2007-07-27 16:51:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Could be. You really can't trust the media to tell you the truth or to get a story right on any level.
Ten yrs ago I heard the head of the Newspaper writers guild admit to being 80% inaccurate.
2007-07-27 16:55:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If I had to bet, I would say no. The allegations made against the three Lacrosse players came from an unstable hooker. The allegations against Vick are much more substantial. There is actually physical evidence against Vick, there was none against the Lacrosse players.
Personally, I think Vick will get a plea bargain to stay out of court.
2007-07-27 16:56:15 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
He may be found "not guilty." But unlike the Lacrosse players, there IS evidence against him. The Lacrosse prosecutor ADMITTED that he had no evidence against them and went forward on a gut feeling. Big difference. Vick owns the property the dog fights were held on. If that's not probable cause I dont know what is.
2007-07-27 17:04:12 · answer #3 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just from the evidence that's been reported I highly doubt it. We're talking video footage of him taking part in all of this. Witnesses can be paid and have agendas, but film doesn't lie, if it hasn't been altered of course. All that will come out in court, but the reports I've heard present a lot more evidence than the Duke debacle ever thought about having. It's like comparing oranges and apples.
2007-07-27 17:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. These charges are not being brought by some local moronic DA. These are federal charges....this is the big leagues. Besides, today(July 28), one of his co-defendants pleaded guilty. That is not good news for Vick.
Mike Nifong had no evidence,the Feds have a mountain of evidence. Mr. Vick is in for a rude awakening.
2007-07-27 17:31:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was never a case regarding the Duke players, the prosecutor covered it up for political gain. That definately does not appear to be the case here.
2007-07-27 16:57:59 · answer #6 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No. Vick was the owner of the property and they've uncovered evidence that he was in charge of the ring. Totally different from one psycho, attention craving stripper with a history of falsely accusing people of rape, accusing someone of raping her.
2007-07-27 16:58:42 · answer #7 · answered by SW1 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, for there is soild evidence.
Nifong KNEW the DNA tests were failures but proceeded anyway.
There are too many witnesses to burn a hole in Vick
2007-07-27 16:56:45 · answer #8 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Duke case was based 100% on testamony, no actual evidence.
FACT: Dog fighting was going on there.
FACT: The property was owned by Vick.
Even if he had nothing to do with it, he was uber-negligent in allowing it to go on.
2007-07-27 16:55:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Allegations of this nature have Vick possibly spending time.
2007-07-27 17:47:41 · answer #10 · answered by Ry 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋