Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
GregR
Footballguy
there may be some of his 18 "character witnesses" that he didn't really do anything with....after maybe dismissing initial advances, he may have resigned himself quickly that it was a bad read on his part and he chalked up a few to the "L" column for that session...but one thing is for sure....Watson's team needs to be 100% sure these ladies didn't text any of their friends bragging about a hook up with the star QB....
may not be able to prove that any of these 18 women perjure themselves....and maybe they can get paid behind the scenes to lie....but the cover up is going to take some work....and there also may actually be some sessions that were on the up and up...(and stayed that way)....#rimshot...
may not be able to prove that any of these 18 women perjure themselves....and maybe they can get paid behind the scenes to lie....but the cover up is going to take some work....and there also may actually be some sessions that were on the up and up...(and stayed that way)....#rimshot...
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I haven't had time to read this thread, maybe it's been discussed, but there is possibly a cultural aspect to Watson's behavior. I regularly walk the streets of South Beach during spring break and Urban Beach Week and hear load music with explicit sexual lyrics all the time, with the B and N words. And many women, mostly black, sing along with men. And I frequently hear bold language on the streets from lots of black men toward complete strangers. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. I think Watson's behavior was probably wrong, but an all-black jury would be more sympathetic to Watson than an all white jury.
BigJim®
Footballguy
JMHO, you are getting way out over your skis here. You have no idea what evidence led to the GJ decision - nor does anyone not present.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’ve read the same complaints that have been posted here numerous times.
but you are correct. I have not seen the evidence. The real question is, what evidence did the grand jury see. it is certainly possible the civil courts Seymour evidence than the DA was willing to present to the GJ..
ProstheticRGK
Footballguy
There is a line that is not decided by each party, it's decided by law and precedent. If what is alleged against Watson is true, he crossed that line. Whatever he thinks is a big deal or not is irrelevant.
The Grand Jury decided they didn't cross the threshold of evidence to prosecute him criminally. Now, these other women and their attorney are pursuing a civil case. And the standards for filing and winning a civil case are much different.
Here is my speculation on things:
1. Watson has a penchant for getting rub and tug massages.
2. Watson saw a much higher than normal amount of women, ostensibly for massages. He found a lot of them on IG, and not all of them were licensed masseuses.
3. Some of the women were most likely sex workers, or were at least amenable to performing extra services, besides massage therapy.
4. Some of the women were legitimate massage therapists, who had a legitimate expectation not to be sexually assaulted by their clients, while performing their job.
5. Watson is not dumb. He understands/understood that you cannot go into someone's business and masturbate or rub your genitals on someone non-consensually. He allegedly did just that, though, with women who had not given any form of consent. He seems to have a fetish for inappropriately propositioning women and/or non-consensual acts.
6. You cannot sexually harass/assault someone, and then say "You don't have to do anything if you don't want to" and make it ok. He (allegedly) put some of those women in a position to feel afraid, threatened, coerced and violated.
7. I don't know what the bar is for the Grand Jury to decide to prosecute someone for sexual assault. Watson's behavior, as alleged by several of the women, meets that standard. But having factual evidence against a celebrity with a lot of money to afford legal representation probably raises the bar for a prosecutor.
8. A civil case has a lower threshold for finding fault (not guilt/innocence) but fault. A lawyer handling a plaintiff's case in a civil matter (against a famous millionaire) has a lot more incentive to pursue the case than a prosecutor.
9. I think there's something called "establishing a pattern of fact" or something like that (I'm not a lawyer, but I have watched Law and Order a lot). The judge making Watson comment on whether or not he had sex with the massage therapists that were character witnesses would probably fall under that. If Watson engaged in sexual contact with the 18 (or however many) massage therapists, then it makes it reasonable to conclude his behavior with the other women filing suit against him fits his behavior.
Court of Public Opinion: I have no problem with a guy going to rub and tugs, if that is his thing. There are plenty of women who provide that service, consensually. I think Americans are a little too prudish about sex work, in general. IMHO, decriminalize it and regulate it to provide safety for all involved (and it's not going away, no matter how hard we may wish) and reduce the incidence of human trafficking. But, Watson (allegedly) didn't just want a rub and tug. He got excitement/fulfillment from forcing himself on women non-consensually. That's creepy and predatory, and there are victims of that kind of behavior. He should have been charged criminally, IMO. And he should get taken to the cleaners by the women he victimized. And, honestly, I think he should never play football again. But the NFL doesn't really care about the issue, just like they don't really care about Domestic Violence, Breast Cancer or Player Safety. They care about making money. And the best way to keep making money is to have a gigantic PR machine that keeps the shield clean until the issue fades from public scrutiny.
I know and agree. That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. My point was that Watson may think he did nothing wrong which is why he is fighting this so hard and that there is a distinct possibility both sides think they are 100% right..........which is for a court to decide based on the evidence presented.
Team Chaos
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
There’s also potentially a cultural aspect to it for Watson, as you alluded to.
similar to the Michael Vick dog fighting ring, where Vic grew up in poverty, with a super sketchy set of friends and family. It’s very difficult to judge Vick for what he did unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.
at the time, I was disgusted by the revelations. But over time I’ve come to realize that was the culture he grew up in. I’m still repulsed by what he did, but I try not to judge Michael Vick personally for those actions. And, Michael Vick did his time and then went above and beyond by doing volunteer work for the ASPCA traveling around to schools lecturing against dogfighting.
Note: I am in no way excusing Watson’s behavior. But like Michael Vick, it’s possible that in the circles he grew up in, getting a rub and tug, or soliciting/harassing massage therapist for such a thing is more acceptable, socially.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Nobody knows. Whatever it was, it was evidence that supported a conclusion there is not even probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
I don't claim any greater knowledge of facts. My only point is people are really focusing on allegations in the civil claims. If you accept those as credible and established facts, sure, you can get to certain end points you are describing. The end point you can't get to though is a GJ concluding no probable cause for belief a crime was committed. JMHO, that seems notable.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Well, the defense team having done their own research is different than a judge forcing disclosures. I would imagine that the plaintiffs have also tried to to research on the nature of the relationship between Watson and the 18. Now "the women's attorneys want Watson to answer written "requests for admission" about whether he had sex with the 18 therapists who backed him after the first lawsuits against him were filed in March 2021.", and the judge has agreed.
That said, will the 22 accusers be required to "answer written requests for admission" as to whether they have ever had sex with a massage client, either during the massage or at any other point? Or what percentage of the time they encounter this type of behavior? Or how often the respond to instagram requests to fly out of town and give a massage? Etc. etc.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It might not be… It might just be a byproduct of the environment in which he was raised.
not that this excuses sexual assault, if that happened… I’m just trying to look at the rub and tug aspect, and the possibility that in the environment in which Watson was raised, “massage therapist” and “sexual services” are synonymous.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
there’s a whole lot of people who think massages lead to sex. On casual hangouts there’s a fair chance. Even 20+ years ago most of the guys I hung out with had the plan of - get a girl to your place, give her a good massage, then you’ll get some. But it always involved consent (at least to my knowledge) and the girls weren’t paid. It was just a way to hook up. Maybe Watson thought he was doing the same but that doesn’t seem reasonable under the circumstances.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Not sure this thread is going to have a happy ending.
-What is there to discuss at this point? Browns got him, Watson isn't likely to take the field immediately as most folks expect a suspension, that is going to take him off the professional gridiron for over 18 months and perhaps longer, that's a pretty long time removed, hope his skills aren't compromised.
-Let us know when Goodell hands down his suspension.
In the meantime FREE BAKER!!!
-What is there to discuss at this point? Browns got him, Watson isn't likely to take the field immediately as most folks expect a suspension, that is going to take him off the professional gridiron for over 18 months and perhaps longer, that's a pretty long time removed, hope his skills aren't compromised.
-Let us know when Goodell hands down his suspension.
In the meantime FREE BAKER!!!
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
dhockster
Footballguy
I think the conduct with Deshaun by the 18 character witnesses is relevent. If you read the lawsuits, the most common thing being alleged is Deshaun uncovered his penis and moved his body in such a way that it came in contact with the masseuses' hands. They obviously felt violated by that behavior which is why they are filing the lawsuits. If any of the character witnesses had consensual sex with Deshaun and it was initiated by Deshaun in the same manner that the women filing the lawsuits are claiming, then it gives their testimony credibility.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
But if you're going to use the witnesses for THAT then you also have to use it if it works in FAVOR of watson, if they all stand firm that he did no such thing with them, right?
And I'm 100% fine with it being used either way, because frankly, it should.
GregR
Footballguy
The articles I've seen haven't been entirely clear on when/where Watson refused to answer questions on the subject. The video deposition that has made its way to the public includes him refusing to answer some questions. It might be he refused there, leading to the judge ruling him to answer now in the same questions in written form. Or it might be they were part of some other submitted questions during discovery. I don't know.
As to the plaintiffs, why are you asking? Have you heard they've refused to answer such questions in their depositions or otherwise? Discovery applies to both sides. If they have refused then the defense have the exact same mechanism available to them of raising an objection to the judge.
I've not heard anything either way. Was simply wondering at the impact of a judge ordering a written response, and if that would be applied to both sides. I don't know how "official" the responses are for either side to questions from the opposition before (if) they get to court, and if such responses are legally actionable if later proven false. It does seem that when giving a written response you've lost any wiggle room. As you say, perhaps the information has already been provided in a satisfactory manner so that it isn't necessary.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Both the plaintiff & defense will have access the written statements.
Not sure what you mean by “applied to both sides” - they’re character witnesses for Watson. If the written statements show they perjured themselves, or impeached their own character, it likely only benefits the plaintiffs. On the other hand, if the written statements are consistent with what they’ve testified to, and they claim to have had only a professional relationship with Watson, then that should work for the defense…..unless the plaintiff’s attorney has evidence to the contrary.
It’s also possible that the attorney for the plaintiffs already knows something and is setting a trap for character witness(es).
while I get the bolded to a certain extent....just because I have an "appropriate" relationship with a few doesn't in any way excuse what I did in the others...so not sure how much weight that carries...Both the plaintiff & defense will have access the written statements.
Not sure what you mean by “applied to both sides” - they’re character witnesses for Watson. If the written statements show they perjured themselves, or impeached their own character, it likely only benefits the plaintiffs. On the other hand, if the written statements are consistent with what they’ve testified to, and they claim to have had only a professional relationship with Watson, then that should work for the defense…..unless the plaintiff’s attorney has evidence to the contrary.
It’s also possible that the attorney for the plaintiffs already knows something and is setting a trap for character witness(es).
if I take out 10 women and rape 7 of them.....the fact that I didn't rape the other 3 doesn't really matter....
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yes obviously.
Here I’m speaking only to the question of who “gets to use” the witnesses.
Even if he had consensual sex with 1, or 3, or 10 of the 18, it still makes the character witness list extremely suspect.
my post wasn't directed at you....just in general....as I know the "purpose" of "character witnesses" in any case, is usually to establish a pattern of behavior that is opposite of what someone is being accused of.....
GregR
Footballguy
Marked some answers to your questions in red. While I included a section specific to written inquiries, I am guessing the bottom about depositions is more likely what happened. Again I'm guessing as a non-lawyer, but I'd imagine Watson was asked about having sex with the past masseuses during his deposition. Which a refusal to answer would then result in the lawyer going back to the judge to compel an answer. Which the judge agreed it needed to be answered for relevance to the case.
https://texaslawhelp.org/article/discovery-in-texas-investigate-and-prepare-for-trial#:~:text=Depositions,with information about the case.
What is discovery?
Discovery is the legal process that lets each side of a lawsuit ask the other side for information that is related to the case.
During discovery, both parties must show the other side evidence they plan to use during trial.
Discovery is meant to encourage parties to settle their disputes before court, help each side prepare their case based on fair access to information, and prevent unfair surprise in court.
Can I really get any information I want through discovery?
The discovery process is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules say that parties to a case are entitled to any information that is “relevant” to the case as long as it is not “privileged” information. Discovery rules are meant to give fairly broad access to information.
If you are going through the discovery process on your own you should study the legal terms “relevance” and “privilege” until you understand them very well. These words represent legal concepts that may be argued during the discovery process.
You may have to persuade a judge you should (1) get the information you feel like you need, or (2) protect information that you think should stay private. You must learn the concepts of relevance, irrelevance, privileged, and nonprivileged information. That way, you can make a well-reasoned argument to the judge.
...
Interrogatories
Interrogatories are written questions between parties. The party who receives the interrogatories is required to respond in writing, under oath. Under Level 2 discovery, each side is only allowed 25 written interrogatories that ask more than identifying information about a document. Additionally, the responding party may respond by telling the other side where the information can be found in public records instead of answering the question directly. For more information about other rules that apply to this type of discovery, read Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197.
Depositions
Depositions are interviews that can be conducted either orally (in person or by telephone) or in writing. Depositions do not have to be only between parties to the case, but can also be taken from witnesses with information about the case. Depositions are subject to many rules including: notice requirements, scope of questioning, location, and time limits. You should read these rules carefully before attempting to conduct a deposition. For more information about other rules that apply to this type of discovery, read Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 199 through 203.
dhockster
Footballguy
Yes, of course. Their testimony is going to be their testimony. The defense is going to try and use them to support that Watson is innocent and the plaintiff attorneys are going to try to use them to make Watson look guilty. But you were initially stating that you didn't see why them having sex with Deshaun would be relevant. I was just trying to show how it could be relevant to the cases at hand.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
then the conversation became the fact that IF they had sex with watson, they would be discredited as charcter witnesses on his behalf.
all I'm trying to say is, sex or not, for ME, they should be character witnesses for either side if necessary.
but we're beating a dead horse here and going in circles....
zero suspension this season... LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
You don't need to defend him, not sure why you even hang out in this thread, only saying that because the Browns have Watson, whatever his fate, whenever he steps on to the field you are going to root for the Browns and enjoy yourself, no need to seem apologetic.
Let the Mob have their fun, none of it matters and it's about as dead a horse as when folks bash Tua and say Miami is loading up in case he doesn't work out this year...we get it, we've heard it now since the new coach was introduced. They are giving Tua all the weapons and things any QB would need to succeed in the NFL. I've stopped bashing Tua like I have the last 2 seasons, nothing to discuss. He either sinks or swims, my money is that he looks more like a swimmer this year, just my early observations on what the Phins are doing.
Get your man cave a fresh makeover and don't worry about erroneous news reports put out on hearsay and chewing gum wrappers, they have to print things to get folks talking and clicking.
Cheers!
Penguin
Footballguy
Plaintiffs suing Deshaun Watson add negligence claims to lawsuits over massages
Two of the women who are suing NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson amended their lawsuits this week to add claims of negligence and gross negligence, arguing that Watson knew of his own sexual proclivities in massage sessions but failed to take precautions to prevent a reoccurrence of them.
By adding these new causes of action, they potentially widen the net of discoverable evidence they can obtain before trial and also add another way to recover damages in their lawsuits. They are among 22 women who have sued Watson and accused him of sexual misconduct during massage sessions in 2020 and early 2021.
The attorney for the 22 women, Tony Buzbee, told USA TODAY Sports Thursday that more lawsuits will be adding causes of action for negligence and gross negligence.
"Deshaun Watson has denied he acted intentionally; we believe strongly that we will prove he did," Buzbee said. "We have also added a claim for negligence allowing a jury to assess liability for unreasonable and imprudent conduct as well. This claim is just another through which the jury can assess liability and damages against him. We will likely add this claim for most of the cases, although perhaps not all."
Almost all of the lawsuits otherwise have claims of civil assault and emotional distress against Watson. Two others have sexual assault claims.
Adding the new negligence claims “permits the plaintiffs to widen the scope of discovery,” said Kenneth Williams, professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “They will be able to ask any questions or seek information such as texts related to those claims. Second, it provides plaintiffs another basis for recovery (of damages). Third, if plaintiffs prevail on the gross negligence claims they can be awarded punitive damages, which are damages designed to punish the wrongdoer for his/her extreme conduct.”
The 22 civil cases are entirely separate from the criminal grand jury proceedings that recently declined to indict Watson on criminal charges in 10 cases reported to police.
The lawsuits continue to proceed in court in Houston, including on Tuesday, when an attorney for the two women with the new negligence claims tried to use them to her advantage as part of a dispute over pretrial discovery evidence. At issue was whether Watson should be compelled to list all women who gave him massages since 2019, other than those already documented.
Two of the women who are suing NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson amended their lawsuits this week to add claims of negligence and gross negligence, arguing that Watson knew of his own sexual proclivities in massage sessions but failed to take precautions to prevent a reoccurrence of them.
By adding these new causes of action, they potentially widen the net of discoverable evidence they can obtain before trial and also add another way to recover damages in their lawsuits. They are among 22 women who have sued Watson and accused him of sexual misconduct during massage sessions in 2020 and early 2021.
The attorney for the 22 women, Tony Buzbee, told USA TODAY Sports Thursday that more lawsuits will be adding causes of action for negligence and gross negligence.
"Deshaun Watson has denied he acted intentionally; we believe strongly that we will prove he did," Buzbee said. "We have also added a claim for negligence allowing a jury to assess liability for unreasonable and imprudent conduct as well. This claim is just another through which the jury can assess liability and damages against him. We will likely add this claim for most of the cases, although perhaps not all."
Almost all of the lawsuits otherwise have claims of civil assault and emotional distress against Watson. Two others have sexual assault claims.
Adding the new negligence claims “permits the plaintiffs to widen the scope of discovery,” said Kenneth Williams, professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “They will be able to ask any questions or seek information such as texts related to those claims. Second, it provides plaintiffs another basis for recovery (of damages). Third, if plaintiffs prevail on the gross negligence claims they can be awarded punitive damages, which are damages designed to punish the wrongdoer for his/her extreme conduct.”
The 22 civil cases are entirely separate from the criminal grand jury proceedings that recently declined to indict Watson on criminal charges in 10 cases reported to police.
The lawsuits continue to proceed in court in Houston, including on Tuesday, when an attorney for the two women with the new negligence claims tried to use them to her advantage as part of a dispute over pretrial discovery evidence. At issue was whether Watson should be compelled to list all women who gave him massages since 2019, other than those already documented.
That one guy
Footballguy
I may be wrong as I’m no lawyer, though I did work as Client Relations for a law firm for 17 years, but this to me reads like the “you do not want this going to actual jury trial, reconsider settlement” screw being tightened
they've got him now!
thought for sure they could force him to settle before a trade would be made, but that washed out
BigJim®
Footballguy
Honestly, I don't think this does that. It's just added avenues for recovery, though my gut is negligence really has nothing to do with anything unless the plaintiffs feel iffy on their ability to prove intentional act (which would be dooming to "intentionally, willfully" assault/infliction of emotional distress). It actually raises an eyebrow for me as an add. To jury: "Even if you don't think he intentionally did anything, you should consider ordering damages to be paid anyway because he was negligent in failing to recognize the litany of other negligent acts"?
Could it be a claim type seeking to pull 22 prior allegations into independent trials that should really be focused on that one claim alone? Hmmm. Seems prejudicial and timing of acts and awareness of anything until these claims were filed… unsure if the timing supports.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I agree. Stack the jury with women and non-sports fans, have the women cry on the stand, keep the creepy details pouring in and Watson will be paying out the nose at the end of the day. He may be 100% convinced he did nothing wrong but his attorney is no dummy. I think this settles.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It seems the "negligence" claim is that Watson was aware he was a sex addict/creep, negligently ignored that "fact", and still scheduled appointments with these women putting them in danger.
wgoldsph
Footballguy
The past two roto blurbs on Watson read like they come from two different time lines. One is about the expansion of the lawsuit against him and the other is about how his contract basically sets him to rule over the Browns organization for the next how ever many years.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigJim®
Footballguy
Yeah, I get those words. It's just not how I'd think of negligent acts/intentional acts. It sounds intentional to ignore inability to control oneself.
e.g. If I know I can't resist a cake on the counter, and I eat a cake I foolishly placed on the counter, that wasn't negligent eating of the cake.
Last edited by a moderator:
brewer
Footballguy
BigJim®
Footballguy
Yeah... maybe there is case law supporting negligence under these circumstances. I suspect the add is a hedge for inability to prove intent or to pull in facts re: other accusations when the case should be about that accusation alone.
That one guy
Footballguy
To my own interpretation, it’s not the addition of negligence and whatever legal standards there for jurors to consider, it’s much more the expansion of discovery and how it just muddies court of public opinion against Watson and would require just an even more open book into his activities…seems like something he’d want to avoid, but I’ve never had to defend my name in such a manner
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
In civil law knowing you should act on something and not doing so is a form of negligence.
The easy example is if you know there’s a loose board on your front porch and you don’t fix it and then a neighbor falls through. You would be negligent in the eyes of the law.
