more than evidence, but a trial of character. As he moves to the defense's case, he examines what the defense did to discredit the accuser and show Tyson as a victim. Shaw also examines the effect that Tyson's attorney Alan Dershowitz's comments about the Indiana court system and attacks on Desiree Washington had on the outcome in the case. Shaw's analysis of the case tries to come to a conclusion of whether the entire legal system fell short in providing Tyson a fair trial and why this trial had many crucial differences from the four other cases.

frankpop1 · May-31st-2003, 03:24 PM

i think tyson probably got a fair defense. & if i am not mistaken i remember that even dershowitz' team was involved at least on appeals. the evidence excluded was evidence that would should probably be excluded in virtually any rape trial. any attorney that disagrees, i would suggest, he doesnt grasp the intent or basic principles behind the rape shield act.

RainyDay · May-31st-2003, 03:52 PM

Who is Mark Shaw? And why should anyone believe him? Maybe he is the same guy who organized the hoochie mama road show where a bunch of women who looked liked street walkers went on national talk shows to defend their Iron Mike. They showed up on Oprah and it was pretty pathetic. I don't believe Mike Tyson was innocent. Please present some evidence that he is. He is a violent man with a history of battering women. And going to a man's hotel room may be piss poor judgement but it isn't a free pass given to a man to have forcible sex. I recall the medical evidence stating that her injuries were consistent with a rape victim's injuries.

David I · May-31st-2003, 03:55 PM

Did you watch the trial? He had the worse defense you can imagine. Dershowitz was involved after the fact when he was already found guilty. Unlike in the Simpson trial he was involved during the trial and helped appeal the trial judges rulings, which is what Tyson needed to be done. It's easier to get an overturn of a judges ruling during a case. It's close to impossible to have trial thrown out in appeals.

There was next to no evidence proving he was guilty.

I have yet to meet a single criminal defense attorney that thinks he was anywhere close to being properly defended.

The victim not only waited a full 24hrs after the alleged rape but she also continued to participate in the Pagents programs and she was on tape smiling and laughing and having a good time the day after the alleged rape. I know some victims are in shock after an attack and it takes them some time to call to report it, but they don't normally act the way Washington did at the pagent the next day.

If you read my posts you would see who I said Mark Shaw was.

The reports I recall did not say she had injuries consistent with someone being raped.

I would like to point out that if Tyson was innocent he would not be the first innocent person that was found guilty of Rape. It has happened way to many times in the past. You act like there has never been a case of someone being found guilty of a rape or crime before that was innocent.

I will say this again, everyone of Tyson's jury now feels he is innocent.

RainyDay · May-31st-2003, 04:04 PM

No I didn't watch the trial but I followed it in the press. I'm still waiting to hear how the evidence presented by the prosecution was deficient. Maybe they didn't produce any evidence to exculpate him because there wasn't any. Just because OJ got lucky doesn't mean Mike didn't do it.

David I · May-31st-2003, 04:09 PM

So you don't even know the facts but your 100% sure he is guilty? As I said why not read the book if you want a details that are given much better than I ever could.

I will say this again, everyone of Tyson's jury now feels he is innocent. These are the people who heard every part of the case saw all the evidence that was allowed to be shown to them. But now they feel they did the wrong thing by finding him guilty. We are not talking about a couple of them but all of them. They know the case better than you and I ever could and they now feel he is innocent.

Doesn't that at least put at least a little doubt in your mind?

One last thing. Since you say all your information was from reports. You don't think reporters have a tendency to skew things just a bit?

Captain Hate · May-31st-2003, 04:17 PM

You're probably right, David. Even when murdering scum like OJ goes free bothers me less than when an innocent person gets railroaded; and that may have happened with Tyson. The quiche eaters in the media certainly wouldn't consider him a cause celebre because he isn't very pc. And he is an asshole; but that doesn't make him guilty. Just like the Amireaults in Massachusetts who got jobbed in a horseshit day-care sex abuse scam; AND THE SON IS STILL IN JAIL!!!!

What is really stupid in the Iron Mike case (and I assume that what you're saying is correct, David I) is that unlike a lot of others he should've easily afforded outstanding legal representation.

David I · May-31st-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Hate
What is really stupid in the Iron Mike case (and I assume that what you're saying is correct, David I) is that unlike a lot of others he should've easily afforded outstanding legal representation.

To this day I don't think anyone really understands why Don King would pick his Tax Attorney who never tried a criminal case to defend Tyson. As much as a meal ticket that Tyson was to King why he picked that lawyer to defend his meal ticket will never be understood.

The next question would be why Tyson would allow King to pick a Tax Attorney to defend him. It's not like Tyson hadn't ever been in trouble before with the law as a kid that he would not know the difference between a Criminal attorney and Tax Attorney.

I wonder if this Tax Attorney is a defendant in the case Tyson now has against King?

Tyson would have been better off with a basic PD. An average criminal attorney should have been able to win this case.

There was no evidence of a rape. When you come down to it was a she said/he said case.

frankpop1 · May-31st-2003, 07:46 PM

what i dont understand, is how did king force tyson to hire this attorney.

bluenoter · May-31st-2003, 08:02 PM

'Scuse me . . .

frankpop--I sent you a Private Message (nothing to do with this topic).

Tanager · June-1st-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by frankpop1
what i dont understand, is how did king force tyson to hire this attorney.

I know almost nothing about this case, but judging from what I understand to be the level of Tyson's intellect, I am betting that King could have hired any gimp off the street, told Tyson "here's your lawyer," and Tyson would have gone along with it.