Updated: Deshaun Watson Drama

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 hours ago, AxeElf said:

The current concern is that he might be sanctioned by the NFL for violating the player personal conduct policy.

I wouldn't put it past the NFL to put up a front and suspend him based on no evidence simply to appease some people. 

[kcBlitzkrieg 29]

17 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I wouldn't count on him too much.  He disappeared while in Dallas on a team with a lot of really good players.  He's going to the Browns... you think he's going to show up there?

Just responding to the question of "who is going to catch the ball".  Regardless of Amari's performance last season, he is their de facto WR1 right now.

That question, imho, is much more pressing to the Green Bay Packers than the Browns right now... 

[Donkey 34]

On 3/19/2022 at 12:15 AM, Utilit99 said:

I wouldn't put it past the NFL to put up a front and suspend him based on no evidence simply to appease some people. 

There is evidence.

[jrokh 608]

17 minutes ago, Donkey said:

There is evidence.

Please share. Allegations are not evidence they are allegations. The sheer number of allegations is concerning, but nonetheless they are not evidence.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 hours ago, jrokh said:

Please share. Allegations are not evidence they are allegations. The sheer number of allegations is concerning, but nonetheless they are not evidence.

What's alarming is that not two of the women went to the police at the beginning without knowing someone else already went to the cops. Only one did. Then magically another 21 were drummed up.

And what happened that was so bad that if he went against the rules and he first dropped his towel (or whatever), that the ladies didn't immediately walk out  the room? And then it would be indecent exposure or whatever? 

I'm just not buying into the "there were so many that came forward" bit so he must be guilty. 

And I've said it before, I not sticking up for Watson necessarily, I'm sticking for our judicial system. I have seen stories of teenage girls getting together and making up false allegations against some guy they want to set up. People sue on false allegations all the time in this country.

If even 1 of the 22 ladies had any evidence, then I would rethink my position on this. 

[jrokh 608]

45 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

What's alarming is that not two of the women went to the police at the beginning without knowing someone else already went to the cops. Only one did. Then magically another 21 were drummed up.

And what happened that was so bad that if he went against the rules and he first dropped his towel (or whatever), that the ladies didn't immediately walk out  the room? And then it would be indecent exposure or whatever? 

I'm just not buying into the "there were so many that came forward" bit so he must be guilty. 

And I've said it before, I not sticking up for Watson necessarily, I'm sticking for our judicial system. I have seen stories of teenage girls getting together and making up false allegations against some guy they want to set up. People sue on false allegations all the time in this country.

If even 1 of the 22 ladies had any evidence, then I would rethink my position on this. 

Mostly Agree. I’m not defending him or accusing him. I am merely asking Donkey Punch to share the evidence he claims exists…

[Donkey 34]

On 3/20/2022 at 11:24 AM, jrokh said:

Please share. Allegations are not evidence they are allegations. The sheer number of allegations is concerning, but nonetheless they are not evidence.

Use the internet.

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, Donkey said:

Use the internet.

Do you remember even one piece of evidence shown to be factual? I used the internet and couldn't seem find one. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

[jrokh 608]

22 minutes ago, Donkey said:

Use the internet.

Use the internet is also not evidence. It’s now been 2 days since you claimed evidence exists. If you have it, for the last time, please share, otherwise you are full of Donkey Kong…

[Ray_T 753]

On 3/20/2022 at 12:15 PM, Utilit99 said:

What's alarming is that not two of the women went to the police at the beginning without knowing someone else already went to the cops. Only one did. Then magically another 21 were drummed up.

And what happened that was so bad that if he went against the rules and he first dropped his towel (or whatever), that the ladies didn't immediately walk out  the room? And then it would be indecent exposure or whatever? 

I'm just not buying into the "there were so many that came forward" bit so he must be guilty. 

And I've said it before, I not sticking up for Watson necessarily, I'm sticking for our judicial system. I have seen stories of teenage girls getting together and making up false allegations against some guy they want to set up. People sue on false allegations all the time in this country.

If even 1 of the 22 ladies had any evidence, then I would rethink my position on this. 

fair enough.  but for a criminal the judge/jury needs to be convinced without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty.

for a civil suit you only have to be convinced that the odds are better than 50-50 that he is guilty.  

so the bar is lower.

for the NFL all you need is for the commish to think you probably did something wrong.

the NFL hasnt had to act because Watson said he wouldnt play... but the smart move for him would have been to come to play and get suspended and then just not return after the suspension.   his suspension is still pending and I'm pretty sure he will get one.

what I dont know is how substantive that suspension is likely to be.

I dont know enough about the facts to know if hes guilty or not, but I know enough to say hes for sure an idiot.  

there are places that specialize in the happy ending that he could get if thats his thing.  you need not try to make someone who is a legit massage person try to give you said happy ending.

that said,  the sheer number of complaints means the NFL can do a lot of research into the matter.  and I'd say there are more people to interview and more things to dig up than for other players who have been suspended for what I consider to be lesser crimes.  based on this, I do think a suspension is still pending whether you like it or not.

[Donkey 34]

17 hours ago, jrokh said:

Use the internet is also not evidence. It’s now been 2 days since you claimed evidence exists. If you have it, for the last time, please share, otherwise you are full of Donkey Kong…

You're arguing something that's not in dispute, you don't get to a grand jury hearing without evidence.

[jrokh 608]

Nice wordplay. There were allegations. The grand jury is responsible for determining if there was sufficient evidence behind the allegations to indict. There wasn’t. You got bupkis…

[Ray_T 753]

4 minutes ago, jrokh said:

Nice wordplay. There were allegations. The grand jury is responsible for determining if there was sufficient evidence behind the allegations to indict. There wasn’t. You got bupkis…

actually the grand jury had nothing to do with this.

the cops determined there wasnt enough evidence (in their opinion) to get a conviction.

remember, to convict, you have to be guilty without a doubt.

but a lot of time has passed that the testimony of some may not be nearly reliable enough.     so it never made it that far.  the cops decided not to proceed with the charges.

that doesnt mean hes innocent.  it just means there was not enough evidence to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that he did it.

it is also possible that some of the people who came forward just did so with the thought of getting a quick and easy payday.  I'm sure that happens too, and when the facts are all mixed up like that and a ton of time has passed, the odds of him going to jail for it were quite slim from the beginning.

I was pretty sure the big threat for him from the beginning was the civil suit and pending NFL investigation.

Like the OJ thing, it looks like he wont go to jail, but he may be on the hook for a civil Suit where the bar (in terms of evidence) is a lot lower.   I think there is a fair chance he will have to pay at least some of the complainants.   and honestly, at this point the smart move for him is to give them cash to make the situation go away.   The more his name gets dragged through the mud, the worse it gets and the better chance someone digs something up.

in terms of the NFL, I'd like to assume that the bar is at that same level as it is for the civil suit, but really its whether the commish thinks hes breached the code of conduct.   it feels like the NFL considers the code of conduct to be more stringent than the law, so its mostly about whether the commish things hes done wrong.

at  the end of the day this media circus has been a black eye for the league.  I dont see him escaping without some form of discipline from the NFL.   That is probably where we are at on this.

you dont have to like it.   and I'm not defending him or the league.   this is just how I think it will likely go down.

[jrokh 608]

17 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

actually the grand jury had nothing to do with this.

the cops determined there wasnt enough evidence (in their opinion) to get a conviction.

remember, to convict, you have to be guilty without a doubt.

but a lot of time has passed that the testimony of some may not be nearly reliable enough.     so it never made it that far.  the cops decided not to proceed with the charges.

that doesnt mean hes innocent.  it just means there was not enough evidence to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that he did it.

it is also possible that some of the people who came forward just did so with the thought of getting a quick and easy payday.  I'm sure that happens too, and when the facts are all mixed up like that and a ton of time has passed, the odds of him going to jail for it were quite slim from the beginning.

I was pretty sure the big threat for him from the beginning was the civil suit and pending NFL investigation.

Like the OJ thing, it looks like he wont go to jail, but he may be on the hook for a civil Suit where the bar (in terms of evidence) is a lot lower.   I think there is a fair chance he will have to pay at least some of the complainants.   and honestly, at this point the smart move for him is to give them cash to make the situation go away.   The more his name gets dragged through the mud, the worse it gets and the better chance someone digs something up.

in terms of the NFL, I'd like to assume that the bar is at that same level as it is for the civil suit, but really its whether the commish thinks hes breached the code of conduct.   it feels like the NFL considers the code of conduct to be more stringent than the law, so its mostly about whether the commish things hes done wrong.

at  the end of the day this media circus has been a black eye for the league.  I dont see him escaping without some form of discipline from the NFL.   That is probably where we are at on this.

you dont have to like it.   and I'm not defending him or the league.   this is just how I think it will likely go down.

You misunderstand my premise. I am not defending him or accusing him. I am not casting judgement of any kind. You are wrong about the Grand Jury, but same result. There is currently no evidence he did anything other than the allegations. Since allegations are not evidence I am still waiting for those who claim there is to present it here. For example if I allege that   @Donkey in his free time likes to molest actual donkeys, and I get 22 other users to repeat that allegation, does this now mean there is evidence that he does in fact molest donkeys?

[AxeElf 787]

Kinda watched this nonsense for a while, feeling it's not important enough to adjudicate, but it's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people say there's "no evidence" when in fact what they mean is that they have evaluated the evidence and have not found it to be convincing.

23 minutes ago, jrokh said:

Since allegations are not evidence I am still waiting for those who claim there is to present it here. For example if I allege that   @Donkey in his free time likes to molest actual donkeys, and I get 22 other users to repeat that allegation, does this now mean there is evidence that he does in fact molest donkeys?

Yes, that is exactly what it means.  You now have evidence that he does in fact molest donkeys.  That evidence can be evaluated to determine whether or not it is sufficient to support the claim, but the first evidence that a crime may have occurred is very often someone reporting that it did.  The Harry Potter books are evidence that magic exists, and the Bible is evidence that God exists.  People evaluate that evidence in different ways, but to say that there is no evidence is intellectually irresponsible.

[jrokh 608]

You are being too literal and you know this. In your version everything is evidence of anything. If that’s your point than fine but not remotely pertinent or relevant…

[Ray_T 753]

48 minutes ago, jrokh said:

 Since allegations are not evidence I am still waiting for those who claim there is to present it here.

dont you think its silly to think anyone here would have evidence?   Lets be realistic.

if evidence exists the people most likely to have such evidence would be the women affected and/or their Lawyers.

I suspect most evidence would be given in the form of testimony.   unfortunately testimony usually is difficult to get a conviction from unless you have mulitple people who witnessed and whose stories all sound similar.

in many cases his alleged actions happened years ago.  how clear is your memory over that length of time?  some people cant remember what happened last week.

 

[jrokh 608]

1 hour ago, Ray_T said:

dont you think its silly to think anyone here would have evidence?   Lets be realistic.

if evidence exists the people most likely to have such evidence would be the women affected and/or their Lawyers.

I suspect most evidence would be given in the form of testimony.   unfortunately testimony usually is difficult to get a conviction from unless you have mulitple people who witnessed and whose stories all sound similar.

in many cases his alleged actions happened years ago.  how clear is your memory over that length of time?  some people cant remember what happened last week.

 

Yes I think it would be silly, yet that is exactly what @Donkey posted. Take it up with him. He claims the evidence exists, All I’m saying is so where is it?

[AxeElf 787]

2 hours ago, jrokh said:

You are being too literal and you know this. In your version everything is evidence of anything. If that’s your point than fine but not remotely pertinent or relevant…

It's pertinent and relevant when someone says there is no evidence.

What they mean is that they are unconvinced by the evidence.

[jrokh 608]

No it means there is no objective evidence to support subjective allegations.

[AxeElf 787]

12 minutes ago, jrokh said:

No it means there is no objective evidence to support subjective allegations.

Actually, it means they are unconvinced by the objective evidence of the subjective allegations; the evidence itself exists.

[Ray_T 753]

well, lets be frank in terms of defining what evidence is shall we?

evidence is something tangible that you can provide.   so if one of the women says Watson abused her on march 1 of 1999 and Watson says he never met her before in his life.

the receipt and or appointment book showing that he had an appointment on that day/time would be evidence that they met on that day.   the lawyer would probably have subpoena' d some credit card records to show he paid her for said services on that day.   THAT would be evidence.

if the client says he did this on this day.....   that is testimony.  not evidence.

so nobody here (unless they are a lawyer working on the case) has evidence.  so lets quit asking.

is it likely evidence of sorts exists?   yes.

but nobody here can prove it.   That is what the court is for.   so the  civil suit will likely tell us where we are at.   at the end of the day, the important thing here is trying to figure out how much time Watson is likely to miss due to suspension.   That is the fantasy relevant part of the discussion.  I'm thinking like a half season min but I fully admit I could be out to lunch.    my rationale is I have seen one and two game suspensions for things far less serious than this, so I'm thinking this wont be a casual slap on the wrist.   The NFL has been dragged through the mud and for the most part their largest growth sector in the north american market is with women, so coming across soft on the issue will hurt the growth of the sport here.   So I"m thinking 8 games min.  possibly more depending on how much of this comes out.

you know the logic I am using.   I'm not gonna debate you on this because I dont care a whole lot.  I'm just giving a prediction based on the logic noted above.  if you have other logic, go ahead.    if you want to argue hes not guilty and wont be suspended, thats your right, but in the eyes of the league, this is a black eye on the sport.  I dont think they are gonna let him off without some form of punishment.   This is just as much about managing the situation and trying to put a spin on this to make the league look like the good guys.      They dont wanna look like the bad guys and that's likely the largest motivator here.

if more facts get dragged up by the media, this suspension could conceivably be longer.

This is why (as mentioned in my prior post) Watson would be smart to settle quickly and sign non disclosure agreements to prevent this from happening.

The more quickly he shuts this down, the less likely he gets a long suspension.   and at the salary he makes, I suspect a year long suspension is worth more than hes likely to pay out to his so called victims.   

Even if you think the allegations are all bogus, settling it quickly may still be in his best interest.   if this goes to court and all the facts get dragged out by the media and when they spin it the right (or wrong) way, the odds of his suspension getting longer go up.  This is no longer a criminal case.  he can spend a few million to make all this go away now so he can focus on football.

Thats what he should do.

whether thats what he does is another matter.   

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

4 hours ago, jrokh said:

There is currently no evidence he did anything other than the allegations.

The grand jury didn't determine that there was "no" evidence... they determined that there was "not enough" evidence "to go to trial".

[Donkey 34]

2 hours ago, jrokh said:

Yes I think it would be silly, yet that is exactly what @Donkey posted. Take it up with him. He claims the evidence exists, All I’m saying is so where is it?

I don't think you understand what evidence means, that's ok we can move on.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,430]

5 hours ago, Ray_T said:

actually the grand jury had nothing to do with this.

the cops determined there wasnt enough evidence (in their opinion) to get a conviction.

remember, to convict, you have to be guilty without a doubt.

but a lot of time has passed that the testimony of some may not be nearly reliable enough.     so it never made it that far.  the cops decided not to proceed with the charges.

that doesnt mean hes innocent.  it just means there was not enough evidence to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that he did it.

it is also possible that some of the people who came forward just did so with the thought of getting a quick and easy payday.  I'm sure that happens too, and when the facts are all mixed up like that and a ton of time has passed, the odds of him going to jail for it were quite slim from the beginning.

I was pretty sure the big threat for him from the beginning was the civil suit and pending NFL investigation.

Like the OJ thing, it looks like he wont go to jail, but he may be on the hook for a civil Suit where the bar (in terms of evidence) is a lot lower.   I think there is a fair chance he will have to pay at least some of the complainants.   and honestly, at this point the smart move for him is to give them cash to make the situation go away.   The more his name gets dragged through the mud, the worse it gets and the better chance someone digs something up.

in terms of the NFL, I'd like to assume that the bar is at that same level as it is for the civil suit, but really its whether the commish thinks hes breached the code of conduct.   it feels like the NFL considers the code of conduct to be more stringent than the law, so its mostly about whether the commish things hes done wrong.

at  the end of the day this media circus has been a black eye for the league.  I dont see him escaping without some form of discipline from the NFL.   That is probably where we are at on this.

you dont have to like it.   and I'm not defending him or the league.   this is just how I think it will likely go down.

Reasonable doubt. 

[jrokh 608]

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Actually, it means they are unconvinced by the objective evidence of the subjective allegations; the evidence itself exists.

Ok I will rephrase. What evidence exists outside of the allegations? That is all I’m asking. No one to my knowledge has provided any.

[Ray_T 753]

43 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The grand jury didn't determine that there was "no" evidence... they determined that there was "not enough" evidence "to go to trial".

This.

keep in mind, it is hard to convict on crimes that happened long ago.   Evidence is harder to prove and people start to not remember exactly what happened.  so unless these women went out and made a statement or went to a psychologist and told them all about it within a short timeframe of the crime happening (so it was documented) its really hard to dig stuff up once a couple years has passed.

Even with Rape cases, cops generally have a rape kit that they utilize which helps them identifiy the rapist via dna Evidence.   without that its hard to get a rape conviction.

This is a fact.

if he did these things, (big If I know) proving it in a court of law is another matter.

civil court the bar is lower.  if the court thinks the odds are better than 50% that he did it, they may choose to make him pay.   This was the most likely scenario all along.

so now its really about whether he wants to fight it, or settle with the plaintiffs.

 

[jrokh 608]

43 minutes ago, Donkey said:

I don't think you understand what evidence means, that's ok we can move on.

I understand you have nothing to support your assertion. Just take the L and move on…

[jrokh 608]

49 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The grand jury didn't determine that there was "no" evidence... they determined that there was "not enough" evidence "to go to trial".

I never said there was no evidence. I said no one has provided any. If you have it or anyone has some please share I am dying to see it…

[Ray_T 753]

1 minute ago, jrokh said:

Ok I will rephrase. What evidence exists outside of the allegations? That is all I’m asking. No one to my knowledge has provided any.

well, I know evidence was presented in terms of dates and times of appointments with most of the defendants as well as some payment receipts.   Thats actual evidence that they met.  not evidence of the crime.   to my knowledge that is the only evidence I am aware of.  but I'm not following the case all that closely.    so if he denies knowing the ladies involved, this is proof that is not the case.

I have no idea of what other evidence exists.

[Ray_T 753]

oops I meant plaintiffs/victims.  not defendants

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

5 minutes ago, jrokh said:

I said no one has provided any.

Were you at the grand jury hearing?  You know for a fact that no one provided any?

I'll say this... sexual misconduct (assault, harassment, or whatever the charges actually were), cases almost never have physical evidence.  Though, 3 of the girls produced texts and/or cell phone calls (with corroboration), of the incident immediately after it happened.  All 3 said virtually the same thing.  The odds of that happening and not being true are virtually 1 in a million.  That said, it's not physical evidence, it's circumstantial.  In the court of law in a criminal case, that's not admissible, but it certainly is in a civil suit.  I'm sure, these things will come out.

[jrokh 608]

Just now, Ray_T said:

I have no idea of what other evidence exists.

That is the only point I was trying to make. No one has any idea because there hasn’t been any. When Donkey Punch claimed there is evidence I simply say WHERE? or WHAT?

[jrokh 608]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Were you at the grand jury hearing?  You know for a fact that no one provided any?

I have no idea, and I never claimed I did. Someone in this forum claimed it exists and I said ok show me. That’s it.

[Ray_T 753]

I think hes referring to the large number of women who have come forward.  but that isnt evidence it is Testimony.

not invalid.  but when you are relying on testimony, you need lots of witnesses whose testimony points to the same conclusion for it to be convincing in a court of law.

[polecatt 478]

This doesn't look good...

 

[weepaws 3,191]

Lol it just on changing. 

[Ray_T 753]

well, the video makes me think that hes not criminally responsible for at least some of the charges.

it sounds like at least some of these gals were 'happy ending' massage girls.

seedy.   distateful, but this would imply some level of consent was likely in order at least in some of the cases.

that is not to say some may have been legit businesses.   but it appears (on the surface) that would be the reason at least some of the charges were dropped.

and if any of these gals were happy ending gals, then yes, the civil suit should go away.    The only ones with any claim would be legit massage girls with credentials who may have been 'mistreated' by him.

dude is definitely a dirtbag.  no question about that.  and he wont get any more endorsements I suspect.

so I think there will be an NFL suspension for Questionable activity but will it go further?  hard to say.

[jrokh 608]

34 minutes ago, polecatt said:

This doesn't look good...

 

What about it will make a difference? Seems like the same stuff to me. Probably will get a 4-6 game suspension either way. Not sure what this video offers that changes the status quo…

[Ray_T 753]

5 minutes ago, jrokh said:

What about it will make a difference? Seems like the same stuff to me. Probably will get a 4-6 game suspension either way. Not sure what this video offers that changes the status quo…

quite possibly true.

I figure if some of the gals are legit massage girls (no happy ending) the length of suspension will be a bit longer.

if they are all happy ending girls, a bit shorter.

thats about it.