Watson news - won't face criminal charges

[stevegrab]

4 minutes ago, Shaft said:

 

A grand jury doesn't apply to double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is being charged twice for the same offense. A grand jury decides if a formal charge should occur (i.e. indictment). If one grand jury decides to not indict (i.e. formal charge), it doesn't stop it from being reviewed again by another grand jury. A prosecutor can comeback with more evidence and try again. Goodness I sound like Big John!  

 

And now back to our regular scheduled programming. 

More importantly the second grand jury was looking at a charge that was not in the jurisdiction of the original grand jury, because of where the incident occurred.

 

Not sure if people are just being silly or have some serious issues, because there had nothing to do with double jeopardy.

[BillyBalata]

It' also incredibly easy to convince a grand jury to indict someone. the only evidence presented to them is what the prosecutor wants them to hear. there is nothing shown to them that might defend the person they want to indict.  if two grand juries have declined to indict, the evidence must be really flimsy.  Or the jurors have all been Watson fans.

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, League_Champion said:

 

What more do they need to do? Two different Grand Juries decided not to indict him. What more do you want? 

 

OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder, did you believe that? Would that make it OK to have him running your company, or being a top person in any organization? 

 

I get it, he can throw a ball and run fast, so all his transgressions are dismissed, then the fans can call the NFL hypocrites while they eat up the product. 

 

Your brain is beyond warped. 

[stevegrab]

1 minute ago, BillyBalata said:

It' also incredibly easy to convince a grand jury to indict someone. the only evidence presented to them is what the prosecutor wants them to hear. there is nothing shown to them that might defend the person they want to indict.  if two grand juries have declined to indict, the evidence must be really flimsy.  Or the jurors have all been Watson fans.

 

That has been pointed out in several articles I've read. The prosecutor can say "see I tried to get the guy in jail for his crimes, but the grand jury wouldn't go along".  And since the whole process is secret and behind closed doors nobody knows what evidence was presented and how strong their case was. 

 

This is just more window dressing, I wouldn't be surprised these DAs involved got some nice campaign donations to convince them to not really go after Watson. Of course if he were not a talented athlete he's probably already be tried, convicted and sentenced to the maximum. 

[League_Champion]

3 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder, did you believe that? Would that make it OK to have him running your company, or being a top person in any organization? 

 

I get it, he can throw a ball and run fast, so all his transgressions are dismissed, then the fans can call the NFL hypocrites while they eat up the product. 

 

Your brain is beyond warped. 

 

As much as I think Watson is a creep as well, there is no evidence, no police reports, etc. At what point do you let him back into society? And OJ murdered 2 people, he didn't ask a massage therapist for a handy. Our current President has been caught being a perv on video numerous times and accused of even worse. 

[Bobby Brown]

3 hours ago, LordOpie said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy.

The only fallacy is believing that innocent until proven guilty somehow applies to anything outside the legal realm.  That's why you got fired from your job at the laundromat the moment the owner caught you sniffing and wearing women customer's dirty panties.  He didn't have to wait for a legal conviction.

[loaf]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:27 AM, stevegrab said:

Really?  Garret, Chubb, Ward, Neswome, JOK, Wills, etc.   The Browns have done pretty well with the draft lately. Baker turns out not to be the best choice at that slot, but wasn't a complete bust like some other QBs taken in that draft. 

I wouldn't consider Ward worthy of the 4th overall pick. And why not go back to '99? You win some, you lose quite a few

[stethant]

That Browns press conference last week was like a slow motion train wreck. I'm not sure anyone was believing the manure they were shoveling - I'm not sure Stefanski and Berry totally understood what they stepped into until the presser was in progress.

 

I wonder where the owner was? Oh...somewhere else? Interesting.

[stevegrab]

4 hours ago, stethant said:

That Browns press conference last week was like a slow motion train wreck. I'm not sure anyone was believing the manure they were shoveling - I'm not sure Stefanski and Berry totally understood what they stepped into until the presser was in progress.

 

I wonder where the owner was? Oh...somewhere else? Interesting.

 

The owners (Jimmy & Dee Haslam) had an online press conference a couple hours later. Not sure why they were not present, nobody in the media mentioned seemed to talk about it. I've said at least once here that I would have made that my first question, and would hope there's a good explanation not something lame like "we went back to TN". 

 

Today I saw this headline in the local paper and had to read the story

Browns’ Jimmy and Dee Haslam say they haven’t received negative feedback from Deshaun Watson trade despite a report that peers are miffed

 

What a joke, like we really expect them to tell the media "yep a bunch of owners were really pissed with us". And of course this stellar reporter just believes them and expects others to do the same. As I finish the story I can see that the reporter points out several owners including Ravens Bisciotti voiced their concerns as it relates to making it hard to sign their own QB and other top players.

 

Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul fans are familiar with Slippin Jimmy, this is Slippery Jimmy and Delusional Dee

Edited March 30, 2022 by stevegrab

[stevegrab]

I'm also starting to wonder just when will the NFL make a decision on Watson. So far they just say "we're in the process, we have an investigation, there is no deadline/timeframe for completing it".  So maybe its undecided before the season starts, he plays for a while then they can take the Browns progress with Watson into account before leveling any sort of suspension.

 

PS  At the very end of the article the Slippery Jimmy says this, like he was actually at the introductory presser  

“You feel like you’re playing a little defense that first time [in the Watson introductory press conference],’' he said. “We feel good about the person. Really good about the player. But it’s got to prove out.”

[millworkguy]

On 2022-03-30 at 12:33 PM, stevegrab said:

I'm also starting to wonder just when will the NFL make a decision on Watson. So far they just say "we're in the process, we have an investigation, there is no deadline/timeframe for completing it".  So maybe its undecided before the season starts, he plays for a while then they can take the Browns progress with Watson into account before leveling any sort of suspension.

 

From an article I read earlier this week:

 

According to a source familiar with the league’s process under the new CBA, that decision is expected to be placed in the hands of former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson, who has been chosen by the NFL and NFL Players Association to act as an impartial arbitrator in disciplinary cases like Watson’s. Goodell briefly referenced the policy change Tuesday while he was discussing the Watson probe during his closing remarks at the league’s annual spring meetings.

[stevegrab]

On 3/31/2022 at 7:34 PM, millworkguy said:

 

From an article I read earlier this week:

 

According to a source familiar with the league’s process under the new CBA, that decision is expected to be placed in the hands of former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson, who has been chosen by the NFL and NFL Players Association to act as an impartial arbitrator in disciplinary cases like Watson’s. Goodell briefly referenced the policy change Tuesday while he was discussing the Watson probe during his closing remarks at the league’s annual spring meetings.

 

Wow Goodell will no longer be in control of the punishment, that's an interesting change I had missed. I'd expect if the CBA agreed to some outside arbitrator they feel it will be a more fair system. I saw an article over the weekend that said it could be as low as 4 games. 

[millworkguy]

1 hour ago, stevegrab said:

 

Wow Goodell will no longer be in control of the punishment, that's an interesting change I had missed. I'd expect if the CBA agreed to some outside arbitrator they feel it will be a more fair system. I saw an article over the weekend that said it could be as low as 4 games. 

I saw that as well,  my post makes no mention of her investigative mandate,  or scope of powers prior to her making a decision,  nor what basis of fact she might be able to use while making a decision, (What is her burden of proof).  However I'm sure the nfl and nflpa spoke about this,  and giving the nfl a black eye isn't likely the only thing that they are looking at. 

 

I wonder if the 6 game suspension (lowered to 4 on appeal) idea was floated to get a sense of public opinion, as the introduction press conference may not have gone as smoothly as planned 

[millworkguy]

Judge rules Watson must say whether he had sex with the 18 massage therapists that supported him,

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33680511/cleveland-browns-deshaun-watson-address-massage-therapists-judge-rules

[League_Champion]

1 hour ago, millworkguy said:

Judge rules Watson must say whether he had sex with the 18 massage therapists that supported him,

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33680511/cleveland-browns-deshaun-watson-address-massage-therapists-judge-rules

 

Haha. How do you prove that one way or the other? 

[millworkguy]

Just now, League_Champion said:

 

Haha. How do you prove that one way or the other? 

 

I guess it depends on if both parties are willing to say the same answer.   Going to be interesting if all 18 had sex with him, or if you see therapists divorcing citing sex with a d Watson as a complaint from the other party.

 

 I doubt the above will happen,  just enjoying some wild speculation .

 

However if all 18 women say they had consensual sex with Watson,  I think it would show enough of a pattern to warrant another look at charges. 

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, millworkguy said:

Judge rules Watson must say whether he had sex with the 18 massage therapists that supported him,

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33680511/cleveland-browns-deshaun-watson-address-massage-therapists-judge-rules

 

Since he is part of the Browns now this was a big story on local news. They explained why (I see the same stuff in the linked story). Sounds like the judge isn't too please with Watson's attorney and isn't going play nice with him.

 

Below is a pretty interesting story in the local paper about the legal issues. It gets a bit wrapped up in how this relates to laws in Ohio and our grand jury process, but not sure why and I stopped reading it once because of that. It does clearly state things most of us know, but some don't want to accept. Not being charged does not mean he is innocent and didn't do what he is accused of, or that there was nothing wrong with his actions. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2022/04/why-wasnt-deshaun-watson-charged-what-prosecutors-needed-to-file-charges.html

 

The final bit from the article

One of the women who filed a criminal complaint against Watson made a similar point in an open letter published this week.

“[A] failure to charge or convict a crime does not equate to innocence,” she wrote. “Watson, his fans and the Cleveland Browns pretending it does is not only ignorant, it is evil.”

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, millworkguy said:

Judge rules Watson must say whether he had sex with the 18 massage therapists that supported him,

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33680511/cleveland-browns-deshaun-watson-address-massage-therapists-judge-rules

 

1 hour ago, LordOpie said:

This is (the really bad word)ed up. The other 18 shouldn't be forced to say anything.

 

I missed where it says the 18 message therapists need to give a statement, maybe they've done that already.

 

This mess is not going away anytime soon, NFL may let him play and Browns may get a chance to see how their new toy works out. But there will be more fallout, more salacious stories and the potential for more legal trouble. Even if he can keep his Johnson in his pants. 

[League_Champion]

22 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

This mess is not going away anytime soon, NFL may let him play and Browns may get a chance to see how their new toy works out. But there will be more fallout, more salacious stories and the potential for more legal trouble. Even if he can keep his Johnson in his pants.

 

Yeah, this may open up a whole other can of problems. 

[millworkguy]

2 hours ago, LordOpie said:

This is (the really bad word)ed up. The other 18 shouldn't be forced to say anything.

They haven't been compelled to, but why do you think that they shouldn't have to say anything?  They could have stayed quite, but chose to speak up and refute what the 22 said.    Why shouldn't they be compelled to disclose their relationship with Watson in order to place context to their statements 

[stevegrab]

16 hours ago, millworkguy said:

They haven't been compelled to, but why do you think that they shouldn't have to say anything?  They could have stayed quite, but chose to speak up and refute what the 22 said.    Why shouldn't they be compelled to disclose their relationship with Watson in order to place context to their statements 

 

If the lawyer behind the civil suits has convinced a judge they need answers from Watson I don't see why they wouldn't try to get the same answers from the 16 women who came out supporting him. I don't think they need to be a party to the civil suits in order to be "compelled" to give testimony but I'm no legal expert. As I understand it the attorney for the women who are suing Watson feel this will show a pattern, that he frequently (including with some of those 16 supporters) had a message and then some sexual activity. Like people who have a smoke after sex, its just part of his message. 

 

I think the Watson team plans to have this drag on as long as possible, and hopefully not have any impact on this season. They figure he'll shine with the Browns, and any troubles that come later will be excused because "we're winning". Some thought the Browns would encourage him to settle quickly and "make it go away", but all reports indicate the Browns have not done that. And they stand behind him strongly, believing and parroting his innocence. 

 

I will add this, I've been skeptical when the stories first broke, all these women going to the same attorney, and his shady style. But then I also didn't want to believe that Cosby was guilty. Usually when there is this much smoke there is at least a small fire. 

[irish]

On 4/7/2022 at 10:14 AM, stevegrab said:

 

If the lawyer behind the civil suits has convinced a judge they need answers from Watson I don't see why they wouldn't try to get the same answers from the 16 women who came out supporting him. I don't think they need to be a party to the civil suits in order to be "compelled" to give testimony but I'm no legal expert. As I understand it the attorney for the women who are suing Watson feel this will show a pattern, that he frequently (including with some of those 16 supporters) had a message and then some sexual activity. Like people who have a smoke after sex, its just part of his message. 

 

I think the Watson team plans to have this drag on as long as possible, and hopefully not have any impact on this season. They figure he'll shine with the Browns, and any troubles that come later will be excused because "we're winning". Some thought the Browns would encourage him to settle quickly and "make it go away", but all reports indicate the Browns have not done that. And they stand behind him strongly, believing and parroting his innocence. 

 

I will add this, I've been skeptical when the stories first broke, all these women going to the same attorney, and his shady style. But then I also didn't want to believe that Cosby was guilty. Usually when there is this much smoke there is at least a small fire. 

 

Anyone else read this and legitimately feel they were missing out of what the message was?

[stevegrab]

7 hours ago, irish said:

 

Anyone else read this and legitimately feel they were missing out of what the message was?

 

Oh darn I made a couple of typos, call the forum police.  

 

 

[millworkguy]

Several outlets claim to have seen Watson’s contract with Cleveland,  in it Watson states:

 

In paragraph 42, Watson “represents and warrants (except as disclosed to club in writing), as of the date hereof, that (i) Player has not been charged with, indicted for, convicted of or pled nolo contender to any felony and/or misdemeanor involving fraud or moral turpitude, (ii) Player has not engaged in conduct which would subject him to a charge, indictment or conviction of any such offense, and (iii) no circumstances exist that would prevent Player’s continuing availability to the Club for the duration of this Contract.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/04/08/deshaun-watsons-contract-contains-exception-to-typical-club-protections-in-event-of-suspension/amp/

 

 Assuming that the 22 civil cases against him are "except as disclosed to club in writing " admitted illegal actions with anyone else may have serious issues with his guarantees.

Edited April 10, 2022 by millworkguy

[Big John]

ESPN is saying that Watson will meet with the NFL this week regarding the allegations.