Watson Suspended for 11 Games and Fined $5 Million / and a bit OT and back.
-
WSS, not to argue, but your supposition on the Grand jury's decision is wrong. I have testified in my career in front of several grand juries and have worked with several District Attorneys as the lead investigator. If a DA goes to the grand jury He/She believes it's worth prosecuting. All a Grand Jury is presented or hears is the Prosecutions case such as (Investigators/witness/victims testimony and evidence). The Defense and alleged suspect(s) are not present and have no input in their defense. All the grand jury decides is "if the prosecution presented a case where the evidence(testimony,Physical evidence) is met to proceed to an indictment and criminal trial. They don't decide if it's worth the time. A grand jury hearing is usually a slam dunk for the prosecution because the defense isn't heard. There is a saying " You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." It isn't far off, and yet 2 grand juries in 2 different counties said there wasn't anything to proceed with criminal charges.
A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?
A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?
Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.* All were her word against his. Maybe all of those dames are lying whores and that's what the supporters have to believe. And if you guys are right the underlying problem is that over a third of the 60 some potential victims were willing to destroy a man's life and career for no seeming reason.
I guess you need to decide which scenario has the Ring Of Truth to it.
WSS
* even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.
-
A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?
Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.* All were her word against his. Maybe all of those dames are lying whores and that's what the supporters have to believe. And if you guys are right the underlying problem is that over a third of the 60 some potential victims were willing to destroy a man's life and career for no seeming reason.
I guess you need to decide which scenario has the Ring Of Truth to it.
WSS
* even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.
Not really.
WSS
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
-
Not really.
WSS
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
I can't sing(only solo in the shower) or play an instrument so I'll defer to WSS.
-
Not really.
WSS
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
Believe whatever you want.
WSS
-
I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?
Believe whatever you want.
WSS
Believe whatever you want.
WSS
Well I do believe your music is very good...............so there's that.?
-
A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?
Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.* All were her word against his. Maybe all of those dames are lying whores and that's what the supporters have to believe. And if you guys are right the underlying problem is that over a third of the 60 some potential victims were willing to destroy a man's life and career for no seeming reason.
I guess you need to decide which scenario has the Ring Of Truth to it.
WSS
* even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.
Line 1] Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.*
Line 2] * even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.
1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..
2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.
a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.
b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.
I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.
-
Line 1] Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.*
Line 2] * even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.
1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..
2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.
a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.
b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.
I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.
1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..
2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.
a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.
b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.
I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.
I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:
1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.
2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.
3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.
4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.
WSS
-
All the women had to do was stop the session. They didn't.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..
2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.
a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.
b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.
I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.
I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:
1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.
2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.
3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.
4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.
WSS
I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:
1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.
2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.
3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.
4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.
WSS
So you want the Prosecutor to unbundle each case and present 12 different cases in the hope of bringing 12 bills of indictment and you believe there is more attention on each and Watson should have 12 eventual separate days in court- as some kind of special justice owed towards these allegations?
And I said 12 not 30. The Prosecutor didn’t present 30 cases. It can be surmised that Only 12 were deemed worthy/appropriate to be heard after months of investigation. The Prosecutors were privy to a lot of information for months that none of us had including the media.
On 3, you don’t think the prospect of financial gain could bring about fabrication? And you are an intelligent guy and from what I guess an elder to many of us here - have you witnessed or even heard of evil being done for financial gain? Lots of folks these days are certainly out for themselves.
On 4, it proves that a criminal proceeding and charges will not move forward.
-
-
All the women had to do was stop the session. They didn't.
And before or after they got paid for the massage at some agreed upon price.
I don't remember hearing how much individually these MTs were getting paid ? And any other options by DW.
IS ANYONE ELSE TIRED OF THIS STUFF YET ?
-
Why is the NFL only reviewing 5 of the cases? Isn’t the NFL interested in Justice
My bad just four. One of them was dropped during the NFL Hearing.
-
Why is the NFL only reviewing 5 of the cases? Isn’t the NFL interested in Justice
My bad just four. One of them was dropped during the NFL Hearing.
Why is the NFL only reviewing 5 of the cases? Isn’t the NFL interested in Justice
My bad just four. One of them was dropped during the NFL Hearing.
Sounds like something from COURT TV. Some people just eat this stuff up, stay glued to their TVs and computers.
......" And next on Court TV, day 355 of the DW hearings, blah, blah, blah."
How long until DW takes meaningful snaps for the Cleveland BROWNS ?
-
I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:
1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.
2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.
3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.
4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.
WSS
So you want the Prosecutor to unbundle each case and present 12 different cases in the hope of bringing 12 bills of indictment and you believe there is more attention on each and Watson should have 12 eventual separate days in court- as some kind of special justice owed towards these allegations?
And I said 12 not 30. The Prosecutor didn’t present 30 cases. It can be surmised that Only 12 were deemed worthy/appropriate to be heard after months of investigation. The Prosecutors were privy to a lot of information for months that none of us had including the media.
On 3, you don’t think the prospect of financial gain could bring about fabrication? And you are an intelligent guy and from what I guess an elder to many of us here - have you witnessed or even heard of evil being done for financial gain? Lots of folks these days are certainly out for themselves.
On 4, it proves that a criminal proceeding and charges will not move forward.
So you want the Prosecutor to unbundle each case and present 12 different cases in the hope of bringing 12 bills of indictment and you believe there is more attention on each and Watson should have 12 eventual separate days in court- as some kind of special justice owed towards these allegations?
And I said 12 not 30. The Prosecutor didn’t present 30 cases. It can be surmised that Only 12 were deemed worthy/appropriate to be heard after months of investigation. The Prosecutors were privy to a lot of information for months that none of us had including the media.
On 3, you don’t think the prospect of financial gain could bring about fabrication? And you are an intelligent guy and from what I guess an elder to many of us here - have you witnessed or even heard of evil being done for financial gain? Lots of folks these days are certainly out for themselves.
On 4, it proves that a criminal proceeding and charges will not move forward.
1 doesn't matter what I want. Just saying that if the decision was made to prosecute every case individually it would take forever. Just making that statement I don't think it's wrong. Also saying one never knows what's going to happen when a jury is involved. Like the legal analysts said they could be a flip of the coin. Disagree?
Two or three do I think financial gain could prompt people to make false accusations and file false complaints? Absolutely without a doubt. And yes I'm older than a lot of guys here and spent my entire life playing music 20 years of which was in a pretty successful rock and roll band that was on the road a good portion of the time. And yes I have seen false accusations.
And 4 yes it does. I'm not sure why people are bickering with me. And I don't know the answer but the question I made wass why would 24 plus women want to destroy a man's life and career. Just asking. Doesn't that seem evil to you?
By the way I was originally discussing the cases against Watson not so much the cases against the Texans. Who actually have Deep Pockets thinking payoff just about whoever they choose. Especially because they were pretty obviously complicit.
WSS
-
So you want the Prosecutor to unbundle each case and present 12 different cases in the hope of bringing 12 bills of indictment and you believe there is more attention on each and Watson should have 12 eventual separate days in court- as some kind of special justice owed towards these allegations?
And I said 12 not 30. The Prosecutor didn’t present 30 cases. It can be surmised that Only 12 were deemed worthy/appropriate to be heard after months of investigation. The Prosecutors were privy to a lot of information for months that none of us had including the media.
On 3, you don’t think the prospect of financial gain could bring about fabrication? And you are an intelligent guy and from what I guess an elder to many of us here - have you witnessed or even heard of evil being done for financial gain? Lots of folks these days are certainly out for themselves.
On 4, it proves that a criminal proceeding and charges will not move forward.
1 doesn't matter what I want. Just saying that if the decision was made to prosecute every case individually it would take forever. Just making that statement I don't think it's wrong. Also saying one never knows what's going to happen when a jury is involved. Like the legal analysts said they could be a flip of the coin. Disagree?
Two or three do I think financial gain could prompt people to make false accusations and file false complaints? Absolutely without a doubt. And yes I'm older than a lot of guys here and spent my entire life playing music 20 years of which was in a pretty successful rock and roll band that was on the road a good portion of the time. And yes I have seen false accusations.
And 4 yes it does. I'm not sure why people are bickering with me. And I don't know the answer but the question I made wass why would 24 plus women want to destroy a man's life and career. Just asking. Doesn't that seem evil to you?
By the way I was originally discussing the cases against Watson not so much the cases against the Texans. Who actually have Deep Pockets thinking payoff just about whoever they choose. Especially because they were pretty obviously complicit.
WSS
1 doesn't matter what I want. Just saying that if the decision was made to prosecute every case individually it would take forever. Just making that statement I don't think it's wrong. Also saying one never knows what's going to happen when a jury is involved. Like the legal analysts said they could be a flip of the coin. Disagree?
Two or three do I think financial gain could prompt people to make false accusations and file false complaints? Absolutely without a doubt. And yes I'm older than a lot of guys here and spent my entire life playing music 20 years of which was in a pretty successful rock and roll band that was on the road a good portion of the time. And yes I have seen false accusations.
And 4 yes it does. I'm not sure why people are bickering with me. And I don't know the answer but the question I made wass why would 24 plus women want to destroy a man's life and career. Just asking. Doesn't that seem evil to you?
By the way I was originally discussing the cases against Watson not so much the cases against the Texans. Who actually have Deep Pockets thinking payoff just about whoever they choose. Especially because they were pretty obviously complicit.
WSS
Yes I disagree…if a Grand Jury can’t even indict how do you expect a jury in a criminal proceeding to move toward a conviction.
-
1 doesn't matter what I want. Just saying that if the decision was made to prosecute every case individually it would take forever. Just making that statement I don't think it's wrong. Also saying one never knows what's going to happen when a jury is involved. Like the legal analysts said they could be a flip of the coin. Disagree?
Two or three do I think financial gain could prompt people to make false accusations and file false complaints? Absolutely without a doubt. And yes I'm older than a lot of guys here and spent my entire life playing music 20 years of which was in a pretty successful rock and roll band that was on the road a good portion of the time. And yes I have seen false accusations.
And 4 yes it does. I'm not sure why people are bickering with me. And I don't know the answer but the question I made wass why would 24 plus women want to destroy a man's life and career. Just asking. Doesn't that seem evil to you?
By the way I was originally discussing the cases against Watson not so much the cases against the Texans. Who actually have Deep Pockets thinking payoff just about whoever they choose. Especially because they were pretty obviously complicit.
WSS
Yes I disagree…if a Grand Jury can’t even indict how do you expect a jury in a criminal proceeding to move toward a conviction.
Yes I disagree…if a Grand Jury can’t even indict how do you expect a jury in a criminal proceeding to move toward a conviction.
Because the bar is set much lower in a civil case. If every one of those civil cases came to court you never know what will happen. Preponderance rather than Reasonable Doubt. That's all.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
-
Yes I disagree…if a Grand Jury can’t even indict how do you expect a jury in a criminal proceeding to move toward a conviction.
Because the bar is set much lower in a civil case. If every one of those civil cases came to court you never know what will happen. Preponderance rather than Reasonable Doubt. That's all.
WSS
Because the bar is set much lower in a civil case. If every one of those civil cases came to court you never know what will happen. Preponderance rather than Reasonable Doubt. That's all.
WSS
The way I am reading it you guys have your wires crossed. criminal and civil are two different proceedings.
You are correct. If one were to look at the scales of justice balanced out, in a criminial case one side needs to be buried out to gain a conviction...in theory. In a civil case, all one has to do is tilt the scale a little to gain a judgement.
-
Because the bar is set much lower in a civil case. If every one of those civil cases came to court you never know what will happen. Preponderance rather than Reasonable Doubt. That's all.
WSS
The way I am reading it you guys have your wires crossed. criminal and civil are two different proceedings.
You are correct. If one were to look at the scales of justice balanced out, in a criminial case one side needs to be buried out to gain a conviction...in theory. In a civil case, all one has to do is tilt the scale a little to gain a judgement.
The way I am reading it you guys have your wires crossed. criminal and civil are two different proceedings.
You are correct. If one were to look at the scales of justice balanced out, in a criminial case one side needs to be buried out to gain a conviction...in theory. In a civil case, all one has to do is tilt the scale a little to gain a judgement.
Exactly. The criminal proceedings weren't going to happen. Depending on your point of view a great thing or a terrible thing about the United States legal system is that you can bypass the double jeopardy rule in a civil court for another bite of the apple. The grand jury had nothing to do with the civil cases the plaintiffs chose to settle. Had all of those cases gone to court I agree with Florio they would have been coin flips.
If I wasn't clear; my bad.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login