It's actually not about being an anonymous report as much as it's about perception. I've explained this several times but will yet once again.
We see it on this very board. Different people hear the exact same thing and come to a totally different conclusion as to what that means. Some see it as he said/she said and consider anything that the women have claimed as having no evidentiary value. While others do. I could list several such examples of the differing perceptions on this very board people have concluded based on the same information. Then I think people must consider the logic of such a statement. If the NFL has no actual evidence, why were there three days of hearings? Why would there be a judgement that takes a former judge so long to revue the evidence in order to render a decision?
Sometimes things just don't add up and I think this happens to be one of those times.
I think it's a good thing you repeated your angle. I agree with you that it makes no sense. Aside from that, we disagree. The way I read your statement, you conclude that the source with knowledge of the situation must be confused/wrong because how could the NFL push so hard with so little. You've made up your mind that Watson is guilty, so your interpretation of the 'no evidence' statement fits that. For me, the NFL not putting forward any evidence fits my assumptions of this being a total clownshow.
Regarding your question of what they could be doing this whole time if no evidence is put forward.... I dunno... crafting a convincing argument with nothing tangible to back it up probably takes a lot of effort.
I am so tired of this saga. I just want to hear her brief and try to glean what I can from that.
