Jump to content

Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

He doesnt need to prove anything. 

 

Legally of course this is correct. But in civil proceedings the claimant only needs to prove on the balance of priorities - ie. it is more probable that he did it than not. I think they have a decent chance of proving that. "Beyond reasonable doubt" ie. the criminal standard - trickier. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This removes any lingering doubt I had that Watson is guilty. He has a real problem.

The fact that some people would sooner believe there is a vast conspiracy by the team and that ALL of these women are lying it is the exact reason why women don’t  feel like they can go to the police.

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

It’s called a character witness. So far these are nothing more than allegations, anyway. Unless of course you already have your mind made up. 

No, that’s not what a character witness is.  A character witness is someone who would testify that they’ve known the accused for some time and that he’s a great guy and would never do what he’s accused of.  All these women could say is that they massaged Watson and he didn’t try to molest them.

 
The downside of employing a character witness is that it opens the door to the other side introducing witnesses who will testify as to the accused’s bad character.  That’s why it’s not often done...

 

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Legally of course this is correct. But in civil proceedings the claimant only needs to prove on the balance of priorities - ie. it is more probable that he did it than not. I think they have a decent chance of proving that. "Beyond reasonable doubt" ie. the criminal standard - trickier. 

And in the court of public opinion, it’s an entirely different standard altogether...

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mannc said:

No, that’s not what a character witness is.  A character witness is someone who would testify that they’ve known the accused for some time and that he’s a great guy and would never do what he’s accused of.  All these women could say is that they massaged Watson and he didn’t try to molest them.

 
The downside of employing a character witness is that it opens the door to the other side introducing witnesses who will testify as to the accused’s bad character.  That’s why it’s not often done...

 

And in the court of public opinion, it’s an entirely different standard altogether...

Guess Ted Bundy should have found some girls to say he didn't kill them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2021 at 12:52 PM, DaggersEOD said:

Tough to prove a negative, but showing that Watson has utilized the services of ANOTHER 20 therapists doesn’t make his case sound better IMO. 

Such a strange defense strategy. 
Yeah those women said I did something to them, but these over here said I didn’t with them, therefore those others must be lying?

 

I'm not sure the additional 20 therapists makes his case worse, but if I were on the jury it wouldn't change my viewpoint about whether the allegations against Watson are "more likely than not" true.  I would think "perhaps he went to these therapists for "sports massage" and the others for "relaxation massage" and the latter is when this behavior occurred".  I understand is not uncommon among abusive or predatory people to "test" potential victims for certain reactions and only act if the "test reaction" is "favorable" to what they want, so I would think also "maybe he "tested" each therapist in some way and got a reaction from these therapists that led him to behave properly. 

 

I'm trying not to judge Watson here, but my opinion aligns with your view that it's strange, as a defense strategy.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bobobonators said:

It’s called a character witness. So far these are nothing more than allegations, anyway. Unless of course you already have your mind made up. 
He doesnt need to prove anything. 

 

So one difference between a criminal case and civil proceedings, that I learned when I was impaneled as a potential juror for the latter - you're quite correct that in a British or American criminal court, the defendant doesn't need to "prove" anything, it is "up to" the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt".

 

But in a civil proceeding, the jury simply needs to believe it's "more likely than not" to have happened as alleged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, NobesBLO13 said:

“The Rub”

 Reports were they wanted to use "The Jerk" but Steve Martin already did that. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So one difference between a criminal case and civil proceedings, that I learned when I was impaneled as a potential juror for the latter - you're quite correct that in a British or American criminal court, the defendant doesn't need to "prove" anything, it is "up to" the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt".

 

But in a civil proceeding, the jury simply needs to believe it's "more likely than not" to have happened as alleged.

 

This is true but the burden to meet that standard remains on the plaintiff - they have to make the case for their assertions. The standard is as you say "the balance of probabilities" but the defendant still doesn't have to "prove" anything. I do think if they conjoin these cases against Watson the claimants have a good chance of meeting the standard. I think the slightly bonkers document the defense released the other day with statements from other women who have massaged Deshaun to say he behaved perfectly properly with them was designed to counter the 'pattern' narrative. I think it was miscalculated and doesn't actually help their case but the strongest suit of the plaintiffs at the moment is the clear demonstration of a pattern of behaviour, so they were trying to say "well why does this pattern only seem to occur in some circumstances and not others?" 

 

I have to say based on the public war of words I don't think much of either of these lawyers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

O.J. could have lined up 20 people who said he never tried to kill them.....

 

regarding watson, these 20 woman charachter witnesses prove nothing regarding the actual accusers

 

the red flag to me is why so many massage therapists.....a flimsy analogy is like constantly getting your haircut by someone new for first time....makes no sense.

 

my opinion....he was grooming and doctor shopping for his happy ending.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, papazoid said:

O.J. could have lined up 20 people who said he never tried to kill them.....

 

regarding watson, these 20 woman charachter witnesses prove nothing regarding the actual accusers

 

the red flag to me is why so many massage therapists.....a flimsy analogy is like constantly getting your haircut by someone new for first time....makes no sense.

 

my opinion....he was grooming and doctor shopping for his happy ending.

 

I don't think they are intended as "character witnesses" so much as they are intended to directly counteract the pattern narrative which is without question the strongest argument the plaintiffs have. I don't think it was a very effective technique but I think it was intended to cast doubt on the consistency of the pattern. 

 

And just to repeat Watson doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is on the plaintiffs. I believe that as a class action they have a strong enough case on paper to reach the civil standard. But they will have to able to make that case effectively in court (if it gets that far of course). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Imagine if a team had traded 3 firsts+ for him before all this came out! 

Yeah, the Texans would be ecstatic...they sadly waited too long

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mannc said:

 

And in the court of public opinion, it’s an entirely different standard altogether...


And in Goodell’s office there’s yet a different “standard” which could honestly be just about anything depending on how the wind is blowing that day. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

Imagine if a team had traded 3 firsts+ for him before all this came out! 

 

Only 3??  I read right here it would take at least 4 or 5...

3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:


And in Goodell’s office there’s yet a different “standard” which could honestly be just about anything depending on how the wind is blowing that day. 

 

This isn't true.  This would easily fall under the CBA bargained rule of "conduct detrimental".  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

This is true but the burden to meet that standard remains on the plaintiff - they have to make the case for their assertions. The standard is as you say "the balance of probabilities" but the defendant still doesn't have to "prove" anything. I do think if they conjoin these cases against Watson the claimants have a good chance of meeting the standard. I think the slightly bonkers document the defense released the other day with statements from other women who have massaged Deshaun to say he behaved perfectly properly with them was designed to counter the 'pattern' narrative. I think it was miscalculated and doesn't actually help their case but the strongest suit of the plaintiffs at the moment is the clear demonstration of a pattern of behaviour, so they were trying to say "well why does this pattern only seem to occur in some circumstances and not others?" 

 

I have to say based on the public war of words I don't think much of either of these lawyers!

 

Agree about the lawyers.

 

Yeah, I think that whole "here are 20 people who had no problems with him" strategy is a mistake, from the courtroom perspective.  I think that most adults have an experience of someone or some company that evidently has perfectly satisfactory interactions with other people, really doing us wrong.  The remodeling company that our neighbors used and recommended that screwed us.  The guy who everyone we know says is such a nice guy, but who took advantage of us.  The ex-spouse who broke our heart and treated us like dirt, but who apparently has a good relationship with their next partner.   We all learn to say "OK, sucks to be me on this one" but we (most adults) don't question or dismiss our own bad experiences because someone else had a good experience.

 

Psychologists have some studies of this and one of the more telling popular accounts is in "Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker.  De Becker explains how criminals and abusers actually have a conscious or subconscious pattern of "testing" potential victims for cues that they can be maneuvered into a vulnerable position and taken advantage of.    It can be fairly subtle stuff like reaction to an offer of help, or excessive social physical contact like draping an arm over the shoulder.   

If Watson were seeking women who would give him a particular reaction, then he might "test" with one cue and depending on the reaction to that, he would either escalate or desist. 
 

 

 

4 hours ago, papazoid said:

my opinion....he was grooming and doctor shopping for his happy ending.

 

That is the way I see it. 

 

Assuming the allegations have merit, not just a "happy ending" but a particular reaction (fear, discomfort, shock, whatever) that he got off on. 

 

Because, if Watson just wanted a happy ending, why not just use a discrete professional escort who is in the business of providing sexual services?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact that he has been to so many massage therapists is creepy. What's that, like at least 40? That's not normal. Usually you find one or two you like and schedule with them. Why on earth would you need to go to so many unless it was for some fetish?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MJS said:

Just the fact that he has been to so many massage therapists is creepy. What's that, like at least 40? That's not normal. Usually you find one or two you like and schedule with them. Why on earth would you need to go to so many unless it was for some fetish?


One or two that know all your issues and work different areas daily. This is not that 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...