Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Deshaun Watson - In Limbo with no real news happening, speculation & rumours filling the thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And now you see why women are hesitant to come forward, you have 13 of them saying the same thing and still there is a not insignificant amount of people who assume they are just trying to hustle a bu

I find it humorous that some people think it's just an easy thing for a woman to lie about something like this about a high profile person, let alone finding 15+.  Like they just decide they're lookin

Any word on Bill Cosby?

2 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Not sure what you mean by “on the word of the attorney”.  16 lawsuits have been filed.  The fact that the plaintiff is Jane Doe for privacy reasons doesn’t call into question whether they exist or not. 

It , combined with the attorney's refusal to provide names to Watson's attorneys, calls into question literally everything about it.

The claim of "for privacy reasons" in context, is a schtick to prevent Watson's attorneys from investigating their claims/credibility, etc. 

This isn't an accusation by me, it is what it is. If they are reputable licensed sports massage therapists, they have no reason to "protect their privacy". In fact, their credentials & references as certified massage therapists would go toward the credibility of their claims. 

That's what I mean, "on the word of their attorney" - we have no idea who is claiming what. Right now *everything is at the word of the plaintiff's attorney*. So I meant exactly what I typed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kittenmittens said:

I would assume there are some checks and balances - would anyone beyond Buzbee have independent verification of their identity? 

*at this point in the process. 

Watson's attorneys have every right to know who is accusing them. 

If it were you or I being accused, we would want to know who our accusers were. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hot Sauce Guy said:

It , combined with the attorney's refusal to provide names to Watson's attorneys, calls into question literally everything about it.

The claim of "for privacy reasons" in context, is a schtick to prevent Watson's attorneys from investigating their claims/credibility, etc. 

This isn't an accusation by me, it is what it is. If they are reputable licensed sports massage therapists, they have no reason to "protect their privacy". In fact, their credentials & references as certified massage therapists would go toward the credibility of their claims. 

That's what I mean, "on the word of their attorney" - we have no idea who is claiming what. Right now *everything is at the word of the plaintiff's attorney*. So I meant exactly what I typed. 

I hear you.  But it is early days.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

At what point does the accused get to face his accusers?

At trial

But Watson's attorney(s) have the right to know who is making the accusations so they may conduct their own investigation and/or match up accusers with whatever evidence they may have that contradicts the accusers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Should be able to for this as well.  I don’t believe in anonymity unless they are underage.

Anonymity and "facing your accusers" are two different things. Generally speaking, complaints must name all parties, so their names will most likely become known to him. But as for seeing them in person and hearing their testimonials and side of the story, that won't happen unless they proceed with the trial. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

At trial

But Watson's attorney(s) have the right to know who is making the accusations so they may conduct their own investigation and/or match up accusers with whatever evidence they may have that contradicts the accusers.  

Yes, exactly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Pretty sure the thread is under the control of the fake trollers, who inflame for entertainment.

:IBTL:

Seems back on track. Hit a rough "incel/misogyny" patch for a minute there, but it seems to have steered back into the light. No need to lock. Maybe a need to give one dude a time-out though. lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zoonation said:

I hear you.  But it is early days.  

Oh, no question. I agree completely.  But when it comes to accusations like this, the only reason to Jane Doe anyone that I'm aware of is if

1. they are under-age (not applicable)

2. credible threat of danger should their ID be revealed, like testifying against the mob (don't see how that's the case with a high profile public figure like Watson) 

3. self-incrimination - this one might hold water, but not in a way that helps the accusers. 

I'm not an attorney - my pops is one, and I took 2 years of business law as part of my degree program so I know some things, but obviously we never went this deep. I do not profess to be a defense attorney. 

But like I said - it seems like the accusers would only be more credible if we knew that they were actually licensed massage professionals with clients who haven't been overtly sexual with them. Obscuring their names makes it more, not less likely that these are "working girls". 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Oh, no question. I agree completely.  But when it comes to accusations like this, the only reason to Jane Doe anyone that I'm aware of is if

1. they are under-age (not applicable)

2. credible threat of danger should their ID be revealed, like testifying against the mob (don't see how that's the case with a high profile public figure like Watson) 

3. self-incrimination - this one might hold water, but not in a way that helps the accusers. 

I'm not an attorney - my pops is one, and I took 2 years of business law as part of my degree program so I know some things, but obviously we never went this deep. I do not profess to be a defense attorney. 

But like I said - it seems like the accusers would only be more credible if we knew that they were actually licensed massage professionals with clients who haven't been overtly sexual with them. Obscuring their names makes it more, not less likely that these are "working girls". 

There can be many reasons to Jane Doe and consider for one moment that saying, “...that I’m aware of..” is a statement of ignorance on the subject. Let’s wait and hear the reasons for their anonymity. 
 

I’m not walking around here feeling all woke but even if they end up being “working girls” does not in any way change if they could or could not have been sexually assaulted. This type of thinking gives credence to why they should remain anonymous, so the court of public opinion doesn’t get a chance to “hear the case” without it being presented properly before a judge, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmv5 said:

There can be many reasons to Jane Doe and consider for one moment that saying, “...that I’m aware of..” is a statement of ignorance on the subject. Let’s wait and hear the reasons for their anonymity. 

Obviously - it was me saying "I do not know all the reasons"

Calm down. 

8 minutes ago, cmv5 said:

I’m not walking around here feeling all woke but even if they end up being “working girls” does not in any way change if they could or could not have been sexually assaulted. This type of thinking gives credence to why they should remain anonymous, so the court of public opinion doesn’t get a chance to “hear the case” without it being presented properly before a judge, etc. 

I never said nor implied that it did. Again, calm down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Quote

Dan Wetzel @DanWetzel

A 15th and 16th massage therapist has filed lawsuits against Deshaun Watson. Both women hail from Texas. The allegations, and apparent contemporaneous discussions with family about what happened, by Jane Doe 15 are the most significant of the two. static.fox26houston.com/www.fox26houst…

https://twitter.com/danwetzel/status/1374479045409132567?s=21

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Obviously - it was me saying "I do not know all the reasons"

Calm down. 

I never said nor implied that it did. Again, calm down. 

I am totally calm but nice try with the textbook gaslight. 

“But like I said - it seems like the accusers would only be more credible if we knew that they were actually licensed massage professionals with clients who haven't been overtly sexual with them. Obscuring their names makes it more, not less likely that these are "working girls".”

 

please explain the above statement but try to do it calmly  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cmv5 said:

I am totally calm but nice try with the textbook gaslight. 

“But like I said - it seems like the accusers would only be more credible if we knew that they were actually licensed massage professionals with clients who haven't been overtly sexual with them. Obscuring their names makes it more, not less likely that these are "working girls".”

 

please explain the above statement but try to do it calmly  

 

I think the problem is, and has been, why not report to your management if you have it... or why not report to local police department. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmv5 said:

I am totally calm but nice try with the textbook gaslight. 

“But like I said - it seems like the accusers would only be more credible if we knew that they were actually licensed massage professionals with clients who haven't been overtly sexual with them. Obscuring their names makes it more, not less likely that these are "working girls".”

 

please explain the above statement but try to do it calmly  

 

I've posted quite a bit in this topic and have always been careful to couch my statements with non-accusatory language, looking at this issue from both  sides. That you came steamrolling in to the latest page, all full of wokeness is on you, and does us both a disservice.  

I suggest you read back so you don't continue to make a fool out of yourself. I'm done engaging your bad faith presumptions. 

What you choose to infer from my last few posts is entirely on you if you choose to ignore my other contributions to this topic

Good day. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t seen a complaint to massage mangers nor police. This is very strange.

Now, I am not saying this isn’t a touchy subject. But some of the victims alleged happenings should have been reported. We are talking about 20 women. 
 

It is bizarre. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackbear said:

Maybe we will see complaints from spa owners. But why is there no filings at all? 

They could well be "independent". 

For those new to this topic, that doesn't imply anything one way or another. Both professional and "working girls" masseuses operate independently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hot Sauce Guy said:

They could well be "independent". 

For those new to this topic, that doesn't imply anything one way or another. Both professional and "working girls" masseuses operate independently. 

Yet one said she felt uncomfortable operating under a spa owner. Then she took him as a client on her own. Did she report to previous spa owner? Should be a report given guidelines of owning a business. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blackbear said:

Yet one said she felt uncomfortable operating under a spa owner. Then she took him as a client on her own. Did she report to previous spa owner? Should be a report given guidelines of owning a business. 

Ah, yeah I'd missed that. It's a good question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackbear said:

I’m not trying to defend him. But I also see there is something very very fishy with this lawyer Buzbee. 

I think after all these pages, we're only couching our statements in the least accusatory tones or making disclaimers like this out of fear of a n00b coming in on this page and casting judgement out of context. 

I totally got what ya meant, no worries at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I think after all these pages, we're only couching our statements in the least accusatory tones or making disclaimers like this out of fear of a n00b coming in on this page and casting judgement out of context. 

I totally got what ya meant, no worries at all. 

Why the no worries at all? 
 

If I’m his defense attorney, I’m hammering him on the no idea who owns the Houston owner nor their family. His ability to represent them comes into question for a lawyer not owned in Houston. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blackbear said:

Why the no worries at all? 
 

If I’m his defense attorney, I’m hammering him on the no idea who owns the Houston owner nor their family. His ability to represent them comes into question for a lawyer not owned in Houston. 

Oh, Watson still has PLENTY of worries. 

I meant no need for you to post a disclaimer, you've posted enough that I think folks know what you meant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m definitely in wait and see mode.  But I would think if you’re an upstanding guy (meaning all you want is an actual massage) and you find a good massage therapist you keep them.  I would find it odd if Desean says “I go to all kinds of masssage therapists and I’ve never done anything shady”.  Why so many?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hoh said:

I’m definitely in wait and see mode.  But I would think if you’re an upstanding guy (meaning all you want is an actual massage) and you find a good massage therapist you keep them.  I would find it odd if Desean says “I go to all kinds of masssage therapists and I’ve never done anything shady”.  Why so many?  

Why so many?  You don’t.  You also don’t fly them in. But, if they were “Working girls”and I’m not saying they are, but if they were, then I can see them flying to meet up with Watson.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Why so many?  You don’t.  You also don’t fly them in. But, if they were “Working girls”and I’m not saying they are, but if they were, then I can see them flying to meet up with Watson.

Occam's Razor strikes again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hoh said:

I’m definitely in wait and see mode.  But I would think if you’re an upstanding guy (meaning all you want is an actual massage) and you find a good massage therapist you keep them.  I would find it odd if Desean says “I go to all kinds of masssage therapists and I’ve never done anything shady”.  Why so many?  

I don’t doubt he’s done more than get massages. The question is was it consensual? And as far as there being 15,16, or 57 accusers, hell if there’s no consequences I might even give Buzbee a call and take my chances on a quick pay day. 
 

Put some %!£€!ing consequences on the other side and I’m pretty sure the numbers of accusations dry up pretty quick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, The Show said:

Put some %!£€!ing consequences on the other side and I’m pretty sure the numbers of accusations dry up pretty quick. 

The challenge with this is that teeters close to victim-blaming. 

At this point, the legal system must grind its gears to whatever conclusion is to come. We just don't know enough. There's a lot of weird about this thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnnyU said:

No

Yes - the 2 obvious reasons for flying in 15 women may be 

1. they're working girls

2. he's a freak who professional women don't make a 2nd appointment with

those are the only obvious reasons, thus Occam's Razor suggests that one of those is true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of Occam's razor

: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Don't what? Teach you what Occam's Razor means? 

You seem confused, friend. 

I thought you were referencing the dude that went off the rails earlier.  Otherwise I don’t care about that.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I thought you were referencing the dude that went off the rails earlier.  Otherwise I don’t care about that.

lol - no, I was completely agreeing with your post. I was so confused there. All good, buddy. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

Were you one of the dudes convicting Brian Banks?

You be one of those dudes who think you are woke cuz you believe women without evidence. 

What is it with a site full of mostly men in a manly game battling to be the most woke that they believe all women as if they get a medal?

Wait, men cant talk like men cuz, you know...wokeness. I'm a man, I'll defend men against men just believing women are traitors. How about that? 

People dont like it when you defend men.

I feel no shame for defending men against women who do this stuff all the time. And we know it, but nope...wokeness is what matters not reality.

jesus

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Yes - the 2 obvious reasons for flying in 15 women may be 

1. they're working girls

2. he's a freak who professional women don't make a 2nd appointment with

those are the only obvious reasons, thus Occam's Razor suggests that one of those is true. 

I haven't read all of the cases, but out of the first half dozen I did skim the summaries of, only one talked about flying someone in. 

Where does this flying in 15 women thing come from? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Definition of Occam's razor

: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Naw

A better definition would be:

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions and equal explanatory power should be chosen.

People often make the mistake that the first part of the definition - also thought of as simplicity - is OR in its entirety and the ruling factor. But it must also have equal clarity.

The Watson case in it’s current form is a suboptimal situation to try to apply it.

Which is, like, just my opinion man.

Edited by BobbyLayne
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zoonation said:

Someone bat signal @Zow

This is civil defense. It’s a bit different from criminal defense. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Faust changed the title to Deshaun Watson - In Limbo with no real news happening, speculation & rumours filling the thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...