Puckett Not Guilty

[Ksyrup]

Why am I not surprised?


http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0403/1533579.html

[WSUCougar]

I have no idea whether he's innocent or guilty, but there were some very questionable elements to the woman's story.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not really commenting on his case in particular, just the idea that celebs seem to always get the benefit of the doubt. You wonder why DA's attempt to prosecute them anymore.

For instance, while not a celeb per se, a well-known attorney in this town was charged with battery several years ago for beating the ex-husband of his mistress outside a local restaurant. He was having an affair with a secretary in his office, who was scared of her ex. The ex demanded that she meet him at a restaurant (Applebee's, actually) to try to work things out. The attorney found out about it, and under the guise of "protecting" her, laid in wait for the ex, hiding a sawed-off golf club beneath a newspaper. When the guy showed up, he clubbed him. Verdict - not guilty. Unbelievable.

[sabotai]

It seems like celebs always get off, and I'm not saying they don't, but we should also remember that celebs are very easy targets and there are a lot of greedy people willing to do anything to get a hold of some of their money.

Ksyrup, that's fucked up. But it's like I always say, Trial juries are like Las Vegas boxing judges, NEVER can tell what will happen.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
I have no idea whether he's innocent or guilty, but there were some very questionable elements to the woman's story.

As opposed to Puckett's rock solid story?

Another example of a famous athlete getting off because they're a famous athlete.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by mckerney
As opposed to Puckett's rock solid story?

Another example of a famous athlete getting off because they're a famous athlete.

Just got to comment
Innocent until PROVEN guilty - it wan't up to him to prove his story, but up to the prosecution to prove her's.

But what the heck, lets throw away that assumption, should make life easier right :D

[mckerney]

Wasn't disputing that he's not innocent until proven guilty.

But I guess brusing on the victim and eyewitness testimony saying they saw Puckett acting very ungentlemen-like didn't prove anything.

[CAsterling]

Agreed, just an over simpification on my part - Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is always something I figured difficult to prove when your case is based on eye witness testimony. A good lawyer can usually make most eye witnesses sound confused and unsure.
Personally I figured Tyson was Innocent, O.J Guilty and Kennedy guilty - don't know much about this case, but I figure it could have easily gone in the other direction with a different jury.

God bless the justice system !!!

[TroyF]

CA,

I was the other way. IMO, Tyson was guilty. No matter how pissed off everyone wants to get about it, I do not feel the prosecution did a good job in the OJ trial. I think he's guilty as hell, I also thought OJ could have had a 25 cent lawyer who could have put "reasonable doubt" in any sane person's mind after the prosecution butchered things. Kennedy-Smith was the easiest of them all, IMO. Even most of the women's groups shut up BEFORE the verdict. They knew there wasn't a case. After watching that trial, I wonder why the DA ever brought charges against him. What a flimsy case.

As for the athlete/star thing, it works both ways. A star is a great coup for an aspiring DA. Easy target, high profile. . . a great way to get your name in lights. There is also the thing about how many people think a star gets off easy, when in reality they took the same punishment anyone would have.

Double edged sword.

TroyF