Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

QB Deshaun Watson, HOU


Faust

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, dhockster said:

 

I am curious, what hard evidence do you want in a sexual harassment/assault case like this? If Deshaun did rub his penis on a majority of the women, which is what they are asserting, what evidence will there be other than her word that he did it? Is there such a thing as a penis print, and if so are they unique to each person? And did they dust for penis prints?

First of, penis print sounds like the least popular font/watermark.

I think these cases are tough without DNA evidence, or video. The system works as innocent until proven guilty, and while 24 people potentially having a story doesn't look good, its also not really proof. I'm 100% on board that Watson is almost certainly a sleazy dude, but at the moment, no provable crimes have been committed, and I think its actually kind of unfair if he isn't allowed to play this season because of a PR thing. I know some people have made the argument that the NFL is saying sexual assault is ok, by not already suspending Watson, but those people scare me, the guilty in the court of public opinion types, who absolutely would have been witchburners in a previous lifetime.

Edited by travdogg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, travdogg said:

First of, penis print sounds like the least popular font/watermark.

I think these cases are tough without DNA evidence, or video. The system works as innocent until proven guilty, and while 24 people potentially having a story doesn't look good, its also not really proof. I'm 100% on board that Watson is almost certainly a sleazy dude, but at the moment, no provable crimes have been committed, and I think its actually kind of unfair if he isn't allowed to play this season because of a PR thing. I know some people have made the argument that the NFL is saying sexual assault is ok, by not already suspending Watson, but those people scare me, the guilty in the court of public opinion types, who absolutely would have been witchburners in a previous lifetime.


Does Watson float?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

 


Tell me nobody knows anything without telling me nobody knows anything.


Could have been the Eagles floating something out there to see how bad the reaction would be. Or the Texans floating something to try to make it look like there is interest and hope it sparks other teams to inquire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nittanylion said:

 

I cringe even writing this, but if there was any discharge of pre-ejaculate, which frequently happens during frottage-like activities, and it was captured, that would be DNA right there.


There are other types of evidence possible as well. Records of the accusers having given massages to Watson. Did they tell anyone else what happened previously and will those people vouch for that. Are there email or text messages that could be incriminating (I believe there is said to be). Are the stories by the women consistent? All of those things are types of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

FOX's Jay Glazer reports the Texans still believe Deshaun Watson is "going to end up wanting to play for them this year," and that they are not returning calls to teams interested in a trade. 

Glazer terms the situation a "standstill." Alrighty then. There has been an internet furor in recent days that the Eagles were close to acquiring Watson, but Glazer is as plugged in as any reporter in the league. He certainly does not seem to believe a move is imminent. It remains surreal that the Watson narrative has somehow shifted back to his trade status from his legal situation. He remains under investigation by both the Houston Police Department and NFL, while he has not settled any of his civil claims. We would not expect any movement on his 2021 status in the near future. 

SOURCE: Jay Glazer on Twitter 

Aug 5, 2021, 7:39 PM ET

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Faust changed the title to QB Deshaun Watson - back practicing with Houston Texans after 5-day absence
Quote

Sports Illustrated's Jenny Ventras reports NFL investigators looking into sexual misconduct allegations against Deshaun Watson were hostile in questioning two of Watson's accusers. 

Lisa Friel and Jennifer Gaffney, who run the league's personal conduct investigations, asked the accusers what they were wearing at the time of the alleged sexual assaults and were "trying to trip up" the women during questioning, Ventras reported. Houston police, the women said, were "very respectful and trauma-informed" in their questioning of Watson's alleged victims, in stark contrast to the NFL's hostility. Meanwhile, NFL Commission Roger Goodell surprisingly did not place Watson on the Commissioner's Exempt List, which removes players from the field while letting them to collect their salary during investigations. Ventras reported two of Watson's accusers were frustrated by the league's media arm ignoring their allegations in reporting on Watson during training camp. The league has reportedly interviewed ten women accusing Watson of sexual assault while Rusty Hardin, Watson’s attorney, has said all 22 of Watson's accusers are lying about their detailed allegations of sexual misconduct. 

SOURCE: SI.com 

Aug 13, 2021, 12:08 PM ET

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

FOX Houston's Mark Berman reports a Harris County grand jury will be convened to determine if there's sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Deshaun Watson.

Watson, who's facing 22 civil lawsuits, also has 10 criminal complaints against him. It's a potential turning point in the legal cycle, as a decision not to charge Watson would suggest doubts in the allegations. If indicted on felony charges, Watson will likely be placed on the Commissioner's Exempt List, giving the Texans a roster exemption while the case plays out. Watson trade rumors have all but disappeared as teams wait out the criminal side of his legal situation.

SOURCE: FOX 26 Houston

Aug 13, 2021, 7:15 PM ET

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Faust changed the title to QB Deshaun Watson - a Harris County grand jury will be convened to determine if there's sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges

Wasn’t the grand jury element known? Maybe I’m misremembering or going off analyst commentary, but I would’ve sworn I saw that a grand jury would decide whether complaints against him were criminal or civil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JFS171 said:

Wasn’t the grand jury element known? Maybe I’m misremembering or going off analyst commentary, but I would’ve sworn I saw that a grand jury would decide whether complaints against him were criminal or civil. 

It's been assumed for a few weeks now that a grand jury would convene and based on that decide to indict for criminal charges or not. This is not a new development so much as the shoe that was expected and needed to drop for this saga to advance to the next stage.

It will have no impact on the civil cases other then public perception as deciding to indict or not would possibly shape public opinion for Watson or his accusers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JFS171 said:

 

Yes, part of why I just posted saying this was expected. Again this is not really a new development, it's a stage in the process that was going to happen and if you are someone pulling for Watson to play or get traded the sooner this happens the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, menobrown said:

 

Yes, part of why I just posted saying this was expected. Again this is not really a new development, it's a stage in the process that was going to happen and if you are someone pulling for Watson to play or get traded the sooner this happens the better.

Yes, every felony charge in Texas has to go before a grand jury before proceeding, but if he wasn't going to be charged it would likely die before getting to a grand jury. As I understand it. So I wouldn't agree that this was expected. When the initial rumor came out that a grand jury was possible a few weeks ago, it was pretty big news, because it increased the likelihood of charges for Watson. If the authorities thought the case didn't have at least some merit, it would never make it in front of a grand jury. Now that it's not a rumor, Watson's chances of criminal charges are somewhere between "very likely" and "more likely than not" if the grand jury statistics being thrown around in these articles are close to accurate.

Saying this was expected, isn't really news, is actually good for Watson so it can get cleared up, that just seems like moving the goal posts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, not a lawyer, but have some familiarity with this subject. 

From what I understand to be how these things go: 

Was this expected? 

Kinda. 

Some of y’all are painting this GJ as an inevitability. That’s not quite exactly true. 

They (DA) only spends the resources to convene a grand jury if there’s enough evidence (like 22 corroborating witness statements) to do so.

This wasn’t an inevitability as some have suggested, but an inflection point. 

While true that felonies go before a grand jury in many states, that also means they’re pursuing felony charges. They were not obligated to do so, and have to-date said they were investigating & would decide next-steps when appropriate. 

It was thus decided that it was appropriate that the criminal case would move on to a grand jury. That’s not a good development for team Watson at all, in my opinion. There’s an old expression, “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich”. 

In all likelihood this is now going to court criminally. It doesn’t clear anything up time-line wise other than the prospect that Watson could face a trial. And if found guilty his time-line will be “cleared up” in the worst possible way. 

The ideal situation for Watson shareholders would have been no grand jury, no potential felony charges. This could get bad in a hurry. 

Or the GJ could determine there’s not enough evidence to indict & he walks. That’s the upside, and (again, IMO) that’s less likely based on what we already know. 

To me, this is a not good development for team Watson.

Maybe a local shark attorney can weigh in & correct me if I’m mistaken. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Hi, not a lawyer, but have some familiarity with this subject. 

From what I understand to be how these things go: 

Was this expected? 

Kinda. 

Some of y’all are painting this GJ as an inevitability. That’s not quite exactly true. 

They (DA) only spends the resources to convene a grand jury if there’s enough evidence (like 22 corroborating witness statements) to do so.

This wasn’t an inevitability as some have suggested, but an inflection point. 

While true that felonies go before a grand jury in many states, that also means they’re pursuing felony charges. They were not obligated to do so, and have to-date said they were investigating & would decide next-steps when appropriate. 

It was thus decided that it was appropriate that the criminal case would move on to a grand jury. That’s not a good development for team Watson at all, in my opinion. There’s an old expression, “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich”. 

In all likelihood this is now going to court criminally. It doesn’t clear anything up time-line wise other than the prospect that Watson could face a trial. And if found guilty his time-line will be “cleared up” in the worst possible way. 

The ideal situation for Watson shareholders would have been no grand jury, no potential felony charges. This could get bad in a hurry. 

Or the GJ could determine there’s not enough evidence to indict & he walks. That’s the upside, and (again, IMO) that’s less likely based on what we already know. 

To me, this is a not good development for team Watson.

Maybe a local shark attorney can weigh in & correct me if I’m mistaken. 


Yes the standard is far lower for an indictment from the grand jury, then he’ll face in the criminal trial (generally only need to show it was “probable” that a crime was committed). Its far from a given he’ll be indicted but obviously there’s now a far greater chance that a criminal trial is coming - and there’s still the civil matter as well.

It’s hard to imagine him playing in 2021.

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This situation keeps getting weirder. Apparently the grand jury subpoenas were issued by the head of the Houston Human Trafficking Unit. That has some media and legal folks speculating there could be Human Trafficking or Prostitution charges involved some how.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

This situation keeps getting weirder. Apparently the grand jury subpoenas were issued by the head of the Houston Human Trafficking Unit. That has some media and legal folks speculating there could be Human Trafficking or Prostitution charges involved some how.

He did fly some of the women in - but that’s kind of a stretch to call it trafficking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, menobrown said:


 and if you are someone pulling for Watson to play or get traded the sooner this happens the better.

Unless of course he’s indicted by the grand jury, as that would be the worst case scenario.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

He did fly some of the women in - but that’s kind of a stretch to call it trafficking.

Sometimes prosecutors “overcharge” in hopes of forcing a deal that gets the accused to plead to the charges the prosecutor really wants. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pip's Invitation said:

Sometimes prosecutors “overcharge” in hopes of forcing a deal that gets the accused to plead to the charges the prosecutor really wants. 

can also backfire, as it's much harder to prove those "overcharges" if the defense calls your bluff... resulting in a positive outcome for Watson

 

eta: watson, to this point, seems hellbent on not settling

Edited by Soulfly3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might have been posted before but I hadn't seen it until the link in that tweet. Steph Stradley is a lawyer and has been writing about the Texans for a long time, one of my favorite writers. Incidentally, she is also the writer who paired with a math guy that revealed the the NFLPA misleading (read: lying) during the CBA talks in saying the average player career is 3.5 years. (The actual answer from the NFLPA's data for what people actually consider "a career", is a little over 6 years).

Generally has a very even-minded take on things.  Anyway, this is from March so not current to the situation. But it's a great overview of the legal process in general, on high profile cases and what's said and not said in public on them, etc. It also goes into some details of how a grand jury works in Texas nearer to the end.

https://www.stradleylaw.com/blog/deshaun-watson-lawsuits-questions/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Unless of course he’s indicted by the grand jury, as that would be the worst case scenario.

 

I would consider worst case for Watson as getting handed a guilty verdict.

The worst case for dynasty managers is this becomes similar to an Antonio Brown situation were he's forced off the field this season but his actual suspension won't kick in until the 2022 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, menobrown said:

 

I would consider worst case for Watson as getting handed a guilty verdict.

The worst case for dynasty managers is this becomes similar to an Antonio Brown situation were he's forced off the field this season but his actual suspension won't kick in until the 2022 season.


or after his prison sentence, if the trafficking charges kick in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:


or after his prison sentence, if the trafficking charges kick in. 

 

No offense but if anyone feels this way you are seriously overreacting to fact the Human Trafficking AND Domestic Violence until is involved. It's a wide encompassing department. Watson is not going to prison for trafficking. Full stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to take away from Watson in his own thread, but I think we all should take a moment to circle back on how The Shield continues to embarrass itself when it comes to these issues, namely in asking these women what they were wearing.

 

I love this sport and fantasy is by far my favorite hobby, but if another legitimate pro league came into existence tomorrow it would be so easy to jump ship.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wgoldsph said:

I don't mean to take away from Watson in his own thread, but I think we all should take a moment to circle back on how The Shield continues to embarrass itself when it comes to these issues, namely in asking these women what they were wearing.

 

I love this sport and fantasy is by far my favorite hobby, but if another legitimate pro league came into existence tomorrow it would be so easy to jump ship.

That story seems so odd that it’s hard to believe it went down that way, but if true it’s for sure embarrassing. It’s hard to believe high paid attorneys - or even if it was just NFL internal investigators would go down that road. It’s mind boggling.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, menobrown said:

 

No offense but if anyone feels this way you are seriously overreacting to fact the Human Trafficking AND Domestic Violence until is involved. It's a wide encompassing department. Watson is not going to prison for trafficking. Full stop.

None taken, but it’s within the realm of possibility. 100% within the realm of what’s possible. 
 

likely? Maybe not. But possible. 

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

So, living in Austin, TX, I thought this was the case but wasn’t sure until I read that link from @GregR’s post above. 

I believe I alluded to this before, but no DA wants to be the one that made the sole decision to dismiss charges when they can present them to a grand jury that’s already impaneled for numerous other cases and deflect any responsibility to the anonymous grand jury participants. 

The relevant portion of that link from above to my comment:

Alternatively, and often in high-profile cases with outside scrutiny, a District Attorney can present the evidence to a grand jury and let them determine whether to return an indictment.

A Harris County grand jury isn’t specially empaneled for just one case; they hear hundreds of cases.

Edited by JFS171
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

4 hours ago, JFS171 said:

Alternatively, and often in high-profile cases with outside scrutiny, a District Attorney can present the evidence to a grand jury and let them determine whether to return an indictment.

A Harris County grand jury isn’t specially empaneled for just one case; they hear hundreds of cases.

 

ok, that’s good to know. It still seems like part of that decision is based on how much evidence there is. E.g. DA won’t dismiss a case if there’s a bunch of potentially damning evidence - that would be a bad look. 

and if there weren’t enough evidence for a grand jury, why bother? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JFS171 said:

So, living in Austin, TX, I thought this was the case but wasn’t sure until I read that link from @GregR’s post above. 

I believe I alluded to this before, but no DA wants to be the one that made the sole decision to dismiss charges when they can present them to a grand jury that’s already impaneled for numerous other cases and deflect any responsibility to the anonymous grand jury participants. 

The relevant portion of that link from above to my comment:

Alternatively, and often in high-profile cases with outside scrutiny, a District Attorney can present the evidence to a grand jury and let them determine whether to return an indictment.

A Harris County grand jury isn’t specially empaneled for just one case; they hear hundreds of cases.

A few years ago, I was on a grand jury here in NC for a year. I was the madam foreperson. We met the first Monday of every month for a year at the courthouse. We listened to cases all day long. We would hear the case, and then I would look at the jurors and ask, "True Bill?" That is asking if we should pass a bill of indictment, and we indicted everyone. The cases are already looked at carefully by the DA and someone else (I can't remember who) before it ever reaches us. We (the grand jury) decided if a felony crime was probably committed, and if the person probably committed it.  A lot of the cases never make it to trial, because they are pled down.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, simey said:

A few years ago, I was on a grand jury here in NC for a year. I was the madam foreperson. We met the first Monday of every month for a year at the courthouse. We listened to cases all day long. We would hear the case, and then I would look at the jurors and ask, "True Bill?" That is asking if we should pass a bill of indictment, and we indicted everyone. The cases are already looked at carefully by the DA and someone else (I can't remember who) before it ever reaches us. We (the grand jury) decided if a felony crime was probably committed, and if the person probably committed it.  A lot of the cases never make it to trial, because they are pled down.

So basically if it’s not pled down, and has enough evidence, it’s likely to move forward to trial? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

 

ok, that’s good to know. It still seems like part of that decision is based on how much evidence there is. E.g. DA won’t dismiss a case if there’s a bunch of potentially damning evidence - that would be a bad look. 

and if there weren’t enough evidence for a grand jury, why bother? 


Think of it this way: 

You’re the DA, and the star QB of the local NFL team is accused of all this stuff in a very public fashion, and then later 10 criminal complaints are filed which we know were also investigated by the Houston police department. Would you want to single handedly make the decision to not move forward with charges when the option exists to let an anonymous grand jury decide?

Why take the heat yourself when Watson is already guilty to the majority of the public. 

I sort of look at all of this as no real news other than the process is moving forward. I don’t believe any of us know exactly what’s going on, definitely not what happened, and definitely not what will happen next. My *suspicion* is he gets indicted, pleas it down, gets suspended for 4-6 games, and settles the civil cases privately. Probably gets fines and community service. It feels like an incredibly difficult case to prove, but I’m not a lawyer, and none of us know all the ins and outs of the case.

While there’s always hubris to account for, I cannot fathom why a person of Watson’s immense means would not have settled the civil cases privately and quietly unless he 100% believed (and 100% convinced his counsel) that he didn’t do anything wrong. If he’s even slightly guilty, why wouldn’t he have made this go away a long time ago?

As for the NFL, the only way I see him playing this year is if it all wraps before preseason ends, which feels unlikely. Either that or he returns for Houston and relents on his trade demands until the offseason. Still think he’s likely starting for someone in 2022, but what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 2:49 PM, travdogg said:

 The system works as innocent until proven guilty


a) Which 'system'?
b) We'll see what you say after the answer to 'a' - but MOST systems - thats not really how they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JFS171 said:


Think of it this way: 

You’re the DA, and the star QB of the local NFL team is accused of all this stuff in a very public fashion, and then later 10 criminal complaints are filed which we know were also investigated by the Houston police department. Would you want to single handedly make the decision to not move forward with charges when the option exists to let an anonymous grand jury decide?

Why take the heat yourself when Watson is already guilty to the majority of the public. 

I sort of look at all of this as no real news other than the process is moving forward. I don’t believe any of us know exactly what’s going on, definitely not what happened, and definitely not what will happen next. My *suspicion* is he gets indicted, pleas it down, gets suspended for 4-6 games, and settles the civil cases privately. Probably gets fines and community service. It feels like an incredibly difficult case to prove, but I’m not a lawyer, and none of us know all the ins and outs of the case.

While there’s always hubris to account for, I cannot fathom why a person of Watson’s immense means would not have settled the civil cases privately and quietly unless he 100% believed (and 100% convinced his counsel) that he didn’t do anything wrong. If he’s even slightly guilty, why wouldn’t he have made this go away a long time ago?

As for the NFL, the only way I see him playing this year is if it all wraps before preseason ends, which feels unlikely. Either that or he returns for Houston and relents on his trade demands until the offseason. Still think he’s likely starting for someone in 2022, but what do I know?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me the likelihood of settlement is heightened by the GJ scheduling.

You would think Watson would want to have it settled before the GJ meets so that the women will have been paid and have far less reason to try and push the more extreme asserted facts under intense interrogation with the money already in their pockets and nothing more to gain.

For the women, you would think they risk losing a lot of the pressure on Watson to settle if some (and particularly if all) charges are dropped by the GJ. This is unlikely as GJs virtually always bring a true bill, but it would be pretty devastating if in any cases they didn't. One thing we don't know is how strongly the DA feels about bringing charges. If some women haven't openly discussed their facts with investigators or sound less than truthful, or even if the DA doesn't see it as worth taking up the time it will with publicity and media attention, that can have a huge impact on what evidence gets brought to the GJ and how credibly the DA presents it.

__________________

Unrelated thought: Risking the anger of many, I think the 'What were you wearing?' question is slightly different in a situation where two people who don't know each other have already agreed to meet, where what they are wearing is only chosen for that meeting and where that private meeting is in a circumstance which is already kind of sexually undefined in many people's mind and where both might be reading the nature of their interaction, in part, from such clues. I imagine that women in this work regularly deal with men who want a more sexual interaction than the masseuse intends. It seems to me that both participants here can give strong clues about what they anticipate happening by what they choose to wear. I just think what both chose to wear here is more relevant than what a women wore to town shopping or going to a party before she is threatened or assaulted. (I'm open to being educated if this is an ignorant view?)

Edited by Catbird
Spelling and grammar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So basically if it’s not pled down, and has enough evidence, it’s likely to move forward to trial? 

If he is indicted, he can plead guilty, plea bargain for a lesser charge, or fight it in court. The DA can also drop charges for various reasons after indictment. Every case that we heard had enough evidence or it wouldn't have reached us. We (the grand jury) look for probable cause.  We aren't saying if someone is innocent or guilty, only that a crime probably happened, and that the accused person probably did it. I do wonder if Watson being a "celebrity" would sway the opinion of any jury members. It wouldn't mine, but there are star struck people out there that could convince themselves that the celebrity would not do something like that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Catbird said:

It seems to me the likelihood of settlement is heightened by the GJ scheduling.

You would think Watson would want to have it settled before the GJ meets so that the women will have been paid and have far less reason to try and push the more extreme asserted facts under intense interrogation with the money already in their pockets and nothing more to gain.

For the women, you would think they risk losing a lot of the pressure on Watson to settle if some (and particularly if all) charges are dropped by the GJ. This is unlikely as GJs virtually always bring a true bill, but it would be pretty devastating if in any cases they didn't. One thing we don't know is how strongly the DA feels about bringing charges. If some women haven't openly discussed their facts with investigators or sound less than truthful, or even if the DA doesn't see it as worth taking up the time it will with publicity and media attention, that can have a huge impact on what evidence gets brought to the GJ and how credibly the DA presents it.

__________________

Unrelated thought: Risking the anger of many, I think the 'What were you wearing?' question is slightly different in a situation where two people who don't know each other have already agreed to meet, where what they are wearing is only chosen for that meeting and where that private meeting is in a circumstance which is already kind of sexually undefined in many people's mind and where both might be reading the nature of their interaction, in part, from such clues. I imagine that women in this work regularly deal with men who want a more sexual interaction than the masseuse intends. It seems to me that both participants here can give strong clues about what they anticipate happening by what they choose to wear. I just think what both chose to wear here is more relevant than what a women wore to town shopping or going to a party before she is threatened or assaulted. (I'm open to being educated if this is an ignorant view?)

There also the possibility that some or all of the women don’t want to settle. 

Sometimes by settling people assume they’re gold diggers. Sometimes women actually want justice. 

I know, that’s probably crazy talk. 
💡 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simey said:

If he is indicted, he can plead guilty, plea bargain for a lesser charge, or fight it in court. The DA can also drop charges for various reasons after indictment. Every case that we heard had enough evidence or it wouldn't have reached us. We (the grand jury) look for probable cause.  We aren't saying if someone is innocent or guilty, only that a crime probably happened, and that the accused person probably did it. I do wonder if Watson being a "celebrity" would sway the opinion of any jury members. It wouldn't mine, but there are star struck people out there that could convince themselves that the celebrity would not do something like that. 


or Texans fans. 

I’m sure they exist. :whistle:
 

ETA: thanks again for this detail. Useful info for sure. 

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

Just saying, but if an assaulted woman just wants justice, she would be a LOT more credible (and more likely to be believed) by going to law enforcement and not having a civil suit pending (which badly cuts into her credibility on motive for pursuing it).

I am often left wondering why victims of violent crime, where the perp has resources making a civil case meaningful, don't let the criminal system go forward first and wait - something like 85% of crimes charged turn into plea convictions if not convictions at trial - so that when they have to testify there is no civil suit pending to hurt their credibility and so that when they do pursue the civil case they already have a ''beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction of record (which can often slip into the subsequent civil case depending on local rules and attorney skills) to help convince the civil fact finder of guilt.

Edited by Catbird
added second paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that headline and first paragraph are misleading/ambiguous.  It seems the FBI is investigating the allegations themselves, i.e. looking for impropriety by the plaintiffs.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32044710/fbi-investigating-allegations-houston-texans-qb-deshaun-watson-possible-extortion

Edited by Hankmoody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a dynasty perspective what are owners doing with him? Are you committed to holding on to him for maybe 2 years of no production? For those trying to buy him on the cheap what are you willing to give up?  I own him, have not put him on trade bait but got one offer for a 2nd round next year. That is too cheap in my opinion. Just wanted to see what others thought his current value is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stedman said:

From a dynasty perspective what are owners doing with him? Are you committed to holding on to him for maybe 2 years of no production? For those trying to buy him on the cheap what are you willing to give up?  I own him, have not put him on trade bait but got one offer for a 2nd round next year. That is too cheap in my opinion. Just wanted to see what others thought his current value is.

I'm keeping him as his current value is probably around that 2nd rounder you were offered. In 1 QB leagues he just isn't worth that much with so much uncertainty; better to hold IMO unless you just want to be rid of him, in which case I'd take the 2nd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

Well that headline and first paragraph are misleading/ambiguous.  It seems the FBI is investigating the allegations themselves, i.e. looking for impropriety by the plaintiffs.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32044710/fbi-investigating-allegations-houston-texans-qb-deshaun-watson-possible-extortion

 

The looking for impropriety by the plaintiffs is per Watson's attorney Rusty Hardin. I think it is safe to say the FBI is looking at both sides in their investigation. Hardin will spin it to look like they are going after the plaintiffs, Buzbee will spin it that they are going after Watson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Faust changed the title to QB Deshaun Watson, HOU

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...