Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I don't for a minute think if there is evidence he "sexually assaulted" 22 women he wouldn't be facing criminal charges. I think the term is being applied very liberally. 2 separate grand juries declined to charge him. Why do you think that?
Doesn't make him not a scumbag but words do have meaning.
Lack of evidence doesn't equal innocence.
There is almost always a lack of evidence of sexual assault or rape. DNA isn't evidence of guilt and so it comes down to what is being said by the victim and by the accused.
20+ women accused him of not respecting their consent at the very least. Being alone with an NFL player trying to force them to do something they didn't want to do is sexual assault. The Texans knew he was a ****ing creep and enabled him and tried to help him hide it.
Looks guilty to me, but apparently the idiots in the grand jury didn't think so.
There are people locked up for murder right now with less evidence against them.
What evidence would you need to throw the piece of shit in jail? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Are you familiar with the term “burden of proof”? You do know it differs, right?
In criminal court it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s an extremely high bar and convincing an entire jury of something like this that straddles the line so delicately is difficult.
She determined it was more likely than not that he had sexually assaulted the 4 women. That was the burden of proof. And that’s a burden of proof that I think most of us should be willing to accept in light of the fact that he had upwards of 20 other cases alleging the same thing.
Don't forget the scummy Texans knowing about him and trying to help him hide his assaults. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Are you familiar with the term “burden of proof”? You do know it differs, right?
In criminal court it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s an extremely high bar and convincing an entire jury of something like this that straddles the line so delicately is difficult.
She determined it was more likely than not that he had sexually assaulted the 4 women. That was the burden of proof. And that’s a burden of proof that I think most of us should be willing to accept in light of the fact that he had upwards of 20 other cases alleging the same thing.
I would guess the grand jury standard is "probable cause." The DA should consider whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is possible, but grand jury is tasked with determining if there is a reasonable probability that a crime was committed and a reasonable probability that the defendant is the one who did it.
The DA could be a Texans fan who wanted to keep Watson's trade value up and could have decided not to present the strongest case to the grand jury for indictment. Or it could be how the statutes for the possible offenses are worded. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jettio:
I would guess the grand jury standard is "probable cause." The DA should consider whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is possible, but grand jury is tasked with determining if there is a reasonable probability that a crime was committed and a reasonable probability that the defendant is the one who did it.
The DA could be a Texans fan who wanted to keep Watson's trade value up and could have decided not to present the strongest case to the grand jury for indictment. Or it could be how the statutes for the possible offenses are worded.
Agreed. I was the foreman on a grand jury in Manhattan criminal court a few years ago. It’s just impossible to know everyone’s motives - the DA’s, the jurors, etc. And without knowing the exact scope of what the grand jury was able to hear versus what the judge was able to hear, it’s really hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
And fwiw - we heard attempted murder cases, drug cases, and a rape case. And the latter was the one that we had the most disagreement about precisely because it can be such a murky area for a variety of reasons. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I don't for a minute think if there is evidence he "sexually assaulted" 22 women he wouldn't be facing criminal charges. I think the term is being applied very liberally. 2 separate grand juries declined to charge him. Why do you think that?
Doesn't make him not a scumbag but words do have meaning.
Prosecutor didn't try very hard
Originally Posted by :
A Houston Police Department detective who investigated all 10 criminal cases against Deshaun Watson recently testified that she believed the Browns quarterback did commit crimes, according to the pretrial deposition transcript obtained by USA Today and Yahoo Sports.
The detective, Kamesha Baker, also said under oath that she did not know why the two grand juries did not indict the former Texans star. A Harris County grand jury returned nine “no” decisions on nine criminal complaints against Watson in March. A Harris County prosecutor said that the decision concluded criminal proceedings against him in that county, and Watson was traded shortly afterward. A grand jury in Brazoria County declined to charge Watson on a 10th count on March 24.
Baker was reportedly not called to testify in front of the Harris County grand jury despite sharing her opinion with the District Attorney’s Office. According to USA Today, Baker felt Watson “committed criminal indecent assault, sexual assault and prostitution in cases where money was exchanged and there was consensual sex.”
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Bill Cosby was convicted with equal evidence and the shit he was convicted of happened in the late 2000's.
The main reason this is a joke is that everyone knows he's a predator, but because he's a bankable star it's being more or less swept under the rug.
His transgressions so far have gotten him out of his contract with a dysfunctional team and brought him a massive fully guaranteed contract with a team of his choosing. He might be glad he got caught [Reply]
This is going exactly how the NFL wanted it to go. 1 Year suspension here we come.
Originally Posted by : "We've seen the evidence, she was very clear about the evidence, she reinforced the evidence,'' Goodell said of Robinson's ruling. Former New Jersey attorney general Peter C. Harvey will hear the NFL's appeal.
Bill Cosby was prosecuted because he confessed to doing it in a civil trial with the promise that he wouldn't be criminally charged for it and Pennsylvania went back on its word.
Watson is pretending it didn't happen......like 30 times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
Bill Cosby was prosecuted because he confessed to doing it in a civil trial with the promise that he wouldn't be criminally charged for it and Pennsylvania went back on its word.
Watson is pretending it didn't happen......like 30 times.
Which is also why they had to let Cosby out of prison. I still wouldn't take any chances if I were in Watson's shoes though. [Reply]
Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson suspension increased to 11 games, $5 million fine, mandatory counseling in settlement negotiated by NFL and NFL Players Association in personal conduct policy disciplinary matter, per league sources @PFN365
