Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah, the stats kind of go out the window when it comes to celebrities who are more vulnerable to these types of accusations.  Private citizens are a different animal, but when you have a high profile person in modern day society where you can be convicted in the court of social media without evidence, it gives more temptation for people to go after a cash grab.

 

Look what happened to Kobe.  His accuser willfully on her own went to his private room.  She shows up at hospital to accuse him of raping her yet has 3 other mens  in her underwear and not Kobes.  Then drops the case to avoid having to testify.  I mean, there was literally not one shred of evidence to her claim...but when a celebrity is in this position, it can often just be one persons word vs the other.  And to to this day, people who dont like Kobe still refer to him as a rapist despite not a single piece of actual evidence remotely suggesting that rape was involved.  

 

Court of public opinion with social media is a major weapon for accusers against high profile individuals.  

 

None of this means Watson is innocent either...just for me, this all seems highly suspect given the lawyer opens with "Its not about money" after he first unsuccessfully just asked Watson for money before filing suit.  

Yes, sir. Now what happens if X woman says that Watson assaulted her at such and such location at such and such time but it turns out he was really at practice or working with his trainer? Hopefully Watson keeps a detailed log/journal of his schedule, that would be one way of proving some of his accusers wrong. 

Posted
Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I agree with most of this.  I can not agree about pursuing a criminal case first and what not doing so means.  It could mean that the police blew it off or that they or a friend had a prior poor experience with police and were like "don't bother".  If victims lack confidence of even having a complaint taken seriously and investigated properly, much less charges are filed, much less conviction, there's very good reason for all of that.  I hope you never have someone you care for involved in that.

 

I think the lawyer was actively seeking women to add to his case with his Instagram.  Now that doesn't mean that the allegations didn't happen.  But there's all sorts of stuff about how memories and eyewitness testimony can be influenced by the way an interview is conducted....and yeah, the chance for $$ is also a factor.

 

Whether or not it happened, I'm very very uncomfortable with the way this case is being pursued in the Court of Public Opinion.

 

I agree with you on those points too.  I was more referencing these types of cases, especially with the number of alleged victims now.  

 

And also, my opinion in this such case is influenced by an attorney opening with "Its not about the money" who actually first just demanded money from Watson before filing suit.  If it wasn't about the money, they wouldn't have tried to cash settle it before filing.  

 

But good reply, and youre right, my comment (while still true in a lot of accounts) isnt a fair blanketed one to people who first choose civil.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

They are afraid for themselves much of the time, especially with highly thought of big stars. They don’t want their names out there. 

I'm fairly certain the identities of sexual assault victims are not public information. At a minimum, why not contact the police and a lawyer?

Posted

 

7 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

This is my gripe. Why isn't the "first" step of the accusers to go to the police instead of a lawyer. It seems like a money grab. 

 

I agree the publicity-hound lawyer seeking plaintiffs and his whole approach make it seem like a money grab.

 

As far as the police and whether or not these events really occurred, I don't know, but it's neither more or less likely in my mind because they didn't go there, for {good reasons}.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

I'm fairly certain the identities of sexual assault victims are not public information. At a minimum, why not contact the police and a lawyer?

Well, the police will probably ask them when it happened, where and what time. If these women lie about this or if the information they provide is not accurate, they could face legal trouble. If X accuser says it happened on a Monday in 2019 but it turns out that Watson was having lunch with his girlfriend or working with a team trainer that day, obviously we would rightfully assume that that person is a liar. Of course they may say they don’t remember and blah blah but they’d lose all credibility at that point... Now if these women come forward with dates, times and locations that all check out, this could get really really ugly for Watson.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

Well, the police will probably ask them when it happened, where and what time. If these women lie about this or if the information they provide is not accurate, they could face legal trouble. If X accuser says it happened on a Monday in 2019 but it turns out that Watson was having lunch with his girlfriend or working with a team trainer that day, obviously we would rightfully assume that that person is a liar. Of course they may say they don’t remember and blah blah but they’d lose all credibility at that point... Now if these women come forward with dates, times and locations that all check out, this could get really really ugly for Watson.


this plaintiffs’ lawyer may seem sleazy and a little crazy, but it’s safe to assume he’s not stupid. Which means he’s doing at least some perfunctory vetting of these accusers before preparing and filing a complaint - he’s looking at least for some corroborating correspondence between Watson and the woman, verifying her employment and residence, etc...

 

He’s not filing suits on behalf of every woman knocking on his door.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:


this plaintiffs’ lawyer may seem sleazy and a little crazy, but it’s safe to assume he’s not stupid. Which means he’s doing at least some perfunctory vetting of these accusers before preparing and filing a complaint - he’s looking at least for some corroborating correspondence between Watson and the woman, verifying her employment and residence, etc...

 

He’s not filing suits on behalf of every woman knocking on his door.

We’ll see and if he is doing any vetting he’ll likely ask them the following questions I listed.. date, location and time.. These will be the first questions asked along with, how did you know Mr. Watson? I’m not saying all these women are liars and I’m not saying some of them aren’t telling the truth, but it is up to what? 10 or 12 now? Doubt all of these are legit..

Posted
2 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

We’ll see and if he is doing any vetting he’ll likely ask them the following questions I listed.. date, location and time.. These will be the first questions asked along with, how did you know Mr. Watson? I’m not saying all these women are liars and I’m not saying some of them aren’t telling the truth, but it is up to what? 10 or 12 now? Doubt all of these are legit..


worse than that - it’s 12 and the attorney claims he’s looking into 10 more on top of that.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

I'm fairly certain the identities of sexual assault victims are not public information. At a minimum, why not contact the police and a lawyer?

 

The alleged victim's name became public information in the Jameis Winston investigation, and she reportedly received death threats as well as abuse calling her a "slut" and a "*****", and she wound up dropping out of school and leaving the area.  As to the police investigation, it featured officers discouraging the alleged victim: “This is a huge football town. You really should think long and hard if you want to press charges.” 

 

I'm not saying Winston was guilty of rape, but there were all kinds of deviations between good investigative procedure and how the police conducted that investigation.  She later won a civil settlement of $950,000 with the school (it included commitments to conduct sexual assault awareness and prevention programs) and settled with Winston in a civil lawsuit she filed. 

 

My point is that there are all kinds of well documented reasons why a person who believes they have experienced a sexual assault by a famous and popular figure might not choose to contact police. 

 

As for the lawyer: criminal lawyers need to be paid up front.  Civil litigation lawyers work on contingency.

 

20 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

We’ll see and if he is doing any vetting he’ll likely ask them the following questions I listed.. date, location and time.. These will be the first questions asked along with, how did you know Mr. Watson? I’m not saying all these women are liars and I’m not saying some of them aren’t telling the truth, but it is up to what? 10 or 12 now? Doubt all of these are legit..

 

I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether the claims are legit because to date, we lack information that would allow us to make any kind of determination.

 

I think the lawyer is a sleeze, and I base that on his conduct as one of the lawyers in the Mario Williams case and on how he's appearing on social media in this.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:

That's why I said I kid I kid

 

But if you sign up to be a lawyer, I mean it comes with the job 🤣🤣


What do you call it when a bus load of lawyers drives off a cliff?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a good start. 
 

*buh dum tssss*

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...