anything less than a year is absurd, and I think a year is too lenient.
Sexual assault is a crime, he is being sued civilly for sexual misconduct and that's what he settled.
Maybe a distinction without a difference in the court of public opinion (and the court of reality), but it's good to sometimes recognize the difference between criminal and civil.
for criminal sexual assault than in most of the nation. But that doesn't mean what Watson did wasn't sexually predatory behavior. The guy should be banned from the sport. I seriously wonder about people who defend him.
in the USA everyone is entitled to a defense. I wonder about people who don't look at anything critically and accept narratives and denunciations provided by someone else. You would have loved Mao's Cultural Revolution.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
I would not defend him. If I were a GM I would not draft him, trade for him or give him QB money. But as far as suspension goes I believe that " criminal behavior" should be dealt with (punishment given out) by the courts not by employers.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
All 24 did not bring criminal complaints. I think it was something like 2 or 3 sexual assault claims and one attempted sexual assault claim.
Should also clarify it was two separate grand juries that failed to indict.
I am not a lawyer nor do I know anything about the threshold for grand jury indictment, but I have to believe proving sexual assault so far after the incident took place to the point a prosecutor feels like they can win a case in court (or even coerce a plea) is pretty difficult without DNA evidence, video evidence, or even something more than he said she said to corroborate it.
So, it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it just means the prosecutor knows it will be really hard to prove.
anything less than a year is absurd, and I think a year is too lenient.
Sexual assault is a crime, he is being sued civilly for sexual misconduct and that's what he settled.
Maybe a distinction without a difference in the court of public opinion (and the court of reality), but it's good to sometimes recognize the difference between criminal and civil.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
A grand jury indictment is usually a slam dunk. Prosecutor asks, he gets. It can vary from state to state, but that is a very strong rule of thumb. Grand jury docs are almost always sealed, so we probably will have no idea what happened. If you don't get a GJ indictment I would suspect one of three possibilities.
1) Prosecutor didn't want it and was going through the motions.
2). The case was so weak that it could not pass the very low standard of evidence for a GJ.
3). My guess as most likely, Watson sent in a defense attorney to make his case (does not happen often but allowed in many jurisdictions) and the prosecutor's case could not stand against a counter argument.
Bottom line - There is likely little evidence that Watson broke the law. His settlement on the civil side could be everything from paying up big to hide his guilt to small amounts of money to get rid of the nuisance. He almost certainly is guilty of trying to get (and almost certainly getting) happy endings from a number of masseuses. Really distasteful and marginally illegal. The list of men who survived much more serious accusations with no consequence is quite large, including 3 of our last 5 Presidents, one NFL owner (his only similar), Bill Gates, a member of the British Royal family, etc. And I suspect some subset of the readers of this board have gotten a happy ending or two in their day.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
Proving something occurred beyond a reasonable doubt when two people were alone in a room and emerge with different stories makes getting a conviction very difficult. The fact that he is accused of similar offenses by many different unconnected victims isn't enough to do it, which is why these are largely civil cases where the burden of proof is different.
Had my teeth cleaned by a very pretty dental hygienist last week.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
All 24 did not bring criminal complaints. I think it was something like 2 or 3 sexual assault claims and one attempted sexual assault claim.
Should also clarify it was two separate grand juries that failed to indict.
I am not a lawyer nor do I know anything about the threshold for grand jury indictment, but I have to believe proving sexual assault so far after the incident took place to the point a prosecutor feels like they can win a case in court (or even coerce a plea) is pretty difficult without DNA evidence, video evidence, or even something more than he said she said to corroborate it.
So, it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it just means the prosecutor knows it will be really hard to prove.
With grand juries, the standard is probable cause. The prosecutor brings the facts known to the prosecution before the grand jury which decides whether to indict or not. No indictment means there is no case. The target of the grand jury may not mount a defense or put on witnesses. From what I understand in Texas anyway, neither the defendant nor the defendant's attorney is in the room.
So the fact that no indictment was returned usually means the prosecutor did not want an indictment. In order to get an indictment prosecutor has to convince 12 of 23 grand jurors that there is “probable cause” to believe a crime may have been committed. And there is no judge or defense lawyer in the room to challenge the evidence. Just the prosecutor and his witnesses. But a smart prosecutor does not want to bring a charge unless they know that they can eventually convict by unanimously convincing all 12 jurors at a trial that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have no knowledge about this case. But my assumption was that as to the complaining witnesses in the criminal case, the prosecutor saw it was a “he said she said” and realized they would have great difficulty later winning at trial. So to avoid anyone later criticizing the prosecutor, they just let the jury no bill and decline prosecution.
Believe me if a prosecutor really wants an indictment, they will get it every single time.
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
This was going to be very hard to prove even if everything the women were saying was 100% truthful. I'm not surprised it didn't go forward.
Let's see, 24 cases f sexual assualt and the NFL is still letting
How many guys like Watson do they come across on a daily basis?
Not sure if you're being funny, but I imagine QUITE a few.
I'm just surprised it took someone about 7 hours to comment on this. I'm just reading this thread now, 9 hours later, and this is the first post I was going to comment on. I'm wondering if they come across the guys, or vice-versa?
a serious conversation about sex workers. This is not to dismiss the possibility that Watson behaved inappropriately with any of these women. But really the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that a portion of these women were performing sexual acts with Watson consensually, and that a portion of them likely went into the situation with the understanding sex would be involved.
No one will ever know exactly what percentage that "portion" is, and if Watson misbehaved with just one of these women then that's one too many, but I think people are getting too distracted by the massage therapy aspect of this case. My understanding is that Watson was hiring most of the women through social media, rather than through professional services. In my opinion, he had the clear intent of attracting a person willing to go outside of professional guidelines.
In all likelihood the masseuse thing was just something to give him cover should he ever be caught soliciting women online - but I think this was just Watson's personal method of attracting sex workers. If you're putting him on a spectrum, he's seemingly more creep than sexual predator, not too far off from the Robert Krafts of the world.
Sexual assault is a crime, he is being sued civilly for sexual misconduct and that's what he settled.
Maybe a distinction without a difference in the court of public opinion (and the court of reality), but it's good to sometimes recognize the difference between criminal and civil.
in the USA everyone is entitled to a defense. I wonder about people who don't look at anything critically and accept narratives and denunciations provided by someone else. You would have loved Mao's Cultural Revolution.
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
Quote:
In comment 15737200 Debaser said:
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
All 24 did not bring criminal complaints. I think it was something like 2 or 3 sexual assault claims and one attempted sexual assault claim.
Should also clarify it was two separate grand juries that failed to indict.
I am not a lawyer nor do I know anything about the threshold for grand jury indictment, but I have to believe proving sexual assault so far after the incident took place to the point a prosecutor feels like they can win a case in court (or even coerce a plea) is pretty difficult without DNA evidence, video evidence, or even something more than he said she said to corroborate it.
So, it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it just means the prosecutor knows it will be really hard to prove.
Probably hybrid prostitutes not full hooks though.
are children still starving in China?
Quote:
complete imbeciles.
are children still starving in China?
Not since the 1980s. Get with the times, old man. China is richer than us now.
Quote:
anything less than a year is absurd, and I think a year is too lenient.
Sexual assault is a crime, he is being sued civilly for sexual misconduct and that's what he settled.
Maybe a distinction without a difference in the court of public opinion (and the court of reality), but it's good to sometimes recognize the difference between criminal and civil.
Fair point.
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
A grand jury indictment is usually a slam dunk. Prosecutor asks, he gets. It can vary from state to state, but that is a very strong rule of thumb. Grand jury docs are almost always sealed, so we probably will have no idea what happened. If you don't get a GJ indictment I would suspect one of three possibilities.
1) Prosecutor didn't want it and was going through the motions.
2). The case was so weak that it could not pass the very low standard of evidence for a GJ.
3). My guess as most likely, Watson sent in a defense attorney to make his case (does not happen often but allowed in many jurisdictions) and the prosecutor's case could not stand against a counter argument.
Bottom line - There is likely little evidence that Watson broke the law. His settlement on the civil side could be everything from paying up big to hide his guilt to small amounts of money to get rid of the nuisance. He almost certainly is guilty of trying to get (and almost certainly getting) happy endings from a number of masseuses. Really distasteful and marginally illegal. The list of men who survived much more serious accusations with no consequence is quite large, including 3 of our last 5 Presidents, one NFL owner (his only similar), Bill Gates, a member of the British Royal family, etc. And I suspect some subset of the readers of this board have gotten a happy ending or two in their day.
Proving something occurred beyond a reasonable doubt when two people were alone in a room and emerge with different stories makes getting a conviction very difficult. The fact that he is accused of similar offenses by many different unconnected victims isn't enough to do it, which is why these are largely civil cases where the burden of proof is different.
Also keep in mind two of the women who filed criminal complaints never filed civil complaints.
I think the motive of the women involved ranges on a spectrum from opportunist to real victim of an unwanted, inappropriate sexual advance.
Watson engaged with 60+ women. Seems pretty logical some portion actually were just therapists and not expecting his junk to come out.
Quote:
In comment 15737213 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15737200 Debaser said:
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
All 24 did not bring criminal complaints. I think it was something like 2 or 3 sexual assault claims and one attempted sexual assault claim.
Should also clarify it was two separate grand juries that failed to indict.
I am not a lawyer nor do I know anything about the threshold for grand jury indictment, but I have to believe proving sexual assault so far after the incident took place to the point a prosecutor feels like they can win a case in court (or even coerce a plea) is pretty difficult without DNA evidence, video evidence, or even something more than he said she said to corroborate it.
So, it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it just means the prosecutor knows it will be really hard to prove.
I have no knowledge about this case. But my assumption was that as to the complaining witnesses in the criminal case, the prosecutor saw it was a “he said she said” and realized they would have great difficulty later winning at trial. So to avoid anyone later criticizing the prosecutor, they just let the jury no bill and decline prosecution.
Believe me if a prosecutor really wants an indictment, they will get it every single time.
Quote:
In comment 15737200 Debaser said:
Quote:
But why didn’t he get charged with anything? And that seems to go in one ear and out the other around here so you can beat your chests .
It went before a grand jury and the grand jury declined to indict, probably a lot of factors contributed to that decision.
Meanwhile the old lawyer joke is you can indict a ham sandwich. They didn’t indict him because they couldn’t prove anything. Out of 24 accusers not one could provide any evidence. That’s weird. Anyone notice a familiar pattern with these thing s? It’s the same Brett Kavanough. All of a sudden one person says something and there all these women coming out about gang bangs and drugs and all the other bs. What do they tech these scumbag lawyers that in third year at law school?
This was going to be very hard to prove even if everything the women were saying was 100% truthful. I'm not surprised it didn't go forward.
Tough spot for the NFL. Major suspension they will get blowback. Minor the same.
It's been that way forever. It's just more public nowadays. They've been getting away with it for years.
Do you think players from back in the day never took it too far?...
Quote:
How many guys like Watson do they come across on a daily basis?
Not sure if you're being funny, but I imagine QUITE a few.
I'm just surprised it took someone about 7 hours to comment on this. I'm just reading this thread now, 9 hours later, and this is the first post I was going to comment on. I'm wondering if they come across the guys, or vice-versa?
No one will ever know exactly what percentage that "portion" is, and if Watson misbehaved with just one of these women then that's one too many, but I think people are getting too distracted by the massage therapy aspect of this case. My understanding is that Watson was hiring most of the women through social media, rather than through professional services. In my opinion, he had the clear intent of attracting a person willing to go outside of professional guidelines.
In all likelihood the masseuse thing was just something to give him cover should he ever be caught soliciting women online - but I think this was just Watson's personal method of attracting sex workers. If you're putting him on a spectrum, he's seemingly more creep than sexual predator, not too far off from the Robert Krafts of the world.