The Tyson conspiracy!!!

Hi guys, you know I love a good conspiracy.

This one regards Iron Mike's dubious representation at his r*** trial. I am not questioning the conviction, although I have my opinions, I am questioning the fact that Mike was handed a TAX lawyer instead of a real, seasoned CRIMINAL lawyer. Lets face it there would have been no shortage of criminal defense lawyers who would have bitten your right arm off to get that case. The hottest ticket in town. Yet Don King provides Mike with a man who had never before taken on such a case.

The conspiracy is that after Douglas upset Mike the gravey train was about to spill over so whatever happened the verdict had to be guilty as the money that would be made on Tyson's return, who no doubt would need to step back into the ring for financial reasons, would be HUGE.

It all makes sense to me. Tyson was a huge name back then, a huge celeb and those type of people get away with anything apart from murder, genocide or terrorism, apart from O.J. Tyson was still young when he came out so there was plenty of time to make good money. I think King could see Tyson was off the rails after Douglas and King was not going to let the biggest name in boxing since Ali just slip away. He had invested too much in Mike.

Sounds plausible to me.

Sounds less plausible to me, but there's a book available on Amazon whichs looks at depth at the trial and conviction. I've not read it but the summary suggests that the author believes Tyson was innocent, and his defence either incompetent, or took the completely wrong approach, also suggest mishandliong of evidence, ignoring of crucial witnesses etc.
Can't believe that King would have deliberately got him sent down- he's not the type to forsake a dollar in his hand today for the possibilty of two in his hand sometime the future

He defended King on tax evasion, but he was a defense attorney.

I believe he got the guy who shot Ronald Raegan acquitted.

I have heard so many theories over the years and i still honestly believe that its a grey area. When you are a celeb of such stature you become a target no matter what.

Still doesnt change the fact that i rate Tyson as one of the GOAT's of boxing

My theory is it was a load of crap. Famous people (mainly male ie. Gazza, Ched Evans etc) who have sex with a woman after a few drinks are always in trouble.

If i have a one night stand then no worries, if i was loaded and one of the most famous people on earth then id have r*** cried against me.

Thats my view.

Oh, and Tyson was class in his prime.

Am not sure there was any great conspiracy just think King picked the wrong lawyer, the team he had were undoubtedly skilled in matters of tax and contract law (useful for someone like King) but the worlds of criminal law and contract law are worlds apart. Mike may have been regressing as a fighter but at the time of his incarceration he was still a sure fire box office seller and King would have continued to make fortunes off him had he stayed outside.

To me getting him sent down on purpose just seems too fanciful or risky. No guarantee Mike would get parole that would make a comeback viable, no guarantee he would leave prison in good enough fitness or young enough to return, no guarantee he would want to return and no guarantee if all of the above were not issues he would choose to make his return with King. Also does not seem to fit with King’s way of operating, he uses guys, bleeds them for all they are worth and then disregards them when the next guy comes along, playing the long game with so many risks does not seem to fit his MO

Strikes me as highly fanciful to suggest that Tyson doing porridge came about as a result of a conspiracy rather than his own doing.

Frustrates the bejesus out of me that his 'innocence' seems to get passed off as fact by those who never even got within a million miles of the evidence or testimonies that were used against him. Only he and Washington know, unequivocally, whether he was guilty or not guilty, but it seems remiss to me to automatically assume that he must have been stitched up in light of the clearly unhealthy relationship (very unhealthy, I might add) Tyson has with women.

Anyway, King loves his dollars and cents far too much to put his own personal ATM out of commission. King always wants dominance of the Heavyweight division more than any other; Holyfield was Main Events at the time, Bowe was taken care of by the incredibly single-minded Newman, and the emerging Lewis was with Maloney. He'd have done damn near anything to keep Tyson out, I'd imagine rather than being forced to make Chavez his new obsession down at Light-Welter.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Hi guys, you know I love a good conspiracy.

This one regards Iron Mike's dubious representation at his r*** trial. I am not questioning the conviction, although I have my opinions, I am questioning the fact that Mike was handed a TAX lawyer instead of a real, seasoned CRIMINAL lawyer. Lets face it there would have been no shortage of criminal defense lawyers who would have bitten your right arm off to get that case. The hottest ticket in town. Yet Don King provides Mike with a man who had never before taken on such a case.

The conspiracy is that after Douglas upset Mike the gravey train was about to spill over so whatever happened the verdict had to be guilty as the money that would be made on Tyson's return, who no doubt would need to step back into the ring for financial reasons, would be HUGE.

It all makes sense to me. Tyson was a huge name back then, a huge celeb and those type of people get away with anything apart from murder, genocide or terrorism, apart from O.J. Tyson was still young when he came out so there was plenty of time to make good money. I think King could see Tyson was off the rails after Douglas and King was not going to let the biggest name in boxing since Ali just slip away. He had invested too much in Mike.

Sounds plausible to me.

Am not a fan of conspiracy theories but at the time I thought the whole thing stank the joint out. I'm not so sure if Tyson was stiched up but he probably overstepped the mark in some bad way and King may have seen this as a grubby opportunity to have him locked away and let the egg timer of cash pile up while waiting for his release.

I never got the thing with Robin Givens being battered by Tyson either. The thing is. A ludicrously powerful guy like Tyson would have killed or maimed her with as much as a slap if he was supposedly abusing her.

So yeah. It all doesn't add up. Not by a long way suggesting Tyson was innocent though.

You cant put anything past Don King. He as a history of stiching fighters up and being corrupt. Is it any coincidence that the Lewis fights against McCall and Holyfield involved Don King? Or is it a coincidence that nearly every fighter that worked for King said he ripped them off? Tyson himself said that King was not to be trusted.

Innocent until found guilty....he was found guilty.....he is a filthy r apist

Is it any coincidence that the Lewis fights against McCall and Holyfield involved Don King?

Good point, Gordy. It was Don King's fault that McCall hit Lewis really hard in the face so that he was unable to continue. What an absolute rotter that man King is.

superflyweight wrote:

Is it any coincidence that the Lewis fights against McCall and Holyfield involved Don King?

Good point, Gordy. It was Don King's fault that McCall hit Lewis really hard in the face so that he was unable to continue. What an absolute rotter that man King is.

Incorrect. Lewis WAS able to continue. It was the referee that prevented him from doing so. Was the referee incompetent or was he biased or corrupt? When Don King is involved in a fight then sadly you cannot rule it out and you have to ask yourself was it a coincidence that Don King was managing McCall and the referee wouldnt let Lewis continue??

You'd also have to ask yourself if Lewis could have possibly avoided the whole situation by not getting himself decked and wobbly upon rising, Gordon.

Gordy wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Is it any coincidence that the Lewis fights against McCall and Holyfield involved Don King?

Good point, Gordy. It was Don King's fault that McCall hit Lewis really hard in the face so that he was unable to continue. What an absolute rotter that man King is.

Incorrect. Lewis WAS able to continue. It was the referee that prevented him from doing so. Was the referee incompetent or was he biased or corrupt? When Don King is involved in a fight then sadly you cannot rule it out and you have to ask yourself was it a coincidence that Don King was managing McCall and the referee wouldnt let Lewis continue??

He was flattened, got up and was on queer-street.

Hardly a controversial stoppage and it wasn't like he was winning the fight anyway.

88Chris05 wrote:You'd also have to ask yourself if Lewis could have possibly avoided the whole situation by not getting himself decked and wobbly upon rising, Gordon.

He was knocked down but he got back up and was ready to continue. This happens in boxing and why do you think there is a count to ten in boxing? Lewis got up before ten and wanted to continue. He said himself he could have continued and look at what happened in the rematch! He was not knocked down against Holyfield but he still won that fight by a mile so that anyone could see it but did he get the right result? No! Don King had other ideas. If Lewis got knocked down against Holyfield and was able to continue I would bet the same thing would have happened like in the McCall fight and Lewis would have been robbed!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Gordy wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Is it any coincidence that the Lewis fights against McCall and Holyfield involved Don King?

Good point, Gordy. It was Don King's fault that McCall hit Lewis really hard in the face so that he was unable to continue. What an absolute rotter that man King is.

Incorrect. Lewis WAS able to continue. It was the referee that prevented him from doing so. Was the referee incompetent or was he biased or corrupt? When Don King is involved in a fight then sadly you cannot rule it out and you have to ask yourself was it a coincidence that Don King was managing McCall and the referee wouldnt let Lewis continue??

He was flattened, got up and was on queer-street.

Hardly a controversial stoppage and it wasn't like he was winning the fight anyway.

He would have won the fight. Look at what happened in the rematch!

Gordy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:You'd also have to ask yourself if Lewis could have possibly avoided the whole situation by not getting himself decked and wobbly upon rising, Gordon.

He was knocked down but he got back up and was ready to continue. This happens in boxing and why do you think there is a count to ten in boxing? Lewis got up before ten and wanted to continue. He said himself he could have continued and look at what happened in the rematch! He was not knocked down against Holyfield but he still won that fight by a mile so that anyone could see it but did he get the right result? No! Don King had other ideas. If Lewis got knocked down against Holyfield and was able to continue I would bet the same thing would have happened like in the McCall fight and Lewis would have been robbed!

What did happen in the rematch?

From memory Lewis stood around whilst his opponenet had a mental breakdown, that's about it?

From memory Lewis stood around whilst his opponenet had a mental breakdown, that's about it?

After seeing Lewis have some succes with that tactic I once tried to replicate it during a playground brawl. It didn't work.

I think Gordy is getting mixed up with the Rahman fight.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:I think Gordy is getting mixed up with the Rahman fight.

I think Gordy is mixed up in general.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:I think Gordy is getting mixed up with the Rahman fight.

I think Gordy is mixed up in general.....

No not confused, I just understand boxing and how it works from following for a long time. Alot of people on here are not willing to listen and learn about anything that does not fit with what they hear on tv.

Gordy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:I think Gordy is getting mixed up with the Rahman fight.

I think Gordy is mixed up in general.....

No not confused, I just understand boxing and how it works from following for a long time. Alot of people on here are not willing to listen and learn about anything that does not fit with what they hear on tv.

You clearly know very little at all Gordy. Given the calibre of some of the posters on this site (not incl. me obv) it's posts like this that are frankly insulting. Can't you go WUM ESB instead??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Gordy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:I think Gordy is getting mixed up with the Rahman fight.

I think Gordy is mixed up in general.....

No not confused, I just understand boxing and how it works from following for a long time. Alot of people on here are not willing to listen and learn about anything that does not fit with what they hear on tv.

You clearly know very little at all Gordy. Given the calibre of some of the posters on this site (not incl. me obv) it's posts like this that are frankly insulting. Can't you go WUM ESB instead??

The way I see, the problem is too many people think they are experts on here without understanding boxing and when people take the time to try and explain points to them they get upset if they dont agree. But how can you learn more if you are not willing to listen when peole explain? When I red things like Marciano would not be heavyweight champion now and would lose to Audley Harrison or that Price and Joshua are the next Lennox Lewis its show how people do not understand and I am trying to explain to them where they are wrong. Boxing is a sport with alot of hype in it so people need to learn to look past this.

Gordy wrote: When I red things like Price and Joshua are the next Lennox Lewis its show how people do not understand

Any chance you could provide an example of when anyone has said this on here, because the only person I have ever seen say this is you (repeatedly)

Nobody on here has said Price/Joshua/Audley are or were the next LL, so let's knock that on the head right now. And Az (who's basically an infinitely better and more knowledgable version of you) doesn't think Marciano would lose to Audley, he was being facetious (look it up).

So what we are left with is someone who can't name more than a handful of boxers and knows nothing of their records trying to lecture a group of people who know and understand boxing better than you have ever exhibited.

That is why you are a WUM.

Or you are one of those kids that comment on Youtube videos, in which case your childish ignorance and stance can be excused.

Gordy is playing you guys like a banjo. You complain yet return.

Anyway; Tyson. I don't believe in conspiracy theories and as someone above rightfully said, Kind would not pass up a buck today in the HOPE of making 2 bucks tomorrow. He'd take the buck today and look to make 3 bucks tomorrow.

That said it was a very strange decision to have tax attorneys to represent Tyson. Even stranger still was allowing him to take the stand. Had he not taken the stand he probably would have been aquitted.

But in my opinion and having read a bit about this case, there are several holes in the case that a Mack truck could drive through. Judge Patricia Gifford is a well known "anti man" judge. The prosecution chose the day in court which coincided with her sitting on the bench. A deliberate choice because in LV the prosecution decides when to hold the case and before which judge by naming which day they want the initial pre trial to be heard.

She dismissed several apparent eye witneses. One was 3 women who said that they saw Tyson and Washington in the back of his limo with in a very 'friendly' position.

Furthermore Washington was asked by Tyson to wear loose clothing and no underwear which she dutifully complied with (court transcripts will verify this). So she knew what she was doing and why she was going to meet Tyson. At 3am it certainly was not to share hot chocolate and toast marshmallows.

During the sexual intercourse, Tyson asked her if she would be more comfortable on top. She responded in the affirmative. What r apist would ask the victim if she would be more comfortable in another position?

When Tyson took the stand he graphically described rough sex and more pertinent to the case anal sex which I believe was outlawed in Vegas (in old statutes which were never used previously) even between consenting adults (no idea what friends of Dorothy do - perhaps have hot choc and toasted marshmallows). Apparently he gave her a few dollars and told her to take a cab. She got somewhat miffed at the idea after Tyson rolled over and slept (like many men do).

He was found guilty but no conspiracy by King. Was he guilty, I have my doubts. Read up on Alan Derschowitz who wrote about this matter. Admittedly he was Tyson's lawyer but this dude got John DeLereon and Count Von Beulow (spelling) off apparently open and shut cases. Why he wasn't employed in the beginning is another matter. And Tyson's lawyers in court have never heard another criminal case since that.

But guys, no is no. When the hoochie says no, don't even think about going in because someone will probably go into you in the prison showers.

In the Tyson documentry/film that came out a while ago he was talking about his thurst for sex etc, squeezing his hands together like a pervert.

Now if I imagine him with a women, underwear full of popcorn, and she said "no". It would be hard to imagine him saying, "ok, I am sorry for the inconvienince madame"

He is a foul sexual preditor

But guys, no is no. When the hoochie says no, don't even think about going in because someone will probably go into you in the prison showers.....

----------------

I should think not as well! Would hate to think I'm sharing forum space with a any neanderthals who force themselves on women when they've not consented. If so you need ya **** removed!!

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:In the Tyson documentry/film that came out a while ago he was talking about his thurst for sex etc, squeezing his hands together like a pervert.

Now if I imagine him with a women, underwear full of popcorn, and she said "no". It would be hard to imagine him saying, "ok, I am sorry for the inconvienince madame"

He is a foul sexual preditor

That is exactly what he was. And Cus paid off women who he abused. Sick old man. When Atlas tried to addres the issue, he got fired by Cus. And this man is revered as some kind of wise guru?

Az you better be careful, me and you are going to end up on the same side on this subject haha.

He is and was seriously mental. Back then he was one of the biggest names in the world so thought he could have what he wanted. Well he could but it ultimately cost him.

The DVD about him is the ramblings of a madman for the most part.

Given the subject matter as you can imagine I am extrmely pleased you and Az appear to be on the same page.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/us/29fuller.html

He wasn't a tax lawyer, he was a courtroom lawyer who specialised in defending high profile cases, one of which happened to be about taxes.

rowley wrote:Given the subject matter as you can imagine I am extrmely pleased you and Az appear to be on the same page.

Kid Norfolk good. Racism and r*** bad.

r ape get censored out? Actually that makes more sense than s hit getting censored out. One is actually something bad and the other is poo, which isn't really offensive.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Az you better be careful, me and you are going to end up on the same side on this subject haha.

He is and was seriously mental. Back then he was one of the biggest names in the world so thought he could have what he wanted. Well he could but it ultimately cost him.

The DVD about him is the ramblings of a madman for the most part.

He had no guidance from birth. When he strayed his guardians bought off his victims because they knew the money they could make from him.

The lawyer was only half the problem........For me it was the quaint apple pie republican town the case was heard in....

My opinion is the girl took a private million as soon as went down....

and it say's it all...........

If I was r*** by Meg Ryan would I want her money??????

Course not!!

she could r*** me for free!!