Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson

steelbtexan said:
I want to see him squirm.

If he pleads the 5th that should tell people he's got something to hide. If I was in his situation I would probably plead the 5th too.

Agreed with the last 2 sentences of your post.
Click to expand...

and the other 9 or so accusers who have not undergone their depositions & keep “rescheduling” after all this time they’ve had…. does that mean they have something to hide too?
 
Criminally, him pleading the 5th keeps him from self incrimination….all it does civilly is give Buzzard less to twist and contort to mean something it may not mean b/c all he wants to do is to continue to try the case publicly. Bottom line you’re seeing it in this thread.

The pitchfork crew: “oh, he’s pleading the 5th, he’s clearly hiding something!…he’s guilty!”

Those of us looking at this objectively: :rolleyes:
 
Texian said:
DW4 has to be arrested for a crime to be put on the commissioners exempt list. So far he has not been arrested.
Click to expand...
Just a little clarification. He does not have to be arrested. He simply needs to be charged.

The Commissioner's Exampt List’s three criteria: 1) a player must be charged with a felony offense or a crime of violence, 2) an NFL investigation must lead Goodell “to believe that a player may have violated” the league’s personal conduct policy, and 3) Goodell has the flexibility to temporarily place a player on the exempt list when “a crime of violence is alleged but further investigation is required.”
 
maverick512000 said:
Whether it does or not pleading the fifth is a big gamble because while it does mean you cannot be forced to testify against yourself it also means you cannot testify in your own defense either. So basically if he does plead the fifth the he will not be allowed to tell his side of the story.

That’s why lawyers generally don’t advise pleading the fifth unless they are sure that it would only hurt the defendants case to testify.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, the general rule is that if you plead the Fifth in discovery, you cannot change your answer later and waive your Fifth Amendment privilege at trial. So, if you plead the Fifth in discovery, whether in writing or in a deposition, you will likely be stuck with your answer.
 
Mr teX said:
and the other 9 or so accusers who have not undergone their depositions & keep “rescheduling” after all this time they’ve had…. does that mean they have something to hide too?
Click to expand...
Hardin was asked by the judge why he didn’t schedule the depositions remotely. He couldn’t give a clear answer other than he wanted them to come in person. The judge stated the depositions could have been taken by zoom etc. Rusty is at fault for that.
 
Mr teX said:
Criminally, him pleading the 5th keeps him from self incrimination….all it does civilly is give Buzzard less to twist and contort to mean something it may not mean b/c all he wants to do is to continue to try the case publicly. Bottom line you’re seeing it in this thread.

The pitchfork crew: “oh, he’s pleading the 5th, he’s clearly hiding something!…he’s guilty!”

Those of us looking at this objectively: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If he pleads the fifth in his depositions Buzbee will kill him publicly. “He called all of these women liars now he can’t even answer questions regarding his own actions. What is he hiding?”
It will not go well for him publicly.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
If he pleads the fifth in his depositions Buzbee will kill him publicly. “He called all of these women liars now he can’t even answer questions regarding his own actions. What is he hiding?”
It will not go well for him publicly.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t mean he’s hiding anything. Fact is Buzzard was going to go after him publicly no matter what hence why I said in my post “less” for him to twist, contort; playing this out in public has been his MO the entire time. Watson stands to gain nothing if he did tell his side b/c all buzzard would do is twist, contort & infer things into whatever he says that may not necessarily be there……zlike he’s gonna do ANYWAY when DW4 pleads the 5th. & with 1/2 of his clients running from their depositions, there’s just nothing of critical value for DW4 to gain by DW4 telling his side. However there a lot for him to lose…& he doesn’t even really have to misstep for that to come to fruition. It’s like playing football with you only having 9 players on offense while the defense has…….22, to bring it home.

Buzzard is in effect playing to the lowest common denominator here….like he has been all along to folks with binary ways of thinking.
 
Mr teX said:
Doesn’t mean he’s hiding anything. Fact is Buzzard was going to go after him publicly no matter what hence why I said in my post “less” for him to twist, contort; playing this out in public has been his MO the entire time. Watson stands to gain nothing if he did tell his side b/c all buzzard would do is twist, contort & infer things into whatever he says that may not necessarily be there……zlike he’s gonna do ANYWAY when DW4 pleads the 5th. & with 1/2 of his clients running from their depositions, there’s just nothing of critical value for DW4 to gain by DW4 telling his side. However there a lot for him to lose…& he doesn’t even really have to misstep for that to come to fruition. It’s like playing football with you only having 9 players on offense while the defense has…….22, to bring it home.

Buzzard is in effect playing to the lowest common denominator here….like he has been all along to folks with binary ways of thinking.
Click to expand...
Yeah this makes no sense. If nothing happened and Watson didn’t do anything he should be eager to tell his story. His lawyer messed up and called ALL of them liars and now Watson doesn’t want to sit in those depositions and answer to them. And no, Pleading the 5th will not play well in public regardless of Buzbee. It won’t. That’s something the general public does not look at as a positive.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Yeah this makes no sense. If nothing happened and Watson didn’t do anything he should be eager to tell his story. His lawyer messed up and called ALL of them liars and now Watson doesn’t want to sit in those depositions and answer to them. And no, Pleading the 5th will not play well in public regardless of Buzbee. It won’t. That’s something the general public does not look at as a positive.
Click to expand...

please, it’s arguable anything really happened right now and your boy has been in the press every chance he could get asserting that something did with little more than a text or to and LOTS of inferring. Watson could come into these depositions with video of every single encounter showing nothing happened and Buzzard would point to some innocuous text to say something in fact did.

So miss me with all of your righteous indignation. Fact is the burden of proof is on Buzzard’s plaintiffs not on DW4. The absolute only way Buzzard can win these suits if for DW4 to capitulate and pay….if felony charges are brought by HPD or it is played out in the court of public opinion where cancel culture vultures like yourself will jump at any & every claim made by someone…proof be damned.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Yeah this makes no sense. If nothing happened and Watson didn’t do anything he should be eager to tell his story.
Click to expand...
Unless he saw the question Buzzbee asked Brooks. Remember, I think he's guilty.

But if innocent I can't imagine putting myself in a situation where I have to answer those questions under oath. Imagine you're innocent & those questions are asked. No matter how you answer the guy who would ask such questions would twist them to fit his agenda. He's fishing.
 
thunderkyss said:
Unless he saw the question Buzzbee asked Brooks. Remember, I think he's guilty.

But if innocent I can't imagine putting myself in a situation where I have to answer those questions under oath. Imagine you're innocent & those questions are asked. No matter how you answer the guy who would ask such questions would twist them to fit his agenda. He's fishing.
Click to expand...
These are always something that attorneys are going to attempt in depositions and court. Representing my patient, I was once grilled for 30 hours, much of it trying to catch me in contradictions or "gotchas" or getting answers which would have been contra the facts (which never happened). When undergoing depositions, you can't go into it scared......you have to stick to answering questions as factually as possible, while always thinking carefully about your answers before you speak. Deviate from this and this is the only way you lose credibility and open yourself up for successful attorney "twisting."
 
thunderkyss said:
Unless he saw the question Buzzbee asked Brooks. Remember, I think he's guilty.

But if innocent I can't imagine putting myself in a situation where I have to answer those questions under oath. Imagine you're innocent & those questions are asked. No matter how you answer the guy who would ask such questions would twist them to fit his agenda. He's fishing.
Click to expand...
He’s not delaying it if there’s no criminal investigation
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
These are always something that attorneys are going to attempt in depositions and court.
Click to expand...
I know as a defendant Watson doesn't have to take the stand. & defense attorneys generally advise against it. I believe taking the 5th in a deposition is similar.

I don't know if that holds true for civil suits. It may not, which may be why Hardin wants to wait until after criminal charges are brought, or not.

Then again, nothing stopping the law from re-opening the case after the civil deposition so it's really a moot point
 
thunderkyss said:
I know as a defendant Watson doesn't have to take the stand. & defense attorneys generally advise against it. I believe taking the 5th in a deposition is similar.

I don't know if that holds true for civil suits. It may not, which may be why Hardin wants to wait until after criminal charges are brought, or not.

Then again, nothing stopping the law from re-opening the case after the civil deposition so it's really a moot point
Click to expand...
In a civil suit, the defendant can take the 5th...........but cannot refuse to appear for a deposition or refuse to answer questions without pleading the 5th. And "I don't remember" or "I can't remember" or "I have no recollection" or "I'm not sure" doesn't get you very far.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
These are always something that attorneys are going to attempt in depositions and court. Representing my patient, I was once grilled for 30 hours, much of it trying to catch me in contradictions or "gotchas" or getting answers which would have been contra the facts (which never happened). When undergoing depositions, you can't go into it scared......you have to stick to answering questions as factually as possible, while always thinking carefully about your answers before you speak. Deviate from this and this is the only way you lose credibility and open yourself up for successful attorney "twisting."
Click to expand...

I’m not sure of your particular situation..but what you’re saying makes plenty of sense…..if the case is only being tried in the actual court. In the court of public opinion where Buzzard is trying to take every aspect of this, all bets are off. He has shown time & time again that The crux of his strategy is to sensationalize this as much as he can to garner sympathy for his clients. Which means he doesn’t need an actual “gotcha” moment. If DW4 told his side…even it was the truth….even if there was nothing there, He’d likely try to exploit ANY misuse of words, demeanor or whatever to try and tip the scales…again evidence or proof be damned.

In that regard, I can understand him taking the 5th. The margin is just too small and not worth the potential risk when you’re dealing with such a clown like Buzzard.
 
Mr teX said:
I’m not sure of your particular situation..but what you’re saying makes plenty of sense…..if the case is only being tried in the actual court. In the court of public opinion where Buzzard is trying to take every aspect of this, all bets are off. He has shown time & time again that The crux of his strategy is to sensationalize this as much as he can to garner sympathy for his clients. Which means he doesn’t need an actual “gotcha” moment. If DW4 told his side…even it was the truth….even if there was nothing there, He’d likely try to exploit ANY misuse of words, demeanor or whatever to try and tip the scales…again evidence or proof be damned.

In that regard, I can understand him taking the 5th. The margin is just too small and not worth the potential risk when you’re dealing with such a clown like Buzzard.
Click to expand...
And Hardin?...........public declarations that "the answer to the question of whether we are saying that all 22 plaintiffs are lying about the allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Watson is a resounding yes.” and "the plaintiffs saw an opportunity for a money grab" and "At the end of the day, this remains a very good man who I would suggest to you respectfully is being incredibly unfairly treated."
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
And Hardin?...........public declarations that "the answer to the question of whether we are saying that all 22 plaintiffs are lying about the allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Watson is a resounding yes.” and "the plaintiffs saw an opportunity for a money grab" and "At the end of the day, this remains a very good man who I would suggest to you respectfully is being incredibly unfairly treated."
Click to expand...

reactionary to Buzzard’s continued antics up to that point…i.e. provoked. Bottom line is You can’t continuously keep publicly calling out the guy’s client and doing everything you can to sling mud and not expect some sort of reaction. The reality is Hardin’s comments there and subsequent appearances were his attempts to swing the public opinion scales somewhat back to even..which is where they should’ve been & stayed from day 1 when these ALLEGATIONS were made.
 
Mr teX said:
reactionary to Buzzard’s continued antics up to that point…i.e. provoked. Bottom line is You can’t continuously keep publicly calling out the guy’s client and doing everything you can to sling mud and not expect some sort of reaction. The reality is Hardin’s comments there and subsequent appearances were his attempts to swing the public opinion scales somewhat back to even..which is where they should’ve been & stayed from day 1 when these ALLEGATIONS were made.
Click to expand...
You don’t call complainants liars publicly. That was asinine on his part and still, he was playing in the media too. You don’t get to excuse him just because you are team Watson. Hardin is also now playing the media with the whole “treated unfairly” bit. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. Watson will have to sit for his deposition.
 
badboy said:
true but many if not most thinks it does.
Click to expand...
Pleading the fifth is to not incriminate yourself. Nothing else. Who has the most to lose by incriminating themselves? You can’t expect to go this route after calling all of those women liars with no public perception of guilt. Called them liars, yet he wants to delay his testimony. He wanted the names of the women filing the lawsuits, which Rusty stated he has the right to face his accusers which is true, yet he doesn’t want to face them.

However he answers will have repercussions.
 
Last edited:
djohn2oo8 said:
Pleading the fifth is to not incriminate yourself. Nothing else. Who has the most to lose by incriminating themselves? You can’t expect to go this route after calling all of those women liars with no public perception of guilt. Called them liars, yet he wants to delay his testimony. He wanted the names of the women filing the lawsuits, which Rusty stated he has the right to face his accusers which is true, yet he doesn’t want to face them.

However he answers will have repercussions.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify what I should have said. It doesn't mean you are hiding something about one thing but do not want to be "led" into other areas where an person could have something to hide.
Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.
When a criminal defendant pleads the Fifth, jurors are not allowed to take the refusal to testify into consideration when deciding whether a defendant is guilty. In the 2001 case Ohio v. Reiner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The [Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
Click to expand...
www.findlaw.com

Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - FindLaw

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, when to do so would lead to their incrimination. For more on this and similar topics, visit FindLaw's Criminal Rights section.
www.findlaw.com www.findlaw.com
 
The 5th Amendment protections can be used even if someone has nothing to hide and is innocent of any crime. A person's words and admissions can be used against them even if they did nothing wrong. It is the prosecutor's job to get enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty of a crime. The suspect does not need to be the one that gives the prosecutor any evidence against their own self-interest.

EXAMPLE OF PLEADING THE FIFTH
Jake broke into Sarah's house to take back his computer that she would not return to him. Jake left with his computer and went home. Later, Sarah's house had burned down after a candle that had been left burning unattended.

The police knock on Jake's door and tell him they want to ask him some questions. Jake says he wants to have his lawyer present before he answers any questions. Jake and his lawyer sit down to talk to the police.

The police ask Jake if he was at Sarah's house. Jake did not want to admit that he had broken into Sarah's house because he was worried that he would be prosecuted for burglary. When the police ask Jake if he was at Sarah's house, Jake responds, “on the advice of my lawyer, I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”

Jake can plead the 5th even though he is innocent of burning down the house. The police may suspect Jake of arson. If Jake responded that he was at the house but did not start a fire, the police may charge Jake with arson even though he is innocent of that crime. If the police did not know about taking the computer, Jake admitting to it could also result in prosecution for burglary.

Click to expand...
 
djohn2oo8 said:
You don’t call complainants liars publicly. That was asinine on his part and still, he was playing in the media too. You don’t get to excuse him just because you are team Watson. Hardin is also now playing the media with the whole “treated unfairly” bit. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. Watson will have to sit for his deposition.
Click to expand...

what’s asinine is you & others trying to claim the moral high ground defending the actions of Buzzard. He’s the primary reason it is and remains in the public opinion arena. You don’t want your clients called liars, stop the Twitter fingers, trolling & grandstanding. Period.

bottom line is you can’t fling poo and expect any not to be flung back at you…or in this case your clients.

You’re supposedly in the field…well you of all people should know it’s innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
 
Mr teX said:
what’s asinine is you & others trying to claim the moral high ground defending the actions of Buzzard. He’s the primary reason it is and remains in the public opinion arena. You don’t want your clients called liars, stop the Twitter fingers, trolling & grandstanding. Period.

bottom line is you can’t fling poo and expect any not to be flung back at you…or in this case your clients.

You’re supposedly in the field…well you of all people should know it’s innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Buzbee is doing what any high profile attorney would do in a case like this. He isn’t breaking any rules is he? Maybe Watson shouldn’t have gotten himself in a situation where this would happen.....
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Hardin was asked by the judge why he didn’t schedule the depositions remotely. He couldn’t give a clear answer other than he wanted them to come in person. The judge stated the depositions could have been taken by zoom etc. Rusty is at fault for that.
Click to expand...
why weren't those women who delayed taken by zoom etc?
 
Mr teX said:
please, it’s arguable anything really happened right now and your boy has been in the press every chance he could get asserting that something did with little more than a text or to and LOTS of inferring. Watson could come into these depositions with video of every single encounter showing nothing happened and Buzzard would point to some innocuous text to say something in fact did.

So miss me with all of your righteous indignation. Fact is the burden of proof is on Buzzard’s plaintiffs not on DW4. The absolute only way Buzzard can win these suits if for DW4 to capitulate and pay….if felony charges are brought by HPD or it is played out in the court of public opinion where cancel culture vultures like yourself will jump at any & every claim made by someone…proof be damned.
Click to expand...
hey come one now, post not poster.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Buzbee is doing what any high profile attorney would do in a case like this. He isn’t breaking any rules is he? Maybe Watson shouldn’t have gotten himself in a situation where this would happen.....
Click to expand...

yeah well ditto for Hardin and same holds true for Buzzard’s clients
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
CloakNNNdagger said:
These are always something that attorneys are going to attempt in depositions and court. Representing my patient, I was once grilled for 30 hours, much of it trying to catch me in contradictions or "gotchas" or getting answers which would have been contra the facts (which never happened). When undergoing depositions, you can't go into it scared......you have to stick to answering questions as factually as possible, while always thinking carefully about your answers before you speak. Deviate from this and this is the only way you lose credibility and open yourself up for successful attorney "twisting."
Click to expand...
well of course but that's in a perfect world. Not everyone has same emotional make up or handle court proceedings the same. I was trained in USMC as Corrections supervisor to handle defense attorneys questions in court martials. The "every day Marine" appearing as a witness were not. Also just the number of times one does something makes it "easier".

It is the attorney "twisting" that I would be concerned about.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
And Hardin?...........public declarations that "the answer to the question of whether we are saying that all 22 plaintiffs are lying about the allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Watson is a resounding yes.” and "the plaintiffs saw an opportunity for a money grab" and "At the end of the day, this remains a very good man who I would suggest to you respectfully is being incredibly unfairly treated."
Click to expand...
I would think most people would give more allowance to a defendant's attorney comments than a prosecutor. Then again some folks side with the authority just because of that authority; if he was accused he must be guilty. I posted years ago of a traffic case I was jury foreman on and all but two of jurists said initially the defendant must be guilty as the DPS officer "stopped him for speeding."
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Buzbee is doing what any high profile attorney would do in a case like this. He isn’t breaking any rules is he? Maybe Watson shouldn’t have gotten himself in a situation where this would happen.....
Click to expand...
well darn both attorneys are but that doesn't stop me from thinking it is rotten. Reading John Grisham's A Time for Mercy and both lawyers constantly saying things to inflame jury. We all have heard "you cannot un-ring a bell" even if judge over rules and instructs jury to disregard.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Buzbee’s clients aren’t the ones under criminal investigation....Ask Rusty about that. Since he thinks it shouldn’t take months to complete lol
Click to expand...

yeah, but they are the ones making the allegations and the burden of proof is on them….yet another legal tenet you seem to be forgetting. his clients are also the ones you’re getting butt hurt over b/c they’re allegations are being questioned. Contrary to what you may believe, they’re claims aren’t above reproach. They can be called liars just as easily as DW4 can be called a sexual predator by Buzzard. But let me guess, you have no problem with that tho right?

DW4 is going to lose out in this no matter what. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But the smear campaign? Yeah, that’s extra. And Buzzard’s actions are the main driving force behind that. His clients co-signing his actions in the media all but ensured the backlash they’ve gotten.
 
Mr teX said:
yeah, but they are the ones making the allegations and the burden of proof is on them….yet another legal tenet you seem to be forgetting. his clients are also the ones you’re getting butt hurt over b/c they’re allegations are being questioned. Contrary to what you may believe, they’re claims aren’t above reproach. They can be called liars just as easily as DW4 can be called a sexual predator by Buzzard. But let me guess, you have no problem with that tho right?

DW4 is going to lose out in this no matter what. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But the smear campaign? Yeah, that’s extra. And Buzzard’s actions are the main driving force behind that. His clients co-signing his actions in the media all but ensured the backlash they’ve gotten.
Click to expand...
The burden is a lot less in civil cases........And Watson still doesn’t want to answer questions about it. No sir. If you are so sure they are liars, be ready to tell your side of the story. He isn’t. He wants to delay. Guess they aren’t liars then.....
 
djohn2oo8 said:
The burden is a lot less in civil cases........And Watson still doesn’t want to answer questions about it. No sir. If you are so sure they are liars, be ready to tell your side of the story. He isn’t. He wants to delay. Guess they aren’t liars then.....
Click to expand...

On the contrary, if you’re so sure he sexually assaulted all these women, why put out the casting call? Why the incessant need to try the cases out in public? Why all the extra public attention? Rest your cases on the evidence you have. The answer is b/c he likely doesn’t have much despite his ballyhooing. Those “evidence” packets sent to HPD what, nearly a year ago now…his much publicized interview with the feds….all that grandstanding should’ve yielded more than the complaints by now. If all that was as compelling as his grandstanding about it would lead you to believe, it should’ve led to him wearing iron bracelets by now.

Bottom line is you’re still reaching and the burden of proof ….however little it is, still rests with the plaintiffs not him.

It was rumored that 18 of these 22 women were ready to settle so I don’t think that’s even a barrier anymore…he will wind up paying these things out..but if none of these complaints lead to a felony indictment…it takes quite a bit of steam out of Buzzard’s bluster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top