DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Watson trade off the field III

Yeah, when they are all gathered at the same location at a seedy massage parlor verses contacting 50 different massage therapists from different locations and almost 50% accusing you of sexual improprieties that would be what someone may call similar or comparative? The two scenarios are significantly different. How may women accused Kraft of that again?

You equating business done over social media as some shining beacon of legitimacy is no better than the people assuming these massage therapists were basically hookers. Both are ridiculous assumptions.

Yet that's not what I did at all. I said the assumption that it must be a seedy, prostitution scam was what was an assumption.

Doesn’t look good for Watson. The civil law suits are scheduled to be held in Mars 2023. $40m+ and probably not one single snap in 2022 from our brand new mega expensive QB.

Btw. Andrew Berry says hello.

j/c:

Two plaintiffs suing Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson add negligence claims to lawsuits

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...n-add-negligence-claims-to-lawsuits.html

Has anyone here actually seen the Instagram ads? Since most of the accusers were not actual massage therapists, I'm curious as to how they advertised.

Or Watson plays all of 2022, all the lawsuits quietly go away before 2023, and the NFL hopes everybody is distracted by the next scandal.

Tell my buddy, AB, to keep up the good work and ignore the ill-informed haters.





...I had a long response to Pit, but fat fingered it and lost it switching between tabs. Decided it wasn't worth rewriting as Pit would only reply with the same rote mess he has the past 50 times.

The key words in your response is “ill-informed haters”.

Future will tell who’s hater or not. Anyway in Mars 2023 we will know more if not Watson use his other option and settle these cases with using some of his salary he got from the Browns.

Heartbreaking story. I am very sad for this woman and the 21+ others.

To those of you who doubt these women and assume they’re all only after the money. Let this young lady’s story sink in before make up our mind so fast.

If I close my eyes I hear similar words, similar circumstances and similar sadness that I heard from my youngest daughter when she gave her witness at the court house.

The thing that hurt me most and what brought tears to my eyes was her bottomless shame and that she lost her confidence in judging other peoples intentions. It must be a nightmare for that young woman on the video to know that this famous NFL QB got $230m from the Browns before they even listened to her story.

It will be very hard to full heartily support the Cleveland Browns when Watson is our QB on the field.

That’s one of the things that make me most irritated and disappointed with the owners and Andrew Berry is that they take away some of the joy to support my team apart from their hypocrisy and their lack of moral compass. All the pain and in some cases sadness they brought into many Browns supporter and that we have to argue on internet and maybe at the stadium with other good people and fellow nice supporters.

You must mean like the same drivel you've been spouting since the beginning? Like they could all be money grubbing hookers? How their lawyer must be a money grubbing ambulance chaser? That kind thing?

Reviews of one of the "hooker 'licensed' massage therapists".

https://www.vagaro.com/us04/ashleysolislmt

Let me guess. This was all set up by their crooked lawyer to make her look good, right?

Nope, I meant posts like this where you completely misrepresent what other people post, and come back to your made up opponent's position that no one actually took over and over again.

You're the main person that keeps using the term hookers. Ambulance chaser is another over-simplified misrepresentation.

I just cut through the facade of BS you use to say the same thing. While I am the only one that uses that term, you are the one who uses the description of it.

Quote one place in this thread where the description I use equates to prostitution.

I'll wait.

Nice caveat. So you're saying you haven't in past threads insinuated these women were seedy sex workers? You know, how that was "possible"? I mean really?

I still haven't mentioned it over 4 pages. How many times did you?

You're the one that brings up hookers, to which I'll reply it's possible, though that's not my take. Hooking up with a famous athlete, then feeling scorned when he doesn't make you his sugar baby isn't prostitution. I'm not saying this is what happened either, but it is as supported by the evidence as most other theories.

So, yes, you are the one most often referring to the accusers as sex workers or hookers. Then trying to make it out that it's everyone else. You're the one that seems to have trouble separating prostitution from consensual sex despite your claims to the contrary.

For those who have been reading this from the beginning, nothing more needs to be said. You know, I know and they know. The degradation, attacking of their character and attack of their legal representation has been your focus in the defense of watson. Denial won't change any of that.

You mean me casting doubt on your "he won an award, he's the truth" argument or pointing out the error of your "I don't understand how statistics work" arguments?

Why should anyone try to gather all the available information? Everyone should just swallow your inane conclusions, based on your extensive research and vast personal experience.

Why should anyone try to cast doubt on 22 women collectively to take the word of one man? The very first woman is a licensed massage therapist, not some seedy character or back room pretend therapist. So why would someone attempt to assassinate her character? On what basis? Yet here you are. You expect everyone to consider your unlikely hypotheticals as though they are some sort of realistic outcome. They are not.

What does being a licensed massage therapist have to do with someone's character? They're people just like everyone else. They can be good, bad, indifferent, etc. You keep implying that she has impeccable character. I still have no clue as to her character. Her having good character isn't a given. Her character will be judged on the basis of the evidence that we don't have access to.

You expect people to believe DeShaun being a monster is the only "realistic" outcome. Real life doesn't care about your made up percentages or low likelihood. "Unlikely" things happen. I mean, occasionally you make a good point. This just isn't one of those unlikely instances.

You have an idea about her character. For one thing those who have tried to paint the victims seedy, and maybe even wanted watson to have sex with them, claim most are unlicensed and must be questionable. Secondly you have been show reviews from verified customers and your answer has been "Yeah but you can't believe them". Yet you have shown nothing that reputes any of it. So it seems your claim of not having a clue about her character simply means you refuse to accept the clues you've been given yet have nothing to show why it should be doubted other than, "But it's possible".

...Most of the accusers are unlicensed. You place more relevance on that than I do.

Verified by whom? Her? By some random disreputable website you found? Wow, great "clues."

There are allegations that she asked for 100k settlement, then she goes on to claim that it's not about the money. Is that a clue? (These are formal allegations, and I find it unlikely they would have been made without supporting documentation and evidence)

It's no more flimsy than your online reviews. But I still don't claim to have a firm idea of the character of anyone involved in the whole mess. The only idea of their character that I have is that they are all more complicated than a simple good/bad.

The lack of evidence allows for possibilities. It is what it is. You seem to have more of à need for a sense of certainty than I do. I know that there's a lot I don't know, and there always will be, and that's just the nature of the universe. Your false sense of certainty in this case (and most cases) is irksome to me.

Once again you're trying to make a common legal practice sound sinister. People on both sides, accuser and the accused work out out of court settlements all the time. Nothing unusual or sinister about that. Unless of course that's the image you wish to portray. I've seen nothing that brings most all of these accusers characters into question. That's not considered flimsy, that's considered non existent. That's just throwing out questionable allegations based on nothing. I love how you think you're the arbiter of what a disreputable website is or is not.

You seem to want people to believe that if these women had questionable characters watson and his attorney wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftop. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

I didn't say she asked with ill intent for a dark and stormy settlement. I just stated a fact. You're the one that keeps manufacturing anything "sinister." You just keep squaring up with windmills of your own creation.

Recorded conversations and contradictory testimony from people without a financial interest is nothing in your mind? It's enough to make me wonder.

I can't always tell what's reputable, but it was easy to see that the link you keep using as evidence of good reviews is the extreme opposite of reputable. I linked you the results of a check the first time you used it. You conveniently keep ignoring that, and anything else that conflicts with your belief.

You've been beyond ridiculous for as far back as I can remember. You might be rubbing off on me finally. Ugh, *sigh* ...the company I keep on here. No wonder I question the integrity of people I only know of through the internet with as much time as I spend responding to your ...unique and ...creative attacks on facts.

Yes, you weren't trying to question anyone's motives there.

And you have ignored that you claim one attorney is "possibly" an attention seeking attorney without addressing the fact that watson's attorney has a large, famous client list that suggests the exact same thing. You bring up two incidents that have given really no evidence that one of these women are guilty of anything much less 22. And what do you know about that tape? What watson's attorney is claiming. That would mean you are giving the word of one attorney credit that the content actually corroberates what he claims it does while suggest watson's attorney is not reliable. So you suggest that the 22 accusers are doing this for the attention or money but the one who "claims someone said something to her on the phone" might not be doing the exact same thing. 15 minutes of fame comes to mind. But you certainly don't question that.

And you found a place that doesn't consider that website reputable and that's supposed to be some kind of evidence?

At least keep your standards consistent. You claim evidence of facts you haven't substantiated over and over again. Then question the integrity of someone who points it out. Your tactics are a prime example of what happens when desperation sets in.

1. When the action and the claim don't add up, why wouldn't one question the motive?

2. Only one attorney filed lawsuits in this situation. The other responded. I know that a recording with something on it exists. It's been filed into evidence. A lawyer as accomplished as Hardin wouldn't write up evidence that he didn't have. What evidence did Buzbee even write up? Anything other than depositions? It appears that the best evidence he has is what was leaked, and that is effectively nothing. I never claimed that they did it for the money. I said that they could have done it for money, spite, jealousy, or a number of other reasons unassociated to Watson's committing any crime. Again, emphasis on COULD.

Then there's the question of why would any one want the publicity or seek attention for defending alleged sex crimes? It's a dumb supposition. I've explained why I feel Buzbee could be seeking attention. I mean he hired Ted Cruz's political strategist. Defending women looks good for a man who's been trying to get into politics since at least 2002.

3. Yes, when the better business bureau says the company behind a website is shady, most people consider that evidence.

4. Find an example of an unsubstantiated claim of fact that I used. You keep claiming that, then I point to the reference I gave, then you pretend I didn't. Cool trick

Your tactics suck from the jump- When in doubt, use a straw man argument. No desperation here, perhaps you're inhaling your own aroma and projecting.

Simply keep in mind who you are replying to - that will solve a lot of things. (now, watch him attack me)

You're telling me that YOU would go to Instagram to find a licensed massage therapist? PUH-lease. Instagram sounds like the new back page. I get an email newsletter every damn day that features an Instagram model. It's like a what's hot in news and tech for dudes newsletter. The only reason I mention it is that those models, almost all of them, have a paid OnlyFans site too. But they show everything permissible on Instagram. So, what are they selling behind that paywall? So even though I won't simply condemn them for where they chose to do business, I damn sure question their integrity.

....throw in a rolling on the floor guy and win every debate! (in your own mind).

It's only the bedrock of our justice system. That's all.

Another fine stalker addition to the topic with no substance. I can always count on you for that arch.

Actually the cumulative effect of 22 witnesses does carry weight in a court room.

22 Claims?


So Hardin is an "accomplished lawyer" but you portray Buzzbee as an ambulance chasing scum bag attorney. Then you wonder why you are considered heavily bias in one direction. And of course with rumors about watson floating around the massage therapist community he could just be a scum bag. What is an issue with evidence that has been filed is the difference of its actual content and what an attorney wants you to think that content is supposed to mean. I'm really surprised you don't have a better understanding of how all of this works.


No that's only the tip of the iceberg. I've shown you this before but you ignored it then and probably will again.

Rudy Tomjanovich, Warren Moon, Wade Boggs, Rafer Alston, Scottie Pippen, Roger Clemens, Adrian Peterson, Dow Jones, evangelist Joel Osteen and Exxon Mobil have all been Hardin clients.

So to claim he doesn't handle high profile cases to seek attention while Buzzbee does is a crazy approach to a discussion comparing attorneys.


You do realize that you just stated that it was the company behind the web site the BBB questioned and not the web site or its content, right? That's what I meant earlier about someone making a claim about what evidence contains and then when you look at that evidence, that's really not what it says at all.


So you keep making up a story based on hypotheticals, aspersions on 22 women you don't even know accusations undermining the credibility of an attorney that's never been disciplined for wrong doing, basing your diatribe on conjecture then claim I'm the one using a straw man argument? Now that's rich.

1. I didn't question 22 claims here. I questioned the motive of one particular claim. You keep trying to rope specifics into one giant generality. This isn't a case involving every sex crime victim ever. It only involves these specific accusers, who may or may not be victims of sex crimes. 22 claims are only good evidence if the people making them are found credible. Evidence has been submitted that claims that many of them are not. I'll wait to let a judge and jury decide the quality of that evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

2a. The difference is that Buzbee hasn't even claimed to have solid evidence of wrongdoing. As far as "solid" evidence, he has (/claims to have) records that show massages were scheduled. That's not really incriminating. On the other hand, Watson's side claims to have evidence of the accusers actually committing crimes (blackmail and extortion.)

2b. I'm also not looking at the motive of every case they've ever taken. I'm looking at the motives for taking this particular case. It would seem to be the most relevant to...this case.

3. You don't seem to understand how content aggregation sites work or what they are. They don't make their own content. They pull it from elsewhere. Using it as a source/evidence is silly, you know, considering it's not the source of the information.

4. Hypotheticals aren't claims of fact. They aren't aspersions. They aren't accusations. They are legitimate possibilities based on the available evidence. If you find evidence that makes any of the hypotheticals impossible, show it.
I'm not claiming that you made arguments that you didn't (straw man arguments.) You do, frequently. I'm responding to direct quotations.

I see. Their entire careers being similar in terms of taking on famous clients is meaningless when trying to portray a single case. Sure, let's ignore everything in their careers leading up to this and act like their pattern isn't the same. Another great dodge. So in this case, watson being famous, your claim is that Buzbee took the case for attention but Hardin didn't do the same thing because he is in it only"to protect an innocent man"? Is that what you're going with here?

You still aren't getting it. An attorney for watson is going to try and twist a settlement offer into a blackmail and extortion claim. That's not evidence. That's Hardin's job. To make the victims look like the perpetrator. You do realize that these are 22 separate cases unless they are all tried together? Even then it involves 22 separate incidents. There's nothing nefarious about people in litigation to propose settlement offers.

I do realize that hypotheticals can be delivered in a way to cast aspersions upon the character of those you wish to throw those hypotheticals towards. I understand that you can reach for highly unlikely hypotheticals to achieve that goal. It's a nuance people use all the time.

Not if there isn't evidence to back up the claims or doesn't add anything new to the case.

You seem to tend to speak for 12 jurors in every case. That's not the way it works. Jurors decide verdicts and the weight the evidence holds or does not hold is at their sole discretion. These are civil cases. All you need to do is convince a jury something is more likely than not to have happened. 22 witnesses claiming the same type of incident was perpetrated by the same defendant will certainly be a strong factor considered by a jury in a civil case. Unless of course you actually believe watson's defense can undermine the character of all 22 women in the eyes of a jury.

You asked a question and I answered it. Even though the burden of proof is lower/lighter in civil cases, the burden is still on the accusers.

Splitting the dirty bits of DW to the tailgate forum didn't do squat to make this settle down in the PF thread. Hmm...