DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Will Watson be the Browns starting QB this season..?

Part of the problem is we can't and won't see any of that until the court cases are over. He can't admit a shred of guilt until the conclusion.

I understand that. At this rate it appears that could be a process that may take years.

Why should the Browns fork over any money? I don't understand that comment. The Browns haven't done anything wrong.

The more i think about it, I am not even sure the Browns could pay settlements for Watson as it would probably violate the salary cap as it would probably have to be paid to Watson first, which would increase his income.

Yeah, the Browns have done nothing wrong.......

Did Jerry Jones, or Robert Kraft, or even Brett Farve? No! And what happened to the Chuck's e-mails?
They where all swept under the rug by the League. They all have one thing in common that DW does not share with them. Can you guess what that double standard is?

Well, at least the women will be safe in the stadium.

Two of the three you listed are NFL owners. Do you really think they hold themselves to the same standard as the players? Come on now, you know better.

Farve had two accusers. Not 24. And he was fined 50k. That was 12 years ago. Now the NFL is looking at the Bauer suspension of two years by the MLB that was handed down only months ago.

Things change and they have.

The Bauer deal isn't comparable.

I must have missed when JB, Ray Ray and Ben owned up to what they did.

Good points. Also, Kobe's apology came AFTER he settled the rape charges out of court. He apologized to the woman and her family while denying all of the accusations.

And let's be honest here. No one gave a rat's ass about that fake apology. Kobe was revered and even worshiped because of his play on the court. People are still grieving over him.

j/c...

That doesn't mean anything. In the end he wasn't charged criminally.

in the end he was maybe happy.

If she believes crimes were committed why didn't she arrest him? Isn't that her job?

jfan...it wouldn't have mattered if she did arrest him...the Texas Law System would not have held him.



Police detective testifies she believed Deshaun Watson committed crimes

Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY
Fri, June 10, 2022, 9:46 PM·11 min read
link


A Houston police detective testified this week that she believed Deshaun Watson committed crimes after investigating 10 criminal complaints against him, according to a pretrial deposition transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.

The detective, Kamesha Baker, said she expressed her opinion to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. But she wasn't called to testify before the grand jury in Harris County, Texas, and doesn’t know why the grand jury didn’t indict the Cleveland Browns quarterback on criminal charges. She said she believed Watson committed criminal indecent assault, sexual assault and prostitution in cases where money was exchanged and there was consensual sex.

“Did you feel confident that you had the evidence needed to pursue those charges?” Baker was asked in the deposition.

“Yes,” Baker said.

“And was there any doubt in your mind as the investigating officer that a crime had occurred?”

“No,” Baker said.

Baker testified in a pretrial deposition for the civil litigation against Watson in Houston, where he has been sued by 24 women who have accused him of sexual misconduct during massage sessions in 2020 and early 2021. Eight of those women also filed complaints with Houston police about Watson’s conduct, in addition to two other women who filed police complaints who have not sued Watson in civil court.

Watson, 26, never was arrested or charged with a crime and has denied wrongdoing.

Baker said she met with prosecutor Johna Stallings at the district attorney’s office.

“I expressed to her that we did find the complainants credible and reliable,” Baker testified, according to the transcript. “That's why we did a warrant that stated they were credible and reliable.”

“Was there any disagreement amongst your team or the police that a crime had occurred?” asked Tony Buzbee, the attorney for the women.

“No,” Baker said.

Baker declined additional comment through a spokesman for the Houston police.

Baker said in her testimony that Stallings told her she would take the evidence to the grand jury in Harris County. In March, two separate grand juries declined to indict him on criminal charges after being presented evidence of his alleged misconduct. The first grand jury was in Harris County and was presented complaints filed with Houston police by nine women against him. The second one was in Brazoria County south of Houston. It was presented with only one complaint against him, from a woman who gave Watson massages at her mother’s home in November 2020.

Watson’s legal team had serious issues with this detective’s testimony, noting that she admitted to believing the women at the outset, arguably creating an unfair presumption of guilt for Watson. Watson’s lead counsel, Rusty Hardin, also got Baker to admit it was possible the prosecutor had considerably more evidence at her disposal than Baker did.

"The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of our justice system," Leah Graham, another one of Watson's attorneys, said in a statement Friday. "It is incredibly unfortunate that this presumption was not given to Deshaun Watson by one of the investigating officers. Ultimately, however, justice was served by two grand juries in two separate jurisdictions who did what this detective refused to do: take a fair and impartial look at all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion."

In her deposition, Baker noted some of the cases were stronger than others. In two cases, she wanted sexual assault charges but noted she didn’t think the grand jury would support those charges because there wasn’t enough evidence.

“Two of them we considered sexual assault because of the way the statute is written that speaks specifically to coercion and we felt that there was enough to insinuate that power and influence was in the room and it was coercive,” Baker testified. “And when power and influence is in the room, consent cannot be.”

'Appeared to be a pattern'
Baker said she investigated all 10 cases, including the case in Brazoria County, which Baker described as a “really powerful and compelling account.” Baker said she testified in that proceeding, but not before the grand jury in Harris County, which was the most consequential for Watson.

Graham, Watson's attorney, noted Baker testified "at length" in Brazoria County but concluded there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

"While I appreciate the detective’s honesty, her admitted bias and refusal to honor the law is unacceptable and should cause everyone serious concern," Graham said of Baker.

Baker made her position clear to Buzbee.

"Did you believe a crime had occurred with regard to all 10 of the complainants?" Buzbee asked her.

"Yes," Baker replied.

Baker testified about one woman who did not sue Watson but filed a complaint with police. Baker said sometimes that woman got paid by Watson and sometimes not.

“Where it was consensual sex, well, that would be prostitution,” Baker said.

“Did you raise that with the DA?” Buzbee asked, referring to the district attorney.

“Yes, but we would charge both of them,” Baker replied. “Because, I mean, I don't – I'm – honestly when I'm working a case, it's about if the crime was committed. Right. So they would have both been charged.”

“Did you charge them?”

“No, we didn't charge anyone because I didn't – I don't get to make the charge,” Baker said.

Hardin asked her if the women always gets the benefit of the doubt with her in such cases.

“I start by believing all the victims,” Baker replied. “Absolutely. Stand by that 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sex crime should start by believing the complainant. Provided defense provides something that refutes it, we're going to believe that complainant.”

"So in your world of investigation, the defendant always has to prove his innocence?" Hardin asked her.

"Yes," Baker said.

She did not interview Watson, who was not made available to her. She also said she didn’t immediately think he was guilty.

“What I can say is there appeared to be a pattern of an attempt to make the massage session sexual,” she testified. Among the clues she cited was Watson’s “towel trick” of trying to use a small towel that women have said falls aside and exposes himself to them.

After the decision not to indict him in Harris County, NFL teams practically lined up to bid for his services after he spent the 2021 season sidelined and under a cloud of allegations with the Houston Texans. The Browns won the sweepstakes, giving him a record guaranteed contract of $230 million over five years.

But Buzbee has expressed skepticism about just how deeply that grand jury looked at those cases. He said only one of the Harris County complainants was called in to testify even though others were subpoenaed and ready to appear. That was Ashley Solis, the first woman to sue Watson in March 2021.

“They didn’t even hear from the investigator,” Tony Buzbee told USA TODAY Sports on June 3, referring to Baker. Buzbee also said the prosecutor at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office “would hardly talk to my people and wouldn’t return my call.”

“Did you expect that you would appear yourself in front of the grand jury?” Buzbee asked Baker in the deposition.

“I figured that because of the amount of data that we had collected, the fact that we had not received the Cash App records back yet that it was probable that I would go because it was just a lot of information that we gathered,” Baker replied.

The Harris County grand jury
Baker also said she was “upset” she did not get to testify before the Harris County grand jury.

“I did want an indictment as I do with any case that I work,” Baker testified. “If I'm working that hard and I feel that the evidence I have supports the charge, yes, I want a charge.”

Baker said Stallings told her not to interview other women who filed lawsuits against Watson but did not file criminal complaints with police.

“What did she say?” Hardin asked her in the deposition.

“The gist of it was because Hardin would have some objections,” she replied.

“Hardin would have some objections?” Hardin asked.

“You would have some objection,” Baker said to Hardin.

“What objections would I have?” Hardin said.

“I don't know,” Baker said. “You – I can't – I'm just telling you what was told.”

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office provided a statement to USA TODAY Sports Friday.

“Under state law it’s up to Grand Jurors to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence for an indictment,” the statement said. “That is their role. Senior prosecutors spoke extensively with the complainants and ensured all of the evidence was presented to Grand Jurors for consideration. It’s also exclusively up to Grand Jurors to determine who they want to hear from in person. All complainants were summoned to the Grand Jury. Grand jurors are allowed to ask to hear the testimony of anyone they want and the DA’s office always seeks to facilitate that testimony to the extent possible.”

Buzbee said Hardin provided the prosecutor a “PowerPoint” to use with grand jury. Whether it was shown to the grand jury is not known. Grand jury proceedings are conducted under secrecy and are led by prosecutors, who generally have wide latitude in how aggressively they push a grand jury to indict. The defendants and their attorneys are not normally present to put up a rebuttal in these proceedings, as they weren’t in the case of Watson.

Baker declined additional comment through a spokesman with the Houston police.

If the prosecutors at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office didn’t think the evidence was sufficient to prove Watson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a subsequent criminal trial, it’s possible they weren’t aggressive with their presentation to the grand jury. The grand jury is tasked with deciding whether to indict on criminal charges, sending the case on a track for trial.

Hardin also said he heard Solis was the only complainant who testified before the Harris County grand jury. Stallings said afterward that prosecutors presented evidence and testimony to the grand jury for over six hours related to nine criminal complaints against Watson.

“My sense is, without knowing this for sure, she (the prosecutor) gave the grand jury the choice of whether they would like to hear from (more of) them,” Hardin told USA TODAY Sports June 2, referring to the other complainants in Harris County.

Hardin said it's "not odd" if the grand jury heard only one complainant testify but also declined to indict on complaints from eight other women.

“I can tell you as a matter of practice it’s not odd at all,” Hardin said. “Secondly, the grand jury gets to make the decision about these things. If you look at the facts, they weren’t crimes. They don’t meet the elements of a crime, of any crime.”

Houston police had been investigating Watson for indecent assault, a misdemeanor, according to court records. Indecent assault is defined in the Texas penal code as generally touching the private parts of another person, touching another person with private parts, exposing private parts or causing another person to contact seminal fluid or urine without consent.

It’s not known what charges the grand jury considered. In the lawsuits, Watson is generally accused of exposing himself to these women during massage sessions, causing his genitals to touch them and in some cases coercing them and ejaculating on them.

Graham told USA TODAY Sports June 2 that Watson’s legal team fully cooperated with the police investigation.

“They had every deposition transcript we had available, every document that had produced in the case that had been produced by either side,” Graham said. “I have to imagine that HPD would have given that to the DA, and the DA – we don’t know what was presented – I have to imagine they would have presented all that deposition testimony and documentary evidence to the grand jury.”

Solis, who testified in front of the Harris County grand jury, was asked in an interview with HBO recently about why the grand jury didn’t indict. She accused Watson of exposing himself and causing his genitals to touch her, leading her to cry and cut the massage short.

“I have absolutely no idea," Solis replied. "I don’t see how any of those human beings could have sat there in front of me and think what he did was OK."

In a statement, Buzbee said Baker’s transcript “speaks for itself.”

“We will be taking the deposition of the other officer assigned to the case soon,” he said. “We continue to collect information, and it continues to make our case stronger.”

Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Deshaun Watson: Officer testifies she believed QB committed crimes

The whole problem with this is that Baker tried arresting Watson

Just personally it matters.

Is it more or less likely we have a serial sex offender as our QB based on the statements by the police?

I mean - going back to when this all broke, I have friends that flat don't care if he sexually abused these women - they want to win, they don't care. Personally the more that comes out - the more likely it is that Watson did what he was accused of but due to the law, due to the difficulty of a criminal conviction based on a a "He Said - She Said" situation - he isn't being prosecuted. In a civil case - I think he would go down in flames.

Maybe some don't care, it's as simple as that.

I’d be curious how of much of an impact, if any, it might have on the civil cases. Maybe pushes Watson closer to settling and putting the matter behind him.

LOL...

I tend to agree w/you, Milk. I enjoy reading your takes. Much more level-headed and fair than most.

The only conclusion is an expiration of the statute of limitations.
All criminal charges are STILL a possibility and ANY admission of any sort could trigger an indictment, and restart all of this.
He was never charged and tried, thus them doing so at a later time is NOT double jeopardy.

Hopefully the owners, FO and coaching staff now understand the situation. What leadership, Jimmy! You are fairly stupid, by the way.

We might have to go with Baker Mayfield, boys. Some won’t like it. The

Yep, he wasn't charged "YET". All it will take is one misstep, or another accuser with some proof. I wonder how he is feeding his sex addiction now?

This is so frustrating to witness but without a financial settlement with the plaintiffs the following is probably the most likely.

1. There is zero chance that Deshaun Watson will be playing this season. Forget it.

2. Another possibility is that he will be on a gardening leave in 2022 and then later suspended in 2023.

3. The criminal investigation is as it looks is far from over after the latest statements from the police. Wouldn’t be surprised if the police and the prosecutor re open the case again.

The case is being tried in the media, that is a common tactic by the plaintiff in civil cases. I mean why not? I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. His goal is to win a judgment so his clients and he get paid. It's all about money at this point.

I read somewhere that they did try to settle. The figure I saw was $100,000 per, but it was a all or nothing deal. All but 3-4 of the women wanted to settle then, but the others didn't, so no deal. I am sure Buzbee wanted to hold for more and advised as such.

As the attorney he is obligated to take the offer to his clients. That said, once a offer is made, it automatically raises the antenna and people wanting to seek more. I am not saying that is greed or anything else. I am just saying that is the way it works.

Settlements work the other way as well. At some point, and I think it is getting near, Buzbee is going to run out of ammo so to speak. At some point the scale of public opinion is going to wane and people are going to get tired of hearing about it and won't really care. Before that happens, Busbee is going to feel he has spent enough time on the case and he is going to start reaching out to Hardin about a settlement. At some point he is going to get tired of working for free and finally take his 30% plus any additional outside expenses, such as bringing in a expert witness, and call it a wrap. From his perspective there is a optimum time to do that. Wait any longer and it ends up a diminishing return. JMO, but I think we are inside that window where he needs to get a wrap on this thing. I am not saying his window will start closing tomorrow, but it will start to close.

Thoughtful post. I will just add that I think the all or nothing part of the deal came at the insistence of the Dolphins when they were trying to trade for Watson.

I have a couple of other thoughts/opinions.

In my opinion, the most damning of the recent news was the NY Times report. Sixty-six women? Damn.

Personally, I don't put as much stock in the claims from the 24th victim. Her description sounds quite a bit different than the others. She made the claim after the HBO thing came out. I think the courts might look at her differently than the public is.

A lot of people, and maybe rightfully so, have bashed the Browns for not doing a deep enough investigation. Has anyone ever considered that perhaps their investigation was thorough and that they feel that their decision to sign Watson will be justified when the facts all come out? The Browns just said they are still all-in on Watson. Some can say that it was a PR move, but on the other hand, they really did not have to say anything at all. In fact, saying less is usually the best idea when one is on the wrong side of legal case.

Not statements by the police. Statements by one detective that admittedly does not follow protocol or the law and assumes guilt in every sexually oriented case she gets. She didn't even interview Watson. Read the interview and the article.

When a police interview a suspect - doesn't the suspect have to prove their innocence? Police investigations aren't the same as a court of law.

The statement I read was that her and the team - no idea if that's small, large or a team of two - came to the same conclusion / belief. To me that's significant. Maybe you choose to put different stock into what she said.

Her statement was the only one taken, she openly admits a presumption of guilt and she didn't even interview Watson. That is wrong on more that a few counts.

But she has interviewed all/some of the women who made the allegations. She is an experienced detective that (presumably) has some ability to sniff out BS and false claims.

If only talking to the women means it is impossible to determine the merits of the case - then the idea the Browns did their due diligence is also hogwash - they only spoke to DW and his attorney.

In a case where we have a few facts - and quite a lot of noise from the concerned parties: Both lawyers, DW, the Browns FO, the women being interviewed on HBO ... this input from a neutral party, experienced in interviewing and collecting information .... to me, it's significant.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote - but the fact Watson attempted to settle does not "prove" the women aren't lying. I'm certain some high profile, rich celebrities sometimes choose to settle rather than have something dragged out in public. It may be an indication that the optics are bad. It might be that Watson didn't want it known he had 66 different therapists (licensed or not) in a space of 17 months... it could mean a few things. While being guilty is one of those possibilities - it is not the only one.

I was not part of the Brown's investigations but I would imagine it would have been more than just talking to Watson. I understand them not speaking to the women, this could conceivably give them liability, but I would think they read any depositions available, or more specifically, the ones Watson's attorney has gathered.

The police are not there to determine guilt, they are there to decide if there is enough evidence to arrest and hold you and to gather the evidence and keep a chain of custody so the evidence is not tampered with. I don't wonder with all the police personnel that have been involved in this process thus far if this detective isn't looking for a few minutes of her 15.

I'm beginning to wonder if they did do their due diligence.



The facts we do have are that this detective admitted that she goes against protocol and the law and assumes all accusations in sex related crimes are true from the onset, and in this case didn't even interview the accused. And she's the only law enforcement on record in that article.

Why? The team knew what type of criticism they would receive. They have a ton of money and resources at their disposal. They would be investing heavily in Watson. Why in God's name would they not do their due diligence? By not talking to the accusers? Berry has said that the team's lawyers reaching out directly to the accusers would be interfering w/a criminal case. Hell, that seems like common sense even w/out a lawyer having to tell you that.

Additionally, Berry said that their investigation involved private investigators and third-party legal advisors to research the cases during the "five-month odyssey" of their investigation of Watson's situation. He acknowledged that they are aware that many people are not as comfortable w/their decision as they are, how difficult this is for many people, especially women and that the nature of the allegations weighed heavily on all of them.

I think it would have been foolish for the Browns and the other teams to NOT do a thorough investigation given the resources needed to make the trade, the cost of Watson's contract, and all the negative backlash the team would receive once it signed Watson. And no one is going to convince me that the guys in our front office are foolish or lacking in intelligence. I understand that many want to trash the Browns over their QB moves in recent months, but it might be wise to take a step back and actually give it some thought. In no way would I believe that such intelligent men would be careless, reckless, or unprepared.

It isn't the end. More and more details are coming out all the time. Often times details that come out in civil court cases lead to criminal charges. It seems pretty obvious Hardin was in constant contact with the DA during all of this. It sounds like there's something about that we don't know either. We'll see.

So Hardin isn't also trying it in the media? Have you been paying attention? Stop acting like that tactic isn't being played by both sides.


In the last week or so there have been two more cases filed, the police have come out and claimed watson's guilt, The New York Times came out with other sorted details. And you think Buzzbee is running out of ammunition? I mean, really?

At some point yes, they had to say something. I would find it hard to believe they investigated cases and details they knew nothing about. People have pointed out to you that they lied about Baker but you claim they might be telling the truth now? We'll all find out eventually. But one thing to consider is they have no choice but to stick with him as of now.

That's entirely possible.

Having stated that she was speaking for the team (all the team agreed) - she's also possibly telling the facts / truth based on how she sees it and since no colleague has (yet) to come out and tell the world she doesn't speak for them ... that's definitely an equally feasible possibility. Likewise if she mis-characterized her job, if she spoke counter to what her job is - I'd expect disciplinary action and a statement - to which I have not yet seen. So maybe she wants her 15 minutes - or maybe her bosses told her to make that statement to let the world know it looks like DW is a sexual predator but they don't have enough evidence for a criminal prosecution. idk.