I think using the term a court of law is an attempt to discount the findings in this case. She also said he had lied throughout. That would mean he's also been committing perjury all along. If anyone actually looks at all of her findings in totality, the case against him is devastating.
And you are certainly right about the difference in the threshold required to find guilt between a criminal and civil case. But everyone knows that when there are only two people involved and it's illegal to film massage therapy, you aren't going to have 8x10 glossy photographs and video footage.
In a case such as this you have an experienced judge who looked at what I've seen reported as thousands of pages of evidence and three days of testimony. Through all of this she determined that watson is a liar. He conducted predatory actions in a manner that ended up resulting in sexual assault. That's a pretty damning conclusion and seems she clearly understands what she was reading and the testimony in front of her. Not pointing this towards you but it seems many who never saw or heard the testimony, never been a judge nor looked into the validity and reputation of this judge wish to try to find any way possible to diminish or undermine her findings.
I could understand people questioning it if it were something that sounded like even a close call. If she had waffled and not found him to have been guilty of all three of the NFL's complaints. But that's not the case here. Not only did she find him guilty on all three of the NFL's complaints, she also made a point to write in her decision that watson was a liar, had no remorse, that his actions were so egregious they were unprecedented. That's certainly not a close call by anyone's definition.
| 
