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

[Thurman#1]

36 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Absolutely spot on if the allegations are accurate.
 

The thing about an article like this—the author mentions the part about the family member who corroborates the facts as related by Mary immediately after the interaction, but no mention of a follow up to the referring massage therapist?   
 

This strikes me as a bit odd given the nature of the story.  There’s no obligatory “we reached out to the other massage therapist but did not hear back..” or “they declined to speak with us.”. 
 

 

 

I don't think there's any confirmation that she gave the reporters the name of the other therapist, is there?

 

Which would make sense, actually, if she wants to maintain her own anonymity, why would she give them the name of a woman she now doesn't trust? She'd have to think it would make it more likely that her own name would eventually come out.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

I don't think there's any confirmation that she gave the reporters the name of the other therapist, is there?

 

Which would make sense, actually, if she wants to maintain her own anonymity, why would she give them the name of a woman she now doesn't trust? She'd have to think it would make it more likely that her own name would eventually come out.

Maybe, on the other hand, that could easily be addressed in the piece.  The story indicates Mary identified herself on condition of anonymity, she provided the name of the relative (not named in the story but shared with the journalist, makes sense based on your scenario), why wouldn't the journalist include that fact pattern in her story?  

 

In the article, the author indicates that after the interaction between Watson and the massage therapist, she calls the referring business associate, describes the encounter in graphic detail and the referring associate responds "I'll talk to him.".   After that--the journalist probes no further?    

 

If you're a journalist writing a story of this magnitude during the times we live in, would you let it drop there?  If she asked Mary, she would have received an answer, and that's part of the story.  If she didn't ask Mary, well she wasn't professional in her role. 

 

That's odd.  My guess is the author reached out to the associate, spoke with them and chose not to include a reference to that person in the story.  Personally, I would rule out the other person declined to comment/refused to cooperate, because that's easily explainable.  I'd also rule out that Mary refused to provide the associates name, that's easily explained in the story as well.  

 

 

[4merper4mer]

57 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

 

Either the claims in the lawsuits are true or not. If they're not, someone paid these ladies to manufacture the claims against Watson. Let's assume the claims are false. Who would've paid the women to make them up, contact Buzbee, and get the lawsuits filed ? 

Shirley you can’t think that if someone paid 20+ women to make these claims, that nobody rejected the overture and could go public?

[MJS]

9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Maybe, on the other hand, that could easily be addressed in the piece.  The story indicates Mary identified herself on condition of anonymity, she provided the name of the relative (not named in the story but shared with the journalist, makes sense based on your scenario), why wouldn't the journalist include that fact pattern in her story?  

 

In the article, the author indicates that after the interaction between Watson and the massage therapist, she calls the referring business associate, describes the encounter in graphic detail and the referring associate responds "I'll talk to him.".   After that--the journalist probes no further?    

 

If you're a journalist writing a story of this magnitude during the times we live in, would you let it drop there?  If she asked Mary, she would have received an answer, and that's part of the story.  If she didn't ask Mary, well she wasn't professional in her role. 

 

That's odd.  My guess is the author reached out to the associate, spoke with them and chose not to include a reference to that person in the story.  Personally, I would rule out the other person declined to comment/refused to cooperate, because that's easily explainable.  I'd also rule out that Mary refused to provide the associates name, that's easily explained in the story as well.  

An article is basically just a short synopsis of what actually happened. There is no way for them to list everything that happens and all details. They include enough to tell the story and provide relevant details.

 

So there is probably a lot more to the story that the journalist knows, and even more to the story that they weren't able to completely uncover, or they found to be less interesting to the overall narrative.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Shirley you can’t think that if someone paid 20+ women to make these claims, that nobody rejected the overture and could go public?

 

That was my thought.  Plus the woman interviewed for SI who is NOT part of the lawsuit but who had a very similar story.

 

It'd be worse than "herding cats" to get a group approaching 2 dozen to participate in some form of conspiracy that would involve eventually their names coming out and testifying under oath in court - and not have anyone "blink" and decide to re-think that plan and go to the news media.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That was my thought.  Plus the woman interviewed for SI who is NOT part of the lawsuit but who had a very similar story.

 

It'd be worse than "herding cats" to get a group approaching 2 dozen to participate in some form of conspiracy that would involve eventually their names coming out and testifying under oath in court - and not have anyone "blink" and decide to re-think that plan and go to the news media.

I’m not saying I believe all of these, or even any specific one, but the McNair theory is cuckoo.  
 

If it became documented that Watson actually utilized 20+ massage therapists, that in itself would be strange to me and lend at least a little credibility to their stories.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

An article is basically just a short synopsis of what actually happened. There is no way for them to list everything that happens and all details. They include enough to tell the story and provide relevant details.

 

So there is probably a lot more to the story that the journalist knows, and even more to the story that they weren't able to completely uncover, or they found to be less interesting to the overall narrative.

Correct, we don't need to know the color of the beach towel she draped over him, the weather on the day it all took place, nor the location of the facility where the massage took place.  

 

However, the actions of the associate are an important part of the story, certainly not a minor detail.  The author was careful to explain actions taken to vet the comments of the family member as it relates to the fact pattern, yet the referring associate exits like the first Becky on Roseanne.  

 

I'll let it go, but it makes no sense NOT to attempt to corroborate and write about what she found.  

[BuffaloRebound]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I’m not saying I believe all of these, or even any specific one, but the McNair theory is cuckoo.  
 

If it became documented that Watson actually utilized 20+ massage therapists, that in itself would be strange to me and lend at least a little credibility to their stories.

Well he clearly utilized way more than 20 if Sports illustrated randomly reached out to a female masseuse in Houston area to get her thoughts on the allegations and she happened to be victimized too.  Watson seems like a really weird dude.  I’m not sure I believe he forced one of them to perform oral sex, but impossible not to think the dude is a major pervert.  

[US Egg]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

 I’m not sure I believe he forced one of them to perform oral sex, but impossible not to think the dude is a major pervert.

Maybe the purge in Houston wasn't solely because of Bill O'Brien?

[JoPoy88]

3 hours ago, Roy Hobbs said:

 

Either the claims in the lawsuits are true or not. If they're not, someone paid these ladies to manufacture the claims against Watson. Let's assume the claims are false. Who would've paid the women to make them up, contact Buzbee, and get the lawsuits filed ? 

assuming this number of claims are false is not the side you want to bet on. I was skeptical too very early given the theatrics of this plaintiffs’ lawyer, but if you can’t see the fire yet through all this smoke I don’t know what to say to you.

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, I am the egg man said:

Maybe the purge in Houston wasn't solely because of Bill O'Brien?

it didn’t Easterby had a lot to do with it too. It’s funny how Cal McNair and Easterby are apparently trying to build this Christian, faith-based franchise. Won’t cut Watson though, that would screw up the salary cap.

[Coach Tuesday]

9 hours ago, Roy Hobbs said:

 

Either the claims in the lawsuits are true or not. If they're not, someone paid these ladies to manufacture the claims against Watson. Let's assume the claims are false. Who would've paid the women to make them up, contact Buzbee, and get the lawsuits filed ? 

Why has humanity become like this.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Coach Tuesday

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Roy Hobbs said:

 

Don't really have a theory but I'm sure Watson's $156 mil contract would be voided if the McNair's lawyers could prove any misconduct legally and no other team would even sign Watson essentially ending his football career. The timing is certainly suspicious given Watson's stance of not ever playing for the Texans again. 

 

This should have stifled your urge to propagate yet another post about a conspiracy on his team's part.

 

 

[Back2Buff]

10 hours ago, Putin said:

So what are the odds of him playing football THIS YEAR??

 

With no criminal case, why would he not play football?

 

Like I stated earlier, all these women are jumping onto a civil case, not a criminal case.  Watson clearly is a sex addict, but not sure you can suspend him if these women are not taking the criminal route.  Suspending off civil cases is a slippery slope the league can't start doing.

 

I just don't understand if some of these stories are true, why these women are not contacting and working with authorities.  It makes zero sense to me.  From the stories, he absolutely sexually assaulted multiple women.

[DJB]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Shirley you can’t think that if someone paid 20+ women to make these claims, that nobody rejected the overture and could go public?

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

With no criminal case, why would he not play football?

 

Like I stated earlier, all these women are jumping onto a civil case, not a criminal case.  Watson clearly is a sex addict, but not sure you can suspend him if these women are not taking the criminal route.  Suspending off civil cases is a slippery slope the league can't start doing.

 

I just don't understand if some of these stories are true, why these women are not contacting and working with authorities.  It makes zero sense to me.  From the stories, he absolutely sexually assaulted multiple women.

Goodell doesn’t delineate

[machine gun kelly]

Who wants to take the over/under this thread goes south around page 37, and closed down.  I’ve given my sincere responses before, but now this is going down personal attacks.  It will all play out.

 

I don’t know how you can make some of the assertions being made by a minority on one side or another.

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Goodell doesn’t delineate

 

He doesn't have to--players are already well aware of the (collectively bargained) policy.

 

"To this end, the league has increased education regarding respect and appropriate behavior, has provided resources for all employees to assist them in conforming their behavior to the standards expected of them, and has made clear that the league’s goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In order to uphold our high standards, when violations of this Personal Conduct Policy do occur, appropriate disciplinary action must follow. This Personal Conduct Policy is issued pursuant to the Commissioner’s authority under the Constitution and Bylaws, Collective Bargaining Agreement and NFL Player Contract to address and sanction conduct detrimental to the league and professional football."

 

"Expectations and Standards of Conduct It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. We are all held to a higher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL, and is lawful. Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:  Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;  Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;  Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace setting;  Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;  Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;  Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;  Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;  Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;  Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;  Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;  Disorderly conduct;  Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police officer or other law enforcement officer;  Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and  Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel."

[Captain Hindsight]

10 hours ago, Roy Hobbs said:

 

Either the claims in the lawsuits are true or not. If they're not, someone paid these ladies to manufacture the claims against Watson. Let's assume the claims are false. Who would've paid the women to make them up, contact Buzbee, and get the lawsuits filed ? 

Have you ever seen what happens to women who come forward with sexual assault claims?

 

Death threats, character assassination, stalking, threats to family members. Even if Watson is guilty, these women will now be known as the people that ended Watson's career, not the other way around

 

I have a hard time understanding the "money grab" theory. It just doesn't match with reality 

[Seventeen]

12 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Who wants to take the over/under this thread goes south around page 37, and closed down.  I’ve given my sincere responses before, but now this is going down personal attacks.  It will all play out.

 

I don’t know how you can make some of the assertions being made by a minority on one side or another.

 

Exactly - I'm leaning toward Watson being guilty and almost everyone else here already has him guilty with no criminal charges filed. I put a theory out there as far-fetched as it may be and if I'm way off, so what ? Wouldn't be the 1st time someone in a position of power tried to ruin someone. 

 

But until there's evidence that Watson is guilty other than words, I will wait until it plays out.