QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (2 Viewers)

[Gally]

I get all that but I’m also familiar with some of the other factors - like, what if that star NFL player might be guilty. 

A DA is going to look at the preponderance of evidence and go from there. 

If there’s a ton of evidence, as there seems to be in this case, I don’t see why they’d have any choice but to advance it to the GJ.

I understand what you’re saying & in some instances I believe that sort of buck-passing occurs. 

In this case there’s way too much - 22 witnesses with matching complaints. IMO the DA’s personal or political motivation is irrelevant. This case moved forward on the evidence, and it will likely advance past the GJ for the same reason. 

what happens after that is hard to say. Celebrity justice can work differently. 

I think the point that was trying to be made is that the DA would go to the GJ with less than a "preponderance of evidence" in a high profile case so that they aren't the ones not bringing charges and put it in the hands of the GJ.  In cases with a ton of evidence this really isn't an issue.  But if there is very little evidence and it may or may not be enough why not send it to the GJ to put the onus on them?  I think that was the point trying to be made.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think the point that was trying to be made is that the DA would go to the GJ with less than a "preponderance of evidence" in a high profile case so that they aren't the ones not bringing charges and put it in the hands of the GJ.  In cases with a ton of evidence this really isn't an issue.  But if there is very little evidence and it may or may not be enough why not send it to the GJ to put the onus on them?  I think that was the point trying to be made.  

the overarching point being made seemed to be the assumption of corruption / buck passing on the DA’s behalf.

That may or may not be true, but if there’s a lack of evidence, the DA could simply dismiss on the merits (or lack thereof) and never face scrutiny for it.

This entire time up until now, the DA has made it clear that they would follow the evidence of this high profile case, and IF sufficient evidence existed they would advance it to the GJ.

Clearly that’s what’s happened here. This is a next step in the criminal justice process, and not a dismissal.

Regardless of intent of the DA, it’s certainly bad news for the Watson camp. 

 

[BigJim®]

That may or may not be true, but if there’s a lack of evidence, the DA could simply dismiss on the merits (or lack thereof) and never face scrutiny for it.

This entire time up until now, the DA has made it clear that they would follow the evidence of this high profile case, and IF sufficient evidence existed they would advance it to the GJ.

Hmm, I have not seen the comments you mention re: DA advancing to GJ if sufficient evidence existed. As you’ve worded it, I assume that means evidence supporting GJ review, and not necessarily sufficient to meet a DA’s own standard to file charges.

I disagree with your suggestion that a DA making a judgment call on mysterious evidence (or claiming lack of evidence) is beyond scrutiny. That would be very scrutinized unless the public also sees all evidence considered (which they won’t). GJ determination would be far less scrutinized.

 

[Gally]

the overarching point being made seemed to be the assumption of corruption / buck passing on the DA’s behalf.

That may or may not be true, but if there’s a lack of evidence, the DA could simply dismiss on the merits (or lack thereof) and never face scrutiny for it.

This entire time up until now, the DA has made it clear that they would follow the evidence of this high profile case, and IF sufficient evidence existed they would advance it to the GJ.

Clearly that’s what’s happened here. This is a next step in the criminal justice process, and not a dismissal.

Regardless of intent of the DA, it’s certainly bad news for the Watson camp. 

I don't think there was any insinuation of corruption (or at least that wasn't anything I saw in this thread).  I think it was just a simple, rather than dismiss with lack of evidence and get blamed that the thought was the DA would just send it to the GJ for them to decide.  Not corruption or anything else.  Just taking away the idea of getting heat for not pressing charges.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't think there was any insinuation of corruption (or at least that wasn't anything I saw in this thread).  I think it was just a simple, rather than dismiss with lack of evidence and get blamed that the thought was the DA would just send it to the GJ for them to decide.  Not corruption or anything else.  Just taking away the idea of getting heat for not pressing charges.  

Ducking heat for not pressing charges is a corrupt, gutless act. 

Equal under the law is not just a cute phrase - it’s a clear statement that everyone gets equal treatment. 

If the DA can’t make an unbiased determination on the evidence & wishes to avoid culpability for the decision, he should recuse himself and let the ADA handle it. 

But make no mistake, kicking the can down the road to dodge consequences is as corrupt as it gets. So if the insinuation is that’s the reason he handed it to the GJ, then the assertion is that this DA is too gutless or politically motivated (or both) to make the call. 

IMO that’s a bit unfair to the DA, who’s said all along that the evidence of their investigation would determine the outcome & next steps. And I gave the DA that benefit of the doubt in my initial response.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hmm, I have not seen the comments you mention re: DA advancing to GJ if sufficient evidence existed. As you’ve worded it, I assume that means evidence supporting GJ review, and not necessarily sufficient to meet a DA’s own standard to file charges.

from the jump the DA’s office has said exactly that. You can Google it. It’s easy to find. They were asked for comment about it many times when this all was first reported on, and the DA’s office declined comment save to state that they would follow the evidence as revealed in their investigation & proceed from there. 

it’s a pretty canned response, tbh. It’s basically what every DA’s office says before an investigation begins. 

I disagree with your suggestion that a DA making a judgment call on mysterious evidence (or claiming lack of evidence) is beyond scrutiny. That would be very scrutinized unless the public also sees all evidence considered (which they won’t). GJ determination would be far less scrutinized.

wut

what “mystery evidence”? 

I said the DA can make a judgement call based on the evidence or lack thereof. 

meaning, there’s either evidence of a crime, or there’s not evidence of a crime. 

If the latter, it’s pretty easily dismissed by the DA. 

If the former, and there’s a mountain of evidence, it’s much more difficult to explain away as a judgement call. 

you seem to have dramatically misunderstood the post you quoted. 

 

[BigJim®]

from the jump the DA’s office has said exactly that. You can Google it. It’s easy to find. They were asked for comment about it many times when this all was first reported on, and the DA’s office declined comment save to state that they would follow the evidence as revealed in their investigation & proceed from there. 

it’s a pretty canned response, tbh. It’s basically what every DA’s office says before an investigation begins. 

wut

what “mystery evidence”? 

I said the DA can make a judgement call based on the evidence or lack thereof. 

meaning, there’s either evidence of a crime, or there’s not evidence of a crime. 

If the latter, it’s pretty easily dismissed by the DA. 

If the former, and there’s a mountain of evidence, it’s much more difficult to explain away as a judgement call. 

you seem to have dramatically misunderstood the post you quoted. 

I don’t think we’re disagreeing on the first topic, just maybe what ‘sufficient’ means. You have to understand sufficiency to bring to GJ is lower than sufficiency to file charges. 

You said a DA could easily dismiss on merits without any scrutiny if he deems lack of evidence. Maybe in some cases, but certainly not this highly publicized one, where there are allegations of assault to 24 women. This DA would definitely be scrutinized, and he would not say specifically why he reached the legal conclusion. That would be mysterious to the public. Avoiding that, and many other procedural benefits, make GJ a logical step.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This DA would definitely be scrutinized, and he would not say specifically why he reached the legal conclusion. That would be mysterious to the public. Avoiding that, and many other procedural benefits, make GJ a logical step.

If there’s insufficient evidence to proceed, what’s to scrutinize? 

That’s where I’m puzzled by this line of reasoning.

Gotta have evidence. If they investigate & find that timelines don’t match, witnesses are unreliable, testimony by witnesses could conflict, text messages misread, etc, then there’s no evidence.

the DA could easily dismiss on the lack of merit & while yes, there’d be scrutiny, no one worries about being scrutinized for doing the right thing.

Moving to the GJ advances the legal case against Watson any way you slice it. I don’t buy that it’s a cop out to let the GJ do his dirty work for him or let him off the hook or however it’s being framed. 

It advances this one step closer to a courtroom: that’s the only thing we know for certain. 

 

[Gally]

If there’s insufficient evidence to proceed, what’s to scrutinize? 

That’s where I’m puzzled by this line of reasoning.

Gotta have evidence. If they investigate & find that timelines don’t match, witnesses are unreliable, testimony by witnesses could conflict, text messages misread, etc, then there’s no evidence.

the DA could easily dismiss on the lack of merit & while yes, there’d be scrutiny, no one worries about being scrutinized for doing the right thing.

Moving to the GJ advances the legal case against Watson any way you slice it. I don’t buy that it’s a cop out to let the GJ do his dirty work for him or let him off the hook or however it’s being framed. 

It advances this one step closer to a courtroom: that’s the only thing we know for certain. 

Everyone sees things differently.....that includes deciding if there is enough evidence.  Person A may think there is enough evidence while person B does not.  That was my point before.  It has nothing to do with being gutless or corrupt.  Items like this are not black and white especially in a he said-she said type of thing.  If there is borderline evidence letting the GJ do their thing is the prudent thing even if the DA thinks it could go either way or even slightly leaning against.  

I totally don't get your corrupt take on this situation.

 

[BigJim®]

If there’s insufficient evidence to proceed, what’s to scrutinize? 

I feel like you’re yanking my chain. Do you really believe a DA will spell out why he thinks a case is doomed? Much of that will be ‘take my word for it.’

Just to be clear, I actually agree that a GJ proceeding is bad for Watson. It makes charges much more likely. A DA doesn’t need to present anything but favorable evidence, even if the case has warts. But the DA also has to be realistic. The warts still exist, and will come out at trial. Now, if the case is so shaky that it can’t get GJ indictment, better for that to happen than have the DA scrutinized for inaction, or getting laughed out of court filing a doomed case.

 

[JFS171]

Hmm, I have not seen the comments you mention re: DA advancing to GJ if sufficient evidence existed. As you’ve worded it, I assume that means evidence supporting GJ review, and not necessarily sufficient to meet a DA’s own standard to file charges.

I disagree with your suggestion that a DA making a judgment call on mysterious evidence (or claiming lack of evidence) is beyond scrutiny. That would be very scrutinized unless the public also sees all evidence considered (which they won’t). GJ determination would be far less scrutinized.

This is where I am as well. High profile defendant with anonymous plaintiffs and zero public availability of any evidence. I don’t believe anything I hear or read from either side on this because I don’t think any of us knows exactly what’s going on. 

However, I do believe the public thinks Watson is guilty, and DA dismissing the case without the grand jury would lead to far more public outcry than the grand jury saying there isn’t sufficient evidence. It’s a perception thing where the grand jury is made up of members of the public, so if they agree there’s not evidence, then so be it. 

I also think, even if indicted, this case is extremely difficult to prove criminal behavior when it’s so he said/she said. Perhaps there’s physical evidence beyond what we know today, or perhaps there’s nothing beyond accusations of being a creep. Is he a weirdo? Seems likely. Does that make him a criminal? Seems like a stretch. 

If indicted, which may be likely at this point, I expect any criminal charges to be settled in a plea agreement where Watson gets fined and community service in exchange for pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. Then the civil cases proceed through civil court. My suspicion is it’s going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to secure a conviction even if they’re able to secure an indictment. 

All that said, doesn’t mean he’s playing football this year. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This one is easy to send to the grand jury because you have 10 women filing criminal charges against him (and their testimony). It doesn't make him guilty, but it makes it worthy to take it to the next level.

 

[Faust]

Deshaun Watson 'fine' despite not practicing, says Texans coach David Culley

 

[BigJim®]

This one is easy to send to the grand jury because you have 10 women filing criminal charges against him (and their testimony). It doesn't make him guilty, but it makes it worthy to take it to the next level.

Right, assuming they want to get it to the next level. That could be a tricky question. The 'Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich' comment is a cliche I've heard before. We know the allegations, and they look bad at face value. What we don't know is what is causing the DA and NFL consternation. Maybe reluctant witnesses, who were assured this would be settled without need for public testimony. Maybe email exchanges or other evidence undermining the claims. We really can't know.

I'd hesitate shooting the undefended layup if I knew my prize is being forced to play Michael Jordan 1-1 in front of 360 million people.      

 

[tangfoot]

being forced to play Greek Freak

Euphemism?

 

[BigJim®]

Euphemism?

I'll be more clear with edit.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Everyone sees things differently.....that includes deciding if there is enough evidence.  Person A may think there is enough evidence while person B does not.  That was my point before.  It has nothing to do with being gutless or corrupt.  Items like this are not black and white especially in a he said-she said type of thing.  If there is borderline evidence letting the GJ do their thing is the prudent thing even if the DA thinks it could go either way or even slightly leaning against.  

I totally don't get your corrupt take on this situation.

Because you seem to be misreading the situation entirely. It's not a "he said/she said" type of thing. 

It's a he said she said she said she said she said x 22 kind of thing. And there's physical evidence of text messages to support it. 

It's this sort of playing fast and loose with the facts to support a narrative that seems to be at odds with having an honest conversation about what's happening with Watson & why the DA would move this on to the GJ. 

I get it - he's a football player.  Lots of narratives throughout this topic blaming the victims, or downplaying the severity of the case. Note: not saying you are doing that, but it's been a constant theme of this topic the last 20 pages or so. 

But there is certainly more going on here than a "he said/she said". 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Right, assuming they want to get it to the next level. That could be a tricky question. The 'Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich' comment is a cliche I've heard before.

Yes, I said it approximately 1 page back. lol 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Right, assuming they want to get it to the next level. That could be a tricky question. The 'Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich' comment is a cliche I've heard before. We know the allegations, and they look bad at face value. What we don't know is what is causing the DA and NFL consternation. Maybe reluctant witnesses, who were assured this would be settled without need for public testimony. Maybe email exchanges or other evidence undermining the claims. We really can't know.

I'd hesitate shooting the undefended layup if I knew my prize is being forced to play Michael Jordan 1-1 in front of 360 million people.      

By “next level”, I only meant sending it to the grand jury.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Maybe reluctant witnesses, who were assured this would be settled without need for public testimony. Maybe email exchanges or other evidence undermining the claims. We really can't know.   

I find it odd that all of your suppositions involve somehow discrediting the women.

Maybe they're telling the truth?  Maybe the evidence is strong enough in corroborating witness accounts, text messages, emails, etc. 

Weird that narrative never seems to enter the thought process of so many in this discussion.

No, it's all been about a frame-job by gold-diggers looking to cash in on Watson, and a DA looking to avoid responsibility. That's a delightfully misogynistic approach to this whole thing. 

That so many of the women want to advance this case and don't seem to be looking for a payout tells me Watson may be in a lot of trouble. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Because you seem to be misreading the situation entirely. It's not a "he said/she said" type of thing. 

It's a he said she said she said she said she said x 22 kind of thing. And there's physical evidence of text messages to support it. 

It's this sort of playing fast and loose with the facts to support a narrative that seems to be at odds with having an honest conversation about what's happening with Watson & why the DA would move this on to the GJ. 

I get it - he's a football player.  Lots of narratives throughout this topic blaming the victims, or downplaying the severity of the case. Note: not saying you are doing that, but it's been a constant theme of this topic the last 20 pages or so. 

But there is certainly more going on here than a "he said/she said". 

For the criminal case, I believe it’s only 10 women - not that that changes your point much.

 

[Gally]

Because you seem to be misreading the situation entirely. It's not a "he said/she said" type of thing. 

It's a he said she said she said she said she said x 22 kind of thing. And there's physical evidence of text messages to support it. 

It's this sort of playing fast and loose with the facts to support a narrative that seems to be at odds with having an honest conversation about what's happening with Watson & why the DA would move this on to the GJ. 

I get it - he's a football player.  Lots of narratives throughout this topic blaming the victims, or downplaying the severity of the case. Note: not saying you are doing that, but it's been a constant theme of this topic the last 20 pages or so. 

But there is certainly more going on here than a "he said/she said". 

I am unaware of any evidence because I am not involved in the case at all.  Everything in the media is hearsay an is not evidence.  I was speaking in generalities for the typical case involving this type of allegation.  The discussion in this thread was about why or why not the DA would present to the grand jury and it was alluded that he was eventually going to the GJ regardless of the evidence (which I have no knowledge of)  because of the scrutiny that would come without going to the GJ in not bringing charges.  

I don't believe I am misreading anything.  I believe you are taking the multiple allegations and making that a "preponderance of evidence" to bring charges against Watson.   I really have no idea one way or the other.  It seems like something is going on but I have not seen any real evidence.  Only allegations (he said-she said).  I am really not sure why you keep arguing on this as I think we are in the same camp for the most part...........that this should go to the GJ for them to decide if charges need to be brought.  

 

[Gally]

I find it odd that all of your suppositions involve somehow discrediting the women.

Maybe they're telling the truth?  Maybe the evidence is strong enough in corroborating witness accounts, text messages, emails, etc. 

Weird that narrative never seems to enter the thought process of so many in this discussion.

No, it's all been about a frame-job by gold-diggers looking to cash in on Watson, and a DA looking to avoid responsibility. That's a delightfully misogynistic approach to this whole thing. 

That so many of the women want to advance this case and don't seem to be looking for a payout tells me Watson may be in a lot of trouble. 

Or is that we are assuming innocent until proven guilty?  I don't see this as discrediting the women in as much as it is just pointing out that nothing is known yet.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am unaware of any evidence because I am not involved in the case at all.  Everything in the media is hearsay an is not evidence.  I was speaking in generalities for the typical case involving this type of allegation.  The discussion in this thread was about why or why not the DA would present to the grand jury and it was alluded that he was eventually going to the GJ regardless of the evidence (which I have no knowledge of)  because of the scrutiny that would come without going to the GJ in not bringing charges.  

I don't believe I am misreading anything.  I believe you are taking the multiple allegations and making that a "preponderance of evidence" to bring charges against Watson.   I really have no idea one way or the other.  It seems like something is going on but I have not seen any real evidence.  Only allegations (he said-she said).  I am really not sure why you keep arguing on this as I think we are in the same camp for the most part...........that this should go to the GJ for them to decide if charges need to be brought.  

Multiple witnesses with corroborating accounts = evidence. 

Text messages & emails = evidence. 

To describe this as a "he said/she said" is counter to the facts that we know. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Or is that we are assuming innocent until proven guilty?  I don't see this as discrediting the women in as much as it is just pointing out that nothing is known yet.  

Except, you know, the specific things I quoted that are both calling out the integrity of the women. Otherwise spot on, I guess. lol 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For the criminal case, I believe it’s only 10 women - not that that changes your point much.

right - there were 22 women involved, 10 who wish to pursue this criminally. Point is indeed the same.

 

[Gally]

Multiple witnesses with corroborating accounts = evidence. 

Text messages & emails = evidence. 

To describe this as a "he said/she said" is counter to the facts that we know. 

Well, I have not seen the "evidence".......just media reports.  Things become a lot different when it's actually in court and what juries are directed to see as evidence, etc.  And what needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict.  

At this point it is he said/she said.  You seem to have already jumped all the way to conviction based on media reports (unless you are privy to the actual DA's case and know what really is in there).  

 

[BigJim®]

I find it odd that all of your suppositions involve somehow discrediting the women.

Maybe they're telling the truth?  Maybe the evidence is strong enough in corroborating witness accounts, text messages, emails, etc. 

Weird that narrative never seems to enter the thought process of so many in this discussion.

No, it's all been about a frame-job by gold-diggers looking to cash in on Watson, and a DA looking to avoid responsibility. That's a delightfully misogynistic approach to this whole thing. 

That so many of the women want to advance this case and don't seem to be looking for a payout tells me Watson may be in a lot of trouble. 

You think I should presuppose plaintiff positive reasons for NFL/DA inaction to date? Based on your several prior replies to me, you are reading way too much into my intent, my position, how I view the allegations, credibility, what have you. I'm here only because it is an interesting Legal situation. If the outcome is Watson spending the rest of his days in a dungeon, I really won't care.

 

[Gally]

Except, you know, the specific things I quoted that are both calling out the integrity of the women. Otherwise spot on, I guess. lol 

You seem to have already concluded guilt.  Not much to discuss with that already being decided.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You seem to have already concluded guilt.  Not much to discuss with that already being decided.

I have not concluded anything. 

What a ridiculous thing to assert based on my comments. 

I have concluded that it's an open investigation & they have corroborating witness accounts and texts. And that it is not a "he said/she said" situation, as you assert. 

That doesn't mean I believe Watson is guilty, it just means that I don't think all women are hookers or gold diggers, and that there's enough evidence to move forward. 

That seems to jive with reality here.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You think I should presuppose plaintiff positive reasons for NFL/DA inaction to date? Based on your several prior replies to me, you are reading way too much into my intent, my position, how I view the allegations, credibility, what have you. I'm here only because it is an interesting Legal situation. If the outcome is Watson spending the rest of his days in a dungeon, I really won't care.

I'm not asserting anything about you other than quoting you and responding to your words. You seem a bit defensive about it. Maybe choose better words if that bothers you? 

There's a way to describe the accusers that doesn't paint them in the worst possible light with each supposition. 

If you're just playing Devil's advocate & describing possible scenarios, then maybe lead with that so I don't take that as your opinion. 

I'm here for the same reason - it's an interesting situation.

 

[BigJim®]

Maybe choose better words if that bothers you? 

Nah, I'll use my words.

And FWIW- nothing I've written "describe the accusers" or "paint them in the worst possible light." 

 

[Gally]

I have not concluded anything. 

What a ridiculous thing to assert based on my comments. 

I have concluded that it's an open investigation & they have corroborating witness accounts and texts. And that it is not a "he said/she said" situation, as you assert. 

That doesn't mean I believe Watson is guilty, it just means that I don't think all women are hookers or gold diggers, and that there's enough evidence to move forward. 

That seems to jive with reality here.  

Ok, let me ask this......how many plaintiffs stating their own events makes it no longer a he said-she said event?  If there isn't video or physical evidence to show what really happened and it's just people stating their side (separately - meaning there weren't three people in the room) when does it not become he-said/she-said?

I understand that many individuals stating the same thing can allude to a pattern and that is stronger than one person saying it but it doesn't change it from being a he-said/she said event.  It still comes down to the credibility of the people stating their side of the stories (and I am not making value judgements for either side.....just stating that in these type cases it completely hinges on the credibility of the witnesses).  

 

[RC94]

Unless something has changed, and I admit I haven't followed this as closely as some of you, but isn't Watson's defense that it was consensual?  He isn't denying that some of these things happened, he's just denying that it's harassment because he is claiming it was consensual.

 

[oswizzle]

Girls from Instagram that want to come over and give u a personal massage are undercover escorts... Watson is super Freaky like Rick James.....Maybe he was a cheap tipper?  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Nah, I'll use my words.

And FWIW- nothing I've written "describe the accusers" or "paint them in the worst possible light." 

Other than your post that I directly quoted, you mean?

 

[BigJim®]

Other than your post that I directly quoted, you mean?

Care to elaborate what I wrote that "paints them in the worst possible light"? 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Ok, let me ask this......how many plaintiffs stating their own events makes it no longer a he said-she said event?  If there isn't video or physical evidence to show what really happened and it's just people stating their side (separately - meaning there weren't three people in the room) when does it not become he-said/she-said?

a text is considered physical evidence. Multiple texts as well. 

it’s not just based on word of mouth. There is evidence. 

I understand that many individuals stating the same thing can allude to a pattern and that is stronger than one person saying it but it doesn't change it from being a he-said/she said event.  It still comes down to the credibility of the people stating their side of the stories (and I am not making value judgements for either side.....just stating that in these type cases it completely hinges on the credibility of the witnesses).  

this isn’t accurate. 

Corroborating evidence is when multiple witnesses tell the same story. 

It does absolutely change from a he said/she said scenario, and is literally called “evidence”. 
 

“Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.” 

initial evidence = first claim, text messages.

dozens of others saying the same thing = corroborating evidence. 

Whatever the case may be with Watson’s innocence or guilt, there’s more than enough evidence to go to GJ. From there it could still be dismissed or then proceed to a trial. 

And at some point team Watson may decide it places him enough potential jeopardy to attempt to settle. 

And then the women will have to decide if they want justice or $ (no judgement here either way - it’s simply a fact that they’ll have a choice as to whether they choose to accept a settlement or not). 

It should all be fascinating to see unfold. If Watson is innocent, he’ll be cleared. If not, he won’t be. 

Regardless, this is not a “he said/she said”. That’s not even debatable at this point.

There’s witness testimony from 10 women, and there’s Watson denying it. 

 

[ffmail4me]

Unless something has changed, and I admit I haven't followed this as closely as some of you, but isn't Watson's defense that it was consensual?  He isn't denying that some of these things happened, he's just denying that it's harassment because he is claiming it was consensual.

This is key. I also believe Watson never denied some sexual encounters happened, but he said it was 100% consensual. And that I can still very much believe. Guys with his fame and money don't need to force a woman to do anything (nor should they). For every one that said I don't do that, I'm sure there were 10 others willing. Watson for sure is guilty of being stupid, but that's very different than guilty of forcing himself or harassment, and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Care to elaborate what I wrote that "paints them in the worst possible light"? 

You could read what I quoted. It’s pretty self-explanatory.  You supposed that their testimony was unreliable and alleged “emails” existed to prove this, and you supposed that witnesses were unreliable. Neither of those are neutral. 

you then got defensive about it saying “You think I should presuppose plaintiff positive reasons for NFL/DA inaction to date?”

no, I don’t. But being plaintiff negative isn’t the same as being neutral either. 
 

it’s cool - nothing said in this topic is going to effect the case. Let’s just take a breath and see how it proceeds instead of alleging unreliability or reluctance based on “being assured of a payout” (which kinda maybe paints them as gold diggers, to anyone with good reading comprehension). 

Unless something has changed, and I admit I haven't followed this as closely as some of you, but isn't Watson's defense that it was consensual?  He isn't denying that some of these things happened, he's just denying that it's harassment because he is claiming it was consensual.

It’s the only possible defense he could mount since there were witnesses & text messages arranging the meetings. 

many of us speculated that he would go that route long before he did. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Watson for sure is guilty of being stupid,

I think with this statement we have all found middle ground.

because this is the most true thing posted in this entire topic.

 

[BigJim®]

You could read what I quoted. It’s pretty self-explanatory.  You supposed that their testimony was unreliable and alleged “emails” existed to prove this, and you supposed that witnesses were unreliable. Neither of those are neutral. 

That's not accurate. I did not suppose that their testimony was unreliable. I did not say emails existed to prove this (that testimony was unreliable). I did not suppose witnesses were unreliable. In fact, I don't think I used the term unreliable at all. Honestly, you are making that all up.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That's not accurate. I did not suppose that their testimony was unreliable. I did not say emails existed to prove this (that testimony was unreliable). I did not suppose witnesses were unreliable. In fact, I don't think I used the term unreliable at all. Honestly, you are making that all up.

I only quoted you. 
 

 

[BigJim®]

I only quoted you. 
 

Yes, and what you quoted was not at all what you described. I did not paint anyone in the worst possible light. At all. 

 

[RC94]

This is key. I also believe Watson never denied some sexual encounters happened, but he said it was 100% consensual. And that I can still very much believe. Guys with his fame and money don't need to force a woman to do anything (nor should they). For every one that said I don't do that, I'm sure there were 10 others willing. Watson for sure is guilty of being stupid, but that's very different than guilty of forcing himself or harassment, and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  

I'm the opposite of the bolded part.  He's been through like 60 different massage therapists already and he still has most of his career remaining, which is beyond unusual.  Even OJ Simpson, who will not hesitate to defend fellow criminals, said that amount is crazy and that he never had more than 4 or 5 in his career.  IMO, when he says it's consensual but 22+ women say it's not, I tend to believe the women.  If it was him vs. 1 woman, then I would probably lean towards believing him, but in this case I think Watson is in trouble.

 

[Gally]

Corroborating evidence is when multiple witnesses tell the same story. 

It does absolutely change from a he said/she said scenario, and is literally called “evidence”. 
 

“Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.” 

initial evidence = first claim, text messages.

dozens of others saying the same thing = corroborating evidence. 

A question regarding "corroborating evidence".............if each of the 22 people have their own story and nobody that can vouch for that is that considered corroborating evidence by the legal definition or is it just signaling a pattern and the jury is to weight it however they see fit?

I think this is where my disconnect is.  If these are totally separate instances each one is he-said/she said.  The multiple complaints then show a pattern but does that mean it is "corroborating evidence" since they aren't the same event?

 

[ffmail4me]

I'm the opposite of the bolded part.  He's been through like 60 different massage therapists already and he still has most of his career remaining, which is beyond unusual.  Even OJ Simpson, who will not hesitate to defend fellow criminals, said that amount is crazy and that he never had more than 4 or 5 in his career.  IMO, when he says it's consensual but 22+ women say it's not, I tend to believe the women.  If it was him vs. 1 woman, then I would probably lean towards believing him, but in this case I think Watson is in trouble.

He could very well could up the creek but again, its no secret a lot of "massage therapist" are call or service girls...maybe that was his thing...but again, paying for a service that is mutual is VERY different than the chargers we are hearing...He may be guilty of everything they are saying, but again, just seems so odd knowing has fame and wealth that he would have to force his way through any of this. Prostitution is one of the oldest trades in the world, billion dollar business done by tons of willing participants...yet he would rather force himself on someone who said no? Just doesn't make sense

 

[Apple Juice]

He could very well could up the creek but again, its no secret a lot of "massage therapist" are call or service girls...maybe that was his thing...but again, paying for a service that is mutual is VERY different than the chargers we are hearing...He may be guilty of everything they are saying, but again, just seems so odd knowing has fame and wealth that he would have to force his way through any of this. Prostitution is one of the oldest trades in the world, billion dollar business done by tons of willing participants...yet he would rather force himself on someone who said no? Just doesn't make sense

It blows my mind that people still think this way. Sexual assault is far more about power than sex. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It blows my mind that people still think this way. Sexual assault is far more about power than sex. 

I'll add to this that there's something of a double standard at work here when people demand Watson be considered innocent until proven guilty, yet there's a presumption of guilt surrounding his alleged victims. 

Victims of sexual assault are often painted as sexually promiscuous, being dressed a certain way, leading men on, etc, etc, etc. In this case it's been asserted several times that they're out for an easy payday. 

Victims are also innocent until proven guilty, and attitudes to the contrary are why so many women don't come forward to report sexual assault. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

He could very well could up the creek but again, its no secret a lot of "massage therapist" are call or service girls...maybe that was his thing...but again, paying for a service that is mutual is VERY different than the chargers we are hearing...He may be guilty of everything they are saying, but again, just seems so odd knowing has fame and wealth that he would have to force his way through any of this. Prostitution is one of the oldest trades in the world, billion dollar business done by tons of willing participants...yet he would rather force himself on someone who said no? Just doesn't make sense

You have any evidence to support that these massage therapists were prostitutes? If not, this is a really bad argument to be making.