DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshaun Watson Continued.....

j/c,

I think that the bridge of morality was burnt down long ago in the NFL.

I mean Ray Lewis was a suspect in a murder investigation and went on the win the Super Bowl.

The entire league hid information about potential brain damage to NFL players.

Yes, for years they knew.

IMO people tend to give second chances. But not before or without those who have made mistakes first paying a penalty, seeking help and apologizing for what they have done. Kareem Hunt and Adrian Peterson are such examples. Watson is in a legal position where he can not do either of those things. The entire premise of a "get out of jail free" because you are an athlete or "an athlete shouldn't be held to the same standard as the rest of society because he plays football" is a cop out at the very least.

And I keep hearing these sexual encounters called "creepy" when in fact they are still criminal behavior in most of these cases. Just because something isn't "sexual assault" doesn't lessen the fact that they still wrong and often times still criminal. Much like yourself I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm certainly not convinced he's guilty of all 22 accusations. But the accusers attorney does have a reputation of winning and he didn't accomplish that by "rounding a bunch of liars up" to make his cases. Attorney's on both sides have a long list of famous clients so the "He's only doing it for fame" is a sword that cuts both ways.

Now I've even heard some contrived story about how the accusers attorney wants to lose. That's how desperate it has gotten.

I think the sides of the line on this case frequently correlate with people's views on sex in general. If people think sex with multiple partners is bad, they see Watson as bad. If people see sex with multiple partners as neither morally good nor bad in itself, they are more open to seeing the facts.

Or they see sexual impropriety with multiple people as being wrong. The word you're missing here is "consent". I don't care how many people a person has sex with. I'm pretty sure someone's wife would but that's between the two of them. When you try to force sexual advances it's an entirely different matter. But then of course you know that.

But are they more likely to believe the impropriety or not based on their beliefs about sex?

Would you have sex with multiple women? If your answer is no, you might be more biased than you think.

I wouldn't now because I'm married. But once again that's a an issue between a husband and wife. When I was a younger man and single I most certainly did. This is about sexual aggression and forcing yourself on someone in a sexual way. There's really no comparison to be made there. I don't care how many women a man sleeps with or has any sexual encounter with as long as it's consensual. Trying to blur the lines between the two is another reach. Trying to force myself on a woman in a sexual manner is something I have most certainly never done. Is it that difficult to understand the difference?

The difference isn't difficult. Making assumptions about what actually happened is also easy.

Aren't you 2 already having this discussion here -> https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre.../1/watson-trade-off-the-field-iii#UNREAD

It is odd you keep bringing up OJ. In the OJ case the grand jury found enough evidence to take it to trial. The trial concluded with a "not guilty" verdict. With Watson there hasn't been enough evidence to even indict him, so he is still innocent until prven guilty.

The US legal system is not based on mob rule or sovereign dictate, which is the style of system you seem to favor. "I know he done it, look at him he's guilty!". Thankfully this is not how it works. Before or system a man would have to prove he was innocent, if he was even given a chance. I'd rather not see that system in play.

Yes. And there's also an option provided for those who do not wish to discuss this. But it's mainly been ignored.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1933418/pure-football-the-deal#Post1933418

So far, after three compete threads not one ref on this board has moved this discussion from the Pure Football forum. That is a very strong indication it's perfectly appropriate here despite the desires of some.

I keep trying to steer it there.

The place I think DeShaun will help us the most is 3rd/4th down and short and red zone. His mobility gives us a lot more options.

You obviously don't understand the difference between a case with physical evidence and a he said/she said scenario. And your "mob rule" scenario is hilarious. None of us are going to form a lynch mob to go out and kill watson. You either believe all 22 of these women are lying or you don't.

Your brain is way too binary (or is it bipolar?) Those aren't the only two options.

So if you believe some of them are telling the truth you must also believe watson is guilty at least in some of the accusations. That hasn't been the picture you have portrayed.

I believe some/all of them could be telling the truth. However, I don't know. The deeper I dig, the more I believe that there's a possibility that some of them (up to possibly all of them) are lying.

We did pretty well there until you got to the "possibly all of them" part. Their attorney isn't some ambulance chaser who would base a case on 22 liars.

And still nothing of substance in response.

OK let me ask you a honest question in front of everybody bro. IF the ciVil trial ends up with zero rewards against WATSON. What will you do and how will you post about Watson???

You didn't ask me, but I'm going to give my answer anyway.

For me, what matters is what did or did not happen during those sessions. I'm looking at the pieces of evidence that do come out because sometimes in civil lawsuits the outcome doesn't always line up with who is in the wrong.

Where's the beating a dead horse emoji when you need it? You've reached the point where you're quoting yourself to continue an argument.

I have been somewhat following this dialogue. No skin in the game as I am waiting until as much information comes out as possible. If one can accept the possibility that Watson may be guilty of some or all of the charges, can't it also be possible that some or all of the accusers are lying.

I can absolutely see a situation where several plaintiffs who tried to reach a settlement and failed then contacted an attorney and said attorney tried to entice others to join. IT also is possible he did all these things and more but I find it hard for someone to be so certain, especially when none of the accusers or the victim are known to any of us.

I know people who would do just about anything for a buck and not that I know anyone who would be guilty of this many "assaults or harassments" there are bound to be some. I could also see a high level athlete who has had coaches, boosters etc bail them out of trouble, think they could get away with it. My previous sentence does not mean I know he has been a privileged athlete, just that I believe many exist.

I don't think I have read too many posters who are certain he is innocent, but you seem to be certain he has to be guilty of at least some just because of the shear #.

Not trying to argue, just can't figure out why you are so certain, and then criticize those who are not claiming they are certain, juts want to know more facts before trying to make up their mind. I know my comments won't get anything settled but good lord no one is changing anyone's mind.

jc...

Judge requires Deshaun Watson to answer questions about consensual sex with other massage therapists

Posted by Mike Florio on April 5, 2022, 8:50 PM EDT
link

As part of his initial P.R. campaign after being sued by 22 women who allege sexual misconduct during massage therapy session, Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson produced statements of support from 18 other massage therapists whose services he used. Now, Watson will be required to discuss whether he had sex with any of those 18 persons.

Via Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today, a Texas judge has ruled that Watson must respond to questions aimed at determining whether he had sex with one or more of the 18 therapists who came to his defense.

The argument in favor of getting access to the evidence is simple. It shows Watson’s motives when arranging massage sessions, especially through social-media platforms like Instagram. If he was in the habit of having consensual sex with some of the therapists, it’s reasonable for a jury to conclude that he may have entered other sessions with a similar objective.

Watson had objected to providing the information. That prompted a request for the court to resolve the situation. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs.

Watson was not required to provide information about whether he had sexual relations with other women who have not come forward publicly. That’s a confusing middle ground on the issue. If it’s fair to find out whether Watson had a pattern and practice of engaging in sexual relations with massage therapists, it shouldn’t matter whether the individuals have come forward publicly to support him. The evidence is relevant to his pattern and practice, even if the individuals with whom he engaged in said pattern and practice have never issued any type of statement relevant to the case.

Last year, attorney Rusty Hardin admitted that some of Watson’s massages became consensual sexual encounters. His state of mind when hiring massage therapists — shaped by his habits as established with other massage therapists — would seem to be critical to proving whether he crossed the line with massage therapists who weren’t inclined to have a massage become more than one.

Said before, we had issues with a QB that got a speeding ticket. We had issues with a QB that made an internet post. It isn't a stretch to have issues with a QB that had 22 sexual assault allegations made, is it?

Now Watson's team will request to know whether or not they've had sex with every client they've ever had. Have to see if there's an established pattern. Fair's fair. Bring them all in. Did she ever make you uncomfortable? Did she make you aroused?

This is likely to be an ugly mess all around.

I really don't like lawyers. Liable to turn into even more of a smear-fest now.

Nope

Judge rules Deshaun Watson must answer questions about relationships with other massage therapists

Specifically, Watson must give information on whether or not he had consensual sex with 18 additional women who have supported him against allegations of misconduct.

Author: WKYC Sports Staff
link
Published: 10:34 PM CDT April 5, 2022
Updated: 4:50 AM CDT April 6, 2022
Facebook Twitter
CLEVELAND — *EDITOR'S NOTE: The above video is from a previous story.

There is a new legal twist for Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, who is already facing civil suits from 22 different women accusing him of sexual misconduct.

This time, it involves women who have publicly supported him.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Watson must answer questions about whether or not he had consensual sex with 18 other massage therapists last year. All of these women have defended Watson against allegations of wrongdoing since authorities first began investigating last March.

In court depositions, Watson had previously refused to answer such questions, saying it was "private," "not relevant," and "harassing." However, lawyers for the 22 women suing him say the answers are needed to show a pattern in Watson's behavior.

RELATED: Experts weigh in on Browns QB Deshaun Watson's legal battle

Watson now has 30 days to answer these questions in writing, and must also produce other information about his history with massages and his actions according to his old Houston Texans contract dating back to 2019.

At the hearing today, Watson's representation strongly objected to the judge's ruling, but was overruled. The quarterback has denied all accusations of wrongdoing, and it is unknown if there could be an appeal.

Watson, who did not play at all in 2021 as his legal situation and trade request played out, was acquired by the Browns last month and immediately signed a new deal worth $230 million guaranteed. Two Texas grand juries declined to issue criminal charges in the case, but it is possible he could still face a suspension from the NFL.

In a he said she said case there's no actual physical evidence. All of these posters claiming "they want to see the evidence first" aren't going to find some grand mountain of evidence with which to make such a determination and as such will call t a victory for watson if no judgements are awarded. IMO it will all boil down to one thing. In a criminal trial they don't usually allow other victims to testify although they did allow one other victim to testify in the Bill Cosby case.

Unlike many posters here, juries tend to lend credence to an overwhelming amount of victims when the situations of each victim follows a pattern. So depending on what the judge allows in at trial will be a huge contributing factor as to the outcome.

In short, unless all of his victims can be impeached in some form or fashion I will always have a hard time being convinced of his innocence.

Once again, in this case comprehension isn't your strong suit. I'm asking someone to address the content of a post rather than just attack in response. Better luck next time.

Well of course it's only reasonable to say if a woman had sex with four or five people she must always agree to have sex with everyone.

I suggested just recently in this thread that the best thing Watson and his camp could do is to settle all these 22 civil law suits cases by giving these women some money. Let it cost. He have 230m reasons. 1m or $10m doesn’t matter, just get rid of it.

That didn’t land well among some of the Watson “defenders” that didn’t like a monetary settlement.
HE’S INNOCENT!
WHY SHOULD HE PAY FOR SOMETHING HE THINK HE DIDN’T DO!?

Exactly. Why should he pay if he’s innocent?

Well today we got our first answer.

Kaboom!! Did you have more sexual meetings or not? And that question was if he had sex with these women that supports him. Soon probably more “easy” questions will come.

Do we start to see a pattern here?

When will this sink in? This isn’t primarily about if it’s criminal or not. Being legally innocent will not help him if it’s proven he had repeatedly sexual meetings and probably was paying for these women’s “services”. The main stream media and the Twitter mob will not stop and ask yourself who’s going to pay the price for this ongoing media circus?

I've never claimed that some of his accusers may not be lying. All of them lying is quite a stretch. That would take a concerted effort by an attorney to plot and plan in criminal activity to get 22 people to commit perjury. To plot a pattern of behavior that would line up their story. To me that isn't a practical train of thought. The reason I find that not to be practical is the entire career of their attorney. There is nothing in his past to indicate he isn't a reputable litigator. For this to have happened he would have had to have done a complete 180 from everything he has done before this point in time.


And that's the thing about it. There is nothing, zero in their attorney's past that shows any indication he has ever conducted himself in such a manner. He has big $$ settlements in some of the most prestigious cases. If the attorney had questionable law practices in his past or had consorted with questionable characters to build cases, I may think otherwise. And one must also consider what is meant by "guilt" in a civil case. In a civil case one must be considered guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means more likely guilty than not.


And there are crooked lawyers who would represent these kind of people without vetting any of them because they have poor reputations to begin with. Those type of attorney's have nothing to lose. I have shown the cases and even the award he received as attorney of the year in the state of Texas for winning huge cases against highly influential corporations that had a bevvy of lawyers to fight against him. This man has a reputation to protect. And yes, history has shown that great athletes are often protected. I can't even name the number of times we've seen athletes drafted in the NFL only to find out later they attended college for years, passing their courses which allows them to play, only to find out later they can't even read.


It's not as much their uncertainty as it is the lengths they go to in justifying their uncertainty. Once again in a civil setting it's the preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of these justifications I've addressed in my response to you already. They've attacked the character of their attorney as justification. Yet their attorney has a stellar career as a litigator. They have tried to portray these women as all being prostitutes and of low moral character. And as you yourself have stated, without knowing them.

What I have done is look at who their attorney is. What is his record as an attorney and what is his reputation in the legal profession? Does he have a reputation to protect and would simply rounding up and convincing a bunch of women to lie be a positive thing for him or something he is known to do? Does he have a pattern of presenting shady cases?

So for me to believe that at least some of these women aren't telling the truth would be an epic reach of faith given the circumstances. It would mean an attorney with a very high reputation would have abandoned everything in his professional past. It would mean with all of his resources as a very successful litigator that he didn't vet any of his clients or do background checks on them and their reputations. So with the standard set at the preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not I'm pretty damned convinced.

So pretty much you're saying you've read a multimillionaire's advertising, and you believed it. And you've blocked out/ignored anything that didn't agree with your views.

The cases, who those clients were and the outcome are true and public information. That's not advertising.

And then of course we can add that massage therapists were spreading the word about his behavior. That NFL players themselves have spoken out about how having that amount of massage therapists, more than 50 total over the time span, is certainly a crazy number. Then we can add that if you want sexual gratification you would call an escort service and not a massage therapist. Sometimes you have to permit logic to enter into the discussion rather than trying to label everything that comes to light as slanted or bias.

If they're cherry picking only the victories and the biggest settlements, it's advertising. Now if you included the lawsuits he filed against his political opponent for publicity and then lost, I might believe you were being objective.

Calling escorts for sex is illegal. Calling for a massage is legal. He "called" for massages. Sex was sometimes a bonus. So he liked to mix business with pleasure, that's not a crime. If sex happened, it happened, but he did want the massages. As far as I've heard, no one has claimed thàt no massage took place.

With regards to the sports massage vs untrained massage complaint, sometimes you need treatment, sometimes you just want to relax. Watson's more likely to get injured during sex than a bad massage, and no one is complaining about other players' sex lives.

Calling and hiring anyone for something sexual is illegal. Massage therapists included. At least if you're going to call someone expecting to have sex, call someone that's actually known for giving you sex.

Other players aren't being accused of unwanted sexual advances. It seems you're still having a problem separating consensual sex with unwanted sexual advances. The lack of being able to distinguish between the two obviously happens far more times than I had ever realized before.

You have done everything but call Buzzbee an ambulance chaser and you claim I only point out the good? That's pretty rich.

1. Which is why he never hired anyone for sex, and no one involved in the legal case has claimed so.

2. I have no trouble differentiating. You have trouble with assuming which one happened based on hearsay and inherently biased witness testimony.

3. I admit that he's won big cases (that had slam dunk physical evidence.) You keep ignoring everything unsavory about him. Being an effective attorney doesn't make one an arbiter of the truth. I might be tempted to argue, that in general, being an especially "effective" attorney indicates the opposite. But I may have just seen too many episodes of Suits.

At the same time, if people want to hold the where there's smoke there's fire argument for Watson, why can't it be applied to Buzbee? Watson was at the top of his field with a sterling reputation until recently. Buzbee has been linked to scandals for decades (going back at least to his 2002 run for the Texas State House.)

Seriously, read the Texas weekly article (linked in the tailgate forum thread), tell me three concerning facts about Buzbee from it (there are plenty to choose from,) and maybe I'll believe you read it. Otherwise, I'll strongly suspect that you're specifically only looking for things that support the conclusion that you've already come to.

Not sure this kind of logic needs a rebuttal though. It's just plainly absurd.

Is it safe to say that the Lex in your name isn't there because of your knowledge of the law (Lex=law in Latin)? It wasn't an argument so much as an important distinction as far as the legal ramifications.