Deshaun Watson admits under oath that Ashley Solis cried at the end of the massage

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Regretting something after the fact does not make it illegal if it was consented to while it happened.

 

This is true. But how do you know this is what happened? Feels like wild speculation. 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

6 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Regretting something after the fact does not make it illegal if it was consented to while it happened.

 

 

oh so now it was consensual?!
 

You keep changing what you think happened as more evidence, new accusers, and even his lawyer admitting “non-guilt” comes out.
 

But you always seems to give Watson as much or more benefit of the doubt that any reasonable person could. 

At this point I have gathered enough evidence as to make a decision on your morality

[Big Turk]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

This is true. But how do you know this is what happened? Feels like wild speculation. 

 

I don't but based on the number of cases "piling on" seems like a good bet 

[BillsFan4]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

I don't but based on the number of cases "piling on" seems like a good bet 

A good bet based on what? One of the 2 new women that came forward is only seeking the bare minimum compensation, so not for money (at least in her case).

 

So basically the more women that come forward the less likely you are to believe them?

 

Why are you so willing to give one guy the benefit of the doubt but not 24 women? Why is the word of one guy worth more than 24 women to you? A guy who was constantly seeking out new women on Instagram to give him a “massage”, mind you. A guy who admitted he made a woman cry during the massages. A guy who’s lawyer just said that attempting to get a happy ending and saying + doing creepy things to massage therapists isn’t illegal…

[Big Turk]

15 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

A good bet based on what? One of the 2 new women that came forward is only seeking the bare minimum compensation, so not for money (at least in her case).

 

So basically the more women that come forward the less likely you are to believe them?

 

Why are you so willing to give one guy the benefit of the doubt but not 24 women? Why is the word of one guy worth more than 24 women to you? A guy who was constantly seeking out new women on Instagram to give him a “massage”, mind you. A guy who admitted he made a woman cry during the massages. A guy who’s lawyer just said that attempting to get a happy ending and saying + doing creepy things to massage therapists isn’t illegal…

 

The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers.  When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think? People constantly want to pretend money isn't a strong enough motive for people to fudge the truth, but time and again we have seen it IS, and in amounts far less than what is being bandied about here.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[BarleyNY]

7 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

A good bet based on what? One of the 2 new women that came forward is only seeking the bare minimum compensation, so not for money (at least in her case).

 

So basically the more women that come forward the less likely you are to believe them?

 

Why are you so willing to give one guy the benefit of the doubt but not 24 women? Why is the word of one guy worth more than 24 women to you? A guy who was constantly seeking out new women on Instagram to give him a “massage”, mind you. A guy who admitted he made a woman cry during the massages. A guy who’s lawyer just said that attempting to get a happy ending and saying + doing creepy things to massage therapists isn’t illegal…

Let’s not be naive.  The timing of the filing of the last two suits was planned by Buzbee.  The purpose was to keep the suits in the news.  By doing so it keeps pressure on Watson to settle the cases, which is his overarching goal.

 

Please note that I am not speaking to the legitimacy of any of the cases, I’m just pointing out the lawyer’s strategy. 

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Let’s not be naive.  The timing of the filing of the last two suits was planned by Buzbee.  The purpose was to keep the suits in the news.  By doing so it keeps pressure on Watson to settle the cases, which is his overarching goal.

 

Please note that I am not speaking to the legitimacy of any of the cases, I’m just pointing out the lawyer’s strategy. 

 

They are looking for settlements of over 100K for each woman...that's "huge money" to many of them, and it's kind of like a once a lifetime opportunity for them to get it.  It is extremely naïve for people not to recognize this is a huge payday opportunity that will likely never come around again for them.

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Let’s not be naive.  The timing of the filing of the last two suits was planned by Buzbee.  The purpose was to keep the suits in the news.  By doing so it keeps pressure on Watson to settle the cases, which is his overarching goal.

 

Please note that I am not speaking to the legitimacy of any of the cases, I’m just pointing out the lawyer’s strategy. 

 

Agree. The TV interviews, then the two new suits... they are part of the litigation strategy and they are ramping up the pressure on the Watson camp. 

 

And I associate myself with your comments about legitimacy too. 

 

[BillsFan4]

8 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Let’s not be naive.  The timing of the filing of the last two suits was planned by Buzbee.  The purpose was to keep the suits in the news.  By doing so it keeps pressure on Watson to settle the cases, which is his overarching goal.

 

Please note that I am not speaking to the legitimacy of any of the cases, I’m just pointing out the lawyer’s strategy. 

I don’t know about the 24th woman (I haven’t read anything in her yet), but the 23rd woman who just came forward said she did so after seeing the real sports interview where Watson’s lawyer said watson had no remorse. So I don’t think buzbee was just sitting on this lawsuit. I believe her that she came forward because of the reason she stated. And she’s only seeking whatever the minimum compensation is so why would she agree to put her name out there publicly and face all the backlash just so Buzbee could use her?

10 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers.  When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think?

So what have you seen from these new women that makes you question their motives? Especially the 23rd who filed for the mimimum compensation.

Edited June 6, 2022 by BillsFan4

[Big Turk]

12 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

I don’t know about the 24th woman (I haven’t read anything in her yet), but the 23rd woman who just came forward said she did so after seeing the real sports interview where Watson’s lawyer said watson had no remorse. So I don’t think buzbee was just sitting on this lawsuit. I believe her that she came forward because of the reason she stated. And she’s only seeking whatever the minimum compensation is so why would she agree to put her name out there publicly and face all the backlash just so Buzbee could use her?

So what have you seen from these new women that makes you question their motives? Especially the 23rd who filed for the mimimum compensation.

 

Turning down 100K settlement offer for starters.  If the motive wasn't money, that is a pretty large sum Watson was offering to make it all go away, and since this is only a civil trial and not a criminal trial, what other motive is there other than money?

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[BarleyNY]

8 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

I don’t know about the 24th woman (I haven’t read anything in her yet), but the 23rd woman who just came forward said she did so after seeing the real sports interview where Watson’s lawyer said watson had no remorse. So I don’t think buzbee was just sitting on this lawsuit. I believe her that she came forward because of the reason she stated. And she’s only seeking whatever the minimum compensation is so why would she agree to put her name out there publicly and face all the backlash just so Buzbee could use her?

 

This is what I meant by not being naive.  Yes, of course, the narrative has to be something like that.  What else are they going to say?  Incidentally, what’s “minimum compensation”?  $1 and an apology?  I suspect it’s a bit more than that.  More optics.  Again, this is completely independent of the legitimacy of the suit.  This is strategy and pressure.

[BillsFan4]

10 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Turning down 100K settlement offer for starters.  If the motive wasn't money, that is a pretty large sum Watson was offering to make it all go away, and since this is only a civil trial and not a criminal trial, what other motive is there other than money?

The new women suing him didn’t turn down any settlement money offered, and the 23rd woman is only seeking the minimum. So again I ask what have you seen that makes you doubt them?

 

Do you feel the same way about every person who sues another person for damages? Or just women suing rich men?

 

and at the time that money was offered wasn’t there still pending criminal cases?

 

edit - also, Watson wanted the women to sign a very aggressive non disclosure agreement. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by BillsFan4

[BillsFan4]

15 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

This is what I meant by not being naive.  Yes, of course, the narrative has to be something like that.  What else are they going to say?  Incidentally, what’s “minimum compensation”?  $1 and an apology?  I suspect it’s a bit more than that.  More optics.  Again, this is completely independent of the legitimacy of the suit.  This is strategy and pressure.

I agree that the real sports interviews were done to put pressure on the NFL, and on Watson.

 

But I haven’t seen anything from the new women that makes me believe they were just waiting months and months to come forward in order to allow Buzbee to keep pressure on Watson to settle. I also don’t find it hard to believe that seeing Watson say he has no remorse made them want to come forward.

 

and i don’t know what the minimum compensation is. I was wondering the same thing myself. I tried to Google it but didn’t find anything 

Edited June 6, 2022 by BillsFan4

[WotAGuy]

17 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Turning down 100K settlement offer for starters.  If the motive wasn't money, that is a pretty large sum Watson was offering to make it all go away, and since this is only a civil trial and not a criminal trial, what other motive is there other than money?

Haven’t you ever had anything wrong done to you and want to make it known so others might be able to avoid a similar wrong?  
 

Perhaps (at least) some of these women are sick of being abused and disrespected by men and are seizing an opportunity to draw a line in the sand, and do it with the support of other victims so they aren’t out on an island?

[Mr. WEO]

14 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Did you lose your song book?  Because this is very different than the tune you were singing about Bob Kraft.

Nope.Kraft did the same.  
 

He had a competent lawyer, however.

 

 

[Big Turk]

11 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Haven’t you ever had anything wrong done to you and want to make it known so others might be able to avoid a similar wrong?  
 

Perhaps (at least) some of these women are sick of being abused and disrespected by men and are seizing an opportunity to draw a line in the sand, and do it with the support of other victims so they aren’t out on an island?

 

That is what criminal trials are for, not civil trials.  There is a much lower burden of proof for civil trials. Hence one cannot be used to do the work of the other.

[BarleyNY]

18 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

I agree that the real sports interviews were done to put pressure on the NFL, and on Watson.

 

But I haven’t seen anything from the new women that makes me believe they were just waiting months and months to come forward in order to allow Buzbee to keep pressure on Watson to settle. I also don’t find it hard to believe that seeing Watson say he has no remorse made them want to come forward.

 

and i don’t know what the minimum compensation is. I was wondering the same thing myself. I tried to Google it but didn’t find anything 

You think this woman got some new information from the HBO special?  I didn’t see it, but I know Watson didn’t do an interview for it.  So it’s kinda odd how - even though he wasn’t on it - she suddenly felt he had no remorse.  Also it’s worth noting that Buzbee has been saying for weeks that there could be more cases.  The timing and narrative are completely strategic.  Whether or not the 23rd accuser actually felt the way that has been stated is immaterial.  This is how the game is played. 

[WotAGuy]

10 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

That is what criminal trials are for, not civil trials.  There is a much lower burden of proof for civil trials. Hence one cannot be used to do the work of the other.

If the crime happened in a private setting with no tangible evidence, the grand jury is not going to indict. So the recourse for the victim is a civil trial. 
 

Ever hear of the OJ civil case?  There are instances when a wrong isn’t proven in court but it’s still a wrong and a civil case gives an opportunity for the victims to seek justice/retribution. 

[Big Turk]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Nope.Kraft did the same.  
 

He had a competent lawyer, however.

 

 

 

Kraft did not really do the same...he went to a known place where that type of behavior was expected and welcomed. There was no "forcing" those women to do that, they knew that is what they were there for.  He was facing a criminal trial, NOT a civil trial.

7 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

If the crime happened in a private setting with no tangible evidence, the grand jury is not going to indict. So the recourse for the victim is a civil trial. 
 

Ever hear of the OJ civil case?  There are instances when a wrong isn’t proven in court but it’s still a wrong and a civil case gives an opportunity for the victims to seek justice/retribution. 

 

Proving that someone is "more likely to have done something versus not done something" is a far, far lower standard than proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you don't understand the difference and why that matters, you should go read up on the law.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[BillsFan4]

9 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You think this woman got some new information from the HBO special?  I didn’t see it, but I know Watson didn’t do an interview for it.  So it’s kinda odd how - even though he wasn’t on it - she suddenly felt he had no remorse.  Also it’s worth noting that Buzbee has been saying for weeks that there could be more cases.  The timing and narrative are completely strategic.  Whether or not the 23rd accuser actually felt the way that has been stated is immaterial.  This is how the game is played. 

They played a clip of Watson saying he had no remorse during the real sports segment. Then at the end of the segment Watson’s lawyer was interviewed and she reiterated that Watson has no regrets for any of his actions.

 

so yes, I believe it’s possible that girl didn’t decide to come forward until she saw the real sports segment.

[Royale with Cheese]

20 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Maybe he should be renamed Georgy Porgy Pudding Pie, kissed the girls and made them cry?

 

They already said they are not criminally trying the case. Likely because the DA knows all it takes is one or two to be exposed as not being truthful to take down the entire case. And they likely know it's far more than one or two not being truthful about it.

 

Probably 3 or 4 legit ones and the rest are money grabs.

Okay if you really believe this then he’s guilty.  
 

You are trying hard to give the benefit of a doubt to Watson.  

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

That is what criminal trials are for, not civil trials.  There is a much lower burden of proof for civil trials. Hence one cannot be used to do the work of the other.

 

I could not agree more with your final sentence - civil trials should not be used to do the work of criminal trials and indeed vice versa (although the creeping trend is definitely in one direction). 

 

As for the distinction between the two... it is civil trials that are an opportunity for a person who feels they have been wronged to pursue justice against the wrong doer. The criminal law (and I know that this a fundamentalist and traditional view and not one that is popular these days) is not about the victim. It is about the accused and whether they have engaged in conduct that is to the detriment of society. That is why it is the accused vs the state. When we start importing concepts of direct justice into the criminal justice system we increasingly confuse the point of what it is there for, and to my mind we must protect that at all costs. 

 

The 24 civil suits are an opportunity for each of those plaintiffs to seek individual recompense for the wrong they believe that they suffered - normally that equates to financial recompense but sometimes it can simply be a finding by the court in their favour (i.e. that their version of events is believed and held by the courts to be accurate). So I wouldn't quite agree with your conclusion that if a plaintiff simply wants to make a point about what has happened to them then the civil courts are not the place for that. They can be.

 

What they can't be a substitute for is a ruling of guilt and the punitive measures that we agree as a society come with such a ruling - whether that be imprisonment and deprivation of liberty or any of the other things that flow from that. Those are decisions for the criminal courts and that is where they must remain. 

[WotAGuy]

14 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Proving that someone is "more likely to have done something versus not done something" is a far, far lower standard than proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you don't understand the difference and why that matters, you should go read up on the law.

Got ya. You must be very happy OJ is still free to go find that killer. 

[Big Turk]

9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Okay if you really believe this then he’s guilty.  
 

You are trying hard to give the benefit of a doubt to Watson.  

 

I do believe he is guilty in at least a 3 or 4 cases. I also believe there is a strong likelihood at least half of these women participated of their own free will for additional money and then once they saw there was a lawsuit, they decided to pile on as a once in a lifetime opportunity for a huge payday. Also, perhaps some regretted it after the fact, but regretting it after the fact does not make it a crime or put Watson in the "wrong" if it was agreed to in the moment.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[WotAGuy]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers.  When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think? People constantly want to pretend money isn't a strong enough motive for people to fudge the truth, but time and again we have seen it IS, and in amounts far less than what is being bandied about here.

So in any civil case, in your mind if the accuser has less money than the accused, it’s a money grab?  

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

So in any civil case, in your mind if the accuser has less money than the accused, it’s a money grab?  

 

Depends on the amount of money at stake, the number of people "piling on" and the likelihood of wrong doing having taken place.  Am I saying ALL of these women are lying? No.  Am I saying at least half of them probably are fudging the truth a little? 100%

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[Big Turk]

21 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Got ya. You must be very happy OJ is still free to go find that killer. 

 

He had a criminal trial and was acquitted by a jury of his peers.  If you choose not to accept the verdict, that's your choice. Apparently you would prefer someone to be tried in perpetuity until your preferred verdict is rendered.  Unfortunately for you, that's not how the legal system works here...maybe you should go to one of these communist countries where they just have Kangaroo Courts?

Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk

[Royale with Cheese]

33 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

I do believe he is guilty in at least a 3 or 4 cases. I also believe there is a strong likelihood at least half of these women participated of their own free will for additional money and then once they saw there was a lawsuit, they decided to pile on as a once in a lifetime opportunity for a huge payday. Also, perhaps some regretted it after the fact, but regretting it after the fact does not make it a crime or put Watson in the "wrong" if it was agreed to in the moment.

 

If 4 are telling the truth, 20 would be lying?  More than half isn't 85% or so.  

 

Money doesn't have to be the only motivating factor.  If no one comes to the public about this, the number of women he's soliciting for sex will continue to increase.  I'm not saying all are telling the truth, I don't know but I'm not going to say the vast majority are doing this for a money grab.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Kraft did not really do the same...he went to a known place where that type of behavior was expected and welcomed. There was no "forcing" those women to do that, they knew that is what they were there for.  He was facing a criminal trial, NOT a civil trial.

 

Proving that someone is "more likely to have done something versus not done something" is a far, far lower standard than proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you don't understand the difference and why that matters, you should go read up on the law.

Read my posts.  Both of them solicited prostitution.  Watson, for some reason, wasn’t indicted,  yet his lawyer is now admitting his guilt.  Kraft was charged and his lawyer successfully suppressed evidence of his guilt. 
 

Strive to keep up

[GoBills808]

2 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers.  When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think? People constantly want to pretend money isn't a strong enough motive for people to fudge the truth, but time and again we have seen it IS, and in amounts far less than what is being bandied about here.

I’m sure you view class action suits with the same skepticism too😂😂😂

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I’m sure you view class action suits with the same skepticism too😂😂😂

 

The only people getting rich in class action lawsuits are the lawyers. That $100 you get amongst 20 million other claimants doesn't do much.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

The only people getting rich in class action lawsuits are the lawyers. That $100 you get amongst 20 million other claimants doesn't do much.

Then let me disabuse you of the notion that the legitimacy of a lawsuit is related to the potential settlement.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Depends on the amount of money at stake, the number of people "piling on" and the likelihood of wrong doing having taken place.  Am I saying ALL of these women are lying? No.  Am I saying at least half of them probably are fudging the truth a little? 100%

 

Sounds like he has personal experience with some women claiming he did something wrong so others claimed as well.

[JoeF]

 

[FilthyBeast]

If this guy isn't suspended for a large portion of the upcoming season (or indefinitely) than something is seriously wrong with the NFL especially when they preach how important character and image is for the league as a whole.

[Process]

I don't see how he plays at all this season. Different league but I'm sure the NFL is very aware of what the MLB did with Trevor Bauer. Would be a pretty bad look if Bauer gets two seasons, Ridley a full year for placing a $500 parlay, and Watson gets 8 games or something. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Process

[Gugny]

"Watson's lawyer claims that 'happy endings' are common in massage therapy and, short of paying extra for it, such conduct is not a crime," the lawsuit reads.

[wppete]

How in the world can anyone defend this dirtbag and how can the NFL even consider letting ever play again? Insane! 

 

New lawsuit claims Deshaun Watson secured massages from random strangers “more than a hundred times”

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/06/new-lawsuit-claims-deshaun-watson-secured-massages-from-random-strangers-more-than-a-hundred-times/

 

The 24th lawsuit filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson opens with general allegations regarding Watson’s alleged habit of securing massages via Instagram. One specific excerpt from the first page of the complaint stands out.

 

“Defendant Deshaun Watson has a disturbing pattern of conduct,” the complaint contends. “Each of the cases against him is strikingly similar, evidencing a habit or custom: Watson seeks out random strangers on Instagram, as he has done more than a hundred times.”

 

 

More than a hundred times. Presumably, there’s evidence to support that claim. Evidence that likely comes from efforts to develop relevant facts in the other cases.

If it’s true that Watson has used social media to secure “more than a hundred” massages from “random strangers,” that’s a dynamic about which the league office clearly should be concerned. Regardless of the specific allegations and defenses in each of the various cases, these circumstances — combined with the recent efforts of attorney Rusty Hardin to normalize the practice of receiving and/or seeking “happy endings” — paint a troubling picture. One that tends to support if not confirm the general notion that Watson combined his immense fame with the relative anonymity of social media to create a system for seeking not legitimate massages but sexual encounters.

It’s a “know it when you see it” situation. Hardin can pick nits and/or quibble over details. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Watson had a well-established habit of seeking out massages from strangers. Now, 24 of those strangers have sued him for the things he said and did during those massage sessions.

 

The league continues to investigate. To ponder. To weigh the appropriate punishment to recommend, a decision that will spark an independent disciplinary process.

In late March, the Commissioner took paid leave off the table, even though some in the league office believe Watson should be sidelined with pay until the various civil cases are resolved. Based on recent developments (specifically, the two new lawsuits and the comments made on Friday by Hardin), perhaps it’s time for the Commissioner to reconsider his position on leave with pay.

 

If, as alleged in the latest lawsuit, Watson has used social media to arrange more than 100 massages with “random strangers” and if, as Hardin seems to suggest, Watson’s defense will include the position that there’s nothing wrong with receiving or pursuing sex during a massage, the most prudent course for the NFL could be to place Watson on the Commissioner Exempt list until each of the pending lawsuits are resolved, with formal discipline to happen thereafter.

[Logic]

If Deshaun Watson was, say, a backup linebacker, he'd never play another down in the NFL.

Because he's a star quarterback, though, he'll likely get a year's suspension and then go on to enjoy a long and lucrative career.

Disgusting.