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!
You don't have to worry about insulting me for anything the Browns do. It has nothing to do with me. I don't take credit for their successes or responsibility for their gaffs.
If you're asking that, I'm guessing you haven't read the article to see what their known involvement consisted of. At this point it's more a great headline than something substantial.
So they got him a membership at a hotel/club/spa facility, and he used a room there for a couple of the massages. With (I believe) two of the massage therapists, the one flown in from Atlanta, and one who knew his girlfriend.
That's what we have to go on. We don't know what Watson told them. The conversation could be anything at this point.
Presuming you mean aiding and abetting, probably not. At least unless there’s a lot more we don’t know (which I guess there could be).
We have no way of knowing yet, but it's easy to believe a bunch of theories at this point because the Texans were run by buffoons between Bob McNair's death and Nick Caserio's hiring (and there is still some buffoonery after the latter).-OZ- said:
This is my surprised face:
She worked on the case that failed to convince two grand juries to prosecute her case, she is biased.
Yes - it was straight forward. What motivation does she have to be biased?
Her bias is based on her job and gender.
I'm personally not comfortable with assumption of guilt and needing to prove your innocence but even if we agreed that bias can be a good thing for an investigation my point of calling out her bias was not so much the impact on her investigation. More the impact in the court of public opinion when people see a headline like "detective thinks Watson committed a crime". It seems most people just run with that but that's were I think understanding the bias she has when making that claim would impact her opinion and statement.
From my standpoint, I'd be willing to bet that no one was surprised. That is, he was looking for more than massage and everyone knew it. Again, this is my guess and I could be wrong. If I am wrong and he sprang up without warning, abandoning his towel, and threw himself onto unsuspecting innocent women, then he deserves substantial punishment, and the prosecutor who presented things to GJ deserves charges, as well. That may be the truth. I hope we get to know it. I have doubts, but they don't count.
if you don’t work in a similar field, you might be surprised at how often highly trained, motivated individuals can be subconsciously biased or just develop blind spots. That doesn’t mean she is, or even if she is that she went into the investigation with the bias. And any bias is not necessarily due to her gender. But if you work on a case or investigation long enough, you tend to want to see justice. The bias is common enough that we (Army) don’t even permit the same attorney who advised the investigator to advise the decider of fact or deem an investigation legally sufficient.
For the NFL, it would seem the first, beat case scenario for him, is enough to suspend him for at least a few games.
Yes - I mean the word “suspect” implies you suspect they may be guilty and either they can build a case or not. She clearly thinks he was guilty (that doesn’t mean he is) and that surely does not violate the proposition of “innocent until proven guilty” because as you point out that’s a trial standard and not applicable to a police investigation - in fact the police are part of “The State” who are the ones that are claiming the defendant IS GUILTY at the trial.
Serious fail on my part this morning. I see now that it's a typo. For a while, I thought maybe I missed the part about beating someone up.
That wasn’t what he was beating.
Thanks. To be clear here, I mean Justice as seen in the eyes of the investigator. Fwiw, I had a cop (MP) lie in my first grand jury type proceeding (article 32 for those familiar). Defense called him out on it, I dismissed the witness, informed his supervisor and didn’t use him in the case.
I wonder if the Commisioner's Exempt List is an option until the dust settles?
could be wrong but thought reports were previously that for whatever reason the exempt list was "off the table" in the Watson situation....(although it seems like this is a perfect example of why the list even exists)....thought I did hear some rumblings that it now may be brought back in as an option with the way things have shook out...
What motivation would the NFL have to do such a thing? It would only serve to create a negative media cycle, and paint the NFL as unwilling to take even token action on this.
They've not seemed inclined to want to use it in this situation and in general they don't seem to want to use this any longer unless a player is under criminal charges.
I'm finding this to be the bottom line in the Court of Public Opinion. People have decided for themselves and then seek accounts and opinions to support that decision. Here's an example: over 17 months he employed 66 (a number he denies) women. Those who have concluded the things you have, will be shocked that he assaulted that many and escaped prison. Those who admit they don't know all the facts will tell you that one massage a week is far from damning. That said, he just now maintained publicly that he never disrespected, assaulted, or abused any woman, which IMO leaves room for paying them for the "rub & tug". That's how it adds up for me and I'm okay with it, but at the same time, I don't have access to interviews and evidence, so my guess is irrelevant.
Your scenario is different than believing some did something before even investigating. Your scenario is after the investigation leads to video, weapons, blood evidence, DNA, etc. Then based on that evidence forming a conclusion because of it. Two drastically different things
There's also some in-between on that spectrum. He may have had consensual relations with some. Whether that constitutes prostitution, or merely cheating on his g/f might be a bit of a gray area. He also may have assumed that because he had consensual relations with some (by either definition), that others would be receptive to his advances.
There was a long and windy call of outrage that detectives might be biased by an investigation. That is what I was responding to with that sarcasm.
Kinda what I was getting at. I think that the "never abused" stuff plays into the DA's actions not to make a serious effort at prosecution. It's like (my words), "Houston is a huge city. We don't prosecute for that stuff unless there's proof of violence." And, Watson says, "It was about massage". (which adds up to a lie, in my eyes) But, that's the way this particular legal game is played in public. Behind the scenes, I can see him owning up to paying for happy endings -- to everyone. Now, you might ask, "What about the things alleged in the civil suits?" To start with, I have trouble believing any of the parties were caught unaware. It seems they knew about the towel thing ahead of time, as some have stated, and there was a text about making sure they were comfortable touching his glutes. Are people this naïve? I have my doubts. But, even so, that's the time to make sure things are plainly stated. Do I believe everything stated in the suits happened exactly as stated? Do you? Embellishment is part of how the game is played. To me, he p***ed someone off & they decided to go public. The circus has arrived and will clean up when it leaves.
Falls a little flat in light of team Watson offering $100K ea to the plaintiffs to settle.
I am not so sure they are mutually exclusive. I can see offering up a pittance (which is what $100K would be for these allegations) to try and get it to go away but once it's turned down then go all out to prove his innocence.
