DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Re: Will Watson play for the Browns this year..(continued)

Just a couple of observations as the Judge contemplates the case:

1) If the NFL only presented 5 cases and it was fact that it included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applies coercion, or used force - why did it take three full days for the NFL to present and the NFLPA to defend? There absolutely had to be something of substance presented that took 3 whole days.

2) Que the new lawsuit against the Houston Texans. If the Texans are guilty of enabling Watson, wouldn't one assume that Watson was doing something very questionable? This puts a whole new spin on things because what and when did the Texans discover something, why didn't they stop it rather than try to protect him with an NDA? According to the papers filed, the Texans gave Watson the NDA after they received information that there was talk on Instagram about therapists' problems dealing with Watson. The room at the Houstonian Hotel was in the Texans name not Watson's. There are all kinds of ramifications from this including a Salary Cap violation depending on who paid for the room? If Watson paid, why was it left in the Texans name then? Ruling in favor of the NFLPA before having these questions answered could cause all kinds of issues. If the Texans are guilty of enabling, then Watson must have been doing something questionable.

3) The Personal Conduct Policy Expectations and Standards of Conduct

It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. We are all held to a higher standard
and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL, and is lawful.
Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this
Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players
found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct
includes but is not limited to the following:

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

OCD....You can't read too much into the settlements. There was ALWAYS going to be a settlement despite Watson's insistence in clearing his name. 97% of all civil cases are settled. Why, because it is far more expensive to fight them than to settle them...Extensively more. That is precisely why Buzbee was never interested in criminal trial. His entire plan was to stretch this out, play it in the media, and introduce new suits in a timely fashion to keep the media into it and the pressure on Watson and his team. Because it was about the money and him knowing he would (not could) get a settlement. So settlements are never about guilt or innocence (or I should say culpability or not) unless they make it to trial...

Now that is not to say what you are insinuating can't be true. But I believe that just the opposite has the same amount of possibility of being true. We live in a society where if a woman goes to a party and consensually sleeps with a guy....days later she can "regret" it. Whether all she wanted was sex and the guy now thinks they are in a relationship, or she was intoxicated and a little too free....whatever reason for the regret, we justify her with saying days later that the sex was non consensual. After which some guy's name is smeared for life as a sexual predator. With that said...yes...the number is disturbing in Watson's case. But not out of the question for one of the largest stars in Houston and people thinking they may be his next girlfriend...or as not licensed, they may be misunderstandings concerning massaging those areas near controversial parts....Or maybe Watson is a scumbag...The NFL case (if PFT is correct) doesn't seem to hold up with assault though.

I am not judging these women...I am not judging Watson...I will however consider Judge Robinsons ruling and her opinion as it pertains to how I feel about Watson as a person...

Are you under the assumption that the NFL was the only party presenting evidence? Are you under the assumption that there was only one topic being presented?

A media offensive from Deshaun Watson’s camp could be coming

Posted by Mike Florio on July 1, 2022, 9:35 AM EDT
link


It may be too little and too late when it comes to reversing the verdict in the court of public opinion. That may not stop Deshaun Watson‘s camp from trying to do just that.

Currently, there are indications that, as soon as next week, Deshaun Watson’s representatives will launch a media offensive aimed at challenging the lingering allegations against him. With 20 cases officially settled, four lawsuits remain — along with the vague notion that more lawsuits could be filed.

Since the first case began, Watson’s camp has been unable to commence or sustain a P.R. strategy that has secured any real traction among the media or the general public. At this point, there’s only one way to make it happen — by releasing smoking-gun excerpts from witness testimony that reveal serious if not fatal flaws in the allegations against Watson.

It’s unknown whether such evidence exists. If it did, it should have been released previously. Regardless, it’s possible if not likely that the next stage in this 16-month saga will include a far more aggressive effort by Watson’s lawyers and agents to fight back.

There’s a distinct sense of optimism for Watson emerging from the three-day disciplinary hearing before Judge Sue L. Robinson, based on the quality of the evidence submitted by the league in support of its quest for a minimum suspension of one year. If Watson doesn’t receive a significant suspension, there will be a strong negative reaction from some. However, there’s a distinct chance that Judge Robinson’s decision will fall far short of the outcome the NFL wants (indefinite suspension of at least one year).

Although any effort to get Watson’s side of the situation out more aggressively should have happened a while ago, especially since attorney Tony Buzbee has been working the media zealously and effectively since Day One, it makes even more sense to do so now. With Judge Robinson’s decision quite possibly being announced as training camps start to open, and given the potentially seismic reaction to a short suspension or none at all, it becomes critical for everyone involved — Watson, the Browns, the league, the NFL Players Association, and even Judge Robinson — for public expectations to be properly managed to account for the possibility that Watson won’t miss much time at all, if any.

Of course, the ultimate vehicle for making the case to the public will be Judge Robinson’s written decision. It needs to be clear, it needs to be logical, it needs to make sense to the average person who reads it. Unless the four remaining cases go to trial, Judge Robinson’s decision will become the only real adjudication of the facts, allegations, and defenses involving Deshaun Watson. Judge Robinson’s decision will be heavily scrutinized, and it will need to be bulletproof — whatever her decision may be.

As for the 5 cases...my initial thought is that there were originally 25 women and one dropped the charges when the stipulation of her name would become public...20 suits were settled...I don't know if those 20 are allowed in the hearing due to stipulations in the settlement...Just a thought...have no clue why only 5...perhaps the 5 strongest cases...Perhaps the 5 weakest cases(if you believe in conspiracy theories)




So Buzbee is arguing that the Texans were making concessions for their superstar and enabling him. It has to be proven, but is consistent with Buzbee's side of the story...But also remember this...While Watson is now being paid handsomely....The Texans are the ones with the Money.(always follow the money) I think the NFL (or more likely, the NFL Owners) will be more concerned about the Salary Cap implications as was mentioned in the video rather than proof against Watson as the purpose is circumstantial at best. The NDA, I believe was given by a security director whom was prior Secret Service...Whether that was self volition or by chain of organizational command is up for debate...I bet being former SS, he/she was used to NDA's in protection duties with politicians. (also a guess...could have worked in a different part of SS but since they are in a Security position...it is a reasonable assumption) That still doesn't mean anything untoward was going on...it is still just an insinuation.


It can definitely be argued this rule is broken. But it can also be argued that precedence shows that it was not(past owners, etc.)...especially if it cannot be proven if what happened was something other than consensual. The problem with this is that it is VERY subjective...And you have to prove that Watson risked the integrity of the NFL and it not that the allegations did...If you can't prove the allegations then you can't prove Watson messed with the integrity... (this is just all hypothetical)

It's germane, but I don't think it is as important as y'all are thinking. He wasn't accused of any of those things, so they were never on the table anyway.
Sexual assault doesn't require ANY of those things for it to be real.

So, I get where y'all are getting your hopes up, but it's a false platform to build on.

I rarely agree w/Florio and this is no exception. I think Watson's team was wise to not try and tarnish the image of the women who were suing him. We all know that in the past, victims are the ones who are put on trial. Most of us find that disgusting. I think Watson's team was wise and honorable to not accuse the plaintiffs of misdeeds. They have repeatedly stated that they were confident of Watson being exonerated "once the facts come out."

Moving forward, I hope that they don't start a smear campaign against the women. I understand that it might be the only avenue to have his haters to possibly change their minds, but I still don't like it. Hold your head high and don't be dragged down to the depths of your enemies.

I disagree that Watson's team should have been presenting evidence...First there was the criminal situation...and then the civil lawsuits...and anything they revealed could possibly be dismissed in court if brought out...

This is more about what the MEDIA wants and not what is best for Watson...The media wants to satiate their own curiosities, make news, and make money...That doesn't mean that information should be readily available...#1 it isn't public information...#2 they are NOT the judge and Jury no matter how much they seem to think so...Lastly...being the media, they can spin it into any narrative they want...Why would Watson's team do something like that???

Nothing false about it, but you are entitled to your opinion.

This was my assumption as well. There are a couple legit reasons why you'd boil down the NFL discipline proceedings to only focus on a couple.
As to the 'no evidence' part... this is just another example/perspective about why nobody takes NFL discipline seriously. I know we've been neck-deep in the backstory behind all this for what seems like an eternity, but this discipline hearing is something of a reset for the people involved (an un-biased Robinson getting the story from both sides, likely getting info that we normal folk haven't seen yet). Pretty much identical to my feelings on the NFLPA campaigning for no discipline at all... then you have the NFL going for an unprecedented punishment while putting forth no evidence of all those things (including coercion). After hearing what both sides are trying to pull, how anyone can see these proceedings as anything other than a clownshow is beyond me.



So Buzbee is arguing that the Texans were making concessions for their superstar and enabling him. It has to be proven, but is consistent with Buzbee's side of the story...But also remember this...While Watson is now being paid handsomely....The Texans are the ones with the Money.(always follow the money) I think the NFL (or more likely, the NFL Owners) will be more concerned about the Salary Cap implications as was mentioned in the video rather than proof against Watson as the purpose is circumstantial at best. The NDA, I believe was given by a security director whom was prior Secret Service...Whether that was self volition or by chain of organizational command is up for debate...I bet being former SS, he/she was used to NDA's in protection duties with politicians. (also a guess...could have worked in a different part of SS but since they are in a Security position...it is a reasonable assumption) That still doesn't mean anything untoward was going on...it is still just an insinuation.

[/quote]
IMO, the Houston thing is a separate matter that can be handled separately. Remember, right now the only thing moving forward is the NFL discipline against Watson. The remainder of the Watson civil cases seems to be in waiting mode, and the cases against the Texans are just starting up. NFL will (hopefully) handle the Texans angle of all this, but it's too early.

Indeed it is, but I'd suggest that if you believe the absence of things that were never considered to be there and were never part of the story lessens what it is, you are fooling yourself.

Except that if they did not consent...and he did not force or coerce...Then where is the assault..

from RAINN:
What is force?
Force doesn’t always refer to physical pressure. Perpetrators may use emotional coercion, psychological force, or manipulation to coerce a victim into non-consensual sex. Some perpetrators will use threats to force a victim to comply, such as threatening to hurt the victim or their family or other intimidation tactics.

And again...if PFT is correct...none of that occurred.

RAINN is a pretty good resource for much of this...

Sexual misconduct may be another issue...and I am looking that up...

I suppose it all depends upon what PFT is considering actions that meet the definitions of those words.... and, probably which testimonies the NFL put forth.

We've already read plenty of allegations on here over the last several weeks that meet many of the above criteria, but there's no word that those are part of what the NFL presented. The ASSUMPTION is that since the NFL has been asking for this unprecedented suspension that they would present the most damning cases they could. However, if they actually want him to play while also satiating the public demand, they could easily ask for the suspension while deliberately presenting a weak case.

Purp, I am not being snarky and I know you are intelligent and do not wish to suggest otherwise. Thus, I'm trying hard to figure out a way to politely ask this.

We all understand what the word coercion means, right?

In all serious...and not pointed at any one person...More at society....We can't define "consent" to a satisfactory degree...why should coercion be any different?

Yeah, I considered a purposeful weak case from the NFL as well...very conspiratorial...but in a spin game...anything is possible.

And of course we are relying on the media

It’s really sad that you feel that way.

If I’m judgmental and my values are too old fashion I apologize to you.

There are moments when I’m unsure what’s right or wrong regarding Watson’s suspension. Maybe I’m out cycling but for me it all come down to 24 women give similar testimonies about their meetings with Deshaun. It’s so hard to logically walk around that fact that so many women was willing to go to court about something that’s almost statistically impossible to prove without hard evidence.

There are the legal definitions, then there are the interpretations of a PFT reporter. They may or may not be the same thing.
Without knowing precisely what was presented, and of which alleged victims, we cannot decide for ourselves... we are at the mercy of reporters telling us what THEY think.

No need to be sorry. We just disagree on what constitutes guilt. Speak your mind and I'll speak mine. It's all good.

Regarding threats and coercion, following is Ashley Solis's recollection of the exchange between Watson and her:

Appearing on HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel,” Ashley Solis — who is among 22 women who have sued Watson over allegations he behaved inappropriately with them — provided graphic details of an encounter with the three-time Pro Bowler.

She also said at the end of a massage, Watson told her, “I know you have a career to protect,” and, “I know you don’t want anyone messing with it just like I don’t want anyone messing with mine.”

Reporter Soledad O’Brien asked Solis why Watson’s message frightened her.

“Because that sounded like a threat to me,” she said.

********

Only Watson knows if it was intended as as a threat, but I can see how it could be perceived as one by a woman in an uncomfortable setting.

In a he-said vs a she-said argument, we should rely on a court of law to decide guilt or innocence. I understand the 24 women thing. However, I have always been super skeptical of those who don't file police reports and bypass criminal courts and start their case in civil courts.

That might be my own individual bias? I just know that if a crime was committed against me, I would file a police report and find justice in a Criminal Court rather than trying to winning a monetary settlement.

I believe Ashley Solis did file a police complaint. Hers was one of the cases that the local detective said she believed was the commission of a chargeable offense, of which she thought he was guilty. It really is more of a he said / THEY said, since Solis was not the only alleged victim who filed a police complaint.

If true, this is coercion, and I'd be surprised if that wouldn't hold up in court. So the tidbit about the NFL providing no evidence of coercion is mind-boggling.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...mp;cvid=dd37b8584cef4a33b83b4c5c07633503

Report: Deshaun Watson Will Never Play for Browns
Noah Strackbein - 3h ago
26 Comments

The Cleveland Browns could be in trouble, according to the belief of one NFL insider.

Report: Deshaun Watson Will Never Play for Browns
© Provided by All Steelers on FanNation
Report: Deshaun Watson Will Never Play for Browns

The Cleveland Browns could be in trouble, according to the belief of one NFL insider. After three days of trial, quarterback Deshaun Watson awaits the verdict of his suspension from the NFL. According to CBS Sports' Jason La Confora, there's a thought that Watson never wears a Browns uniform during the season.

La Confora made this known during an appearance on 93.7 The Fan when he said there could be more coming out surrounding Watson and these sexual assault lawsuits.

"I don’t know if Deshaun Watson is ever going to play with the Cleveland Browns,” La Confora said. "If he is told to sit on the sidelines for a year, what more comes out during that year?"

La Confora also said the Browns didn't do any research into Watson's case, which could lead to many surprises as time passes.

"I wouldn’t not hazard a guess on how many games he starts for the Browns," La Confora said. "I have to see him start one before I even consider it."

Watson met with at least 66 women over the course of 17 months, according to a report from the New York Times. He has settled 20 of his current 24 lawsuits.

Thanks for the correction. I did do a timeline of the events at one point and I do know that the first item was the attorney filing a claim in Civil courts. I actually posted the timeline on this board.

My point, entirely.
That is undeniably coercion, so this cannot be part of what was presented, which takes us to "just what did the NFL choose to present to make its case?"

Key words.

There's a wee bit of creative license going on with the headline, but those are still some pretty heavy quotes to be coming from a guy like LaCanfora. He's never struck me as one that is prone to sensationalism or hyperbole, or playing favorites with his reporting (like Florio, Grossi, or many others). He's not a small-time name to be going on record with those thoughts, either.

My issue has always been the coercion aspect and non-consensual aspect of these early interactions. The timing of these women coming forward to out a rich, famous celebrity does not worry me. In fact it is very much in keeping with ALL incidence of sexual assault whether the aggressor was someone rich/famous or simply someone the person knew.

The bar for Watson's punishment per the code of conduct is and should be less than criminal prosecution and guilt. To me it reads very much like the lower threshold that the civil courts use. But that's jmo and a layman's perspective.

I'll accept what Sue Robinson announces. There is nothing to suggest she is biased My only concern would be her treating this like a court of law and not per code of conduct stipulation ... and I have no reason to think she would do that.

I remember when Jason La Canfora was public enemy number one on this board back in the Ray Farmer era and his articles on the text messaging and dysfunction w/in the organization. That does not mean I find him uncredible, but it brought back memories of how many people on here hated his guts and ridiculed him on a daily basis.

AP Sources: NFL adamant on indefinite suspension for Watson
ROB MAADDI - Yesterday 7:25 PM

Deshaun Watson’s disciplinary hearing concluded Thursday with the NFL adamant about an indefinite suspension of at least one year and the quarterback’s legal team arguing there’s no basis for that punishment, two people with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press.

Both sides presented their arguments over three days before former U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson in Delaware, according to both people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the hearing isn’t public.

Watson was accused of sexual misconduct by 24 women and settled 20 of the civil lawsuits.

Robinson, who was jointly appointed by the league and the NFL Players’ Association, will determine whether Watson violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy and whether to impose discipline.

Post-hearing briefs are due the week of July 11 so it’s uncertain when Robinson will make a ruling. The Cleveland Browns are hoping to know Watson’s availability before training camp starts July 27.

If either the union or league appeals Robinson’s decision, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee “will issue a written decision that will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute,” per terms of Article 46 in the collective bargaining agreement.

A person familiar with the case told the AP the league believes it presented evidence to warrant keeping Watson off the field this season. The person said the league’s investigation determined Watson committed multiple violations of the personal conduct policy and he would be required to undergo counseling before returning.

A person familiar with Watson’s defense told the AP they expect a suspension. Asked what would be acceptable, the person said: “our goal is to get him back on the field this year.”

Two separate Texas grand juries declined to indict Watson on criminal complaints stemming from the allegations.

Watson has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to clear his name.

This is the first hearing for Robinson, who was the first female Chief Judge for the District of Delaware. Previously, Goodell had the authority to impose discipline for violations of the personal conduct policy.

that's a long, long time ago, and I think LaCanfora was still a rather new nobody at that time. He has since established himself continuously as a very solid reporter of NFL news with lots of inside ties that doesn't rely on trying to manufacture stories.

Here's the thing when it comes to, where did all the women come from and why didn't they go to the police sooner? Unfortunately, there aren't many prosecutors that want to spend tax money on a pervert who did it in a private setting without multiple witnesses to any single event. In the court of law, each person's case would be tried separately and treated as an isolated incident. You could bring in witnesses to corroborate statements, but unless they were in the room with the victim at hand, it would all be he said she said, no matter how many times it went to court.

It has also been stated by some, they called the police and after answering some simple questions it was apparent nothing could be done criminally(which was affirmed by the grand jury later). What DID happen is, one case was filed in civil court, which brought the question, "Does my experience warrant the same consideration?" In 25 cases, the answer was yes. One dropped when she found out there was no way to keep her name private and 20 of the other 24 settled for what they felt was fair for their own experience. In the civil court, that is the only outcome they could receive, monetary compensation.

To say these victims were found by Buzbee and told to say the same thing is a pretty thin argument. Does he gain from each victory? Of course, but if a SINGLE woman came forward and said she was asked to say something that wasn't true, his career is over. He is disbarred and there is no coming back from that. You are assuming way too much if you think Buzbee is behind all of these women coming forward.

At the end of the day, each individual finds things more offensive than others. Personally, if a woman flashed her genital area...or even a man did the same...It wouldn't mess me up mentally and I would either call them a pervert or laugh or whatever, depending on the situation. I am POSITIVE that wouldn't be the case for most females. Just putting them in a situation where they are surprised by the sight of a man's genitals can severely take it's toll mentally. We can't ignore or dismiss this and I haven't seen any denial that it has taken place in at the very least, some of these cases. "Flashing" someone is sexual assault of a mental nature. Insisting on the small towel, then positioning himself in every case that has been brought forward to have that towel fall off "inadvertently" exposing himself to them is a reason for filing a case against him, imho.

What you all deem inappropriate, appropriate, or tolerable is not considered by those that find it offensive. That is what I try to accept when I am working my way through this as a Browns fan.

Deshaun Watson's four active lawsuits revealed after dismissal notices filed in court
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY - Yesterday 11:34 PM

Twenty of the 24 women who sued Deshaun Watson filed notices in court to dismiss their lawsuits against the Cleveland Browns quarterback this week, essentially confirming the confidential settlements they reached last week to end their litigation against him.

This was an expected formality, but it also revealed exactly which cases are settled and which four remain active after all 24 women accused Watson of sexual misconduct in massage sessions in 2020 and early 2021.

The four cases that remain active are:

►A woman who accused Watson of sexual assault at a Houston spa in August 2020, when she said he asked her to perform oral sex on him and tried to push her head down to his genitals. Her lawsuit states he applied pressure to her upper body to prevent her from being released from his restraint and masturbated in front of her.

In a previous encounter that year, her lawsuit states he groped her. But she took him again as a client in August 2020 because she didn't realize it was him after he gave a false identity on the first occasion stating he was "an entertainer," according to her lawsuit.

Watson has denied wrongdoing, and two grand juries in Texas declined to indict him on criminal charges. He faced a disciplinary hearing this week about whether he violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy and should be suspended for it.

In this woman’s case, Watson stated in court documents that woman was “laughing and appeared in good spirits" after one session with Watson, according to a security guard at the spa. She also told multiple family members that she would massage Watson again, according to Watson's legal team.

USA TODAY's policy is to not identify individuals who allege sexual crimes and haven’t come forward publicly.

►Another remaining plaintiff is Lauren Baxley, one of the first two women who came forward publicly by name to accuse Watson of misconduct in 2021. She is a licensed massage therapist who said Watson exposed himself to her and caused his genitals to touch her in June 2020. Watson’s attorneys noted Baxley responded to Watson’s messages 19 times after their encounter, suggesting she wasn’t troubled by whatever happened between them.

Baxley’s attorneys, Tony Buzbee and Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, responded to that by noting that Baxley’s counselor “explained that it is not uncommon for victims to keep in contact with their abusers.”

►A third active plaintiff is a woman who said Watson came to her mother’s house for a massage in Manvel, Texas, more than a 30-minute drive south of Houston. He came to that house with his own personal towel and a non-disclosure agreement for her to sign, according to Watson’s recent deposition testimony. Her lawsuit stated he exposed himself and ejaculated on her in her second encounter with him in November 2020.

A grand jury in Brazoria County, Texas, declined to indict Watson in this case after the woman testified there. A Houston police detective who investigated 10 criminal complaints against Watson still said this woman’s case was one of the strongest.

“That was a really powerful and compelling account,” detective Kamesha Baker testified in a recent pretrial deposition in the civil litigation against Watson.

This is the same active plaintiff who also recently sued Watson’s former team, the Houston Texans, accusing the team of enabling Watson’s behavior.

►The fourth remaining plaintiff is Ashley Solis, the first plaintiff to sue Watson in March 2021 and the first to come forward publicly. Baker said in her deposition “the strongest suit to me was Ashley Solis.”

Watson texted her an apology after the massage in March 2020 and admitted in a pretrial deposition in May 2022 that she was “teary-eyed” at the end of their encounter but he didn’t know why. She said she was crying because she was scared by his conduct, which she said included him exposing himself to her and touching her with his genitals. Solis recently appeared in an interview on HBO and was considered possibly the strongest plaintiff of the 24.

Watson's attorneys also have noted problems with her case after she said during a news conference last year that she could no longer practice the profession she loved without shaking.

"Not only is she still accepting clients, but according to those who have worked with her, she did not show any signs of trauma during these sessions," Watson's attorneys noted in court documents last year.

Of the 20 women who filed notices of dismissal, two filed lawsuits in May and June of this year. They were the newest of the 24 plaintiffs after the previous 22 filed their lawsuits in March and April of 2021.

“Plaintiff’s nonsuit is effective immediately upon filing,” stated one of their filings, dated Wednesday. “Wherefore premises considered, Plaintiff prays that the Court take notice that she has dismissed all her claims against Deshaun Watson with prejudice.”

Solis and Baxley were considered the two plaintiffs closest to going to trial. The two sides had reached an agreement not to schedule trials during the football season from August to March, but if Watson is suspended from playing football this fall, it’s also possible they could change that agreement and go to trial in some of these cases earlier.

Because they are depending on a reported leak that was obviously put out by team watson to put as positive of a spin on this as possible and believe that the spin is valid. That is what these articles are all based on. The NFL on the other had has remained silent. They also keep pointing out that the person deciding this case is a retired judge which is quite true. What they seem to not be considering is that a judge makes their decisions based on the standards in place. This is not a criminal court and suspensions have been handed out in the NFL prior that have not been indicted. So the standard she judged cases on in a court of law do not apply here. I understand how they are giddy about the possibility that he will not be held accountable. I mean football is more important, right?

I also understand they can't seem to see that 24 lawsuits and 66 massage therapists in such a short period of time doesn't matter. Because they have no intention of admitting anything other than this being some conspiracy theory. I understand how they refuse to consider the fact that the massage therapist community was putting out warnings about watson's behavior. I understand they don't wish to take into consideration the Texan's providing watson with NDA's for massage therapists to sign because they had every reason to believe there was credibility to all the accusations surrounding his behavior. I understand how they do not wish to take into consideration that watson even admitted that Solis left the session crying. They don't wish to consider that watson first claimed he didn't even look at these women as being attractive because he had a girlfriend only later had to admit he had sex with three of them. And that's only what he did admit to. Showing to anyone willing to look at it that it was his word you couldn't trust and in turn acting like it was all of these women as a group you couldn't trust.

None of these things do they consider evidence. But I bet Sue Robinson does. Somehow it appears that some leak from watsin's side is gospel if you block out everything we already know to be true.

You mean like the spin game that all 24 women must be lying? Like that spin game?

None of that matters as long as someone can find any sliver to try and undermine a report that they disagree with.

Pit....I am going to say this once and only once...Don't respond to me.

You have been nothing but a troll on this discussion and your comment above looks like you are trying to drag me into the same slop. I have made my position clearly known. it is a NONJUDGEMENTAL one towards either side...if you can't handle that...That is Your problem... Take your righteous judgmental trolling elsewhere.

So you somehow now think you have the power or right to tell me who to and who not to respond to?

People can read your posts and most, at least I think most of those reading those words understand English.