Seth Doria's article

[Mike Round]

Maybe in your haste to let Ray Lewis back into the human race Seth you should remember some facts.
1. Shorty Baker's (one of the victims)blood was found splattered in Lewis's limo.....Lewis refused to say why or how that happened.
2. His "friend" Reginald Sweeting bought 3 knives at a sporting goods store where Lewis appeared the day before the crime.
3. Lewis could not produce his clothes from the night in question - claiming he may have burned them.
4. Lewis refused to co-operate throughout.
Lewis may not have killed those two poor guys but he was most definately involved - just ask Atlanta police who have no other suspects. He has shown no remorse.
Richard Lollar will never see the child his partner gave birth to, and his daughter India will never know her father. I hope Ray Lewis rots in hell with that other "innocent" OJ.

[Marc]

Before I make my comment on this issue, I would like to say that Doria's article can be viewed at: http://www.sports-central.org/sports/nfl/articles/article62.shtml , for those who want to read it and comment.

[Tom Baker]

Agree with some points in the article, but can't agree with all of them. As for who Disney wants in their ads, I'd say it's up to them--it's their money. I would personally have reservations about putting Ray Lewis in an ad for a family-oriented vacation spot just because of the controversy--you would risk alienating so many. It may or may not be fair, but business decisions aren't always fair. It's a simple matter of money.

As for the point about journalists not being real journalists for calling Lewis an accused murderer...well, the beauty of sports reporting is that often fact and opinion can overlap in ways traditional news does not allow...and Lewis was, for a time, on trial for murder.

[iFroggy]

Originally posted by Tom Baker
Agree with some points in the article, but can't agree with all of them. As for who Disney wants in their ads, I'd say it's up to them--it's their money. I would personally have reservations about putting Ray Lewis in an ad for a family-oriented vacation spot just because of the controversy--you would risk alienating so many. It may or may not be fair, but business decisions aren't always fair. It's a simple matter of money.



I agree with you on that Tom.

Also, about Ray Lewis:

I can do nothing but say he is innocent. I was not there and I can only go by what the jury decided. I wouldn't call a man, who has been proven innocent, guilty, because I wasn't there.

[Mike Round]

Unfortunately the jury system is fatally flawed - it allows rich and powerful celebrities with expensive lawyers to escape justice - i.e. in the world of sports Simpson and to a lesser extent Carruth and Lewis. Lewis was convicted of a lesser crime because the Atlanta PD couldn't gather enough evidence against him to press the murder rap - that's hardly being found 'innocent'. No one knows if he's guilty of murder or not - only Lewis and his nice friends know that - but he sure was involved in some way - ask Atlanta PD.
Do you seriously doubt that Simpson killed his ex-wife just because "you weren't there"?

[Tom Baker]

The system may have its flaws, as you note. In my opinion, it's a travesty that O.J. Simpson is walking around free. However, anyone who is / was angered by the outcome of a jury trial should ask themselves this: in some countries O.J. would never have even made it to trial. Would you really want to live in a system that didn't proceed under the assumption of innocence, and one where the burden of proof wasn't on the accuser? I think not.

One of the biggest problems with the O.J. trial is that Clark & co. totally botched it. Same with the Atlanta D.A. They cut a deal with Lewis and couldn't get a convinction on anyone? While it's a miscarriage of justice that two people were killed and Buckhead and yet, somehow, in the eyes of the law, *NO ONE* is responsible, the prosecution failed to make its case.

[iFroggy]

Originally posted by Mike Round

Do you seriously doubt that Simpson killed his ex-wife just because "you weren't there"?

I can't say he did and you'd be slandering the man to say he did. He was proven innocent, your saying he's not?

[Mike Round]

Of course he's not innocent - and the jury in the civil case agreed.
I couldn't care less if he thinks he's been slandered either.