DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Depodesta remaining silent...

Could it be, the Browns' investigators talked to police detectives, or prosecutors ? Perhaps their investigators made sure they had seen the copies of statements presented to the Grand Jury, after all, no real movement was made until after the first Grand Jury did not indict. Perhaps the investigators followed through with witnesses, both before and after they testified to the Grand Jury. Yes .. The women's Lawyer says the Browns did talk to his clients, that is not saying the Browns' investigators did not find out things from clients or other witnesses.

Speaking of wild accusations not based on facts. But that's a great spin to undermine the credibility of 22 witnesses. You best argument is a claim that "Their lawyer is a scum bag".

In the entire Pure Football forum this is your only reply from yesterday. Nothing about the team, nothing about anything of substance in the thread titles. Only a continuation of very stalker like behavior. Thanks for your addition.

I see you're still having a problem understanding the concept of a question mark.

Making a statement about their lawyer (which is backed up by a well-earned reputation, btw) is not undermine the credibility of the accusers.

It has nothing to do with the witnesses. He is getting the media involved and putting out/having or allowing clients to put out releases. To me, that's putting on a show. It has nothing to do with the rule of law (unless you want to discuss potentially prejudicing a jury pool.) Depositions "getting leaked" puts pressure on Watson to settle. I'm just not a fan of trying to get a guy crucified in the court of public opinion.

Crush him with the facts/evidence in court. Spare me the dog and pony show.

Sure it does, It indicates they are using someone that is not reputable as their representation.. It's been used that way several times during these watson threads. Claiming things like this lawyer rounded these people up and was victim hunting as some sign that discredits the accusers. That the attorney is in this as purely a money grab. That is most certainly a method to help undermine the credibility of the victims.

It's the guilt by association method of undermining credibility. We see it all the time in such cases.

Yet both Watson and his attorney have also put out statements for the consumption of the public on the topic. Why is it that you criticize one side for the same actions as the other side employs? Both sides are playing out their scenarios in the court of public opinion. But yet I've only seen you cry foul on one side.

Maybe I'm speaking for myself, but I don't totally see it that way.

The timeline is such that this lawyer got on the scent of Watson, and 'organized' (this is not at all the right word, but I'm struggling today) filing the accusations. I'm not trying to say that he fabricated the accusations, but his preliminary work was seeking out as many accusers that would come forward. That's how these women came to be represented by him.

By many accounts, Buzbee is (at least somewhat) successful in his line of work. He's good what he does. Knowing that, it makes sense why an accuser would want him to represent them. He also has a bit of a reputation for being dramatic/flamboyant when he's working.

Dude is good at what he does, and he's also a bit of a clown. Both of those can be true (IMO).

I'm certainly not saying there aren't people such as yourself that do not try to use it as a weapon to undermine the accusers. I'm saying that many people do. As you stated in your response to me, both of those can be true.

What's funny about that is that I don't really believe they thought there would be anywhere near this amount of backlash. As for not having all the facts, how many do you really need to determine that Watson is a bit of a scumbag.. seriously, if he did nothing at all as he claims, how come there are so many women jumping out on this.

I guess it's easy to say all 22 women are lying..

It's not easy for me to say they are lying, but it is easy for me to say that they could be lying.

Have you ever had a "crazy" ex or a stalker? I've attracted a few and I'm not sure 1,000 women are generally aware that I exist.

Watson has over 1.5 million followers on social media. 22 is a pretty small fraction of that pool. If I can attract 3 from less than 1,000, 22 from 750,000 (let's use a 50/50 male to female split for simplicity, though even if you go 1/10 it's still 150,000 females,) really doesn't seem that outlandish to me. That they could be something other than they present themselves as doesn't seem impossible at all. Fortunately (?), I didn't have a bunch of money for upset individuals to be tempted to come after, though I did have to join the military, leave the country, and change my phone number before they finally left me alone.

If I were 25 and had attractive women offering to hook up, I'd probably have taken many of them up on it. If there wasn't a more than physical connection, I probably wouldn't have called many of them back if I knew there were 10s of thousands more lined up that I might feel an emotional connection with. I can imagine some women getting upset and spiteful for getting ghosted. Perhaps, They were more into him than he was into them. It happens. It doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy. He may have given them a chance, and he just didn't feel it.

As far as the massage therapist part of it, why not hook up with an attractive massage therapist? (And less than half of the 22 are licensed massage therapists [LMTs]) I mean they're usually fit, practiced in responding to physical indicators, good with their hands. If they're giving a good massage, and they indicate they're open to more, it would seem to be a relatively safe bet that the sex would be good. Would you honestly have said no? If you were going to pick a profession as the type for your ideal female sex partner, LMT would probably come out pretty high on the list.

It would probably be awkward trying to go back and just get a professional massage from someone you've had sex with. Especially if that person expressed feelings for you that you don't feel back. "Hero worship" can be flattering. It can be annoying in a relationship. I'd probably move on to a different LMT, too, if this were the case.

Yes, Watson could be a creep instead. Other than the fact that there are 22 accusers, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support that, though. There are some circumstancial things that could be interpreted against Watson, but they aren't the only interpretations.

I don't know what actually happened. I don't think 99.9% of the people commenting on it do.

I see the reaction subsiding. Indeed, we have the 5-6 people on the board who make it a point to shout it out everywhere, but it isn't headline news at this point.

Dulling one's sense of the victims doesn't take long for some. It's even a supported effort by others. I see you've decided that those defending the victims are "shout it out" but those who are making feeble excuses for watson aren't. Funny how that works isn't it?

There really hasn't been a ton of actual news on the topic since the number settled on 22. If some does come out, then it'll stir back up again.

To your point, these "leaks" coming from the accusers attorney doesn't give the impression that he actually has the strongest case.

Yes, he is very successful at what he does. One of the top legal publications in Texas awarded him attorney of the year in 2015. Of course someone like him would just round up a bunch of lying women and put his reputation on the line by having a very weak case.

What exactly are you trying to argue in this conversation? My understanding is that attorney of the year is based on $ value of judgements over the course of year. Saying he's a successful lawyer and saying he's on the side of truth in those same cases are 2 very different things.

He has a tendency to favor high profile in the public eye cases where juries are more easily swayed. Previously to these allegations he was best known for his work on cases surrounding the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. The difference is that there he had a slam dunk, with video evidence of the damages. Here he could have just smelled the money and hoped to ride the MeToo movement to a victory, while also furthering his political aspirations. If it fails, it could still further his political aspirations by railing against an unjust system and framing himself as a defender of women. It's really win-win for him.

But I'm an untrusting cynic.

He was actually recognized for juggling three huge cases at once and winning them all. In that same time frame he was defending Texas Governor Rick Perry and had charges against him dismissed. That is not the portrait of some ambulance chasing "let's round up 22 liars" picture many of you have tried to paint. But I expect all of that will not change the perspective who only wish to see what they want to see. You don't become an attorney with a strong record of winning by using weak witnesses who are lying in court.

Claiming someone who has a reputation of winning has manufactured 22 witnesses to lie to the court in order to create a case out of thin air are two very different things. Why would a reputable, winning attorney risk his winning reputation by manufacturing such a case?

And the idea that he seeks publicity? I guess if you think attorney's select their clients rather than clients hiring the attorney of their choosing, you may be right. People seeking large judgements seek attorney's who win. Successful attorney's with a reputation for winning can pick and choose which clients they choose to represent. That's a measure of success, not a badge of shame.

In my previous post, I should've been more clear that that first question was a sincere one. So with that, I do appreciate your clarifying post.

I agree, he didn't "manufacture" 22 accusers. But what I think many are saying (or maybe I just speak for myself) is that saying all 22 accusers are telling the 100% truth is no less a jump to conclusions (with little actual evidence) than saying all 22 are liars. One extreme is no better than the other if your intention is to land at the truth. Being a good lawyer also doesn't necessarily mean he's on the side of truth, either.

Which is why I've never indicated or said that all of the accusers are being honest. I have only seen people make the claim that others are saying that. I think it's reasonable to think that the truth as I think you may be suggesting lies somewhere in between. Maybe that's not what you're suggesting, I'm not sure.

As for addressing that the lawyer of these women as a publicity seeking attorney because of his high profile cases, I think that's simply done by people that have a preconceived notion in their mind who have not taken a subjective look at both sides here. In actuality, the lawyer defending watson is no different in that regard. Why? Because when you're a very successful attorney you can pick and choose your cases. So of we're going to take an objective look at that, let's look at some of watson's attorney's former client list..... televangelist Joel Osteen, Enron accountant Arthur Andersen, Roger Clemens, Rudy Tomjanovich, Warren Moon, Wade Boggs, Rafer Alston, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, and Calvin Murphy.

If the bar some wish to set is that an attorney chooses cases to get their name in lights, Rusty Hardin, fits that same bill to a tee.

Great response, poster has judged Watson and whole Cleveland leadership group- innocent until proved guilty doesn't apply. Interesting Watson hasn't settled with ANY accuser- you'd think he might want to cut his losses and settle- hasn't happened. Could he be innocent----no way, impossible. Really. Go Browns!!!

The majority of articles early on characterized Buzbee as attention-seeking and made a point of referencing unusual behavior (parking a tank in his driveway, etc) from him in the past. Watson's attorney didn't get the same treatment. Maybe it's an uneven playing field, I don't know.

I do hope that this doesn't just get swept under the rug and settled outside of court. I hope that the actual evidence gets leaked, and it's substantial. The stuff that Buzbee has leaked thus far (the cut-up of the court transcripts) really isn't all that damning. I think when we finally know something, we can have actual conversations over something tangible... and not just supposition.

The difference is that Hardin is more likely to lose political capital by defending an accused sexual offender than gain it. His motives are his job and and the associated pay. It's hard for me to see an ulterior motive.

To me, the constant media barrage indicates that it's as much about the spotlight as it is about the facts of the case for Buzbee. Throw in the alleged evidence presented by Hardin in the written response and it seems suspicious to me. Throw in not just the failure to not go forward with charges, but the speed with which the grand juries returned with those decisions, and my math starts to tilt away from 22:1. If they had taken a week to consider the evidence, I'd have doubted DeShaun's case. The fact that both juries came back within hours implies to me that the evidence in Watson's defense was rather compelling.

There's a difference between talking to reporters waiting outside a courthouse versus scheduling your own press conferences and leaking video to the media. Buzbee defending/cozying up to a politician who later endorses him during his mayoral run isn't a point in his favor to me.

Is every thread in Pure Football now going to be about the Watson case and not about football?

You must not have paid attention to Hardin's former client list. There's a huge difference between having a strong defense and having a he said she case where there is scant evidence one way or the other.