DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson News 2: Electric Boogaloo

I'm quoting you more as a jumping off point to keep the discussion going.


My understanding (and I could be mis-remembering) is the the 4 remaining cases that weren't settled were the more serious allegations.

More serious than settling as soon as you can for relations you said weren't coerced or forced and even told your child he'd get a pay day if he kept quiet?


I have been saying this for years. "Believe all women" was always a trash ideal, throwing due process in the garbage. Somehow we got to a place in society where women are infallible. Anyone with two rocks rattling around upstairs sees through that trash.

I'm not sure about that one way or the other. What I do know is that this isn't the first time such a settlement was turned down by some of these women. If I had to venture a guess I would think these would be the four cases that are the strongest to present in front of a judge and jury. I don't think what your accusation is makes as much difference as how strong your case would be in court.

Almost infallible.

If they point fingers at the wrong people it gets swept under.

Other than that you are pretty spot on.

I think you should consider changing that to "Believe no women no matter how many of them there are accusing the same man." because in this instance that's exactly what you're insinuating. Anyone with two rocks rattling around upstairs sees through that trash.

Side note: I'm unclear who turned down who in terms of proposed settlements that went nowhere. At some point or another between when all this kicked off and and the 20 settlements, both sides were soliciting settlement offers that the other rejected.

Again, this is just my recollection, but I thought there were a couple of the accusers who's stories sorta rose to the top in terms of the seriousness of the accusations. I would hope the ones that didn't settle were the strongest cases, as well.

Which owner got rapey with 30+ women?

None, that I know of. Then again, Watson has not been convicted of getting rapey w/30+ women. I do know that there isn't video evidence against him like there is w/Snyder, Kraft, and Jones. I also know that Watson isn't being investigated by Congress.

This is like a broken record coming from you. The NFL "IS NOT" - I repeat "IS NOT" investigating Watson for any crime so PLEASE, stop with the conviction BS. Watson is being investigated for unacceptable conduct. A player violates this policy when he has a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined), or if the league’s investigation demonstrates that he engaged in conduct prohibited by the Personal Conduct Policy. In cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.

Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:
 Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses.
 Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation.
 Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.
 Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

There's plenty of under oath depositions from the women with more to come from the Texans, that hasn't been released but Buzbee has mentioned, that clearly shows Watson stalked, harassed, and used intimidation to get his way with the unlicensed massage therapists. We now know of 30 such cases with the possibility of more coming being highly likely. Watson has clearly undermined and put at risk the integrity of the NFL and his NFL teams with his actions. There does not nor has there ever been a need for criminal charges or a conviction but that is still on the table. The issue is the unprecedented pure number of alleged sexual misconduct cases and sexual abuse cases that makes Watson's case the most sensational alleged abuse of women in the history of the NFL. Criminally, there might not be enough evidence as of yet to convince a GJ to issue a criminal indictment but there's clearly enough evidence to pursue civil claims against the Texans and Watson both of which have tried to settle before the real dirty laundry comes out in open court. That doesn't relieve Watson from facing what should be an unprecedented suspension for his misconduct against 30 women (not 1 or 2 which you keep referencing) which is also unprecedented.

But PLEASE, GIVE THE CONVICTION BS A REST!

At least the strawman "No Conviction" sounds slightly more intelligent than the strawman "You just like Baker Mayfield."

j/c,

The word "Integrity" and the NFL should never be used in the same sentence.

Carry on...

I understand you don't like the situation, but, claiming he raped someone is total BS.

j/c…

Watson has not been convicted of a crime. Thus, I will continue to repeat it when folks assign guilt to him. Thus far, all we have are allegations. I understand your are butt hurt because the Browns dumped Baker, but I am not going to stay quiet when you guys act like he has been proven guilty by assigning your mob mentality labels upon him. You don't like it? Too freaking bad!!!

Btw----I understand the Personal Conduct Policy well. I'm the one who introduced it to the board and did a dive into interpreting it. I am also the one who pointed out that the owners were named in that same policy, something you and the other Baker lovers refuse to acknowledge.

You should feel more comfortable at https://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/7-carolina-panthers/

The NFL's case is weak.

That seems like an odd comment considering the information that the NFLPA has already released. I'm trying to interpret the why of it.

Could a settlement be forthcoming?

What kills me the most about this whole situation, is that two grand juries found no evidence that a crime was committed. If they did, charges would have been filed. Now, people are going to use the arbitrator's decision as a proof of guilt or innocence. So basically, if Robinson suspends Watson, even for a few games, the press, and many fans on this board will consider him guilty. That is what happens in banana republics. He will be said to have committed a crime, when he clearly, was not charged by a criminal court.

He will basically be charged with giving the NFL a black eye for his actions. No committing a crime. But, just like everything else in this country, he will be judged by media reports, many from outlets who thrive on virtue signaling, and a group of fans who have, in their own minds, convicted him of rape and other charges. IMO, he will never be treated fairly. Buzbee has created a narrative, and the talking heads are buying it hook line and sinker, probably more worried that they will be cancelled for any honest opinion that goes against the "me too" movement and the woke movement.

These are sad times in America. Getting your day in court means nothing anymore.

I don't know Watson did, and neither do any of you. All I know is that if it was as serious as many of you claim, criminal charges would have been levied. I also believe that anybody who actually believes that many of these women were not just looking for a payday are naive. One other thing that bothers me, the use of the term " professional masseuse" when referring to the accusers. These were women who offered personal massages on social media. Having got many full body massages in my life, by licensed masseuses, I can tell you that accidental contact with private areas is not unusual. Heck, maybe I should have filed charges on a couple of them.

My bottom line is, he will get suspended, because the NFL has to show they are "woke". And a man who might have asked for more than what was offered, but never forced anything, will be charged by the public for crime, when clearly the judicial system found none.

Does that matter. I think it does not.
( I think that when it comes to these supreme court justice types, they poke holes in one side of the arugment during the oral arguments, then later rule in favor of the side they poked holes in. Since it seems to have been reported that they sort of poked holes in the NFL's case, I wouldn't be surprised if the ruling is closer to what the NFL's side was asking for than what would be guessed by how the arguments went.)

IMHO, the reason that Robinson only looked at 12 cases and settled on four is because if you read the reports on the depositions, the thing that stood out was the common theme of Watson demanding using a small towel instead of the standard sheet that inevitably led to it falling off thus exposing himself while directing the masseuses to work in that area and trying to make them touch it. IMHO, the cases were originally reduced to 12 that had extra or different types of misconduct where Judge Robinson eventually reduced to 4 unique situations to take under advisement. It made no sense putting all 24 cases on the table for review that would just be redundant when there were only four in total that contained unique differences or additional misconduct. I have never bought into the fact that she is only looking at 4 cases, she is looking at 24 cases of sexual misconduct of which 4 contain unique or additional misconduct or alleged assault.

As far as the Texans go, I have not seen an official report from the NFL that the case is closed against the Texans. I've read posts here saying that, and I think one poster said it was reported by one writer, but I don't believe the NFL has officially said the case was closed against the Texans. If I'm correct, why all the hoopla?

I can't believe that this has to still be said at this point, but that is not necessarily a true statement.
A lack of indictment is NOT an acquittal, it is NOT a statement of innocence. It simply means that they chose not to indict and it can be for a variety of reasons, and is often as simple as the prosecutor feels the case isn't strong enough to get a conviction.

I know it's strange for folks to think about, but people do bad things and get away with it ALL THE TIME. A lack of an indictment from the grand juries does NOT mean that this is not one of those instances.

I so love how you guys continue to try to make it a Baker thing instead of the actions of a single man taking advantage of 30 women. Hey News Flash, Big Ben 6-game suspension reduced to 4 after receiving medical treatment - no conviction, accused of 1 less sexual assault and 24 less sexual misconducts than Watson. Hunt 8-game suspension for a single event - no conviction, accused of 23 less misconducts and 2 less sexual assaults than Watson. Elliott 6-game suspension for single event - no conviction, accused of 23 less misconducts and 2 less sexual assaults than Watson. This is not mob mentality; these are the freaking FACTS Vers. NOBODY is saying Watson is guilty of anything criminal. What people are saying is he violated the PCP and unless you're deaf and dumb, Watson has violated the PCP at an unprecedented level never experienced in the NFL. Since you want to make it personal, if you don't like what I'm saying it's TOO FREAKING BAD!

Personally, I'm not sure you understand anything going on with Watson and the PCP. You can also take your Baker's lover BS and shove it where the sun don't shine. Baker is not a member of the Browns anymore. Us Browns fans are left to deal with our new franchise QB that's setting a new unprecedented low for taking advantage of women as a player from the NFL and you're supporting him.

You'd feel more comfortable at the Cuyahoga County Jail talking with them because you'd find out the vast majority of those people will swear they're innocent too.

Everyone knows that. However, too many people are assigning guilt to Watson. Folks like steve branding him a sexual deviant. Others are saying he is a predator or rapey. So, to counter your argument.........I can't believe that this has to be said at this point, but being taken to civil court to extract money from an individual does not prove that the said individual is actually guilty.

My point is that there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime. Innocence and guilt don't have a place where there is no crime. My point is that people will using the decision as proof of guilt. She is not judging innocence or guilt; she is judging this on guidelines set forth by the league. People are acting as if she is judging him for a crime, when criminality has nothing to do with what she is pondering. I guarantee that if she gives no suspension, Goodell will step in and do it. The whole reason she was hired by the league, was to give the appearance of having a neutral observer way the actions and decide the punishment. Thus not making Goodell look like a tyrant and being fair. Mark my words, if the suspension is light, or nothing at all, Goodell will fold to the social media mob. Him just having the ability to override her judgement makes the whole process a sham.

It's like talking to a wall. Most of these peeps have their fingers in their ears and will (purposely) not hear a word.

You are an emotional little fella.

You scream at me to stop saying something. I respond. You freak out and say "if you don't like what I'm saying it's TOO FREAKING BAD!" stevie, you are the one who called me out earlier. I didn't say a word to you. I expressed my opinions w/out even mentioning you or insulting another poster. You reply w/out of the blue with "But PLEASE, GIVE THE CONVICTION BS A REST!"

Maybe you should take a step back, calm yourself, and realize that your use of capital letters and outrageous demands have no effect on me. I will post my opinions on this situation and as a Browns fan...........I sure as hell don't feel guilty defending one of our players and calling out the NFL for their bias. Your faux outrage won't change that. Get your last word in, but I'm done w/your childish rants for the evening.

You're wasting your time. You're talking to someone who seems to very, very, VERY shallow-minded in understanding how the NFL conduct code works.

"A lack of indictment is NOT an acquittal, it is NOT a statement of innocence"

It is not a statement of guilt either. If you are not charged with a crime, innocence or guilt are a moot point. But, in this country, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So if he was charged by the GJ, how many would suggest that it doesn't mean he is guilty? They viewed the evidence and decided there was nothing to charge him with, I would have to say that leans more towards innocence, but I get your point.

You are talking to guys who refuse to listen to reason. They think that Civil Court charges automatically means one is guilty. LMAO.......it's so freaking absurd because they get bent out of shape if you don't join in on the witch hunt and act like respecting the laws of the land is a bad thing.

Name the posters that think that OR STOP SAYING IT. Jellyfish show more spine. Sideways cheap digs and the crying victim are your things. We see it every damn day.

Stop acting that way and I'll stop saying it. I didn't even need to yell. LOL




We. That's a popular word that comes out of the mob's mouth.

LOL is right, you finally manned up and admitted you were talking about me. I hope it felt good enough to end your little sideways attacks. I don't care if you come at me, but don't act like that. There are enough mean-girl types in the world, we're too damn old to be adding to that crap.




It's a popular English word. I'm pretty sure everyone uses it. But yes, we usually stick together because we believe generally the same things. But don't pretend we don't also go at each other. The problem is bruh, you can dish it out but can't take it. And lately, you've been a mob of one, so people are coming at you from all angles. SURPRISE, most of those people don't even know the 3 or 4 of us that talk off the board or pm back and forth. The conspiracy is about 95% in your head. The only real time we come to shut you down is when you are doing something off the hook, like threatening noobs in PMs. And please don't try to deny that, I've heard it from three of them, all completely unconnected in when they came here and who they chat with. Hell, they rarely post because of you. Who even does that? Smh.

Still missing the point of the Conduct Policy. It isn’t about criminal charges, it is about personal choices that put you in situations that shed a negative light on yourself and the league. In this case, the acts of meeting up with at least 66 women under the guise of getting a massage, some licensed-some not licensed, then having 30 of them bring forth allegations of misconduct during something you are stated was a business deal. That alone is a violation of the conduct policy. We haven’t even talked about the allegations yet and he is already in violation.

As to your specific post, the woman you reference as telling her son information allegedly, is not even part of the NFL policy investigation. She is not a part of the 24 cases that were filed against Watson. I cannot confirm she isn’t part of the 30 that the Texans settled with, but what was confirmed is that she was never a part of any of the suits against st Watson. So that piece of false information doesn’t hold any merit in these discussions.

This is why I have said that that the NFL and Watson have asked, or been instructed by Robinson to come to an agreement, thus the delay in announcing a decision.