Bill Simmons has one of the most objective takes on the Isiah Thomas case you'll read anywhere.  It's worth noting, and complimenting.  I don't know what Gus Johnson and Isiah Thomas said to Simmons in Vegas, but it appears that Simmons is a changed man.  While he takes a few cheap shots at Zeke during his article, they are few and don't tether off in the direction of complete anti-Thomas propaganda like his old columns used to.  Maybe being objective is the new hotness?
******
More evidence of this new trend: Marc Berman of the Post with an objective column on this topic, too.  Wow, what the f*ck is going on here?  These guys are f*cking with my pysch, G.

Berman states that the closing arguments from the plaintiff were boring, and that the defense's lawyers "outclassed" Sander's dull lawyers.  Considering one of the jurors (you know who) fell asleep during the Sanders' lawyers' closing argument, and that Ronald Green busted out magnets and a board to visually illustrate the "flaws" in Anucha's case... yeah, "outclassed" is being generous.

Bringing the truck tryst between Stephon Marbury and Kathleen Decker into the case backfired for the plaintiffs, and the jury likely will see through it. "They're trying to convince you Isiah has something to do with Stephon Marbury and Kathleen Decker having sex,'' Isiah's attorney Bogas stated.

Berman is absolutely on target with that on.  I still have yet to figure out what Sanders' lawyers were trying to prove by bringing "the intern hooking up with Marbury" into this case.  Like I've said in the past, it was just an attempt to milk the bad publicity it would generate... the vulture newspapers and blogs all jumped all over it, never identifying what, if anything at all, it had to do with Anucha Browne-Sanders' claim of sexual harassment.

At another juncture, Bogas added that Browne Sanders, a promoter by trade, "manipulated, marketed and packaged'' this case. It's hard to disagree.

Keep in mind this is coming from a noted anti-Thomas, anti-Dolan writer. 

Browne-Sanders' attorney's presentation in closing arguments was - again - substandard and lacking passion, which is needed in a sex-harassment suit. The Post's Kati Cornell, who did a great job covering the case, also noted Vladek did not do enough to provoke James Dolan during cross-examination. He is easily provoked, trust me.

Excellent points raised by Berman here.  So let's give props to Berman for the surprise of the week - a genuinely objective column on the trial from the Post.  I'm guessing it's to offset the negativity of their "female in charge of bashing", Andrea Peyser, incredibly offensive and increasingly preposterous columns.
******
Speaking of which, the Daily New's wannabe Peyser, Jane Ridley, fired off as weak a finishing column as you can expect.  In her last chance to get in some cheap shots at Isiah and Dolan, she instead focused on berating the juror who kept falling asleep during the trial for falling asleep during the closing arguments from Sanders' lawyers.  Implying he had "a short attention span" and implying that if he finds the Garden innocent of charges it's because he's "folk who think equal-opportunity laws are a waste of paper".  In other words, if doesn't agree with her clearly unobjective take on the case, he's a woman-hater.  Good job. 

I would rant more about this article by Ridley, but the point of this post was to be positive and give some props to surprisingly objective pieces from two of the historical biggest Zeke bashers. 

I will point out the one line in Ridley's article of any significance: 

"(The juror) nodded repeatedly as the defense team asserted that Anucha Browne Sanders had manufactured her sexual harassment claim out of greed."

That does not bode well for Ms. Browne.
********