Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    	oh yes!!
    	he's an arrogant son of a poop and money or fame didn't
    	save him.
    
    	but then there's appeals....

    From my perspective, and since I didn't follow either case closely its
    biased, I think there are some incredible contrasts between the Tyson and
    (Kennedy)Smith cases:
    
              		Smith                 Tyson
    
    	Wealth         old money            new money
        Occupation      doctor              pro boxer
        Race            white                black
        Victim's      -sexually            -not sexually
         background     active               active
                      - ???                -college student
                                           - beauty queen
                                             contestant
        Verdict       - not guilty         - guilty
    
    Now, there ARE similarities in the defendant's reputations. Although
    Smith was not known to be violent, he was said to be forceful and
    coercive with other women. Tyson's reputation was ominous.
    
    I wonder, in my mind, if there would have been different verdicts if
    Tyson had been tried first.
    
    Something else I'm trying to understand. If a man tells a lot of women
    he's interested in sex, and one woman is not interested in sex, but IS
    interested in meeting the man, if he forces himself upon the woman,
    does this constitute rape, or is it excusable since he made his 
    intentions known. Does the fact that she is "guilty" of stupidity/naivete
    or even of major risk-taking lessen his guilt? 
    
    I'm still trying to find out if people really believe that this woman
    really wanted to have sex with Mike Tyson, to be penetrated by Mike
    Tyson, or whether she just wanted to tease him a little and got in over
    her head.
    
    I also get the feeling that a lot of people think that any woman who
    teases a man deserves to get raped, and that the man shouldn't serve
    any time for it. Hope all of you dads out there are reminding your
    daughters that there are some men who will take teasing as consent,
    when it is NOT. I also hope that the typical father doesn't want his
    daughter raped, no matter what she does. I could be wrong about this
    one...

I didn't pay close attention to the trial, but one thing that I did hear is that
a doctor for the prosecution testified that the accusor had abbrasions that were
(statistically) consistant with having been raped.  I know that if I was sitting
on the jury and I just has two people's differing opinions (which is what the
rest of the story sounded like), that something like that would make me take a
strong leaning towards the side of the prosecution.  In my mind the reason why
there was a conviction in this case is that there was better evidence than in
the Smith case.

Rich

    I think it might be useful to focus on the difference between the
    accusers rather than the difference between the defendants

    As a further point of interest, the victim in the Tyson case was
    noticed to appear shaken when she left his hotel.

    
    	ok, seriously...
    	tyson should not have been put on the stand, his testimony was
    	not consistent. his attorneys used his brashness and violence
    	as a defence and that backfired in their faces. (this opinion
    	from johnson, who's a leading defense atty. in boston)
    
    	whether or not tyson's intent was made up front before the 
    	invitation to the room (i believe it was from the newspaper 
    	stories) the victim's eventual NO should have been the deciding
    	factor in the acquiescing to have sex.... he made advances, she
    	said no, and he continued. a rape occured.

    I haven't followed either case in detail; I did watch a bit of William
    Kennedy Smith on the stand, and thought he was pretty smooth and would
    be tough to beat. He would come across better than Tyson strictly at
    the level of verbal skill. I still suspect the charges were true, just
    unprovable.
    
    Both of them had access to the best legal talent money could buy, so
    I wouldn't consider that a factor.
    
    At the same time, I think the victim in the Tyson case was very dumb
    in going to Tyson's room at 2 a.m.. She maybe thought that she could
    manipulate Tyson in some way; men like Tyson who are rich and not
    bright are targets. I also wonder if Tyson's propensity for violence 
    comes from his frustration at being manipulated by a world that he 
    doesn't understand very well. This doesn't justify the rape, nothing
    ever does, but I think his anger comes from knowing he is a target
    of money-seekers.
    
    I'm also not surprised that a prizefighter finds violence a solution
    to life's problems. He gets paid so well for that solution.
    
    -roger
    

    That is going to be hard to do for the information for the accuser is
    usually with held for there exist this so called fairness of our court
    system. Just as if your white or black there exist a prefered judgement.
    There also exist perfered judgements between women and men. Equality 
    is fair for only some people in certain situations due to preconceived
    notions of how things are suposingly to work. 

    I honestly believe (although, of course, don't *know* since I wasn't
    there) that Tyson raped his accusor, and I honestly believe that
    William Kennedy Smith did not rape his accusor.
    
    I think there are two main reasons why I feel this way.
    1) The age difference between the two women.  Tyson's accusor
       is an 18 year old college freshman, while Smith's accusor
       is a woman in her 30's.  
    
    2) The violence in Tyson's background (especially wife-beating) 
       versus the lack of violence in William Smith's background.
       (one of the women who complained of Smith's getting fresh
        with her in the past, said that after she said, "Willie,
        get off me!" he left her alone - Tyson would probably
        have beaten the shit out of a woman in the same circumstance,
        or just held her down and raped her since he's so big)
    
    I think there's a big difference in what I expect an 18 yr. old
    to understand and know about men, sex and dangerous situations and
    what I expect a woman in her 30's to know, because people learn through
    experience.  I also think there's a heck of a difference between the
    type of men that Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith are.  I don't
    think SMith is a dangerous man.  I think Tyson is.
    
    Lorna
    

    in my opinion the fundamental difference between the two cases is ...
	    Tyson is guilty.
	    Smith isn't.

    I believe that if Smith had been the defendant in the Indiana trial he
    would have been found guilty

    I hope (can't _quite_ say believe) that if Tyson had been the defendant
    in the Florida case, he would have been found not guilty.
    
    Question:
    Which is more important in my uncertainty of whether Tyson would have
    been found innocent in Florida ...
    		a) his race
    		b) his lifestyle and profession
    Ans:
    I don't know

    Suppose
    
    Willie Smith had been George Chuvalo
    and Mike Tyson had been Alvin Pouissant
    
    Or suppose it had been Floyd Paterson instead of Mike Tyson
    Or suppose it had been Wade Boggs instead of Willie Smith
    
    

    re .10, I think it's the way each man presented himself, which may be a
    result of race, profession and lifestyle.  But, I think that basically
    Tyson comes across more as a man who would rape a woman than Smith
    does, due partly to the known violence in his past.
    
    Lorna
    

    p.s.
    George Chuvalo is a white prize fighter
    Alvin Pouissant is a black psychiatrist
    Floyd Paterson is a black former heavy weight champion.
    Wade Boggs is a white baseball player

What I found fascinating about this case was that it showed it WAS possible
to obtain a conviction against a wealthy celebrity, something a lot of people
might doubt.  I don't want to comment on whether or not Tyson was guilty, as
I just don't have enough information and it's really not my place to do so.

If he was in fact guilty and the conviction therefore just, then perhaps there
is something right with the system after all.  However, I will be curious to
see what the actual sentence is, and how much of it he serves.  According to
the prosecutors, 7-11 years is typical.

I do think that Tyson being black and obnoxious made it a lot easier to
convict him.

					Steve

    I think Tyson got a fair trial, and I think he is guilty.  Tyson's
    victim, in my opinion, is guilty of nothing more than bad judgement,
    a fairly common "crime" among 18 year olds.
    
    Mike

    
    	::STHILAIRE,
    	i think you are a bit naive in your opinion of 18 yr. olds...
    	they can be as devious or innocent as their  older counterparts...
    	the only thing they lack, of course, is the experience needed to
    	be *successful* at it.
    
    	::RAUH,
    	admittedly our judicial system has its faults....but it also 
    	has its good points....
    	hearing with a jury of one's peers as opposed to the british
    	diplock trials without jury....used to convict the northern 
    	irish, for instance.... you have to get a wider perspective, my
    	dear.
    	what a gloomy gus.

    
    The thing that bothers me about Tyson's conviction is the fact that
    one of the other contestants testified that the accuser had told
    her that she had accepted Tyson's invitation because, "He's dumb and
    he's rich".
    
    On the other hand, the failure to put Tyson's body guard on the stand
    looked very suspicious, and the helter-skelter "she should have known
    what Tyson was after" defense backfired big-time.
    
    Was he guilty.  I don't know.  I haven't seen any "conclusive" evidence
    one way or the other.  Therefore if I were on the jury, I'd have had to 
    vote for acquittal.
    
    fred();

 any "conclusive evidence"
 
 What do you consider the accuser's vaginal abrasions to be?
 

    
    
> What do you consider the accuser's vaginal abrasions to be?
    
    Tyson did say that thay *had* had sex.  The abrasions werer
    "statistically" consistent with rape, but not conclusively consistant.
    
    fred();

    re .16, I see no reason why I should not give the 18 yr. old woman, in
    question, the benefit of the doubt, as I would hope that others would
    give my 18 yr. old daughter the benefit of the doubt, as well.
    
    Lorna
    

    My daughter is 18 like Lorna's and she is amazingly naive about
    a wide variety of things, despite being in college and reasonably
    well read.
    
    Bonnie

    I don't think the rules of evidence/law require conclusiveness.
    
    A juror can use any 'reasoning' he or she wants of course, which is why
    there is occassionally a hung jury. Looks like you would be that juror
    in this case.
    

    
    >Looks like you would be that juror
    >in this case.
    
    I believe that's what I said.  If I had been on the jury and based
    on my view of the "evidence" and testimony that was presented. I
    would not have been *sure* he was guilty.  Therefore I would have
    had to vote for acquittal.
    
    fred();

    can you give some circumstances when you _could_ find a man guilty of
    rape, when 
    
    	nobody witnessed the event, 
        the defendant contests the charge
    	nobody overheard him acknowledge the rape
        no visible bruises (other than vaginal)
        no torn clothing...
    

    re .24
    
    That is why it's so difficult to convict someone of date rape.
    That's why it's important for a woman to be careful of what she's
    getting in to.  The alternative, however, convicting someone just
    because they are "accused" of doing something, is equally if not more
    repugnant.  In this day and age it's the *man* who had better watch
    out who he's alone with.  Especially if he's rich and famous.
    
    I am not saying that I think rape is ok.  I DON'T.  However, I do
    not believe in the suspension of the bill of rights either.
    
    fred();

    .16
    
    Nope not a gloomy gus. Jest a person who has had enough and wont take
    it anymore on the chin. If someone wants to dance with the devil thats
    their choise. If they get burnt, thats their problem. And that is for
    either parties. Once a man is precieved as a woman beater, child
    molester, etc. It carries with him. Even though he is inocent beyond
    all reason. Sometimes, as we all know, that a man is made charged with
    such heanous crimes just so the woman can get an upper hand in the
    divorce game. I am not an expert on what really happened with Mikes
    case. I dont read the National Inquire much. 
    
    	Mike has a split personality. He has to in order do the things he
    has as a boxer. One side is mild mannered. The other is the raging
    bull. And there is alittle of this in all of us. Some more than others.
    
    	There is another thought that comes to mind when I hear, read, see
    on tv, what is going on. That is that some people are guided by their
    brains. And others are guided by their loins. And some have no guidence
    what so ever. And the 18 year old sounds like no guidence. And Mike
    sounds like he is loin driven. 
    
    Geo 

    re .25
    In my opinion, finding Tyson not guilty is no more reasonable that finding
    Willie Smith guilty would have been.

    There was a hellava lot more supporting a guilty verdict than an
    accusation.

    Would you use that same standard (CONCLUSIVE) in all other criminal
    proceedings?

    If somebody has a consistent philosophy that findings of _guilty_ can only
    be rendered if there is CONCLUSIVE evidence, then so be it. That is a very
    stringent standard; it is a standard very different from that provided by
    our system of justice in the U.S. of A. either in practice or
    theoretically (as I understand our law).

				herb    
    
    p.s. 

    I am very afraid that finding Mike Tyson not guilty would send a HORRIFIC
    message to young men. A message that would be saying something like ... 
    "Don't sweat it! If HE wasn't convicted of 'date_rape' NOBODY will be".

    I felt that finding Willie Smith guilty would have send a comparably
    distorted message to young women. A message that would have said something
    of the form...
    "don't like your boyfriend, haul him into court on date rape, can't lose!"

    				h

>    In this day and age it's the *man* who had better watch
>    out who he's alone with.  Especially if he's rich and famous.
    
    Not if he can count on jurors who think that accusing a rapist is more
    repugnant than rape.
    
    Ray

    re .29
    
    
    >Not if he can count on jurors who think that accusing a rapist is more
    >repugnant than rape.
    
    You are ASSUMING guilt here.  The founders of the Constitution
    (and a lot of good people who have given *life* and *limb* to defend
    and support it) determined long ago that assuming guilt ( at least
    in a court room ) *IS* more repugnant than rape, robery, or even murder.

    If you don't like it, then take it up whith the Supreme Court.  
    fred();
    

 FWIW- I thought that there was a better chance that Tyson was not guilty
than Smith, even though the case against Tyson was the far better prosecuted 
of the two.

    re .28, Herb, I agree with you about what the messages of convicting
    Tyson or Smith would send.
    
    re Mark, I'm amazed that you think Tyson was innocent but that Smith
    was guilty.  Which man would you rather have one of your stepdaughters
    go out on a date with?   (Personally, I think that some of the people
    who think Smith was guilty just think so because they've always hated
    the Kennedys.  I think it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice
    for a young man to go to jail just because people hated his uncles. )
    
    Lorna
    

    re .32
    
    a) thnx
    b) I don't see a connection between preferring my daughters to date
       WKS (sort of like my preferring to get hugged by a 3 foot python rather
       than a 20ft python) on the one hand and guilt or innocence of Tyson
       on the other hand. Did I misunderstand?
    
    
    			herb

    re .30
    I do not see that .29 ASSUMES anybody's guilt. For us as non-jurors to
    have some (sort of a priori) OPINION about Tyson's guilt is quite
    another matter. 
    Based on my understanding of the trial reports the jury behaved very
    sensibly in finding Tyson guilty. I feel comfortable concluding "justice
    was done". It is of course _possible_ given our imperfect world that the
    jury found GUILT in error. A price of humanity.
    I hope we can avoid changing this discussion to one where the accused
    is ASSUMED to be guilty by the jurors. That would of course violate the
    spirit and letter of the constitution, and is one of the automatic jury
    screening questions that is asked.
    
    				herb
    

Given what I've read of the defense's argument, that Tyson was a "brute" and
that the woman "should have known she would be raped", I don't find the
verdict astonishing at all.  

			Steve

    the defense argued she should have known she would be _raped_?
    

    With a defence like that the prosecution could have stayed home!
    
    Charles

    
    	::NICHOLS....
    	that point in the trial really bothered me...
    	my question is what part of the word NO did tyson misunderstand?
    
    	i was hard put to not include the word *willingly* before 
    	misunderstand.

    What is the difference between "conclusive" proof that someone
    is guilty and establishing guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
    
    I thought our system was of the "beyond a reasonable doubt"
    school.  I mean, theoretically, nothing is "conclusive" -
    eyewitnesses can lie, photos can be doctored, wounds can be
    self-inflicted, etc, etc, etc...  A "conclusive" standard
    of guilt would allow many criminals to go free because I
    believe you can never be 100% sure.
    
    Still, though I don't know what the statistics are, there is
    a perception among many that false accusations of rape are a
    big problem.  And there are statistics that show the crime
    of rape often goes unreported (not to mention, unpunished).
    Obviously we need a balanced justice system that takes this
    into account.  My personal feeling is that we are less 
    inclined to believe a woman than a man (don't know why) but
    I don't know what, if anything, can or should be done in our 
    legal system to remedy the situation.
    
    I don't envy jurors in rape cases in any event.
    
    /Greg

    re .38
    
    	<::NICHOLS....
    	<that point in the trial really bothered me...
    	<my question is what part of the word NO did tyson misunderstand?
    i don't understand what your point is.
    which of my (unfortunately many) replies are you referring to, and what
    point in particular in the trial really bothered you?
    
    
    				herb

>    re Mark, I'm amazed that you think Tyson was innocent but that Smith
>    was guilty.

 No need to be amazed; I didn't say that.

>Which man would you rather have one of your stepdaughters
>    go out on a date with? 

 Neither one, TYVM.

    re .39
    
    >And there are statistics that show the crime
    >of rape often goes unreported (not to mention, unpunished).
    >Obviously we need a balanced justice system that takes this
    >into account.  My personal feeling is that we are less 
    >inclined to believe a woman than a man (don't know why) but
    >I don't know what, if anything, can or should be done in our 
    >legal system to remedy the situation.
    
    Actually this happens in ANY kind of criminal case.  Much more
    attention is paid to the ACCUSED's righths than to the VICTIM's.
    This has been given to us by the same Supreme Court that gave
    us the wonderfulness of abortion.  Add to that the D.A.'s who
    will not prosecute a case unless it is iron-clad so that they
    can go to the voters at election time and clame a 98% conviction
    rate and you have a real problem.  
    
    I myself find that assinging more believability to the "victim"
    just because she's a woman very disturbing.  Not to say that a
    man *should* be more believable just because he's a man.
    
    fred();

    RE: .42  
    
    >more attention is paid to the ACCUSED's righths than to the VICTIM's.
    ...
    >will not prosecute a case unless it is iron-clad so that they
    
    Well I don't understand then, why you advocate such
    an ironclad standard of evidence.
    
    Do you agree with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard?
    If so, how does that compare to the "conclusive evidence"
    standard you mentioned earlier?
    
    I don't think a victim should be "assigned more believability"
    just because she's a women either.  I think she should be
    presumed at the outset to be as believable as a man - and then
    we proceed from there based on the evidence.
    
    /Greg

    re .43
    
    Yes I believe in "beyond a reasonable doubt".  But our system is
    set up so that even at 99-1 odds.  That 1% is still reasonable
    doubt.  As I said in previous notes.  In Tysons case I find some
    very questionable behavior from him and in his defense, but the
    "he's dumb and rich" comment and add to that the $40M lawsuit
    filed by the "victim" is enough to creat a reasonable doubt
    (for me) that I would not have been able to vote for conviction.
    
    fred();

    re .41, well you said, in .31, "I thought there was a better chance
    that Tyson was not guilty than Smith."  I don't think it was a very
    great leap for me to assume, from that statement, that you thought
    Tyson was innocent and that Smith was guilty.
    
    re .33, Herb, the reason I asked Mark which man he'd rather have his
    daughter date was because of the statement he made, which I quoted
    above.  I wasn't asking it of anybody else, only of him because of the
    above statement, and he answered "Neither one, TYVM."
    
    Lorna
    

    re well, one thing for sure about the "he's dumb and rich
    statement"....it's true.  He *is* dumb and he *is* rich!
    
    Lorna
    

    re .45
    <i don't think it was a very great leap for me to assume...>
    I agree, I think that Mark is very effective at writing in a style that
    lends itself to both narrow and wide construction.
    
    also re .45
    the way that you asked the question about his (putative) daughter's 
    dating habits suggested you somehow feel there ought to be a connection
    between personal opinions about somebody and guilt assessment. Either
    that or that you somehow felt that Mark was saying that. It was clear
    to me that Mark wasn't saying that, and I didn't think you would be
    saying that either, but I wasn't sure.
    
    				herb

 Lorna-

 I don't know whether either man was guilty or not. I believe strongly that
Smith committed the act he was accused of committing. I believe less strongly
in Tyson's culpability despite the fact that the story was more believable.
It's very easy to believe a large, brutish black man raped a woman. It's not
as easy to believe a wimpy, white, "cultured" man raped a woman. Be that as it
may, the fact that the victim in Tyson's accuser allegedly made comments 
regarding Tyson's money and intelligence before the fact and has filed an 
astronomical lawsuit make me question whether we are looking at a simple 
gold digging.

    
>>    the defense argued she should have known she would be _raped_?
    
    	this is the point of my initial reference.
    	does anyone go into a situation knowing that he or she is going 
    	to be raped?
    	i don't think so.
    
    	when tyson made his intent clear ....and her answer was no,
    	what's there not to understand?
    
    	i wasn't picking on your reply, herb.... sorry i was unclear.
    

Re: .36

Yes, that indeed does seem to have been the focus of the defense's case, at
last that's what I got out of the Boston Globe article.  I guess they were
trying to show that the woman knew what she was getting into, and therefore
must have consented.  I can't quite follow that logic myself and apparently
neither could the jury.

			Steve

	  I heard on the 12:00 news today that the women who
	  has accused Tyson has consented to appear on 60
	  minutes. The date is still being negotiated and 
	  there is no news as yet if she will identify herself.


	  kits

    I have a 21 yr old daughter, and an 18 yr old daughter.
    It is very hard for me to think of my 18yr old college freshman
    daughter as a woman. She is a girl as far as emotional maturity is
    concerned.
    Our 21 yr old daughter 'became a woman' in terms of general maturity
    and sense of adultness sometime this fall.

    Haddock:
    
    >Yes I believe in "beyond a reasonable doubt".  But our system is
    >set up so that even at 99-1 odds.  That 1% is still reasonable
    >doubt.
    
    No, this is very unreasonable doubt. Nothing would be prosecutable
    by this standard.
    
    -roger
     

    
    	on the news yesterday at 5, donald trump was trying to buy tyson's
    	sentence...
    	to set up a fund for victims of rape...
    
    	i don't know.....but there's something about the sincerity.
    	i mean he's floundering financially....and many of the championship
    	bouts happen in casinos....
    
    	but then there's this reasonable doubt of his motives.

    It's been quiet for a few days......
    
    I found more than a few things strange in this proces:
    
    The prosecutor is not from the Indianapolis area. He was hired by the
    city to prosecute because of the Kennedy Smith trial. They felt their
    own prosecutors were unable to handle the case. 
    
    The defense attorney is supposed to be one of sharpest legal minds in
    the USA. He appeared to be in a stupor in the tapes I heard and the
    reports I read. He allowed the prosecutor to build up the case around a 
    "spot of blood" on the bed that 'inferred' the woman was a virgin and
    the defense never pursued whether it was her blood, his blood, or
    anything that would make a defense. 
     
    The I have questions about both Tyson and Washington and the Pagaent
    promoters:
    
    What would the reason be for having Tyson, who has a history of
    problems dealing with women, be at a beauty pagaent of this magnitude.
    It lends no credibility to it, and he's a 'former' champ. I would think
    that Muhammad Ali or George Foreman would be better suited to do this
    type of thing.
    
    Why didn't someone complain about Tyson grabbing breasts and buttocks
    and sliding his hands onto the crotches of the women? If he did as much
    of this as they say he did, that doesn't say much for the women or the
    people running the contest.
    
    Diseree Washington claimed that Tyson called her at 1:15AM to go
    "sightseeing and partying". What sights are to be seen at that time in
    the morning? Why would anyone who was comfortably tucked in bed want to
    get up and go galavanting around a strange city?  
    
    When he stopped at his hotel and asked her up to his room, why didn't
    she refuse and wait in the limo? What did she really expect that Mike
    Tyson would want from her once in his room? Why did she go into the
    bedroom of the suite? I find it very hard not to place at least some
    cupability on her part in this.
    
    If she said "NO" then he raped her. He's a perfect patsy. Not
    intelligent, not well bred, disliked by many people because he is so
    rude and crude.
    
    The sad part of this whole affair is that there are others just like
    Mike Tyson who have never understood what 'NO' means. They get their
    way everywhere they go, they have platoons of bodyguards, roadies,
    hangers-on, and go-fors that kiss their butt at every request. They
    demand and people jump. When they want something, they take it and
    promoters and managers take care of the damage and/or pay for what they
    do. When they run into someone who says "NO", they don't care, someone
    will fix it. Don King and others are trying to "Fix it" now. If Tyson
    gets off on this (he's been convicted) it just reinforces the incorrect
    response to "NO"! In Mike Tyson's brain, as small as it may be, "NO"
    has no meaning........they'll just fix anything I do....
    
    Ken  
    

  	I'm still not convinced that Tyson raped her. There
	was not enough evidence (IMO) to convict him. 

	kits

Kits, I'm curious.  When you say "not enough evidence", how do you know?

I say this as someone who retyped a newspaper article (into Soapbox) reporting 
every single day of the trial coverage for almost three weeks, articles always 
of at least 60 and sometimes over 100 lines in length...and which reported the 
highlights of an entire day's testimony, usually with a reference to one or two,
or, at most, three witnesses.  I think I could probably name 10 witnesses who 
gave testimony; but of course, I only know about one or two sentences of what
each of them said, which sentences I got to read because they were deemed most 
significant by some hack reporter.

The final article I typed said that there were 50 witnesses; 25 for the defense
and 25 for the prosecution.  What did the other 40 witnesses say, the ones that
the reporters never told me about, nor quoted?  My newspaper didn't cover it.  
But after hearing all of those witnesses, a jury voted "guilty".  I think they 
found enough evidence.  Please be aware that if your newpapers didn't give you
any more information than mine gave me, we really can't conclude anything about
how much evidence there really was.

DougO

	
	re  .57 ::olson

	Doug, if you read my note again, you will see that I said
	there was not enough evidence (IN MY OPINION). 

	

	kits

    Kits - I think the point is *HOW* did you come to hold that
    opinion, given that it is unlikely for you to have obtained
    enough information to have formed one on this subject.
    
    I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, and I don't think Doug is
    either.  Personally, I didn't follow the trial all that closely
    so I don't have an opinion on Tyson's guilt or innocence.  I
    can only go on what a vastly more informed jury decided.
    
    /Greg

>    <<< Note 754.59 by CRONIC::SCHULER "Build a bridge and get over it." >>>

>    Kits - I think the point is *HOW* did you come to hold that
>    opinion, given that it is unlikely for you to have obtained
>    enough information to have formed one on this subject.
 

	Excuse me Greg, but I can form an opinion on this or any
	subject that I wish. I followed the trial, and read the
	papers. I'm not going to go into a long recitation for you.
	I merely formed MY OPINION on what was presented.
   

	kits

     RE: .59
    
     If you didn't follow the trial that closely, then certainly
     you can only hope the jury was "vastly more informed", you have no
     way of knowing that for sure
    
     Of course, neither does anyone else for that matter (-:
    
     In this country we have a saying that has always disturbed me,
     "Those things have a way of balancing themselves out"
    
     This trial, IMHO, was one of those things
     The Kennedy-Smith trial went one way, this one went the other
     is was all to painfully obvious
    
     Too much emphasis was placed on Mike's past relationship with
     Robin Givens ... not to say that I condone his physically abusing
     Miss. Givens, I do not
    
     IMHO, once the jury selection process started and the majority
     of the jury was Non-african american, Mike did not stand a chance
     The law says the jury should be of our peers, such was not the case
    
     FWIW ...

    RE: .60

    Kits I never said you couldn't form an opinion on any subject
    you wish - I said it was unlikely you (or anyone not on the jury
    or not an eyewitness to the event) would have enough information
    to form an opinion.  I should have said "make an informed opinion" 
    but I figured that was obvious.

    Of course anyone can have any "opinion" they want - But if someone 
    states something point blank, even if preceded by "IMO", I think it 
    is reasonable to ask, "what makes you think that?"

    That's all I'm saying (and I think that's all Doug was saying).

    I don't mean to attack or insult you.  It is just that, given the
    verdict, I'm curious why you have the opinion you do.  If you don't
    want to explain it, that's fine too.  I'm surprised you got so 
    defensive just by being asked though.  Surely there's no *harm* in
    asking, is there?

    RE: .61

    >If you didn't follow the trial that closely, then certainly
    >you can only hope the jury was "vastly more informed", you have no
    >way of knowing that for sure

    Sure I do.  They heard all kinds of witnesses, they heard both
    sides of the story, they were given legal instruction by the 
    judge, etc, etc, etc...  I'm saying nothing of the quality of
    information they received, only that it was far more extensive
    than anything I have (or care to for that matter).

    Before I go second guessing a jury, I'd prefer to find out a lot
    more about the case.  

    /Greg

>I said it was unlikely you (or anyone not on the jury
>    or not an eyewitness to the event) would have enough information
>    to form an opinion. 

 It doesn't take much information at all to form an opinion, Greg. It just
takes alot of information to form an informed opinion. Big difference...

    kits:
    
    in re "not enough evidence"
    
    Do you mind telling us What would be "enough evidence"?
    
    
    
    				herb

    
    	an eyewitness' testimony???

    thankyou, kits

    
    	your welcome.

  	
	::DENISE too the words right out of my mouth......now
	I gotta go brush :-)

	Seriously though, there were just two people in the 
	room. It's his word against her word. You tell me what
	*evidence* was enough to convict him?  Please don't
	say his past with his ex wife. IMO that is not enough.
	Also, the fact that the alleged victim had abrasions.
	A hot and heavy love_making (or sex if you prefer) 
	session with a man who is large and woman who is small
	(regarding private parts of course) will almost always
	cause some abrasion. My goodness, most women can certainly
	remember one or more times when they felt *sore* after
	intense love_making (or sex if you prefer).

	There's lots more, but I don't have the time to get into
	it....or the desire to justify my opinion.

	Okay.....given all that was presented the jurors found him guilty.
        Just like the jurors found Willy innocent. That does not mean IMO
        that Mike IS guilty or that Willy IS innocent. 

	kits

    	Mike Tyson lied in his trial.  He described things he'd said to
    	the accuser and it didn't match the testimony he'd given to the
    	Grand Jury.

    	When asked to explain the discrepancy, he said that the person
    	questioning him cut him off before he was finished.  He also
    	said (at one point) that the transcript from the Grand Jury
    	must have been wrong.

    	They played a tape of his Grand Jury testimony for the jury to
    	hear.  The person questioning him gave him LOTS of time to 
    	finish what he was saying (and even said something like, "Did
    	you say anything else?" to which Tyson replied, "No, I had to
    	leave.")

    	The statement in question (which he gave in the trial then lied
    	about why he did NOT give it to the Grand Jury) was when he
    	claimed he told the 18-year-old accuser, "I want to f*** you."
    	Tyson claimed she said something about it being a "bold"
    	statement, then said, "Sure. Just call me."

    	According to the accounts I've read, Tyson HIMSELF sunk his own
    	case.  He lost all credibility with the jury.  Further, after
    	seeing the accuser, the jury didn't "buy" his claim that she
    	would respond to "I want to f*** you" with "Sure.  Just call me."
    	(The fact that he made obvious lies about this statement made
    	it even worse, of course.)

    	He had a fair trial, from all I've seen.  He's evidently had
    	the impression that he could do anything he wants (and that
    	it would be "fixed" with his money.)

    	I hope that doesn't happen this time.

    	(By the way, they did have a witness who saw the accuser coming
    	out of Tyson's room.  She was carrying her shoes, and looked
    	totally disoriented as she headed down the wrong way in the
    	hall.  The witness was delivering a sandwich to Tyson's bodyguard
    	in the next room, and reported that the bodyguard had a SMIRK
    	on his face as the accuser wandered by.  The bodyguard was NOT
    	brought in to testify.)

    Kits,
    
    Should murderers not be convicted because there isn't an eyewitness to
    the murder, even though the evidence points to the person on trial?
    How about muggings, purse snatchings, armed robberies?
    
    One  facet of rape is that in most cases they occur between two people
    who are alone.  The only eyewitnesses to the crime are generally the
    perpetrator and the victim. In this case there was  physical evidence 
    that forcible penetration of the victim's vagina had occured.   

    Kits - thank you for explaining your opinion.
    
    /Greg

>	Also, the fact that the alleged victim had abrasions.
>	A hot and heavy love_making (or sex if you prefer) 
>	session with a man who is large and woman who is small
>	(regarding private parts of course) will almost always
>	cause some abrasion. My goodness, most women can certainly
>	remember one or more times when they felt *sore* after
>	intense love_making (or sex if you prefer).

	An expert witness for the defense testified that similar
	abrasions could occur without force being used.  She was
	asked how many times she had seen this.  Out of the thousands
	of examinations she had done, she said she'd seen it 3-4 times.

	Tyson also claimed to have performed oral sex on the victim.
	The resulting lubrication would have made abrasions even
	less likely.

    re abrasions.
    
    Testimony that was *not* allowed by the judge was about the
    alleged size of Tyson's "anatomy", and that someone of Tyson's
    alleged "physique" *could* have caused the abrasions when
    having sex with a relatively "inexperienced" partener
    even on a consensual basis.  
    
    I've seen people get new trials over a lot less.
    
    fred();

 I think he shoulda been required to whip it out in court so the jury could
examine the 'weapon' for themselves, particularly as his defense of the
abrasions was that the physical size of his member caused the problem. Perhaps
the gynecologist that has only seen such abrasions in a small number of
cases did not correlate those cases to penis size. If, for example, the
cases of abrasions as a result of consentual sex was very small but in each
case the man's penis was unusually large, it would be exculpatory (if Mike Tyson
is indeed overly endowed as his defense claimed.)

    
    proceed at your own risk!
    
    
    
    I wouldn't want to be the one to have to try to staple the 
    "exibit" sticker to it. ;^|.
    fred()

    flaccid or erect?
    
    

 The fact that a defense may make you or the jury squeamish is not sufficient
grounds to disallow the use of said defense particularly if it would tend to
be exculpatory. Since such a defense might tend to be inflammatory and even
possibly prejudicial, a case might be made for an alternative form of entering
the testimony into the record (eg a plaster cast, or a life sized photo, or
an object of a similar size and shape agreed to being representative by both
defense and prosecution).

>    flaccid or erect?

 Is he being accused of raping her with a flaccid or erect penis?

    It's a shame Tyson did not have better defense attorneys.
    Sounds like he might have gone scott free.
    

    Well, after the evidence was in, the official "line" on Tyson was
    5:1 for acquittal.  The verdict was unexpected by many attorneys
    and many that expected it, did so because the jury was made up
    of midwestereners whose morals w.r.t. to rape are very strict.
    
    I think there was enough evidence to convict, but I also think there
    was more than enough evidence for reasonable doubt.

    	What is the "official line"?  (Or, rather, WHO is the "official
    	line"?)
    

    re .79
    <I think there was enough evidence to convict, but I also think there
    <was more than enough evidence for reasonable doubt.
    
    Could you elaborate a bit please, Mike.
    Since 'reasonable doubt' is the criterion that I understand judges to
    use when instructing the jury I don't understand how one could believe
    both 
    	o enuf evidence to convict
    	o enuf evidence to exonerate 
    I translate "more than enough evidence for reasonable doubt"
    as the antithesis of "beyond reasonable doubt" and therefore equivalent
    to "enuf evidence to exonerate"
    
    				herb
    

 I think Mike is saying that he can understand the jury coming to either
verdict. Because a trial like this is predicated on whom you choose to
believe, it could have gone either way. He seems to be saying that he
could understand a jury that convicted, but that he could have understood a
jury that acquitted.

    thnx mark
    that sounds perfectly plausible

    What I had trouble with is the idea that the same person could find
    enough evidence to convict, and also find insufficient evidence to
    convict.
    
    I would have understood it better if it had said that some people
    							  ^^^^
    could find enough evidence to convict whereas others could find lack of
    						  ^^^^^^ 	
    sufficient evidence to convict. When sitting _on the same trial_

    I would guess that the above is one of the motivations for the (almost)
    universal need in criminal trials for unanimity. The (almost) guarantee
    that if the given 12 people found one way, any other 12 would have
    found the same way. (given the same presentation)
    Is it flawless? No.
    In particular, if there is a hung jury, the case is typically retried
    with a different jury. If _that_ jury ends up as also hung that is
    typically taken as adequate reason for concluding there isn't enough
    evidence.
    It is of course still possible that a particular jury is -say- 10-2, or
    11-1 and the minority are badgered into agreeing with the majority).
    But nobody's perfect.
    
    				herb

    re:.80
    
    In Las Vegas, just about every major event in the world has an
    official betting line.  Las Vegas bookies were giving 5:1 odds
    that Tyson would be acquitted.  They were wrong.

re .-?:

Strict morals w.r.t. rape?  I'd hope that any potential juror who thought
rape is OK would be eliminated.

re odds:

Of course, bookies set odds based on what their customers think.  I'd wager,
uh, *guess* that more of those customers are boxing fans than lawyers.

    Yes, the betting odds are created so that the book makers come out
    ahead on the vigorish.  5:1 is more related tothe betting public's
    beliefs than to those of any other subpopulation.
    
    If a substantial number of bets had started to be placed for acquittal
    the line would have changed.
    
    ed

    Those were the initial odds.
    
    Las Vegas lives or dies based on the accuracy of its oddsmakers
    when laying the initial odds and they reflect the oddsmakers'
    best guess at the outcome.
    
    No biggie, though, they were wrong, but let's not downplay the
    role of accurate initial odds in bookmaking.

    Oddsmakers in Vegas have no bearing on this case (except to those who
    bet on the outcome.)
    

Nintendo, who made the famous boxing game, "MIKE TYSON'S PUNCH OUT," has
done it again!  This summer, look for a brand new game from the makers of
Nintendo... "MIKE TYSON'S BREAK OUT."  An exciting Super Nes game from Nintendo
that you'll play over and over!  Excellent graphics!  Stereo sound!  Great fun!

The game starts with Mike Tyson found guilty of rape and sentenced to the "big
house" for 60 years.  Mike must avoid all the dangers in the "big house" and
gather help in hopes of breaking out of the slammer.  Help Mike get out by
sucking up to the guards.  Collect points for teaching cell mates to practice
safe sex.  Win bonus points by knocking out cell mates that try to "put the
move" on big Mike.  But if Mike isn't successful, he pays a penalty price. 
Gather secret clues from promoter Don King who visits the pen regularly...
clues that lead you around the prison yard where you'll find metal files,
hacksaws, razor blades, and other things which you'll need on your mission,
including latex condoms.  But wait... there's more!  Break out before your 30th
birthday and you'll challenge big George Foreman for the heavyweight
championship of the world.  George still thinks he's a youngster, eating
cheeseburgers between rounds.  Win the title and the courts will let you stay
out as Donald Trump will convince them to forgive you of your sins by giving
half of your winnings to other victims of morons like yourself.  Beat George
and you're back on easy street, with your limo and the babes, and money in the
pocket.  Of course, Don King will be there to see that you have a good alibi in
case you blow it.

            MIKE TYSON'S BREAK OUT ... just $69.95!  New for SNES!



NOTE:  NINTENDO doesn't make such a game, nor do they plan to as far as I know.

    re .89, cute.
    

    
    	we interrupt this station's  broadcasting to bring you an up
    	to the minute report on the sentencing of mike tyson...
    
    	the decision is ....he was sentence to 10 years for each count
    	with 4 yrs. suspended. served concurrently...
    
    	in layman's terms...tyson will be serving 6 yrs. (count `em!)
    	in prison for the rape of desir�e washington.
    
    	so what do you all think???
    
    	we resume with the regularly scheduled broadcasting.
    

    I think that that sentence -along with all other rape sentences- is
    way too light.
    Of course, there may be likelihood that most anybody serving hard time is
    probably going to get raped. Unfortunately, Tyson will probably be able
    to thwart any rape attempts. I think there is a huge irony in Tyson
    taunting a recent opponent(Razor Ruddick?) with the words "I'm gonna
    make you my girlfriend" (which is prison talk for i'm gonna TOTALLY
    dominate you, buggering and all)
    
    
    
    				herb

    
    	 ....and i hope they forget the KY jelly, too!

Tyson is eligible for parole after half his sentence is served.

However, an appeal is pending, and his lawyers are trying to keep him free
until then, but this would be rather unusual for such a serious crime.

				Steve

    How can you justify a harsher sentence when the victim herself said
    that if Tyosn he had apologized, she wouldn't have pressed charges?
    
    Excuse me, but it doesn't sounds like this was all that traumatic
    for her.

    <how can you justify a harsher sentence...>
    
    I think that adult rape is the third worse crime an adult can commit
    
    The first is murder (I hope you don't nit pick this to death, Mike :-)
    the second is sexual abuse of a minor
    the third is rape
    
    I have a uniform view that the treatment for rape should be very harsh.
    Serving a 'coupla years' for such a crime doesn't meet that test.
    A guilty verdict for aggravated rape/assault should cause the immediate
    elimination of the criminal. (unfortunately, mistakes can be made, so I
    can be argued into accepting something like a life sentence)
    
    

    Eligible for parole after half the 10 year sentence or half the 6 years 
    that weren't suspended?

    
    	according to the news broadcast (BCN)
    	tyson has been denied bond appeal...(he'll be in prison 
    	within the hour)
    	has a $30,000 fine....
    	and should be serving all 6 years unless appealed.

What I heard this morning was that Indiana law allows parole after "half the
sentence" is served.  It's not clear to me whether that means 5 years or
3.  I'm sure the news reports will have more information.

			Steve

    
    	that's a good point, ::LIONEL...
    	i hadn't considered whether they'd be using the original
    	sentence or the suspended sentence.
    
    	no doubt it'll be on the news at 5:00.

     <<< Note 754.95 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya" >>>

    
>    Excuse me, but it doesn't sounds like this was all that traumatic
>    for her.

Excuse me, but rape is a felony and as such is a crime against society as 
well as against the victim.  The punishment is a matter for the judiciary.

Re: .100

My first name is Steve.  I sign it on all my messages.

I heard further that the judge denied the stay of sentence because she felt that
Tyson might rape again.  Tyson, for his part, said that he had "done no harm
because [the victim] had no broken bones or bruises." 

Is 6 years enough?

			Steve

    Right.  When's the last time you heard a victim of attempted murder
    say "I would have not pressed charges if he had just apologized to
    me."  How about a mugging victim?
    
    Let's not get too carried away with the rhetoric.

    	In most civilised countries there is no death penalty. It is wise
    to structure sentencing so that a rapist has no reason to add murder to
    his list of crimes as an afterthought. Assuming we accept the "third on
    a list of three" proposed classification we might try to structure the
    penalties to discourage the elimination of accusers and witnesses.

According to this morning's paper, Tyson is eligible for parole after
serving three years, if his behavior is good.  He will then have to undergo
counseling and psychotherapy at his own expense for four years.  The
sentence seems to be pretty close to average for similar crimes committed in
the US.

				Steve

    re .103, Mike, I don't think that just because she said that she would
    not have pressed charges if he had apologized, that means that she
    wasn't traumatized.  I could imagine being traumatized by something and
    still not pressing charges, if I later felt that the person who hurt me
    was truly sorry for what they did, and understood that it was wrong.
    
    I think her comment says more about the way she views the world, than
    it does about whether or not she was traumatized.  It seems to me that
    she was thinking that if he was sincerely sorry, and that if he
    understood that what he had done was wrong, then that would have been
    enough for her.  But, when he wasn't sorry and didn't even to realize
    that what he had done was wrong, she realized he needed to be dealt
    with seriously.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .107, well.....I trust that you don't think that women who pose
    naked for magazines deserve to be raped.  
    
    I doubt that she will pose naked, but even if she does that still
    doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex with Mike Tyson.  
    
    Lorna
    

    We will see. I cannot promise either. But one never knows. I am basing
    upon past track records of such people. I am not infering something on
    a broad brush.
    
    George

Re: .109

George, could you provide some examples?  I can't think of any offhand.
(Though since I've long since given up reading "girlie magazines", I have
to take my information from the popular press reports.

In what magazine did Patricia Bowman "bare all"?

				Steve

    Steve
    
    I think someone had a snap shot of her that they sold to a skin mag.
    
    Bonnie

    I will try to compile a list over the weekend. Please if someone has
    other names to add. Feel free to do so. 

    re .112, George, *what* is the point of this?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .112
    
    George, the point was that *she* didn't pose for the magazine, nor
    did she sell her picture.

    Whats the point? The point is not a total done deal yet. The point has
    been, by history, women who have brought down big celebrates would bare
    all in Playboy. What does this have to do with it all? Gee... Are these
    women real victims or are they victimizers? Kinda like celebrity stalkers.
    Except, instead of shooting them dead, they ruin their carriers. I am
    not yet waging any bets. Cause there is more to this story than is
    being told. Still. I am not condoning what Mike has done, if he has
    done it. Nor am I doubting the word of the raped victim. But there
    is something, and yet to put my finger on it, that is out of place.
    I guess time will tell. And I am not going to tip my hand to what
    I am thinking.
    
    George

    Bonnie,
    
    The point is that *she* has not *yet* done something like that. Perhaps
    this time, the tracks were well covered? Perhaps Mike was just a
    willing dupe? Perhaps Mike was in a setup to make a point. And the
    point has been made, so far. Perhaps....

    I have to agree with Mike.  The fact that she would settle for an
    apology just doesn't seem right.  I take into account that the fact
    that she went up to his room, just to be platonic, wierd in itself. 
    She didn't even know him, and if she did go up then she is rather naive
    to think that it was just platonic.  She had to know something was up
    so I think she is just being a gold digger.  Go ahead and flame, my
    opinions will be just that, *MINE*.
    
    Paul

Re: .109 (George)

I think you are using a "broad brush" when you say you are expecting the
defendant in this case to behave as other "such people".  What people are
these?  Women who have been raped by celebrities?  This doesn't seem like
an easily-defined category of people, besides this one thing they have in
common.

And, before you say it, I left my skittish pony at home.


Ben

George, you suggest there are a sizeable number of such women.  I asked you
to name ONE woman, raped by a "celebrity", who later "bared all."   Can you
name one?  I can't.

I don't count women such as Jessica Hahn who had consensual relations with
a celebrity, and the only scandal was that the celebrity had been committing
adultery.

				Steve

    RE: .116  George Rauh
    
    Bonnie was talking about Patricia Bowman.
    
    Patricia did NOT pose for Playboy nor did she sell her photo to be
    published there.  Someone else sold a snapshot of her.  This was
    the point Bonnie was trying to make.
    
    Patricia Bowman's name can not be added to the "list" you are
    attempting to put together as a way to stereotype (as a "such people")
    the woman raped by Mike Tyson.
    
    Your attempts to discredit this woman with insinuations about some
    sort of "plot" (to make a "point"?) are pretty shoddy.
    
    Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist serving time in prison for his crime.
    Sleazy innuendos about the victim of his crime won't change this.

    re .117, Desiree Washington is only 18 yrs. old.  Yes, she was naive to
    go alone to Mike Tyson's room, but that didn't give him the right to
    rape her.  A lot of 18 yr. old girls/women are naive, for that matter. 
    They don't have a lot of life experience yet, do they?  Being right out
    of high school and all.
    
    Also, you refer to her as a air head.  Do you realize she won a
    scholarship to Providence College?  Do you really think that Providence
    College gives scholarships to air heads?  I don't think so.
    
    re George, you are comparing women who have done all sorts of things to
    a woman who was raped.  I can't even think of another woman who was
    raped by a famous man, nevermind one who posed naked!  
    
    I don't think it's fair to compare a rape victim to women who have done
    other things in regard to famous men, such as marry them, and divorce
    them, and get a lot of money, or whatever.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .117  Paul
    
    > The fact that she would settle for an apology just doesn't seem right.
    
    She was offered a great deal of money (something like a million dollars)
    to drop the case, and she refused.
    
    However, she later stated that she WOULD have dropped the case if Tyson
    had merely acknowledged what he'd done (and apologized for it) with no
    money involved.
    
    She wanted him to understand and acknowledge that what he did to her
    was very wrong.  She wasn't interested in simply getting money out
    of him.
    
    Now - what doesn't seem "right" to you about this?  She sounds like a
    very decent person to me.

    
        >Do you really think that Providence
        >College gives scholarships to air heads?
    
    we don't know that they don't...

    Newspaper articles about her mentioned that she was a top student.

    Guys and gals, 

    Like I said, this poker hand isn't done with the dealing. Just to the 
    fact that it is being repealed doesn't say something to the doubting
    Tommies? 


    Steve L. and Susanne,

    Sorry if I was appearing to broad brush rape victims. But, there have
    been falsely accused rape cases in the past, and I am sure that its 
    not done with. Sorry, Steve, most of the women who have bared all
    were not rapes. Outside of Willy Smiths date. 



    Again. In poker, the cards are tight against the chest. But I am
    gonna bet that the appeal might not let Mike out. But it will discredit
    the accuser. 
    
    
    
    Till then!
    

    George,  
    
    As has been said, Patty Bowman didn't post for "playboy" or any of the
    other skin mag's.  ]]Or don't youi know who Patricia Bowman is?
    
    

    RE: .125  George
    
    > Just to the fact that it is being repealed doesn't say something 
    > to the doubting Tommies? 
    
    "APPEALS" after criminal convictions are almost automatic in the
    U.S. court system (in some types of sentences, such as a death
    sentence, I believe the "appeal" process *is* automatic.)  Someone
    correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
    
    Filing an "APPEAL" most definitely does NOT constitute any sort of
    proof (or even an indication) that the defendant was wrongly convicted.
    
    It's only another step in the legal process associated with criminal
    prosecution.
    
    > But I am gonna bet that the appeal might not let Mike out. But it will 
    > discredit the accuser. 
    
    Do you know what an "appeal" is?  If anyone gets discredited, it would
    be the prosecutor or the judge (not the witness.)  Tyson's lawyers had
    their shot at the witness while she was on the stand.

    re steve
    
    Jessica Hahn (of Jim Baker fame) posed twice in Playboy before and
    	after about $20k worth of body by (Dr.) Fisher.  She also spent
        several months living at the Playboy mansion.
    
    Jeniffer Flowers (sp) of Clinton fame received several $k from the
        tabloids for her "story", and has or is about to pose for 
        Playboy for something reportedly around $100k.
    
    The woman ( I don't recall her name ) who Jimmy Swagger (sp) was
        "photographing" also posed for Playboy or Penthouse or one of
        the "bare alls".
    
    
    	fred();

re .127:

>    Or don't youi know who Patricia Bowman is?

Edify me.

    re: .130  
    
    And which of these were rape victims?

    Patricia Bowman was the woman who said that WKS raped her.  She hasn't
    posed for a Playboy or any other magazine spread, although someone else
    sent a picture of her to PB.
    
    RE .130 none of the women you mentioned have stated that they were rape
    victimes, only that they had had affairs with the men in question.

    re .130, did any of these 3 women ever claim to have been raped?
    
    Certainly not Geniffer Flowers, by Bill Clinton!!
    
    What do any of them have to do with Desiree Washington?!!
    
    Patricia Bowman is the woman who accused William Kennedy Smith of rape.
    (but he was found not guilty and *she* never posed naked!)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    
    As I recall Jessica Hahn *was* making some accusations of rape at
    one time.  I believe they died out when she did the first spread
    in PB. 
    
    Patrica Boman may not have posed for playboy but apparently she
    posed for *somebody*.
    
    fred();

    RE: .135  Fred
    
    > Patrica Boman may not have posed for playboy but apparently she
    > posed for *somebody*.
    
    She lives in a beach community.  Someone she knew took a snapshot of
    her in a bathing suit (and yes, she was wearing a bathing suit in
    the photo.  She was NOT nude.)
    
    Most likely, she was "posing" for the sun (in exchange for a tan.)

    Heard on the radio that convicts are anxious for Iron Mike!  Many are
    drawing straws to see who gets to take him on first.  Seems that many
    of them don't feel he's so tough outside of the ring and are ready to
    prove it.
    
    Good luck Mike.  Ain't no ref in there to help you in the clinches. 
    And some of your opponents have probably gone up against guns and
    knives.  They might not sweat your fists.
    

    If I remember correctly Jessica Hahn claimed that Jim Baker and et al
    raped her and took her virginity.  She did pose for Playboy later.  
    
    Karen

    re: .117
    
    Exactly.

Karen's right, and I think Fred said the same.  According to Hahn,
Bakker did rape her, and that's why he had his chuch pay her hush
money for five years.  It was detailed in the interview she did with
Playboy at the time of the first picture session.

Not that a single example makes George's case, and I think this is
a crazy sidebar to this very serious topic.  Tyson's going to jail,
he raped Washington.  50 witnesses testified, a judge and jury found
him guilty and sent him to the pen.  Washington turned down $1M before
the trial; she wasn't after money.  Hopefully, she'll never be so in
need of money that she chooses to take the bait that'll surely be offered
to pose for nude pictures.

DougO

    RE: "    And some of your opponents have probably gone up against guns and
    knives.  They might not sweat your fists."
    
    And some opponents probably have knives or worse, even in prison...
    
    ed

    Still working on my list of women who have taken out celeberties. So
    far Freds got some of the list. I am working on one that goes way back
    into the early 70's. 
    
    Insofar as Iron Mike goes, I got a bet, in coffees, that Washington
    is gonna get discreted very much in round two. Mike might sit out some
    in the big house. But I don't think that he is going to be in there
    more than three years tops. And I think its going to be in a min
    confinment. Not chain and ball cracking big rocks into small ones.:)

    re .142, even if Tyson does get out in 3 yrs., it doesn't mean he
    didn't really rape Washington.  
    
    Everybody knows there are murderers and rapists walking the streets
    free.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .142, also, you can enjoy yourself making your list of women who
    have falsely accused famous men and then posed naked, or made a bundle
    of money, but no list you can ever come up with, will have as many
    names on it as a list of women who have been victims of men would have. 
    There are women have mistreated men badly, in various ways, but the
    number does not begin to compare with the number of men who have mistreated
    women.  
    
    Lorna
    

              <<< Note 754.137 by IMTDEV::BERRY "Dwight Berry" >>>
                        -< justice comes in many forms >-

>    Heard on the radio that convicts are anxious for Iron Mike!  Many are
>    drawing straws to see who gets to take him on first.  Seems that many
>    of them don't feel he's so tough outside of the ring and are ready to
>    prove it.
    
Yep, and some of those cons are bad mamma jammas who ain't gonna think 
twice about not head butting, kneeing etc.  I wouldn't want to be in Iron 
Mike's shoes.    

    RE: .142  George Rauh
    
    > Still working on my list of women who have taken out celeberties.
    
    By "taken out," I presume you mean "embroiled them in some ruinous
    scandal that received a lot of press coverage."
    
    Now you are attempting to stereotype Desiree Washington as "such 
    people" (using innuendos based on your PREMONITION - and any other
    psychic abilities you may feel you possess - to make UNFOUNDED negative
    remarks about her.)
    
    The woman was raped, George.  And as difficult as it may be for you
    to accept, the court (prosecutors, judge and jury) actually accepted
    her testimony without all the usual prejudice against rape victims
    - and her rapist was convicted, sentenced, and is now in prison for
    his crime.  What a concept!
    
    If there is MORE to this story, it will come out.  Your predictions
    (and the prejudice you are showing towards the victim of this crime
    for whatever reason you are doing this) are totally meaningless and
    pretty doggone mean-spirited.
    
    Leave the woman alone.  Even if a MILLION other women posed for
    Playboy after getting celebrities in well-publicized scandals, it
    would mean NOTHING about Desiree Washington.  She is an individual
    human being who doesn't deserve the dirt you are making up about
    her in this notesfile.
    
    We don't need any more demonstrations from you about how unfairly
    rape victims are often treated in our culture, ok?

    
    re mods
    
    I'd think that .147 borders heavily on what you've considered in
    the past as a personal attack.
    
    fred();

    re .148, Fred, I totally disagree.  There is nothing wrong with
    Suzanne's reply in .147.  She eloquently and successfully defended
    Desiree Washington from George's biased attack.  She didn't attack
    George.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .148

I do not believe that Suzanne's note contains a personal attack.

		Steve - co-mod

    Funny how some of us seem to be so defensive about one of our sex
    being convicted of an offense.  It's as if the accusation were
    against all men, not Mike Tyson. That is not a correct perception,
    is it?  You surely would not use your physical strength to force
    sexual intercourse on someone you're dating, would you?  That is
    what Tyson stands convicted of.  Not fantasizing about it, not looking
    at movies of someone doing it, not talking about it to a "900"
    number...but actually really forcing a girl/woman beyond her wishes.
    
    	Cool out, men! There's no way you would condone that behavior,
    or place yourself in a situation where you would be accused of that!

    After re-reading .107 I deleted it. It kinda sounded like bitter
    grapes. And that is not the point. 

    I do stand firm about that Ms. Washington might have been star struck.
    And not knowing walked into the clutch of Mike. But, its hard for
    me to believe that she is as pure as the driven snow. There is more to
    this story than Mike leading with his loins.

    Many of the feminist believe that the Miss America pageants are nothing
    more than a show of T&A meat market. And there have been many nasty
    stories of how many have made their way to the top via the Hollywood
    method. Hence my theory of Ms. Washington and associations.

    .147 Suzanne,

    Yep. By taking out I mean that. There have been lots of celeb's taken out
    of the games, carriers ruined. Etc. Think of your own former from
    Colorado. She didn't go to the skin mags but she dropped Harts name
    like a rock and rocked out Hart.






     

    RE: .152  George Rauh
    
    > But, its hard for me to believe that she is as pure as the driven snow. 
    > There is more to this story than Mike leading with his loins.
    
    She was raped (which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.)
    What does her state of "purity" have to do with being the victim of 
    a crime?
    
    > And there have been many nasty stories of how many [Miss America
    > pageant contestants] have made their way to the top via the Hollywood
    > method. Hence my theory of Ms. Washington and associations.
    
    So now you're stereotyping Desiree Washington as one of the "such
    people" who enter beauty pageants.  At what point does she become
    an individual human being to you (or does she ever?)  If she were
    your daughter, would this make it easier?
    
    > There have been lots of celeb's taken out of the games, carriers 
    > ruined. Etc. Think of your own former from Colorado. She didn't go 
    > to the skin mags but she dropped Harts name like a rock and rocked 
    > out Hart.
    
    Lots of celebs (like Tyson) TAKE THEMSELVES out of the game by
    committing crimes and being punished for them.
    
    Desiree Washington is an individual human being who was raped.
    
    Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist who is now serving time in prison
    for his crime.
    
    Please stop trying to punish Desiree Washington for Tyson's crime
    by stereotyping her in any negative way you can think of to do so.
    
    She is not the criminal in this case.  Tyson is.

    Suzanne,
    
    	The men involved in the Big Dan Rape case were also criminals and
    the victim was pure as driven snow. :) And they were convicted of rape
    by a compident court. And deported.......
    
    

    The victim in the Big Dan Rape case was not pure as the driven snow.
    That still doesn't mean that she wasn't raped. Just because a woman
    has a history, that does *not* mean she is fair game for any man
    who wants her. A woman can have slept with hundreds of men and still
    be a victim of rape.

    I Agree with your point Bonnie.

    thankyou

    Of course, nothing that happened at Big Dan's has anything whatever
    to do with Desiree Washington.
    
    She is an individual who happens to have been raped by a man who is
    now serving time for the crime.
    

    George, don't forget the woman who claims that 3 Mets raped her.
    
    It's been a year since the alleged incident, so there's no physical
    evidence, but watching the Tyson case "gave her the strength" to go
    through with this.

    RE: .159  Mike Z.
    
    Does this woman have some direct connection with Desiree Washington,
    either?  (None of the other women mentioned so far have had any
    demonstrated connection at all.)
    
    Desiree Washington is a distinct individual human being, regardless
    of what any other distinct individual human beings have done or will
    do (*before or since* Mike Tyson committed the crime of raping her.)
    

    Huh?

    
    Never mind.  My remarks were intended for people who have been following
    the discussion that has taken place here in the past couple of days.
    

.162>             <<< Note 754.162 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
.162>    
.162> Never mind.  My remarks were intended for people who have been following
.162> the discussion that has taken place here in the past couple of days.

    There's no need to get snooty.

    
    	Just trying to give you a chance to catch up, Mike.
    

.164>            <<< Note 754.164 by LAVETA::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
.164>    
.164>    	Just trying to give you a chance to catch up, Mike.
    
    And there's still no need to get snooty.

    Is there a deja vu topic in this conference?

Re: .166

Is there one which isn't?

		Steve

    re .168, no, I'm sure that if anyone were ever able to convince you
    that someone had been raped, you wouldn't condone it.  However, I'm not
    certain, from your replies in notes, that anyone would ever be able to
    convince you that a woman had been raped.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I am another one NOT convinced that Mike committed the rape.
    Why is it so easy to convict a man on rape? 
    If Mike was white, I believe the result would be different.
    
    

So sorry you weren't personally convinced.  The jury was.  Tyson's a
convicted rapist.  End of story.

DougO

    End of story ... until appeal, that is.

I think they're appealing the sentence, Michael, not the verdict.
In any case, *meanwhile*; it's true.  he's a convicted felon.

DougO

    WrongO, DougO, they're appealing the verdict.

RE:  Note 754.147 GORE::CONLON 

    
>    The woman was raped, George.  And as difficult as it may be for you

    This is not a "known" fact.  It is a "believed" assumption by the jury.
    Mike was charged and found guilty... but only two people really know
    the truth.  You can say he's a rapist, a convict, serving time or
    whatever... but only Mike and Washington know the truth.  This just
    gives the PC crowd something to gloat about... that a famous man was
    found guilty.  Someone said that if Mike were white that it'd be
    different.  I don't think so.  It would just be something that the PC
    crowd would gloat even more about... that a white male was convicted.

    .re. 176
    
    Gloat?
    
    What's to gloat about?
    
    Tyson was convicted of this crime.  Beinug convinced beyond reasonable
    doubt is a bit more than a '"believed" assumption'.
    
    That Tyson was convicted of rape is not a source of pleasure for me. 
    Based upon the facts that I've been able to glean [which are admittedly
    not what the jury was given to ponder], I believe that incarceration is
    the best answer to Tyson's actions.
    
    I truly and sincerely hope that he can be rehabilitated and that his
    prison term will not be marred by violence, either against him or of
    his making.  The _very_ last thing, the VERY last, that I would hope is
    that Tyson be raped or forced to fend off an attempt.  Being raped is a
    putrid experience not to be wished upon anyone.
    
    So, now the case is pending appeal and we wait.
    
      Annie

    re .171, it is *not* easy to convict a man of rape.  What a crazy thing
    to say.  One man, in how many rapes, is convicted, and you complain tht
    it's "easy"!!!  (And, even if convicted, most convicted rapists are out
    walking the streets in a couple of years, and I'm sure Tyson will be,
    too.)
    
    Also, I am not glad to discover that famous men (heroes) rape young women
    the age of my own daughter.  I am saddened by it.
    
    Personally, some of the replies to this topic really serve to bring
    home to me the misogny that runs so rampant in our society.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>
>    This is not a "known" fact.  It is a "believed" assumption by the jury.
>    Mike was charged and found guilty... but only two people really know
>    the truth.  You can say he's a rapist, a convict, serving time or
>
    
    Dwight, when (if ever) are you comfortable saying "X is guilty" when
    the defendent pleaded not guilty but the jury found him/her guilty? 
    Does there need to be a video of the crime?
       
    Greg
                                                                     

    Who's to say that Ms. W. didn't consent to the deed and then changed
    her my afterwards.  Maybe he was a little rough during that changed her
    mind?  Like the old saying goes, "It's a womens perogative."
    
    /p

    re .180, you sound like there's nothing wrong with getting a little
    rough.  Would you like Mike Tyson to get a little rough with you?
    
    Lorna
    

    Maybe it was phrased a little bad, but the fact was that any women that
    doesn't like how *IT* happens anymore can claim anything that they
    want.  Same goes for the men.  The true answer is with the two or more
    that were actually involved.  It is not for us to judge whether it was
    or wasn't done.  Albeit personal bias is not supposed to play but who's
    to say that anyone on the jury wasn't partially biased for Mikey
    *supposedly* pounding on his wife, or is wife *pounding* on him?  Like
    I said before, "I still don't believe that she was a victim."  I don't
    care if she had honours in school or not.  You don't learn common sense
    in school.
    
    /p

    re.180
    
    you may not be convinced.  certainly that's your prerogative.
    
    however, the jury was convinced that it wasn't a case of fast talk,
    moonlight, rough sex, and later regrets.
    
    in our system of justice the jury is who gets to say.
    
    and then the appeals court[s] get the final say
    
      Annie

    re .182, well!  First, you say "it is not for us to judge" and then you
    declare that you think she's a liar and that he didn't do it!  Sounds
    like *you* certainly do feel free to judge, to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    I *NEVER* called her a liar, I think that she might have fabricated a
    little though.
    
    /p

    no wonder women get pissed off at us men

    RE: .-1
    	What do you mean by that?
    
    /p

    re .whatever, you didn't come right out and use the word "liar" but
    I felt that what you did say amounted to the same thing.
    
    She said that he raped her and you don't believe her, and think that he
    didn't, so, to me, it would follow that *you* think she....what????
    
    Told the truth????
    
    Lorna
    

  	what does being an honor student in school have to do with
	sex ? what does being an honor student in school have to 
	do with lying or telling the truth about rape.  an honor
	student gets excellent grades in the subjects he/she is
	studying. i knew an honor student in school who was having
	sex with 4 guys on the football team, and lied to each 
	one of them. 


	kits

    I think I mean by that just what you think I mean by that.
    
    I think it is poor form to pick the Mike Tyson story as the place to be
    grumbling about how it is possible for women and men to claim anything
    they want.
    I also think it is poor form to pick the Mike Tyson story as the place
    to grumble about the fact that jurys are sometimes biased.
    

    Well, if you want to be totally boolean about the whole thing, then
    YEAH! she lied, but I live in a political world, where there is not cut
    and dried.  I didn't say that she lied 100%, I think that she may have
    made up a lot of stuff to make it look like she was raped, but this is
    my opinion.  I believe that she was foolish to go up to his room in the
    first place.  This is not saying that *IF* she was raped she deserved
    it.  I don't know how big of a person this girl was but I still think
    that she could have made some amount of noise or rucous or something
    that would draw attention or even if she left some real nice marks on
    Mikey.  But some of the statements that she made, it doesn't seem to
    affected her to point of a blubbering mess.
    
    /p

    If there are no bruses on the victim, how do you call it rape? Execpt
    rape of the Mike? 

    re: .190
    	I was saying that, not as a forum to start something new, but to
    backup some of my statements.  I knew what I wanted to say and it was
    in this forum that I felt I needed to say it.  Whether you like or feel
    that it was out of line is inconsequential.  But to make you feel
    better, I'll limit myself to what the note title says. :-)
    
    /p

    and, in the eyes of many women and men
    
    Your statement says a lot more about you than it says about the trial
    One of the things I think it causes many people reading this conference
    to say is along the lines of ...
    
    oh sh*t another MCP joined the conference.
    
    On the other hand there are probably another group of people who had
    the gut reaction of something like...
    
    "Good, we need another strong voice!"

    re: .-1
    	I resent that MCP statement.  I have/will *NEVER* be a MCP.  I was
    raised with 3 sisters, so I think that I have a good knowledge of what
    they are thinking.  You might be saying, "That doesn't mean a thing",
    or "Where does he get off...", but let me tell ya, I have respect for
    Women in most (99%) circumstances.  This is Notes after all and this is
    just a place where the meeting of different minds and attitudes is
    allow to take place.  I could say that you are a womens libber from the
    sounds of it, but I won't. ;->
    
    /p

    another thing it probably causes a lot of people to think is something
    like...
    
    "another guy who feels that men are getting the short end of the stick"
    
    

    re: .195
    
    	I agree with that.
    
    /p

    RE: .192  George Rauh
    
    > If there are no bruses on the victim, how do you call it rape? Execpt
    > rape of the Mike? 
    
    Would be it ok with you if people you love were forced to be penetrated
    by the sexual organ of a man who might have an STD (or AIDS) - or who
    might cause a pregnancy - as long as the guy didn't BRUISE your loved
    one?
    
    (I worded this badly, but you get the idea.  Even if STDs, AIDS or
    pregnancy were not a factor, forced penetration is rape - and is a
    very serious crime - whether additional battering, with injuries,
    takes place or not.)

    re .191, in regards to size, Desiree Washington is 5'4" and weighs 115
    lbs.  I think I read that Mike Tyson is 5'll" and weighs over 200 lbs.,
    and since he is, or was, the heavyweight boxing champion of the world,
    do you really think a woman of 5'4", weighing 115 lbs., would stand
    much of a chance of fighting him off?  She looked very small and
    slender in photos.  He looks pretty big.  I think he could easily hold
    her down while he raped her, going by size.  
    
    I agree that she was naive to go to Mike Tyson's hotel room, *but* I
    don't think that he means he raped her, or that she deserved it or
    anything like that.  It was naive of her, but what he did was still
    wrong.  It is wrong to take advantage of the naivety of others.
    (And, she is only 18.)
    
    re George, from what I understood she did have bruises.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    Lorna,

    	I gathered that she had not. But perhaps I should go back and check
    again other statements. 

    Suzanne,

    If someone called you a name, even a nick name. And it stuck with you
    thru school and etc. You can be convinced that you are that nick name.
    You can be convinced that your nothing more than a lower animal life
    form too. 

    Yes, Mike had a ruff divorce. Perhaps his ex was making
    statements to the press to gain the upper hand of the game. Just as
    many other women and men do. With out any proof to the accusations.
    And because he is a big man, and a strong man, and a professional
    boxer. He has a preconceived reputation before he walks into the court.

    I had to face that problem when I went into divorce court. I am a body
    builder. And at the time of my divorce, I was a very big body builder.
    I have since laid low with the weight training as so not to appear to
    have that preconceived notion before I open my mouth. As so not to give
    the opposing camp bullets to shoot me with. 

    Its hard to understand, I am sure. Just as it would be to call you a
    glass eating feminizi. And your not like that at all. Imagine now
    your Mike.

    Peace 

    It looks like you are a new guy. There are a number of people around
    here who you really ought to know about ...
    You feel that men get the short end of the stick, right?
    ok, then there are a number of people you should consider 'good guys'
    they are 

    Phil Haddock
    Dwight Berry
    Mike Zarlenga
    George Rauh
    
    there are also a number of people you should consider 'bad-guys' (they
    are the guys who are 'politically correct')
    rdavis
    schuler
    olsen
    binder
    There are a couple of guys who are usually pretty reasonable and don't
    seem to take sides about too much.
    mark levesque is one that quickly comes to mind.
    
    There is one woman here who (aw never mind, that's enough for the first
    intro)
    p.s.
    And watch out for Herb Nichols. At one time or another he has
    blind-sided almost everybody in the conference.
    
    			happy noting
    			herb
    

    	I've been reading this topic and the argument lines never change. 
    
    	What I find to be the problem with a rape charge is the way in
    which the crime is handled vs. other crimes.
    
    	A woman, without evidence, can report a rape by a man any time
    after having intercourse and he will be arrested and charged. No
    evidence is required. This is the problem I have with this. Rape should
    be required to be reported within a specific time and eveidence of said
    crime must be evident in some manner, shape, form. 
    	This is a serious crime and men who commit it should be prosecuted
    and incarcerated. No question!
    	The problem is that a woman looking for fame and fortune or
    expecting something more than she got from a relationship has the power
    to just destroy the life of another human being at a whim.
    
    	And for those of you who say....."the jury found him guilty so he's
    a rapist!" let me remind you that in news in the past three weeks, 5
    different men have been released from prisons in various parts of the
    country for being wrongly put in prison by a 'jury of their peers'. In
    one case two men were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder when a
    police department failed to give evidence to the defense attorney that
    would have proven the two men were not in the neighborhood at the time
    of the murder. They've done 18 years. Another man was sentenced to 45
    years (served 11) for kidnapping and rape. He was wrongly accused by a
    girl who has recently recanted her testimony stating that she picked
    him because the boys that did it would have lost scholarships and it
    would have ruined their lives.......the other guy's didn't matter. 
    
    	Tissue, blood match, DNA, witnesses, or hard physical evidence is
    needed, not a story a week later after or a month later that has been
    well thought out, all loose ends tied up and nothing but the word of
    one person against another.
    
    Ken

    re .201, my god, I don't know what the world is coming to when Mark
    Levesque is the only reasonable person who comes to mind!  :-)
    
    (I'm just kidding!)
    
    Lorna
    
    PS - Mark isn't reasonable, he's just good with words.  :-)
    

    re .201
    
    add KUPTON to your good-guy list

    re .202, well, it bothers me that there are so many men who, upon
    hearing that a woman has accused a man of rape, immediately assume that
    the woman is lying, even though they know nothing about the particular
    woman in question.  And, I have been given this impression by reading
    this very notes string.
    
    It seems to me that there are some men who would never believe that a
    man would rape a woman.
    
    I mean, do you guys think that there are any women who have actually
    ever been raped, in the history of the human race, or not??  I'd really
    be surprised if some of you do.  I think it's really mean how quickly
    some of you men are ready to condemn this poor young woman.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: Herb
    
    What do I have to do to be a good guy?  Are there courses?  Do I get a
    pay raise for being good?
    				8-)
    
    With tongue in cheek ...
    
    			�- Bob -�
    

    re 754.202

    I urge you to read 762.58. I don't think the man suffered much at all.
    And for all intents and purposes he sure wasn't innocent

RE:  Note 754.179 MSBCS::YANNEKIS                                      

>    Dwight, when (if ever) are you comfortable saying "X is guilty" when
>    the defendent pleaded not guilty but the jury found him/her guilty? 

Even as we speak, there ARE men in prison charged with rape that are innocent.

A conviction by a jury doesn't prove anything.  The system or the process is
not perfect.

I don't know that Tyson is innocent.  I also don't know that he is guilty.

And neither do you.

    re: .201
    
    	Well thanks for the info but I'm not new.  I read a lot and this is
    one note I couldn't stay quiet for.  I get into enough trouble with the
    other notes files that I frequent.  As for good/bad/ugly...er neutral
    folks.  I know of some of them.  The other note I couldn't stay quiet
    in was the Patriots flashing note, but I don't want to get started on
    that.
    
    /p

    
    >A conviction by a jury doesn't prove anything.
    
    say what? 
    
    is the oxygen getting a little thin up there ?

RE:  Note 754.199 DELNI::STHILAIRE 

    I agree that she was naive to go to Mike Tyson's hotel room, *but* I
                         ^^^^^
		insert  stupid
                         or
	        insert clever
    

    RE: .200  George Rauh
    
    > He has a preconceived reputation before he walks into the court.
    
    Mike was caught lying to the court (during the rape trial) - he
    damaged his own credibility terribly in front of the jury (and
    it was his own fault.)
    
    Desiree was physically damaged in the rape (and doctors presented
    the evidence of this damage) - and her testimony was more credible
    than Mike Tyson (especially after he was shown to be lying.)
    
    He received a fair trial and was convicted of rape by a jury of his
    peers.

re bruises:

I don't know if there were bruises, but there were abrasions that were
inconsistent with Tyson's claims that Ms. Washington was a willing participant.

    Being serious for a moment.
    
    My philosophy is that the accused is innocent (or not guilty if you
    prefer) until there is more than gossip, rumour, and the media to go
    one.  Even when the accused is found guilty by a court (jury) I tend to 
    withhold (my personal) judgement as too often justice is seen not to 
    be done.
    
    I once served on a jury and some of the cases that came to court were 
    ill conceived and badly prepared.  If the prosecutors expected a 
    verdict of guilty then the number of people who say (s)he's charged 
    therefore (s)he's guilty must be very high.  If they didn't expect a 
    guilty verdict then why were they there?
    
    As for Mike Tyson, I personally don't know.  I have seen and read only
    that evidence that the media has chosen for me.  What I think of the
    verdict also has little relevence as to guilt, innocence, the penalty
    or the eventual outcome.
    
    This case may drag on for years before it is finally settled.  And
    probably no-one will ever know the real truth as the only two people
    directly involved probably have different ways of interpreting the
    "truth".
    
    �- Bob -�
    

    Hey, how come we bad guys only get usernames instead of Real Names?
    
    Ray

    re .206
    
    Which group do you want to be a good-guy in?
    The short_stick group 
    The long_stick group
    
    
    i think in either case, I can introduced you to somebody who can run
    over the membership pledge for that group. (may give ya a coupla
    editorials too)

RE:  Note 754.205 DELNI::STHILAIRE 

>    re .202, well, it bothers me that there are so many men who, upon
>    hearing that a woman has accused a man of rape, immediately assume that
>    the woman is lying, 

I don't think this is true.  You're planting your own words and thoughts.  For
me, I'm saying that when a woman accuses a man of rape it doesn't mean she is
telling the truth.  The key word you used is "accused."

>    It seems to me that there are some men who would never believe that a
>    man would rape a woman.

Don't see how you got that impression.

>    I mean, do you guys think that there are any women who have actually
>    ever been raped, in the history of the human race, or not??  I'd really

Nope.  Of course I'm kidding.  You just asked a silly question.

>    be surprised if some of you do.  I think it's really mean how quickly
>    some of you men are ready to condemn this poor young woman.

I'm not condemning her.  In fact, I have entered notes saying I believed Tyson
may have raped her.  But I'm just basing that on things that I've heard and
read about him... and that ain't proof.  It's hearsay.  Now I'm starting to
wonder if he is innocent.

    re .217, well, that's the impression I've got from reading a lot of the
    replies in this string, and I don't think I asked a silly question.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  Note 754.201 VMSSPT::NICHOLS                                      

>    Phil Haddock
>    Dwight Berry
>    Mike Zarlenga
>    George Rauh

At least you put me in good company!  

I certainly don't belong in that PC group!

Why do you remind me of this dog I saw that went around sniffing other dog's
butts before he decided which pack he'd run with that day?

    re .219, George and Mike, PC?  I shudder to think what some of your
    opinions on various issues of the day must be, if you consider *them*
    to be PC.  No offense, George and Mike, but I do consider both of you
    to have extremely right-wing views on many issues.
    
    Lorna
    

nah, Lorna, it was that *other* group herb labeled PC, tht Dwight was saying
he didn't belong with.  Ray, one of us didn't even get our username spelled
right.  But the dog-sniffing remark was too funny!  Good one, Dwight.

DougO

    
    mebbe we need a pc rating note..

    by 'that PC group' he meant the other group, the ray davis, dave
    binder, greg schuler, doug olson. You know the
    
    long stick group

    re: .202
    Here here.
    
    /p

    
    
                       heh heh heh   :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    
    

>      < but i won't say whose 1st name I had to look up >

I dunno who it would have been...

>    by 'that PC group' he meant the other group, the ray davis, dave
>    binder, greg schuler, doug olson. You know the

but I *know* it wasn't dick binder's...;-)

DougO

    o sh*

>          -< had a lot of trouble with that first name in the group >-
    
    Most people mess up by sticking an "e" in "Davis"...
    
    Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray

    This is all an April Fools joke, isn't it?
    
    I find myself wondering just how horrible a crime a man has to commit
    before he's held accountable for his own deeds.
    
    				Steve

.201>    Phil Haddock
.201>    Dwight Berry
.201>    Mike Zarlenga
.201>    George Rauh
    
    Oh-oh, it's ... THE LIST!
    
    Jest kiddin' with ya Herb.
    
    
    In fact, I like the company you placed me in.
    
    All those men, myself included, are not mindless symps who side with
    friends, in fact you'll find us toe-to-toe quite a bit around the net
    on various topics.
    
    Of course, we're all adults and recognize that adults have opinions.
    And so we still remain civil and professional and don;t pout and stop
    talking to each other just because we disagree.
    
    Too bad everybody isn't that way.

    I am honored Herb! To be called a 'Good Guy' from a man who knows! :)
    I usually view myself as a maverick. Or a blue collar in an white collar
    suit. No doubt about it, PC I am not! But, I believe I got lots of room
    to grow and learn. I believe that in the last year that I have noted in
    this file, the fights, agreements, awaking, etc have helped me learn
    more about my fellow employee. I too will agree with Mike, we all are
    adults. And even though we do not have the same view, we are respected
    for it. For if we all nod our heads in the same direction we have
    nothing more than the 'Men of the Gray Flannel Suits'. Or yes men.  
    
    Peace

    Steve,
    
    How far does this work in with the other hand? I am sending you an
    invite to attend the next fathers suport group meeting in Concord N.H.
    The coffee is free. And I will give you a ride. You will be certainly
    suprised. 
    
    Geo

     re .229. Just to inject some chuckles into things. Not the slightest
    bit serious.
    In re leaving people off lists, four 'short sticks' quickly came to
    mind so I only wanted four 'long sticks' in that list.
    
    Let it also be clear that there is no implied editorial endorsement of
    either group. Good-guyness is a group relative concept...
    
    The men in the short-stick group are those who believe that 'men get
    the short end of the stick'. If you feel that way then you qualify for
    being a good-guy in the eyes of that group. (and may be a candidate for
    membership)
    The men in the long-stick group are those who consider themselves
    'politically correct'. If you agree then you would be considered a
    good-guy by that group (and may be a candidate for membership).
    
    				h

    
    Well Herb, cousin Phil and I talked it over last night and we both
    agree that it's high time *somebody* had the guts to stand up and 
    announce that the king is naked.  
    
    BTW, which of *your* civil rights are you willing to give up to 
    correct all of these "injustices".
    
    fred();
    

    sorry, I got your name wrong too, Fred
    
    

    
    re .236
    
    That's ok, cousin Phil doesn't get recognition for much these days.
    He sends his regards and says he's proud to be part of the team. ;^).
    
    fred();

>    The men in the long-stick group are those who consider themselves
>    'politically correct'.
    
    You're marching past chuckles into mind-reading and slander, son.  I
    don't consider myself "politically correct"; I just consider myself as
    having a long stick. 
    
    Ray

    
    and not a myn if i remember correctly..

I guess I don't belong on either list, as I don't believe things are so
simplistic as to be divisable so neatly.

				Steve

    I wish that people would understand that these *&^%(*ing arguments have
    nothing to do with facts.
    That they have everything to do with attitudes and emotions.
    
    that the long-sticks genuinely believe (and have lots of 'data' to
    support those beliefs) that women have been disadvantaged for millenia
    and need all the emotional support that anybody can muster up.
    
    				and that
    
    the short sticks genuinely believe (and have lots of 'data' to support
    those beliefs) that the woman's movement is beginning to encroach
    heavily on the individual rights of men, and that the movement has
    overcompensated for the disadvantages.
    
    I hope I have presented a fair synopsis of 'both sides' if not please
    clarify for me.
    
    But I believe that the combative stances of members of both sides has
    very little to do with either set of 'facts' above and quite a lot to
    do with emotional attitudes. That many of the short-sticks feel or have
    felt personally threatened by advancements. That many of the
    long-sticks 'just get sick and tired' of men griping about their
    putative short-sticks
    
    I am concerned about what I see as a general (with specific exceptions)
    vicious level of discourse for both short-sticks and long-sticks.
    Correctly or incorrectly I associate the short-sticks with the more
    vituperative and blatant entries, but the long-sticks although much
    more subtle, and much less outrageous, can be AT-LEAST-AS-VICIOUS with
    their more sophisticated responses. 

    re .240
    i don't much like you either.

    re .241, I'm glad to see that you pointed out that the so-called
    "long-sticks" give more sophisticated responses, as I've noticed that
    trend myself!!  :-)  
    
    Also, Herb, Steve didn't say he didn't like *you*!  He just said he
    didn't feel he belonged on either list.
    
    Lorna
    

    one way of characterizing 
    "I don't believe things are so simplistic as to be divisible so neatly"
    is intellectual superiority
    
    another way of characterizing 
    "I don't believe things are so simplistic as to be divisible so neatly"
    is emotional constrictedness

    .241 sounds pretty accurate to me, sadly.
    
    But if I have one long stick to grind, it's the idea that feminists
    have to be "sensitive" (or, if you prefer, "sneaky").  Obviously we
    have to put more effort into outrageousness...  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    re.202
    
>    	A woman, without evidence, can report a rape by a man any time
>       after having intercourse and he will be arrested and charged. No
>       evidence is required. 
    
    [This may have already been covered. I haven't read the intervening
    responses yet, but...]
    
    This is incorrect.  I direct you to note 762, response 58 [I think] for
    experiential evidence to the contrary.
    
    A complaint doesn't always result in either an arrest or a charge.
    
      Annie

    Annie,

    I have met a man who was false arrested three time because his ex
    said he was harassing her. And was in the vicinity of her <their>
    marital home. Three times the cops would show up at his apartment door, 
    and once before he even got to his apartment with cuffs and 
    an arrest warrant. 
    
    All three times, he was tried and was proven innocent by a competent
    court. All two of the three times he wasn't even in the county, never
    mind the state. He was arrested and thrown in jail. 

    I would also guess that this action of this man even driving along
    a public road, to drive past the ex would constitute a violation of
    civil rights. He never put a foot on her <their> property because of
    a restraining order. He was about as violent a man as any pacifist
    could ever think. But yet he is treated like a common criminal even
    before he had a fair trial. For it was *his* word against hers. And we
    all know that wymin are always very righteous.
    
    There have been stories of the south of women who wanted to get
    their husbands to pay attention to them. Trumping up stories of how
    they were raped by local blacks. The black men, if they were luck, made
    it alive to jail. Sometimes they were hung by local vigilantes before
    they got near the court house.  

    George,
    
    I did not say that cops never make arrests without substantiating
    evidence.
    
    I'd be pretty dumb to say that.  I once spent a night in jail on a drug
    charge that was unsubstantiated and later proven false.
    
    My point was that a blanket statement that women may show up at any
    time without evidence and arrests/charges ensue is incorrect.
    
    Neither arrests in the absence of evidence or non-arrests where
    compelling evidence exists are unique to rape.
    
      Annie

    Annie,

    I am sorry. I thought that I made it clear. That you can get arrested,
    falsely charged and convicted before you get to court. Regardless of
    the crime. Cops in lots of cases will side with the woman because of
    past stereo types. What else is there to say? 

    In some cases. You might not even make it to jail. Alive. Because of
    preconceived notions.

    RE:  .247 - What's your point - what does this have to do with Mike
    Tyson?
    
    George - what do you suppose Kimberly Raye Harbor's "ulterior motive"
    was?
    
    Get a life!
    

    The there's the 90 year old woman who was raped after the rapist broke
    into her house.  Now, I wonder what she did to "ask for it"?   And I
    wonder what HER "ulterior motive" was.  
    
    Maybe she's planning to pose for Playboy?
    
    

    re.202
    Exactly!
    IMHO the woman that ruined the life of the guy that "diden't matter"
    should be given a sentence equal to or greater the time the innocent
    man served. If capitol punishment were possible for cases like this I
    would go for it his life has been altered forever hers should likewise
    be destroyed. Being accused can be as much or more life damageing than
    being convicted when the charge is rape everyone seems to want to hang
    first and listen later.
    I fully support a strong sentence in cases where rape has occured but
    I worry about the process that verifys the accuracy and truthfulness of 
    the charge. I think it is painfuly obvious that the system designed to 
    ensure the innocent are found innocent has broken down. I wonder if well 
    meaning jurors appalled by the act of rape( as am I) aren't too quick to 
    judge the accused based on the "horror" of the crime.
    
    As a sideline I know a man that was accused of rape in school. The woman
    later told the truth fingering another man (who was later sentenced)
    but the "rapist" stigma still follows the falsely accused man in the
    minds of some. His life has been adversly effected and there's no
    going back for him and that what I think really sucks about this whole
    mess. 
    
    FWIW- I'm not fully convinced Tyson is guilty as convicted nor am I
    fully convinced Willy Smith is innocent I think both cases have
    unanswered questions that might have lead to different rulings.
    
    -j
    

    re.204
    Might as well add my name too.
    
    -j

    Welcome aboard, Jerry, ol'buddy.

    re.213
    I dunno, My wife would sometimes get abrasions during mutualy consented
    and enjoyed sex I'm not going into details but it does happen even when
    both persons are ripe,ready and willing.
    
    -j
    

    Gail,
    I know of that 90 year old womans case. That was rape. Mike case has
    allot of holes in the story and its not as black and white as the case
    you are talking of.
    
    George
    ps Glad to see yha noting in this file Gail! How yha been? 

There are abrasions and abrasions.  A expert witness for the *defense*
testified that she had seen similar abrasions in 2 or 3 of the thousands
of patients (non-rape victims) that she had examined.

    re .256
    
    Fine G, how about you?  And "lil Eva"?
    
    Gail
    
                         
    

    In responce to an off line conversation, and knowing that this is not
    the place to post this note reply. I will do so and at the mods
    convience, have it relocated.
    
    Gail,
    
    	She is fine. I thought that I would answer that off line as so not 
    to get the mod upset.
    
    And Eva story:
    
    Last saturday morning, like most, she will get out her stuffed animals
    and line them up on the couch in order of height. She sat at teh tall 
    end with the blanket over the laps of all of the animals and hers.
    
    I was on my recliner, in my sweats without socks. She got up and padded
    over to squeeze my foot to tell me that it was cold.
    She turned and padded off to the bedroom to get a blanket for dad. She
    coverned me and tucked me in up around my neck. Then padded back to
    her couch position and watched cartoons with dad. 
    
    George

    George, I am (still) waiting for your list.
    
    Gail