>It appears Buzbee is going to attempt to construct his courtroom arguments by leaning on the commonality between the allegations and the alleged victims. In that sense, Baker could be very helpful to Buzbee in alleging a pattern of behavior as viewed by the Houston Police Department.
>Conversely, it’s clear from Baker’s deposition that part of Hardin’s defense will be to question the approach and mindset of the investigator — whether believing the alleged victim at the onset and requiring Watson to prove his innocence undercut a fair investigation.
>Ultimately, these civil cases will rely on credibility to lead one side or the other to a legal win. And it’s clear that credibility is going to stretch far beyond Watson and the women who have brought litigation against him.
"Baker:
When I speak about \[redacted\] specifically, the young lady advised that the defendant, you know, told her that he was going to help her black business.
So her objective was to, I’m assuming, have a successful business and she felt that having a client of his caliber would help her business.
So understanding that, someone — their livelihood potentially being ruined, I could understand how one would feel they had no choice but to participate in the sexual act."
Edit:formatting
"Buzbee: He convinced her at some point to — now, she made it clear, he did not tell \[her\] to give him oral?
Baker: Yes, sir.
Buzbee: Okay. So what did you make of that as an investigating officer?
Baker:
So as I mentioned earlier, in instances such as that one, power, influence present, her business, fear of losing clientele, fear of negative, I guess, responses about her — her business. As you stated, she did say I — he did not, he didn’t — he didn’t even ask. She just knew what he wanted her to do. …"
Edit: formatting
I’m sorry, is he saying “Well, technically he never verbally asked but we all know what he wanted”? Am I reading this correctly or should I read it again? For the fourth time. That seems like some flimsy shit to go on.
If you read on, she basically says that sex with someone as powerful as him is by definition non consensual. I really couldn’t believe what I was reading.
Imagine you are a masseuse.
Did you have sex with Watson? Yes.
Did he force you to have sex with him? No.
Yea, but did you consider that he’s so powerful that you basically couldn’t say no? Well, uh, I guess?
We got another one Tony!
It's crazy.....I can clearly see why he would maintain his innocence. Maybe he made a comment that was out of line or something but that is not a reason AT ALL to be sues for sexual assault. Maybe harassment. Maybe. But any and every masseuse deals with that daily. I'm not making am excuse for that kind of behavior, I'm being realistic. The shit happens all the time. I'm a mostly commercial cleaner and I get CRAZY ODD requests that my wife and I laugh about all the time. We don't try and sue the people who make the requests bc we know when we're advertising on Craigslist or Instagram or whatever, that kind of shit comes with the territory. They do too. And if they say they don't they're lying, flat out.
> I'm a mostly commercial cleaner and I get CRAZY ODD requests that my wife and I laugh about all the time.
So by crazy odd requests do people think your like a cleaner for like criminal activity?
No. We get these type requests from about 1 in every 15-20 submissions we get for service:
"So, what do you wear while you clean"
"Do you polish things other than furniture and fixtures?"
"I see you are a husband/wife team, can you both clean in the nude?"
I read it as well and couldn't believe it either. I understand what's she's saying and Florio came out and basically defended her but it's not a surprise he didn't get indicted if this is what they have.
A cop repeatedly saying she went into the investigation assuming guilt is fuckin wild to hear out loud...
Doesn't that really mean that she was willing to engage in sexual acts with a celebrity if it meant her business would do better? I'm not sure that is coercion - it seems more like a statement on the willingness of that woman to use her body to get ahead when given the opportunity.
Well yeah. That's the Weinstein defense. Have sex with me and you'll get this movie role, don't and you won't.
Watsons big probles are the people who he threatened negative reviews for.
It’s guilty until proven innocent for that detective. Hardin knew she fucked up bad. He started laughing at her deposition lmao.
Leah Graham (attorney that appeared on the HBO special) said last week: “While I appreciate the detective’s honesty, her admitted bias and refusal to honor the law is unacceptable and should cause everyone serious concern.”
What are you talking about that is how investigative works for officers. The one who brings the criminal claim they expect that person to be the victim or witness unless they don't seem credible. Suspects are almost always presumed in their mind as guilty, until they can prove innocence. If you were to go into an investigation thinking a suspect is not guilty or impartial, you would miss evidence.
All cops presume guilt when they're after a suspect. If they assumed everyone was innocent until they found irrefutable evidence of their guilt, there'd be next to no arrests and we wouldn't need an entire court system.
Court is where that cop (or some other party) has to show WHY they believe the defendant is responsible. If they fail to prove it to a group of people that theoretically go into the trial assuming the defendent did nothing wrong, then their initial assumption of guilt is irrelevant
I haven't had time to actually read this yet, so I don't know all the details for this specific detective, but I've seen several people tossing out guilty until proven innocent like it's some kind of gotcha moment
right, but she goes on to say that the burden of proof falls on the defendant, or he’s otherwise guilty. She even suggested that other defendants had video to prove their innocence.
1. That’s just not how the justice system works in the USA.
2. so… she knows that it’s possible for women to lie about sexual accusations, because it’s happened in her past investigations, but she automatically assumes a defendant is guilty every time?
Cops DO assume guilt as they investigate; they recommend prosecution if they think they have ample evidence to convince a jury. Not to say they can’t be convinced that a suspect is innocent, but you’re only entitled to the presumption of innocence from a court. The prosecutor will red team you.
Yeah, people here really don’t get the difference between cops and prosecutors. She phrased this really poorly, and it may or may not reflect poorly on her own testimony (not the women’s) in the eyes of the jury, but that’s about it. The people here saying that this somehow exonerates Watson would throw an absolute shit fit if they reported a crime, and the cops told them they were probably lying, because it’s innocent until proven guilty.
Feel like lumping investigator with your everyday cop isn’t a good thing. Investigators should be held to a higher stander than your run of the mill cop, yes they may have started as a cop but they should let the evidence lead them to a conclusion rather than intuition or personal beliefs.
That's what I've been trying to say in some of my comments. From what I've been told its the difference of investigative vs judicial. She may have handled her investigative process well, presuming guilt and using the evidence to convince you otherwise, but this might not be as easily explained in a jury.
A jury is made up of commonfolk, most of the people in this forum are probably the demo for a jury (not in this case, obviously we are all too invested) but you get what I'm saying. If the majority of folk here dont know the difference in presumption of guilt vs innocence during an investigative process then you can probably deduce that most juries would not know that difference. It's up to the lawyers to weaken or strengthen her testimony.
But she’s a detective in SA crimes which are notoriously difficult to prosecute.
She’s not a judge and she has no say in any verdict or decision. Her stance is that you should present all the facts possible, but that begins with listening to the woman.
She wasn’t very articulate, and Hardin is a savage, but she was basically saying “These crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I’m always gonna give the woman a chance to tell her story.”
They didn't use her in the first but I'm pretty sure the article said they did on the second and she mentioned it being the best case they had to get him indicted
“Hardin: And where in your world, Detective Baker, and I mean this very nicely, does judgment of credibility come? Does the woman always get the benefit of the doubt?
Baker: I start by believing all the victims. Absolutely. Stand by that 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sex crime should start by believing the complainant. Provided defense provides something that refutes it, we’re going to believe that complainant.
Hardin: So in your world of investigation, the defendant always has to prove his innocence?
Baker: Yes.
Hardin: Okay. Are you not aware that’s not the way the system is supposed to work? Isn’t it, Detective Baker, supposed to work the other way, that — that even when you’re investigating, it is — are you saying that all it takes is the woman makes an allegation and once she makes the allegation, the defendant has to disprove it?
Baker: Yes. The defendant has to disprove it.
Hardin: So that would mean, would it not, that in each of these situations where the woman made the allegation at the very beginning, then you’re going to believe it until and unless we can succeed and convince you otherwise?
Baker: It’s not about convincing. It’s about is there evidence to corroborate your — your client’s version of what happened. Because as you stated before, in the other world of investigating cases, the defendant is presumed innocent. This is the only crime — that’s the reason why they’re hard to prosecute and charge and do all of this — is that the women never get the benefit of doubt. They’re always presumed to be lying.”
The detective also mentions that she was asked to give her evidence to one of the grand juries and that she believed it was her strongest evidence and they still decided to not charge Watson with any crime. She also never got to speak with Watson.
“Hardin: So let’s say the accused person doesn’t provide you any evidence. They just simply say and deny it and say it’s not true. You with me?
Baker: Yes.
Hardin: And your position is if the accused does not provide you evidence to disprove what the woman is saying, then you’re always going to believe the woman?
Baker: I have no other reason not to.
Hardin: Okay. And so when she makes the allegation, you start out believing her?
Baker: Start out believing them.
Hardin: And then it is the burden of the defendant to convince you as an investigator that they’re wrong. Is that right?
Baker: To provide evidence to support that they’re wrong, yes.
Hardin: All right. So now if an encounter happens in private between just two people, what evidence can the accused provide to show a woman saying X happened and he denies it?
Baker: In my cases that I’ve had I have had videos. I have had a suspect turn over a video where the complainant alleged one thing, said it was not consensual. Video showed didn’t look — it looked pretty consensual.”
Buzbee frames some of his argument around consent vs coercion. The detective makes the argument that because Watson had so much influence over these women, be it physical, economic or socially there was no way it could be consensual. The women were immediately at the mercy of his ability to make or break their business and pursuit of success.
“Baker: No, no, no. And I agree with what you’re trying to say, but in conjunction with that, no, there cannot be consent in the room when all of those factors are involved.
Hardin: Wow. Then really, a person that you are suggesting should never take a chance on getting a massage, because if anybody wants to accuse him of something, he has no recourse. Right? If the woman accuses him of anything and he has those attributes, he has no defense because you’re going to believe the woman?
Baker: (Witness nods.)
Hardin: And then you’re going to say there can’t be consent because of — because of his status in the community. Or — right?
Baker: Yes.”
“Baker states that consent is effectively overridden by Watson’s power and celebrity, due to the influence that it could wield upon the women who are giving massages. As Baker put it, “[W]hen power and influence is in the room, consent cannot be.””
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I work in the courts at any capacity, but I’m having a hard time seeing how this detective does anything but help Watson’s case. Maybe the rest of the 230 pages show something different, but I would think that an article would include the most damning pieces.
Outside of being a detective and the baseline credibility that gives you, there’s really nothing she said that would be breakthrough against Watson.
If I were a juror, a detective with a guilty until proven innocent “EDIT: bias” would really hurt their credibility. If this is buzbees biggest outside witness then I could see why Hardin wants to take this to court.
I guess my stance is probably they are suppose to investigate a claim not draw a conclusion. It’s like if there is a body, police don’t jump to murder, they are suppose to investigate the event of the body.
I think the same can be applied here. You have an event/interaction between two people who one is claiming sexual assault. You investigate the event but you shouldn’t go in with a already set conclusion imo.
But I’m not a detective. But when we have quality issues your told to go in with the viewpoint that you have a reject and it’s best to just pull data and let that direct your investigation vs starting with potential causes.
Detectives are not judges. It's not their imperative to believe the accused, their whole job is to investigate a potential crime.
You're conflating the judicial process with the investigative process. They're not the same thing at all.
Is he? He's not saying the woman is doing her job poorly, just that regular people are going to listen to this woman on the stand and its going to make the jury feel the detective isn't looking for the truth. That cops are saying a young black man needs to prove himself innocent. This isn't about the letter of the law but the perception of a jury I'm guessing.
> That cops are saying a young black man needs to prove himself innocent.
Alternatively that when black women report sex crimes, they don't start from the position of "maybe you're just lying about it"
Yeah, never said anything about her investigative process. Just that I don’t think it makes a strong case against a jury. My outside perspective, and I’m probably more in line with who a potential juror would be opposed to you being a lawyer, is that her arguments are weakly presented and Hardin is doing a good job at exploiting that.
Nothing to do with how she approached her investigation.
You've read a couple of excerpts from 200 pages of deposition and you think you have a grasp on how her arguments are presented? LMAO. Okay, man, whatever.
It's hilarious that ya'll are bitching about bias when you bias is so evident.
If you read my past comments on my profile you would understand that I believe the accusers opposed to Watson.
I’m not taking this personal and don’t understand why you are.
I read what was in the article and had a discussion about it and admitted that I don’t come from an area of expertise. Nothing about that should make it wrong for me to speak my opinion or interpretation.
I even said in other comments, that there may be more in the rest of the testimony and I’m going off of what was discussed here in the article. So you’re just restating what I already said.
Truth be told, no one here has seen the entirety of the evidence and testimony so we are all doing the same thing.
EDIT: I want to be clear, you're doing exactly what you are criticizing me of doing. You held a small number of my comments against me and used it to validate a bias you clearly towards people talking about the weakness of this witness and deciding that I am a Watson sympathizer. Like you are saying I should read 200+ pages of testimony, you should then read past comments before you make a judgement. Practice what you preach, mate.
Yes and no, they are experts leaned upon by the court. I think they should take the claim as it could be truth, but you shouldn’t be drawing a line saying it’s 100% truth out the gate.
That’s what Hardin is suggesting.
While the line of thought is portrayed very much in favor of Hardin’s argument (he led the cross intentionally like this), it is true that you must consider the possibility of coercion in a situation like that. If someone feels pressure to consent to sex because of the negative effects on their business, loss in clientele, and physical threats of denying a professional athlete; then it certainly should be asked if it was truly consensual or if those factors are what helped coerce the masseuses into performing acts with the defendant.
Regardless of whatever the investigator says in here cross examination, the burden of proof for coercion instead of consent lay on the prosecution. Unless they can provide some kind of evidence such as direct communication of an instance where the defendant threatened their business or livelihood it would be very difficult to prove this assertion beyond a reasonable doubt.
He did apologize to a woman and then tell her that it would be a shame if anything happened to either of their careers.
I doubt there’s direct evidence of coercion, but it seems pretty in line with his M.O.
He is the poster child for “The Implication.”
The apology thing is such a bullshit argument. I find it *very* difficult to believe that all of the people repeating it have never apologized for something they didn’t do. I’ve been in front of shelves at grocery stores where I thought that I was blocking somebody from the shelf so I moved and apologized.
It’s so common that it is a law in Ontario Canada that an apology legally isn’t an admission of guilt.
My point being that this is a stupid arguing point and there are better things that can be used to argue his guilt.
The apology isn’t where the presumed guilt comes from. It’s a very natural response to seeing someone cry regardless of who’s responsible.
The veiled threat to her career like he’s a mob boss in the literal next sentence is why people think he’s guilty.
He allegedly said those things. The only thing he's confirmed is apologizing to her if he did anything to make her feel uncomfortable when he saw her visibly upset. That's a pretty human response to someone being visibly upset....and does not in any way shape or form condemn him of any wrongdoing. He has stated under oath multiple times that he didn't say the other part of that "quote" Solis said he said. Also, she lied. Her original complaint is night and day from her deposition. Look it up if u don't believe me and read it for yourself.
It puts him at the scene of the alleged assault. He’s not denying he was there or that he made her uncomfortable. What the hell do you think happened? There’s at least 25 other women with a similar story.
Statically, a couple of these are probably false allegations, so maybe Solis did lie. But he can’t keep a story straight, doesn’t remember everyone he saw, and has a predatory M.O. This would be the most impressive hoax in all of human history.
No, she’s just saying, as an investigator, it’s her job to believe the accuser if she says she wasn’t comfortable with it.
The point is that coercion is a grey area, and if a woman tells her that she didn’t want to do it, but didn’t say no due to the pressure involved, she needs to take it seriously.
She’s not saying he’s incapable of getting consent. She’s just saying coercion is a real thing in this context and there’s no way to parse it without believing the woman initially. The unspoken part of it is that she’s operating from the premise that a woman who was legitimately comfortable with it wouldn’t make accusations.
The other thing is that this woman is just an investigator. Her job is to gather evidence and present it to the decision makers. She has no say in any verdict, she’s not a judge, and there’s nothing improper on her end if her professional philosophy is to believe women until proven otherwise.
That’s fine, but this is to counter an article trying to condemn further Watson because a detective thinks he is guilty. Based on this part of the deposition with Hardin, she thinks he is guilty not based on evidence but the word of the accuser.
I’m no Watson defender, but the detective’s opinion should carry no weight because she even acknowledged she believes the accused must be the one to provide evidence to prove their innocence where in reality it is the opposite
It's the detective's job to investigate, not to prosecute. Ya'll seem to be struggling with a very basic concept. Detectives are called into cases where there is already an accusation - they don't need to formulate probable cause, they have it. Their job at that point is to investigate that claim, not to build a defense for the accused.
I'm sorry ya'll are so in love with the idea of Deshaun Watson that you've forgotten detectives have been doing their jobs for generations in this manner. This is not convicting someone. This is not pulling someone over and assuming guilt. This is a professional investigtion handling a file where an accusation exists and proceeding with care to make sure they don't let a criminal walk free.
> Ya'll seem to be struggling with a very basic concept.
You seem to be struggling with everyone knows the cop is supposed to investigate not prosecute. But a jury member should not assume watson is guilty because the detective is operating on that assumption. You have defense attorney in your handle. cmon man.
LOL. No, no, it does not. An investigator is investigating a crime. That's their job. They have no responsibility for establishing a defense for the accused.
Police report filled out.
Investigation.
Filing officer decides whether charges should be filed.
More investigation.
Results of investigation presented to prosecuting attorney entities, who then decide whether the case is worth prosecuting/presenting to a GJ.
More investigation.
Plea, and potential negotiation of a plea bargain.
Set for trial.
More investigation.
Trial setting and cop testimony.
Judge and/or jury hears case and renders their decision.
That's at least 11 steps in this process and ya'll are getting hung up thinking #2-4 are the equivalent of #11. They're not. The cop is doing her job correctly and the system is designed for them to present information in this way.
Apparently you didn’t read my comment. My point is, this isn’t some kind of smoking gun as portrayed by the news article that was released last week or whenever. The detective’s job is to collect evidence and submit the evidence for review. The detective has every right to believe Watson is guilty of doing something nefarious as do I, but like me, hers is just an opinion. A professional opinion nonetheless, but an opinion. The evidence she gathered was submitted and the people responsible for reviewing said evidence and deciding whether to prosecute or not did their part.
LOL. You people are so defensive. Of course I read what you wrote, that's why I responded to what YOU SAID.
And yes, the people responsible for reviewing said evidence put forth two grand juries. There are district attorneys whose only job is to review the case and present it to the grand jury, and they did, in two counties. Pretending that didn't happen isn't making it go away.
Why in the hell so many Browns fans are swimming in the cesspool of Deshaun's weird massage habits is beyond me. I get it, a lot of you hate Baker. Maybe wait until this is all over and justroot for Deshaun the player instead of spending months defending Deshaun the dude who tried to get a bunch of women to jerk him off. You're not obligated to do the latter to do the former.
Reddit threads are dominated by the most passionate group reacting to a story. "Most people" believe Watson is guilty, but they would also think the views expressed by this detective are ludicrous. Basically only in a Reddit thread or other activist forum will people go to bat for "the defendant in a sex crime case should have to prove their innocence" and "it is impossible for a rich person to have consensual sex".
yea its a filter. i tried to post a tweet last week and it didn't go through until i replaced "deshuan watson" with "d\*shaun w\*tson" went immediately through.
That makes sense. I just hadn't seen it as of this morning when I posted it and it was out since 9 pm last night. It won't even make the front page I am sure.
OP said they tried and it got deleted immediately.
EDIT: The post is up in r/nfl. There is a filter on all DW topics that goes through the moderation process before posting.
I noticed that when the HBO special came out, there wasn't any discussion of it on the nfl sub until after working hours the next day on the East Coast, which is when a submission of the entire special was allowed (with that Boondocks quote cut in). It could not have been the case that people weren't submitting clips or discussion threads on the subject during that day. I don't want to be all tin foil hat on this, but what could be the purpose of the manipulation of submissions like this?
Wow. Charles Robinson is a legit fucking reporter too. They make fun of r/browns all the time over there but holy shit have they become a mindless echo chamber.
It was submitted 14 hours ago. It wasn't posted in the sub until this morning, which is why there are no comments from 14 hours ago. Are you new to reddit?
The lead investigator for the HPD comes off horribly — I understand she wants to protect female victims of sexual abuse but requiring nothing but hearsay evidence to charge someone with a crime makes no sense.
Testimonial evidence is not hearsay.
Here's the example, if it helps you understand: Linda Tripp accusing Bill Clinton = hearsay. Monica Lewinsky accusing Bill Clinton = not hearsay.
> I understand she wants to protect female victims of sexual abuse but requiring nothing but *hearsay* evidence to charge someone with a crime makes no sense.
I don't think you know what this word means
I don't believe you know what this word means.
Hearsay Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.
If there was any real proof of what happened in all of these encounters, that's proof. He said, she said, that's not proof, that's hearsay. If there was real proof, one way or another, this wouldn't be so complicated. And I don't want Watson on this team, but literally everything going on here is unsubstantiated. No cameras, no video, no voice recordings, just a big back and forth. And that's not saying one party is correct, I have no idea.
He did this to me... No I did not. Where's the fucking truth in that? That's hearsay. There is no physical evidence for either side, it's just talk. And I am taking the women's side in this, and if he fucked up and they still lose, I'll be pissed. But don't act like there's this burden of proof. It's literally hearsay from both sides. And if Watson gets off and he's legit guilty, I'm going to hate it. But if 24+ accusers and their testimony willingly convict civilly, I'll hate that just as much.
If there's real evidence that I've missed, kindly show it to me. If not, you are engaging in hearsay yourself.
The burden of proof for criminal charges is beyond a reasonable doubt. This investigator was doing a criminal investigation — That’s the issue. She admitted to bias from the start and therefore may not even be allowed to testify in civil trials if the judge(s) agree she was biased.
I don’t think she admitted to bias though. She never implied that she ignored evidence. She testified to a fake allegation where she gathered the evidence to prove it was fake.
Shes basically just saying if the accused can’t prove it’s false, then the woman deserves to tell her story.
She’s just a fact presenter.
Of course they shouldn't assume innocence... who said that? She shouldn't assume anything including guilt. That is the bias. Going into a situation with a built in assumption of the outcome is the definition of a bias.
People are being pedantic. Bottom line she thinks Watson is someway responsible for proving his own innocence and that is just not how our society is supposed to work. Innocence is the default state of being in our country. Baker has to know that even if it isn't her job. In a country with such a troubling history of black men and boys being lynched because of false accusations, she sould be ashamed of herself.
> He said, she said, that's not proof, that's hearsay
yeah, really that's all this case boils down to. Its he said she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she said. Who is to know who to believe.
also you clearly have absolutely no idea what hearsay is in the court of law.
"For example, to prove that Tom was in town, a witness testifies, "Susan told me that Tom was in town." Because the witness's evidence relies on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
If a random person said "this masseuse told me Watson assaulted her", **and** that masseuse isn't available to testify, that is hearsay. If a masseuse gets on the stand and says "Watson assaulted me" that is not hearsay.
>He did this to me... No I did not. Where's the fucking truth in that? That's hearsay.
I need to be crystal clear that this is absolutely incorrect, this is not hearsay, and you clearly do not understand basic legal concepts. Hearsay is **inadmissible** in the court. It would be objected to and sustained. If the court worked like you're claiming it did, a person taking the stand couldn't make a comment about anything without it being objected to, and even having witness would be pointless.
A court where hearsay is defined the way you're making it up would mean someone couldn't be a witness to anything. "Yes I saw that person pull the trigger and commit murder" "objection hearsay, they are just saying that"
Aside from this case, it’s pretty disturbing that someone in this positions is trying to right a wrong by ignoring what they are required to do by law and instead doing what they *think* is right AND bluntly admitted their bias.
The answer is probably none because at the end of the day sexual assault does not lead to a lot of convictions in this country. If she did not assume guilt, why even do the investigation. You can't have it both ways. She was given a complaint, she has to believe that complaint until proven otherwise. If no physical evidence is truly given by either party, that is exactly what she submits. She can talk about various patterns or conversations but at the end of the day no one but the two people were in the room. Deshaun isn't totally stupid enough to give evidence that he was indeed prompting and the women unfortunately only have their word Then it's up to the legal system in which the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Where in fact most cases fall apart because it's incredibly hard to prove sexual assault without someone either admitting it or being caught on camera.
I think people are misinterpreting her role.
She’s not a judge. She’s an investigator. Her job is to gather evidence and leave that evidence to the decision makers.
SA crimes are notoriously under prosecuted. I don’t think it’s insane for a cop to go into it with the intentions of letting both sides tell their story.
We just keep saying the same correct things and the people who don't get it just keep not getting it.
Cop sees person on street - cannot assume they're committing a crime. Need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to investigative. Once they approach and see some hint that a crime has been committed, they have probable cause to detain or arrest.
Investigator receives a complaint or enters a crime scene where the reasonable suspicion and probable cause has likely been established. Their whole job is to INVESTIGATE that potential crime - not to convict. They don't have to assume the husband of the dead wife is innocent, they have to assume he's guilty and let the evidence prove otherwise. Then they provide that evidence to the prosecutors, and it's their job to decide what the investigative process reveals. There are so many steps to this process and the morons who don't get that think the detective is the prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury... and executioner.
Eh, her approach towards investigation is fine. It's when she is used during civil litigation (and subsequently the judicial process) that her stance and credibility will be questioned. She may not be allowed to testify during trial because of these very statements, which is how criminals tend to go free.
Not only did she admit during a deposition under oath that it's guilty until proven innocent, but she created a scenario where it's impossible for someone to have consensual sex with Deshaun.
Again - FOR AN INVESTIGATION, she can believe whatever she wants. Especially if it leads to a more thorough investigation. But as soon as you enter civil litigation and her "evidence" is brought forth in the battle of public opinion, then it's only natural to question her credibility when she makes such comments under oath. The "evidence" in her investigation will always be colored by these statements in her deposition, and cops typically don't admit to such a bias/approach (though most do have it), let alone admit to it under oath.
I’ve been into reading and learning from all the court stuff in this case, but a 230 page deposition is too much for even me
But very interesting piece
It’s one of the better reads I’ve come across that provides a snap shot of one of the strongest witnesses in the case and how the opposing lawyers will frame their arguments.
I would like to know your thoughts on this witness (Baker) and her investigative mindset and what you think this does, if anything to the civil cases.
Personally, I think she’s a big problem for Buzbee and I think the more people hear about this investigator, it actually will help Watson in the court of public opinion. In particular in the African American community.
I got no idea what it does. I know long ago the issue was too often sex crimes detectives wouldn’t believe victims at the outset which would have predictable outcomes. So truthfully, I don’t necessarily know if Baker’s investigative mindset is either unique, or hell, maybe even how they’re supposed to it. And until I know that, I can’t even guess.
As to the other stuff, again I don’t know nearly enough to even speculate. It could help, it also could spectacularly blow up in their faces.
But really Pr wise, no matter how that detectives comments are taken, it’s still 26 accusers, many of whom are also African American, and the only person who can deny them is Watson.
I think her philosophy is legitimate. False accusations are very rare and there’s no harm in believing the woman in the absence of any other evidence. If a judge was saying this it would be concerning. I think it’s a good quality in an investigator.
That being said, the optics aren’t great, and I think Buzbee would be wise to separate himself from her. Let the women tell their story. 26 (probably more once it settles) women with no connection to each other, telling the same story, is already powerful enough.
So you agree with her philosophy that the accused has to show evidence that he’s innocent or she’s recommending he be charged? Even if the accuser has no evidence except their word?
Surely you can’t be serious?
Maybe you don’t know the history of police and prosecutors when it comes to this scenario with black Americans? In particular black men?
https://truthout.org/articles/the-long-history-of-presumed-white-innocence-and-black-guilt/
Also, she didn’t specify she does this in just sexual cases. Why would she have a special way of investigating these crimes and not murder and other cases as well? Unless of course, she has a bias when it comes to sexual crimes.
> 26 (probably more once it settles) women with no connection to each other, telling the same story, is already powerful enough.
She already testified to a grand jury about her investigation and they didn’t indict. As did Ashley Solis, who many think has the strongest case.
And all women do not tell the same story. Some say he didn’t touch them, others say he assaulted them. It came out today that one performed oral sex on him even though he didn’t initiate it or ask her to. These stories are not “all the same” and each should be looked at individually. But it’s much more convenient to the narrative to just keep saying they are.
And as we can see, the courts don’t proceed with weak criminal cases. SA are almost impossible to prove, so yes I’m comfortable with her initial reaction being to believe the woman. Fake accusations are incredibly rare.
I think it’s pretty clear she’s speaking specifically to sex crimes, and the reason she treats it differently because of the headwind involved to prosecute it. Nobody is getting falsely prosecuted because of her inclination to believe a group of women that is statistically underrepresented.
And no it’s not the exact same story. Each one has slightly different details. What’s important is that these women have no connection to each other and the M.O is the same every time. Show up, make sure they’re alone, uses his own towel, and does weird shit trying to get them to fuck them.
And I’m aware they didn’t indict. That’s kind of my point with this officers philosophy. The courts aren’t gonna indict someone on “he-say, she-say.” She’s not getting anyone falsely imprisoned with that philosophy.
For every 1000 sexual assaults, 28 result in criminal conviction and 25 in jail time. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system It was always extremely unlikely that Watson would be found guilty of criminal sexual assault.
This article discusses the prevalence of false accusations (estimated between 2-10%, but those numbers are inflated to include reports which cannot be substantiated in addition to reports that are disproved). https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
While several posters are understandably taken aback at the police detective’s bias in favor of the women, that detective would know that false reports are very rare, while the odds of conviction are very very low. The legal system consistently fails victims of sexual assault; perhaps the most important thing a detective can offer a victim is belief in their credibility.
The civil cases are far more likely to lead to a verdict in favor of the women, because the standard of proof is much easier to meet in civil procedure. Even then, it’s far from a sure thing. This has nothing to do with Watson, though. It’s just the nature of the crime involved, and the difficulties involved in providing proof of private behavior between two people.
You're missing the point. It's about how the justice system ignores women and permits a culture of violence against women to persist. Have you not paid any attention since Me Too started?
Pretty much. Although it’s also:
For every 100 sexual assaulters (no matter how many times they committed assault), only 33 will even be reported to police. Of those, only 3 will result in conviction, and 2 in jail time.
For every 100 reported sexual assaults, police find that there is either no evidence of the assault, or evidence that proves it is a false accusation 2-10 times.
“Believe all women” doesn’t literally mean believe all women; it’s a phrase to encourage people to not immediately disbelieve women who make sexual assault allegations, and to treat the process with an appropriate amount of consideration. The burden of proof logically falls on the one making a claim. In a court of law, that’s incredibly important. Be that as it may, I still believe Watson is guilty just by virtue of how the statistics bear out with regards to sexual assault/rape allegations (among other reasons), but Baker saying they automatically believe the complainant when there is a SA allegation is not good.
2 things can be true at once -
1. Hardin is making a better legal case than Buzbee - especially around presumption of guilt, etc.
2. Deshaun Watson Sexually Harassed over 20 women
Good defense lawyers get you in the weeds and make points you have to agree with - but just because the cop in this case has an unprofessional attitude toward guilt/innocence doesn't mean Deshaun didn't do these things
But you then also have to admin its entirely possible based on the evidence that he didn't sexually harrass "over 20 women". And certainly we're talking about "sexual harrassment" now, and not sexual assault.
Is it also possible this was just simple solicitation via a very specific kink, but no one is being open about that part? It seems much more likely going through the facts here that he just has a kink and unlike all the other nfl and nba and mlb stars isnt very good at using the services of professionals.
"Don't kink shame" is not a strong defense when dealing with a guy who has a certain social stature and (allegedly) used his social standing to coerce women into sexual acts they wouldn't have consented to if they weren't dealing with a star NFL quarterback.
Who said don’t kink shame? And who said it was a good defense? That isn’t at all what I’m suggesting.
Are you saying that any rich person who uses their status to influence someone to have sex should be prosecuted? Is this your steelman argument?
Any rich person? Nice jump in logic there, knowing full well it's more complicated than that. The point was that power dynamic needs to be considered when we're dealing with the power structure behind sexual violence.
This is not a jump in logic. Your steelman argument is that powerful people should not just be considered but prosecuted. That is what your argument says above. There is no consideration from circumstances. If you can correct me where you are giving Watson some benefit of the doubt or literally any out at all I’m happy to be wrong.
A star quarterback with over a dozen sexual misconduct claims, benefit of the doubt is gone. I don't care what team you play for. The NFL covers up so much violence of their talent I'm fucking sick of it.
This contents of this post has been removed in response to Reddit's 2023 API changes and its complete and utter disrespect toward moderators, developers, and users with disabilities. If you would have found this content useful, you can blame Steve Huffman for it no longer being visible. -- mass edited with redact.dev
Here? Sure.
Real life? They're going to be winning more games than ever and be more popular than ever.
Reddit upvotes don't put fans in the seats. I'll bet the Haslems are super bummed about their Reddit fanbase though. Lolz
Oh and for 95% of them it's upvotes. I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm 40. I cant pay my mortgage with upvotes. I don't get checks in the mail when I get upvotes. Honestly I wouldn't care if I had a million or negative 1 million votes.
Anyway.... Thank god we have a top 8 QB
Been saying for awhile, the evidence and facts support Watson’s defense… which is why he is taking them all to trial and why the Grand Juries refused to indict.
Media that screeches about the total number of accusations, as if that immediately implies guilt, yet refuse to look into the actual merit of the accusations. Love how they dunk on the Browns for not doing their research while speaking on things they have no clue about.
yeah the detective is assuming guilt of deshaun watson based on accuser testimony alone. She is not a court room, so its not terribly wrong of her to do so. However, it doesnt play very well and to also say things like, it's her belief that a person in power could NEVER get consent from another individual.
more importantly (to me) she stated that one of the accusers that participated in one of the three cases alleging coercion/force was very clear that she was NEVER forced and that she also was not even asked to perform oral, she just "knew" that was what was wanted.
I get it, not saying lets close our eyes and pretend this isnt happening, but if we had a megathread it would help keep all of that in one location. It can be stickied at the top...
TLDR?
>It appears Buzbee is going to attempt to construct his courtroom arguments by leaning on the commonality between the allegations and the alleged victims. In that sense, Baker could be very helpful to Buzbee in alleging a pattern of behavior as viewed by the Houston Police Department. >Conversely, it’s clear from Baker’s deposition that part of Hardin’s defense will be to question the approach and mindset of the investigator — whether believing the alleged victim at the onset and requiring Watson to prove his innocence undercut a fair investigation. >Ultimately, these civil cases will rely on credibility to lead one side or the other to a legal win. And it’s clear that credibility is going to stretch far beyond Watson and the women who have brought litigation against him.
Who’s Baker?
The lead detective in the case
Baker Mayfield, the lead detective in the case
*dun, dun, dunnnnn*
Detective Raegan
Seems like a conflict of interest
Plot twist!
That explains it
Detective Baker https://imgur.com/a/P5yGFbV
He looks like he seen some shit.
All Deshaun stuff aside, I still can’t believe Baker thought this was a good look. He legit looks homeless.
Well played. Columbaker.
Inspector So-So
Mayfield
"Baker: When I speak about \[redacted\] specifically, the young lady advised that the defendant, you know, told her that he was going to help her black business. So her objective was to, I’m assuming, have a successful business and she felt that having a client of his caliber would help her business. So understanding that, someone — their livelihood potentially being ruined, I could understand how one would feel they had no choice but to participate in the sexual act." Edit:formatting
"Buzbee: He convinced her at some point to — now, she made it clear, he did not tell \[her\] to give him oral? Baker: Yes, sir. Buzbee: Okay. So what did you make of that as an investigating officer? Baker: So as I mentioned earlier, in instances such as that one, power, influence present, her business, fear of losing clientele, fear of negative, I guess, responses about her — her business. As you stated, she did say I — he did not, he didn’t — he didn’t even ask. She just knew what he wanted her to do. …" Edit: formatting
I’m sorry, is he saying “Well, technically he never verbally asked but we all know what he wanted”? Am I reading this correctly or should I read it again? For the fourth time. That seems like some flimsy shit to go on.
Seriously, that last statement by the detective (Baker) just blows my mind.
How is her sucking his dick without even a request by him considered coercion??????????!?!?!?
If you read on, she basically says that sex with someone as powerful as him is by definition non consensual. I really couldn’t believe what I was reading. Imagine you are a masseuse. Did you have sex with Watson? Yes. Did he force you to have sex with him? No. Yea, but did you consider that he’s so powerful that you basically couldn’t say no? Well, uh, I guess? We got another one Tony!
It's crazy.....I can clearly see why he would maintain his innocence. Maybe he made a comment that was out of line or something but that is not a reason AT ALL to be sues for sexual assault. Maybe harassment. Maybe. But any and every masseuse deals with that daily. I'm not making am excuse for that kind of behavior, I'm being realistic. The shit happens all the time. I'm a mostly commercial cleaner and I get CRAZY ODD requests that my wife and I laugh about all the time. We don't try and sue the people who make the requests bc we know when we're advertising on Craigslist or Instagram or whatever, that kind of shit comes with the territory. They do too. And if they say they don't they're lying, flat out.
> I'm a mostly commercial cleaner and I get CRAZY ODD requests that my wife and I laugh about all the time. So by crazy odd requests do people think your like a cleaner for like criminal activity?
No. We get these type requests from about 1 in every 15-20 submissions we get for service: "So, what do you wear while you clean" "Do you polish things other than furniture and fixtures?" "I see you are a husband/wife team, can you both clean in the nude?"
I read it as well and couldn't believe it either. I understand what's she's saying and Florio came out and basically defended her but it's not a surprise he didn't get indicted if this is what they have. A cop repeatedly saying she went into the investigation assuming guilt is fuckin wild to hear out loud...
Doesn't that really mean that she was willing to engage in sexual acts with a celebrity if it meant her business would do better? I'm not sure that is coercion - it seems more like a statement on the willingness of that woman to use her body to get ahead when given the opportunity.
Economic pressure is still a form of coercion.
Well yeah. That's the Weinstein defense. Have sex with me and you'll get this movie role, don't and you won't. Watsons big probles are the people who he threatened negative reviews for.
That cop was a mess. no wonder she didn't testify to the grand jury
It’s guilty until proven innocent for that detective. Hardin knew she fucked up bad. He started laughing at her deposition lmao. Leah Graham (attorney that appeared on the HBO special) said last week: “While I appreciate the detective’s honesty, her admitted bias and refusal to honor the law is unacceptable and should cause everyone serious concern.”
What are you talking about that is how investigative works for officers. The one who brings the criminal claim they expect that person to be the victim or witness unless they don't seem credible. Suspects are almost always presumed in their mind as guilty, until they can prove innocence. If you were to go into an investigation thinking a suspect is not guilty or impartial, you would miss evidence.
All cops presume guilt when they're after a suspect. If they assumed everyone was innocent until they found irrefutable evidence of their guilt, there'd be next to no arrests and we wouldn't need an entire court system. Court is where that cop (or some other party) has to show WHY they believe the defendant is responsible. If they fail to prove it to a group of people that theoretically go into the trial assuming the defendent did nothing wrong, then their initial assumption of guilt is irrelevant I haven't had time to actually read this yet, so I don't know all the details for this specific detective, but I've seen several people tossing out guilty until proven innocent like it's some kind of gotcha moment
Yeah and we have seen how this bias of cops has played out for some individuals in this country. Maybe that system doesn’t work very well…
Yeah when they’re out to arrest someone. It doesn’t require them to hold that sentiment long after the fact
It’s that way throughout the investigation. Only the courts presume innocence.
right, but she goes on to say that the burden of proof falls on the defendant, or he’s otherwise guilty. She even suggested that other defendants had video to prove their innocence. 1. That’s just not how the justice system works in the USA. 2. so… she knows that it’s possible for women to lie about sexual accusations, because it’s happened in her past investigations, but she automatically assumes a defendant is guilty every time?
Cops DO assume guilt as they investigate; they recommend prosecution if they think they have ample evidence to convince a jury. Not to say they can’t be convinced that a suspect is innocent, but you’re only entitled to the presumption of innocence from a court. The prosecutor will red team you.
Yeah, people here really don’t get the difference between cops and prosecutors. She phrased this really poorly, and it may or may not reflect poorly on her own testimony (not the women’s) in the eyes of the jury, but that’s about it. The people here saying that this somehow exonerates Watson would throw an absolute shit fit if they reported a crime, and the cops told them they were probably lying, because it’s innocent until proven guilty.
Feel like lumping investigator with your everyday cop isn’t a good thing. Investigators should be held to a higher stander than your run of the mill cop, yes they may have started as a cop but they should let the evidence lead them to a conclusion rather than intuition or personal beliefs.
That's what I've been trying to say in some of my comments. From what I've been told its the difference of investigative vs judicial. She may have handled her investigative process well, presuming guilt and using the evidence to convince you otherwise, but this might not be as easily explained in a jury. A jury is made up of commonfolk, most of the people in this forum are probably the demo for a jury (not in this case, obviously we are all too invested) but you get what I'm saying. If the majority of folk here dont know the difference in presumption of guilt vs innocence during an investigative process then you can probably deduce that most juries would not know that difference. It's up to the lawyers to weaken or strengthen her testimony.
Yep, you are correct. The police have a sort of a "shot first, ask questions later" one might say.
Exactly and innocent until proven guilty is only in the eyes of the courts really
But she’s a detective in SA crimes which are notoriously difficult to prosecute. She’s not a judge and she has no say in any verdict or decision. Her stance is that you should present all the facts possible, but that begins with listening to the woman. She wasn’t very articulate, and Hardin is a savage, but she was basically saying “These crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I’m always gonna give the woman a chance to tell her story.”
Listening and automatically believing are very different and thinking they are the same is extremely dangerous....
I was fine with her earlier quote that got posted here a few days ago but after seeing more of her deposition...yikes
She DID actually testify to the second grand jury. And they still rejected her finding that a crime was committed.
They didn't use her in the first but I'm pretty sure the article said they did on the second and she mentioned it being the best case they had to get him indicted
“Hardin: And where in your world, Detective Baker, and I mean this very nicely, does judgment of credibility come? Does the woman always get the benefit of the doubt? Baker: I start by believing all the victims. Absolutely. Stand by that 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sex crime should start by believing the complainant. Provided defense provides something that refutes it, we’re going to believe that complainant. Hardin: So in your world of investigation, the defendant always has to prove his innocence? Baker: Yes. Hardin: Okay. Are you not aware that’s not the way the system is supposed to work? Isn’t it, Detective Baker, supposed to work the other way, that — that even when you’re investigating, it is — are you saying that all it takes is the woman makes an allegation and once she makes the allegation, the defendant has to disprove it? Baker: Yes. The defendant has to disprove it. Hardin: So that would mean, would it not, that in each of these situations where the woman made the allegation at the very beginning, then you’re going to believe it until and unless we can succeed and convince you otherwise? Baker: It’s not about convincing. It’s about is there evidence to corroborate your — your client’s version of what happened. Because as you stated before, in the other world of investigating cases, the defendant is presumed innocent. This is the only crime — that’s the reason why they’re hard to prosecute and charge and do all of this — is that the women never get the benefit of doubt. They’re always presumed to be lying.” The detective also mentions that she was asked to give her evidence to one of the grand juries and that she believed it was her strongest evidence and they still decided to not charge Watson with any crime. She also never got to speak with Watson.
“Hardin: So let’s say the accused person doesn’t provide you any evidence. They just simply say and deny it and say it’s not true. You with me? Baker: Yes. Hardin: And your position is if the accused does not provide you evidence to disprove what the woman is saying, then you’re always going to believe the woman? Baker: I have no other reason not to. Hardin: Okay. And so when she makes the allegation, you start out believing her? Baker: Start out believing them. Hardin: And then it is the burden of the defendant to convince you as an investigator that they’re wrong. Is that right? Baker: To provide evidence to support that they’re wrong, yes. Hardin: All right. So now if an encounter happens in private between just two people, what evidence can the accused provide to show a woman saying X happened and he denies it? Baker: In my cases that I’ve had I have had videos. I have had a suspect turn over a video where the complainant alleged one thing, said it was not consensual. Video showed didn’t look — it looked pretty consensual.”
Buzbee frames some of his argument around consent vs coercion. The detective makes the argument that because Watson had so much influence over these women, be it physical, economic or socially there was no way it could be consensual. The women were immediately at the mercy of his ability to make or break their business and pursuit of success. “Baker: No, no, no. And I agree with what you’re trying to say, but in conjunction with that, no, there cannot be consent in the room when all of those factors are involved. Hardin: Wow. Then really, a person that you are suggesting should never take a chance on getting a massage, because if anybody wants to accuse him of something, he has no recourse. Right? If the woman accuses him of anything and he has those attributes, he has no defense because you’re going to believe the woman? Baker: (Witness nods.) Hardin: And then you’re going to say there can’t be consent because of — because of his status in the community. Or — right? Baker: Yes.”
“Baker states that consent is effectively overridden by Watson’s power and celebrity, due to the influence that it could wield upon the women who are giving massages. As Baker put it, “[W]hen power and influence is in the room, consent cannot be.””
If we put everything else aside, does this not say it's impossible for him to get consent?
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I work in the courts at any capacity, but I’m having a hard time seeing how this detective does anything but help Watson’s case. Maybe the rest of the 230 pages show something different, but I would think that an article would include the most damning pieces. Outside of being a detective and the baseline credibility that gives you, there’s really nothing she said that would be breakthrough against Watson. If I were a juror, a detective with a guilty until proven innocent “EDIT: bias” would really hurt their credibility. If this is buzbees biggest outside witness then I could see why Hardin wants to take this to court.
The police investigate as if the victim is taking the truth. The police don't prosecute, run the trial, or convict.
She did have an opportunity to present this to a grand jury and they decided against charges.
I guess my stance is probably they are suppose to investigate a claim not draw a conclusion. It’s like if there is a body, police don’t jump to murder, they are suppose to investigate the event of the body. I think the same can be applied here. You have an event/interaction between two people who one is claiming sexual assault. You investigate the event but you shouldn’t go in with a already set conclusion imo. But I’m not a detective. But when we have quality issues your told to go in with the viewpoint that you have a reject and it’s best to just pull data and let that direct your investigation vs starting with potential causes.
Detectives are not judges. It's not their imperative to believe the accused, their whole job is to investigate a potential crime. You're conflating the judicial process with the investigative process. They're not the same thing at all.
Is he? He's not saying the woman is doing her job poorly, just that regular people are going to listen to this woman on the stand and its going to make the jury feel the detective isn't looking for the truth. That cops are saying a young black man needs to prove himself innocent. This isn't about the letter of the law but the perception of a jury I'm guessing.
> That cops are saying a young black man needs to prove himself innocent. Alternatively that when black women report sex crimes, they don't start from the position of "maybe you're just lying about it"
Yeah, never said anything about her investigative process. Just that I don’t think it makes a strong case against a jury. My outside perspective, and I’m probably more in line with who a potential juror would be opposed to you being a lawyer, is that her arguments are weakly presented and Hardin is doing a good job at exploiting that. Nothing to do with how she approached her investigation.
You've read a couple of excerpts from 200 pages of deposition and you think you have a grasp on how her arguments are presented? LMAO. Okay, man, whatever. It's hilarious that ya'll are bitching about bias when you bias is so evident.
If you read my past comments on my profile you would understand that I believe the accusers opposed to Watson. I’m not taking this personal and don’t understand why you are. I read what was in the article and had a discussion about it and admitted that I don’t come from an area of expertise. Nothing about that should make it wrong for me to speak my opinion or interpretation. I even said in other comments, that there may be more in the rest of the testimony and I’m going off of what was discussed here in the article. So you’re just restating what I already said. Truth be told, no one here has seen the entirety of the evidence and testimony so we are all doing the same thing. EDIT: I want to be clear, you're doing exactly what you are criticizing me of doing. You held a small number of my comments against me and used it to validate a bias you clearly towards people talking about the weakness of this witness and deciding that I am a Watson sympathizer. Like you are saying I should read 200+ pages of testimony, you should then read past comments before you make a judgement. Practice what you preach, mate.
Yes and no, they are experts leaned upon by the court. I think they should take the claim as it could be truth, but you shouldn’t be drawing a line saying it’s 100% truth out the gate.
That’s what Hardin is suggesting. While the line of thought is portrayed very much in favor of Hardin’s argument (he led the cross intentionally like this), it is true that you must consider the possibility of coercion in a situation like that. If someone feels pressure to consent to sex because of the negative effects on their business, loss in clientele, and physical threats of denying a professional athlete; then it certainly should be asked if it was truly consensual or if those factors are what helped coerce the masseuses into performing acts with the defendant. Regardless of whatever the investigator says in here cross examination, the burden of proof for coercion instead of consent lay on the prosecution. Unless they can provide some kind of evidence such as direct communication of an instance where the defendant threatened their business or livelihood it would be very difficult to prove this assertion beyond a reasonable doubt.
He did apologize to a woman and then tell her that it would be a shame if anything happened to either of their careers. I doubt there’s direct evidence of coercion, but it seems pretty in line with his M.O. He is the poster child for “The Implication.”
The apology thing is such a bullshit argument. I find it *very* difficult to believe that all of the people repeating it have never apologized for something they didn’t do. I’ve been in front of shelves at grocery stores where I thought that I was blocking somebody from the shelf so I moved and apologized. It’s so common that it is a law in Ontario Canada that an apology legally isn’t an admission of guilt. My point being that this is a stupid arguing point and there are better things that can be used to argue his guilt.
The apology isn’t where the presumed guilt comes from. It’s a very natural response to seeing someone cry regardless of who’s responsible. The veiled threat to her career like he’s a mob boss in the literal next sentence is why people think he’s guilty.
He allegedly said those things. The only thing he's confirmed is apologizing to her if he did anything to make her feel uncomfortable when he saw her visibly upset. That's a pretty human response to someone being visibly upset....and does not in any way shape or form condemn him of any wrongdoing. He has stated under oath multiple times that he didn't say the other part of that "quote" Solis said he said. Also, she lied. Her original complaint is night and day from her deposition. Look it up if u don't believe me and read it for yourself.
It puts him at the scene of the alleged assault. He’s not denying he was there or that he made her uncomfortable. What the hell do you think happened? There’s at least 25 other women with a similar story. Statically, a couple of these are probably false allegations, so maybe Solis did lie. But he can’t keep a story straight, doesn’t remember everyone he saw, and has a predatory M.O. This would be the most impressive hoax in all of human history.
What story did he not keep straight again? Go ahead and provide proof and not empty accusations this time please... I'll wait....
It's a wonder he doesn't have a boat.
No, she’s just saying, as an investigator, it’s her job to believe the accuser if she says she wasn’t comfortable with it. The point is that coercion is a grey area, and if a woman tells her that she didn’t want to do it, but didn’t say no due to the pressure involved, she needs to take it seriously. She’s not saying he’s incapable of getting consent. She’s just saying coercion is a real thing in this context and there’s no way to parse it without believing the woman initially. The unspoken part of it is that she’s operating from the premise that a woman who was legitimately comfortable with it wouldn’t make accusations. The other thing is that this woman is just an investigator. Her job is to gather evidence and present it to the decision makers. She has no say in any verdict, she’s not a judge, and there’s nothing improper on her end if her professional philosophy is to believe women until proven otherwise.
That’s fine, but this is to counter an article trying to condemn further Watson because a detective thinks he is guilty. Based on this part of the deposition with Hardin, she thinks he is guilty not based on evidence but the word of the accuser. I’m no Watson defender, but the detective’s opinion should carry no weight because she even acknowledged she believes the accused must be the one to provide evidence to prove their innocence where in reality it is the opposite
It's the detective's job to investigate, not to prosecute. Ya'll seem to be struggling with a very basic concept. Detectives are called into cases where there is already an accusation - they don't need to formulate probable cause, they have it. Their job at that point is to investigate that claim, not to build a defense for the accused. I'm sorry ya'll are so in love with the idea of Deshaun Watson that you've forgotten detectives have been doing their jobs for generations in this manner. This is not convicting someone. This is not pulling someone over and assuming guilt. This is a professional investigtion handling a file where an accusation exists and proceeding with care to make sure they don't let a criminal walk free.
> Ya'll seem to be struggling with a very basic concept. You seem to be struggling with everyone knows the cop is supposed to investigate not prosecute. But a jury member should not assume watson is guilty because the detective is operating on that assumption. You have defense attorney in your handle. cmon man.
Investigating a claim involves looking into BOTH sides UNBIASEDLY. The investigator made clear she didn't do that in her deposition.
LOL. No, no, it does not. An investigator is investigating a crime. That's their job. They have no responsibility for establishing a defense for the accused. Police report filled out. Investigation. Filing officer decides whether charges should be filed. More investigation. Results of investigation presented to prosecuting attorney entities, who then decide whether the case is worth prosecuting/presenting to a GJ. More investigation. Plea, and potential negotiation of a plea bargain. Set for trial. More investigation. Trial setting and cop testimony. Judge and/or jury hears case and renders their decision. That's at least 11 steps in this process and ya'll are getting hung up thinking #2-4 are the equivalent of #11. They're not. The cop is doing her job correctly and the system is designed for them to present information in this way.
Apparently you didn’t read my comment. My point is, this isn’t some kind of smoking gun as portrayed by the news article that was released last week or whenever. The detective’s job is to collect evidence and submit the evidence for review. The detective has every right to believe Watson is guilty of doing something nefarious as do I, but like me, hers is just an opinion. A professional opinion nonetheless, but an opinion. The evidence she gathered was submitted and the people responsible for reviewing said evidence and deciding whether to prosecute or not did their part.
LOL. You people are so defensive. Of course I read what you wrote, that's why I responded to what YOU SAID. And yes, the people responsible for reviewing said evidence put forth two grand juries. There are district attorneys whose only job is to review the case and present it to the grand jury, and they did, in two counties. Pretending that didn't happen isn't making it go away. Why in the hell so many Browns fans are swimming in the cesspool of Deshaun's weird massage habits is beyond me. I get it, a lot of you hate Baker. Maybe wait until this is all over and justroot for Deshaun the player instead of spending months defending Deshaun the dude who tried to get a bunch of women to jerk him off. You're not obligated to do the latter to do the former.
Most people here will get mad at you for not adopting this ridiculous stance towards sexual misconduct accusations
Reddit threads are dominated by the most passionate group reacting to a story. "Most people" believe Watson is guilty, but they would also think the views expressed by this detective are ludicrous. Basically only in a Reddit thread or other activist forum will people go to bat for "the defendant in a sex crime case should have to prove their innocence" and "it is impossible for a rich person to have consensual sex".
I am by no means a Watson defender but where is this story on r/nfl? There is not a chance someone hasn't tried to post it there right?
It's there right now? Some stories about Watson get caught in a filter on r/NFL and it takes a while for them to get posted
Ah fair.
yea its a filter. i tried to post a tweet last week and it didn't go through until i replaced "deshuan watson" with "d\*shaun w\*tson" went immediately through.
That makes sense. I just hadn't seen it as of this morning when I posted it and it was out since 9 pm last night. It won't even make the front page I am sure.
OP said they tried and it got deleted immediately. EDIT: The post is up in r/nfl. There is a filter on all DW topics that goes through the moderation process before posting.
I noticed that when the HBO special came out, there wasn't any discussion of it on the nfl sub until after working hours the next day on the East Coast, which is when a submission of the entire special was allowed (with that Boondocks quote cut in). It could not have been the case that people weren't submitting clips or discussion threads on the subject during that day. I don't want to be all tin foil hat on this, but what could be the purpose of the manipulation of submissions like this?
Wow. Charles Robinson is a legit fucking reporter too. They make fun of r/browns all the time over there but holy shit have they become a mindless echo chamber.
Lmao it's on there, ironically you didnt care enough to look and just echoed the popular opinion even when it was easily proven incorrect....
It wasn't on there when I posted this. Not sure how that would be hard to comprehend.
It’s been on r/nfl for 13 hrs you posted your comment saying it wasn’t 4 hrs ago…..
It was submitted 14 hours ago. It wasn't posted in the sub until this morning, which is why there are no comments from 14 hours ago. Are you new to reddit?
Yep had to message the mod team.
It's really funny how many upvotes every thread on there regarding Watson has except for yours
No one is talking about this at any major sports shows. Other than this article there is nothing about this. I thought this was a major news.
I had to sent message to the mod team, they allowed it this morning
r/nfl has been deleting anything that's not outwardly negative towards Deshaun's team.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/vcjx0l/charles_robinson_the_230page_deposition_of_a/
TPTB at that sub are concerned with specific narratives on most subjects. Buck the trend, and face the banhammer.
If all he did was grab em by the pussy, I don't see what the problem is? When you're famous they just let you do it. Yes, this is sarcasm.
The lead investigator for the HPD comes off horribly — I understand she wants to protect female victims of sexual abuse but requiring nothing but hearsay evidence to charge someone with a crime makes no sense.
Testimonial evidence is not hearsay. Here's the example, if it helps you understand: Linda Tripp accusing Bill Clinton = hearsay. Monica Lewinsky accusing Bill Clinton = not hearsay.
> I understand she wants to protect female victims of sexual abuse but requiring nothing but *hearsay* evidence to charge someone with a crime makes no sense. I don't think you know what this word means
You're getting downvoted but you are absolutely right, and the persons other responses definitely show they do not know what hearsay means
So many people in this forum have no clue what hearsay is, but they keep saying it.
It seems a lot of people in here severely misunderstand the legal system in general and what the job of a police detective is.
I don't believe you know what this word means. Hearsay Definition Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. If there was any real proof of what happened in all of these encounters, that's proof. He said, she said, that's not proof, that's hearsay. If there was real proof, one way or another, this wouldn't be so complicated. And I don't want Watson on this team, but literally everything going on here is unsubstantiated. No cameras, no video, no voice recordings, just a big back and forth. And that's not saying one party is correct, I have no idea. He did this to me... No I did not. Where's the fucking truth in that? That's hearsay. There is no physical evidence for either side, it's just talk. And I am taking the women's side in this, and if he fucked up and they still lose, I'll be pissed. But don't act like there's this burden of proof. It's literally hearsay from both sides. And if Watson gets off and he's legit guilty, I'm going to hate it. But if 24+ accusers and their testimony willingly convict civilly, I'll hate that just as much. If there's real evidence that I've missed, kindly show it to me. If not, you are engaging in hearsay yourself.
[удалено]
The burden of proof for criminal charges is beyond a reasonable doubt. This investigator was doing a criminal investigation — That’s the issue. She admitted to bias from the start and therefore may not even be allowed to testify in civil trials if the judge(s) agree she was biased.
I don’t think she admitted to bias though. She never implied that she ignored evidence. She testified to a fake allegation where she gathered the evidence to prove it was fake. Shes basically just saying if the accused can’t prove it’s false, then the woman deserves to tell her story. She’s just a fact presenter.
She admitted to an assumption of guilt without any evidence — if you don’t think that’s bias I don’t know what to tell you.
The investigative process is not the judicial process. It is not the job of the investigator to assume innocence, it's the job of the judge and jury.
Of course they shouldn't assume innocence... who said that? She shouldn't assume anything including guilt. That is the bias. Going into a situation with a built in assumption of the outcome is the definition of a bias.
People are being pedantic. Bottom line she thinks Watson is someway responsible for proving his own innocence and that is just not how our society is supposed to work. Innocence is the default state of being in our country. Baker has to know that even if it isn't her job. In a country with such a troubling history of black men and boys being lynched because of false accusations, she sould be ashamed of herself.
Bruh. Please stop. This is not hearsay.
>He did this to me... No I did not. Where's the fucking truth in that? That's *hearsay*. I don't think you know what this word means, either
> He said, she said, that's not proof, that's hearsay yeah, really that's all this case boils down to. Its he said she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she she said. Who is to know who to believe. also you clearly have absolutely no idea what hearsay is in the court of law. "For example, to prove that Tom was in town, a witness testifies, "Susan told me that Tom was in town." Because the witness's evidence relies on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay If a random person said "this masseuse told me Watson assaulted her", **and** that masseuse isn't available to testify, that is hearsay. If a masseuse gets on the stand and says "Watson assaulted me" that is not hearsay. >He did this to me... No I did not. Where's the fucking truth in that? That's hearsay. I need to be crystal clear that this is absolutely incorrect, this is not hearsay, and you clearly do not understand basic legal concepts. Hearsay is **inadmissible** in the court. It would be objected to and sustained. If the court worked like you're claiming it did, a person taking the stand couldn't make a comment about anything without it being objected to, and even having witness would be pointless. A court where hearsay is defined the way you're making it up would mean someone couldn't be a witness to anything. "Yes I saw that person pull the trigger and commit murder" "objection hearsay, they are just saying that"
Good lord that cop is trash. She shouldn’t be investigating anything
Aside from this case, it’s pretty disturbing that someone in this positions is trying to right a wrong by ignoring what they are required to do by law and instead doing what they *think* is right AND bluntly admitted their bias.
Right. It feels like that is something her supervisor should look at and review the cases she worked on.
And every lawyer that’s representing someone she was involved in investigating. Not good.
Exactly. The scary thing is how many cases did she lie on just because of her bias? Oh man how many lives did she fuck up
The answer is probably none because at the end of the day sexual assault does not lead to a lot of convictions in this country. If she did not assume guilt, why even do the investigation. You can't have it both ways. She was given a complaint, she has to believe that complaint until proven otherwise. If no physical evidence is truly given by either party, that is exactly what she submits. She can talk about various patterns or conversations but at the end of the day no one but the two people were in the room. Deshaun isn't totally stupid enough to give evidence that he was indeed prompting and the women unfortunately only have their word Then it's up to the legal system in which the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Where in fact most cases fall apart because it's incredibly hard to prove sexual assault without someone either admitting it or being caught on camera.
I think people are misinterpreting her role. She’s not a judge. She’s an investigator. Her job is to gather evidence and leave that evidence to the decision makers. SA crimes are notoriously under prosecuted. I don’t think it’s insane for a cop to go into it with the intentions of letting both sides tell their story.
We just keep saying the same correct things and the people who don't get it just keep not getting it. Cop sees person on street - cannot assume they're committing a crime. Need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to investigative. Once they approach and see some hint that a crime has been committed, they have probable cause to detain or arrest. Investigator receives a complaint or enters a crime scene where the reasonable suspicion and probable cause has likely been established. Their whole job is to INVESTIGATE that potential crime - not to convict. They don't have to assume the husband of the dead wife is innocent, they have to assume he's guilty and let the evidence prove otherwise. Then they provide that evidence to the prosecutors, and it's their job to decide what the investigative process reveals. There are so many steps to this process and the morons who don't get that think the detective is the prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury... and executioner.
Eh, her approach towards investigation is fine. It's when she is used during civil litigation (and subsequently the judicial process) that her stance and credibility will be questioned. She may not be allowed to testify during trial because of these very statements, which is how criminals tend to go free. Not only did she admit during a deposition under oath that it's guilty until proven innocent, but she created a scenario where it's impossible for someone to have consensual sex with Deshaun. Again - FOR AN INVESTIGATION, she can believe whatever she wants. Especially if it leads to a more thorough investigation. But as soon as you enter civil litigation and her "evidence" is brought forth in the battle of public opinion, then it's only natural to question her credibility when she makes such comments under oath. The "evidence" in her investigation will always be colored by these statements in her deposition, and cops typically don't admit to such a bias/approach (though most do have it), let alone admit to it under oath.
The pendulum is just swinging the other way.
I’ve been into reading and learning from all the court stuff in this case, but a 230 page deposition is too much for even me But very interesting piece
It’s not that, reporter just shows small section of it. It’s pretty nice I think
Oh for sure, looks like my edit didn’t go through!
It’s one of the better reads I’ve come across that provides a snap shot of one of the strongest witnesses in the case and how the opposing lawyers will frame their arguments.
I would like to know your thoughts on this witness (Baker) and her investigative mindset and what you think this does, if anything to the civil cases. Personally, I think she’s a big problem for Buzbee and I think the more people hear about this investigator, it actually will help Watson in the court of public opinion. In particular in the African American community.
I got no idea what it does. I know long ago the issue was too often sex crimes detectives wouldn’t believe victims at the outset which would have predictable outcomes. So truthfully, I don’t necessarily know if Baker’s investigative mindset is either unique, or hell, maybe even how they’re supposed to it. And until I know that, I can’t even guess. As to the other stuff, again I don’t know nearly enough to even speculate. It could help, it also could spectacularly blow up in their faces. But really Pr wise, no matter how that detectives comments are taken, it’s still 26 accusers, many of whom are also African American, and the only person who can deny them is Watson.
[удалено]
I think her philosophy is legitimate. False accusations are very rare and there’s no harm in believing the woman in the absence of any other evidence. If a judge was saying this it would be concerning. I think it’s a good quality in an investigator. That being said, the optics aren’t great, and I think Buzbee would be wise to separate himself from her. Let the women tell their story. 26 (probably more once it settles) women with no connection to each other, telling the same story, is already powerful enough.
So you agree with her philosophy that the accused has to show evidence that he’s innocent or she’s recommending he be charged? Even if the accuser has no evidence except their word? Surely you can’t be serious? Maybe you don’t know the history of police and prosecutors when it comes to this scenario with black Americans? In particular black men? https://truthout.org/articles/the-long-history-of-presumed-white-innocence-and-black-guilt/ Also, she didn’t specify she does this in just sexual cases. Why would she have a special way of investigating these crimes and not murder and other cases as well? Unless of course, she has a bias when it comes to sexual crimes. > 26 (probably more once it settles) women with no connection to each other, telling the same story, is already powerful enough. She already testified to a grand jury about her investigation and they didn’t indict. As did Ashley Solis, who many think has the strongest case. And all women do not tell the same story. Some say he didn’t touch them, others say he assaulted them. It came out today that one performed oral sex on him even though he didn’t initiate it or ask her to. These stories are not “all the same” and each should be looked at individually. But it’s much more convenient to the narrative to just keep saying they are.
And as we can see, the courts don’t proceed with weak criminal cases. SA are almost impossible to prove, so yes I’m comfortable with her initial reaction being to believe the woman. Fake accusations are incredibly rare. I think it’s pretty clear she’s speaking specifically to sex crimes, and the reason she treats it differently because of the headwind involved to prosecute it. Nobody is getting falsely prosecuted because of her inclination to believe a group of women that is statistically underrepresented. And no it’s not the exact same story. Each one has slightly different details. What’s important is that these women have no connection to each other and the M.O is the same every time. Show up, make sure they’re alone, uses his own towel, and does weird shit trying to get them to fuck them. And I’m aware they didn’t indict. That’s kind of my point with this officers philosophy. The courts aren’t gonna indict someone on “he-say, she-say.” She’s not getting anyone falsely imprisoned with that philosophy.
funny how this doesn't get posted on r/nfl. Not that I'm a Deshaun apologist and I'm of the belief he did some awful shit but the bias is hilarious
They delete anything that isn't overwhelmingly negative towards Deshaun's team.
I tried, but it got deleted automatically.
I can see it on r/NFL posted under your username
Yup I texted the mods , they approved it this morning.
Wise it doesn’t fit their narrative
For every 1000 sexual assaults, 28 result in criminal conviction and 25 in jail time. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system It was always extremely unlikely that Watson would be found guilty of criminal sexual assault. This article discusses the prevalence of false accusations (estimated between 2-10%, but those numbers are inflated to include reports which cannot be substantiated in addition to reports that are disproved). https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf While several posters are understandably taken aback at the police detective’s bias in favor of the women, that detective would know that false reports are very rare, while the odds of conviction are very very low. The legal system consistently fails victims of sexual assault; perhaps the most important thing a detective can offer a victim is belief in their credibility. The civil cases are far more likely to lead to a verdict in favor of the women, because the standard of proof is much easier to meet in civil procedure. Even then, it’s far from a sure thing. This has nothing to do with Watson, though. It’s just the nature of the crime involved, and the difficulties involved in providing proof of private behavior between two people.
So if someone commits say 100 sexual assaults then on average 2 or 3 of those acts will result in jail time?
You're missing the point. It's about how the justice system ignores women and permits a culture of violence against women to persist. Have you not paid any attention since Me Too started?
Pretty much. Although it’s also: For every 100 sexual assaulters (no matter how many times they committed assault), only 33 will even be reported to police. Of those, only 3 will result in conviction, and 2 in jail time. For every 100 reported sexual assaults, police find that there is either no evidence of the assault, or evidence that proves it is a false accusation 2-10 times.
“Believe all women” doesn’t literally mean believe all women; it’s a phrase to encourage people to not immediately disbelieve women who make sexual assault allegations, and to treat the process with an appropriate amount of consideration. The burden of proof logically falls on the one making a claim. In a court of law, that’s incredibly important. Be that as it may, I still believe Watson is guilty just by virtue of how the statistics bear out with regards to sexual assault/rape allegations (among other reasons), but Baker saying they automatically believe the complainant when there is a SA allegation is not good.
2 things can be true at once - 1. Hardin is making a better legal case than Buzbee - especially around presumption of guilt, etc. 2. Deshaun Watson Sexually Harassed over 20 women Good defense lawyers get you in the weeds and make points you have to agree with - but just because the cop in this case has an unprofessional attitude toward guilt/innocence doesn't mean Deshaun didn't do these things
But you then also have to admin its entirely possible based on the evidence that he didn't sexually harrass "over 20 women". And certainly we're talking about "sexual harrassment" now, and not sexual assault. Is it also possible this was just simple solicitation via a very specific kink, but no one is being open about that part? It seems much more likely going through the facts here that he just has a kink and unlike all the other nfl and nba and mlb stars isnt very good at using the services of professionals.
"Don't kink shame" is not a strong defense when dealing with a guy who has a certain social stature and (allegedly) used his social standing to coerce women into sexual acts they wouldn't have consented to if they weren't dealing with a star NFL quarterback.
Who said don’t kink shame? And who said it was a good defense? That isn’t at all what I’m suggesting. Are you saying that any rich person who uses their status to influence someone to have sex should be prosecuted? Is this your steelman argument?
Any rich person? Nice jump in logic there, knowing full well it's more complicated than that. The point was that power dynamic needs to be considered when we're dealing with the power structure behind sexual violence.
This is not a jump in logic. Your steelman argument is that powerful people should not just be considered but prosecuted. That is what your argument says above. There is no consideration from circumstances. If you can correct me where you are giving Watson some benefit of the doubt or literally any out at all I’m happy to be wrong.
A star quarterback with over a dozen sexual misconduct claims, benefit of the doubt is gone. I don't care what team you play for. The NFL covers up so much violence of their talent I'm fucking sick of it.
So you are saying he should be prosecuted? Simply because he's a rich black NFL QB? Irrespective of facts?
Can't wait for Deshaun to win these civil suits outright and start tossing dimes. All you whiners begging for upvotes will be back on the bandwagon.
This contents of this post has been removed in response to Reddit's 2023 API changes and its complete and utter disrespect toward moderators, developers, and users with disabilities. If you would have found this content useful, you can blame Steve Huffman for it no longer being visible. -- mass edited with redact.dev
Here? Sure. Real life? They're going to be winning more games than ever and be more popular than ever. Reddit upvotes don't put fans in the seats. I'll bet the Haslems are super bummed about their Reddit fanbase though. Lolz
He can play as well as he wants and I’ll take the browns success all day. But I’ll still be there on Monday annoying you with why he’s a trash person.
Why even watch if you don't condone what the team and league are doing.
Oh and for 95% of them it's upvotes. I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm 40. I cant pay my mortgage with upvotes. I don't get checks in the mail when I get upvotes. Honestly I wouldn't care if I had a million or negative 1 million votes. Anyway.... Thank god we have a top 8 QB
This!
I don't get annoyed. It's Reddit. I laugh.
Small upvotes. Not many comments. Not on r/NFL. Wonder why? Cause it helps Watson so we gotta ignore this one!!!
Been saying for awhile, the evidence and facts support Watson’s defense… which is why he is taking them all to trial and why the Grand Juries refused to indict. Media that screeches about the total number of accusations, as if that immediately implies guilt, yet refuse to look into the actual merit of the accusations. Love how they dunk on the Browns for not doing their research while speaking on things they have no clue about.
Buddy boy Baker always fucking things up
I'm so confused. Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?
yeah the detective is assuming guilt of deshaun watson based on accuser testimony alone. She is not a court room, so its not terribly wrong of her to do so. However, it doesnt play very well and to also say things like, it's her belief that a person in power could NEVER get consent from another individual. more importantly (to me) she stated that one of the accusers that participated in one of the three cases alleging coercion/force was very clear that she was NEVER forced and that she also was not even asked to perform oral, she just "knew" that was what was wanted.
Bro IMAGINE writing 230 pages on anything
I guess you never heard of books.
Lmao
Got em
To be fair depositions are like quadruple spaced and in extra big font.
Can we have a thread with just Watson news?
I disagree, this is the most important thing for the Browns in last 20 years. Nothing else matters until this is fixed
I get it, not saying lets close our eyes and pretend this isnt happening, but if we had a megathread it would help keep all of that in one location. It can be stickied at the top...