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

Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson

Corrosion said:
Notice the date on that tweet. It's from last year.

Now realize that Flores is a client of ..... Mulugheta and that here we are again.


Watson is also a client of Mulugheta and he complained about the Texans not having a HC of color after OB was ousted & much was made of him forcing a minority hire.

They all but handed the job to Bienemy who refused them for a multitude of reasons.
Click to expand...
Although the tweet was from 2021, it still essentially holds true to now...............and Mulugheta has not changed his view.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Was looking up some things. This I found very interesting, #5 from the Texas Department of Licensing and Registration:

A massage establishment may not:
(1) employ an individual who is not a United States
citizen or a legal permanent resident with a valid work permit;
(2) employ a minor unless the minor's parent or legal
guardian authorizes in writing the minor's employment by the
establishment;
(3) allow a nude or partially nude employee to provide
massage therapy or other massage services to a customer;
(4) allow any individual, including a client, student,
license holder, or employee, to engage in sexual contact in the
massage establishment; or
(5) allow any individual, including a student, license
holder, or employee, to practice massage therapy in the nude or in
clothing designed to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
individual.
Click to expand...
so how many of the accusers violated this? Is #4 allowed if in the customer's home?
 
Mangler said:
I don’t. I’m sure those women didn’t just decide to contact each other out of the blue, and all decided to accuse Watson of sexual assault just to be evil.
Click to expand...
But they only came forward when Buzbee went to social media to search for "victims". None of them independently reported it.
 
Last edited:
cbs1507 said:
But they only came forward when Buzbee went to social media to search for "victims". None of them independently reported it.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m sure not all 22 are telling the whole truth but even just 1 of 22 is still one too many. He isn’t a child, he’s an adult and needs to be held accountable for his actions as should any of the women if they’re proven to be lying.
 
cbs1507 said:
But they only came forward when Buzbee went to social media to search for "victims". None of them independently reported it.
Click to expand...
For the 1,000 time. This is flat out false. Just because you only learn of something in public doesn’t mean reports weren’t filed prior to, which they were.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
For the 1,000 time. This is flat out false. Just because you only learn of something in public doesn’t mean reports weren’t filed prior to, which they were.
Click to expand...

There are no reports prior to Tony Buzzbee making this a public spectacle. Then they all hopped on the money train. You have yet to show these alleged reports, so your claim is dismissed.

Mangler said:
Well, I’m sure not all 22 are telling the whole truth but even just 1 of 22 is still one too many. He isn’t a child, he’s an adult and needs to be held accountable for his actions as should any of the women if they’re proven to be lying.
Click to expand...

I had an earlier exchange with someone who claimed if 1 of Watson's supporters could be shown to be lying in the depositions then it will cause doubt on the rest. It's the same thing here if 1 of the accusers is shown to be lying it will cause doubt that the rest are authentic.
 
cbs1507 said:
There are no reports prior to Tony Buzzbee making this a public spectacle. Then they all hopped on the money train. You have yet to show these alleged reports, so your claim is dismissed.



I had an earlier exchange with someone who claimed if 1 of Watson's supporters could be shown to be lying in the depositions then it will cause doubt on the rest. It's the same thing here if 1 of the accusers is shown to be lying it will cause doubt that the rest are authentic.
Click to expand...
First you are ignorant to the facts. If an investigation is ongoing which it is, you will likely not see the police reports. Period. Use common sense if you can. Prosecutors are in possession of those reports and it was enough to bring about a grand jury. Timing doesn’t matter, because AGAIN there are women not involved or represented by Buzbee who filed criminal complaints. And you can say my claim is dismissed all you want to. You know what hasn’t been dismissed? The Grand Jury.
 
Also, if the GJ intended to return a No Bill, I don’t see it taking this long. That’s bad news for Watson. He’s looking at multiple charges. Multiple misdemeanors, multiple felonies.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
First you are ignorant to the facts. If an investigation is ongoing which it is, you will likely not see the police reports. Period. Use common sense if you can. Prosecutors are in possession of those reports and it was enough to bring about a grand jury. Timing doesn’t matter, because AGAIN there are women not involved or represented by Buzbee who filed criminal complaints. And you can say my claim is dismissed all you want to. You know what hasn’t been dismissed? The Grand Jury.
Click to expand...

You're talking out of your ass, as usual. I already told you to link these police reports you claimed exist pages ago and you have yet to do that. NONE of them came forward until Buzzbee sought out "victims" on social media...POINT BLANK. Those women not involved with the lawsuit didn't file until August...that's well after this had been made a public spectacle.
 
Corrosion said:
.....
Click to expand...
No no. This is not been brought up before. The information that was posted about organizations not allowing their masseuses to do or wear certain things is what I responded to. Based on the information that has been posted here it does appear like some of the women may have violated that. That does not remove or cancel any action against Watson. However wrong is wrong and it seems like some of those ladies did violate the rules that were posted.
 
badboy said:
No no. This is not been brought up before. The information that was posted about organizations not allowing their masseuses to do or wear certain things is what I responded to. Based on the information that has been posted here it does appear like some of the women may have violated that. That does not remove or cancel any action against Watson. However wrong is wrong and it seems like some of those ladies did violate the rules that were posted.
Click to expand...


Yes, we have been here before, with the idea that somehow the women are in the wrong.


It is simply assumption on your part that these women may have "violated the licensing guidelines."


1 - they were all legal citizens.

2 - Any minors were provided by .... Jasmine Brooks, the woman who plead the 5th.

3 - they weren't nude or partially nude.

4 - It is Watson who initiated and, on several occasions, forced sexual acts be that oral, anal or vaginal.

5 - Again these women were not nekked
 
Corrosion said:
Yes, we have been here before, with the idea that somehow the women are in the wrong.


It is simply assumption on your part that these women may have "violated the licensing guidelines."


1 - they were all legal citizens.

2 - Any minors were provided by .... Jasmine Brooks, the woman who plead the 5th.

3 - they weren't nude or partially nude.

4 - It is Watson who initiated and, on several occasions, forced sexual acts be that oral, anal or vaginal.

5 - Again these women were not nekked
Click to expand...

Again….you have made assumptions as well. A court of law has yet to convict Watson of any of the crimes you laid out. The only outpouring of information that has come has been from one side of the coin exclusively. Has anyone gone back and looked up each of these masseuses private Instagram sites? Was anyone in the room, from this message boards, when Watson was getting his massages? If not, why the hard lines on guilt?

If Brooks is called to the stand and she states for the record that each masseuse she contacted for an appointment was informed that Watson “may” want to engage in consensual sex before, during, or after the massage. She would then clarify that Watson was willing to pay for any additional services provided. Then she informed each masseuse that her cut for anything beyond a massage would also be subject to her 20% - 30% fee. Again, it’s a “he said-she said” case with little to no physical evidence. In Brooks case, it would be a “she said-she said” case with no physical evidence to discern one way or the other as to who is truly telling the truth. Bringing Brooks into the arena certainly could influence the outcome.
 
Last edited:
Corrosion said:
Yes, we have been here before, with the idea that somehow the women are in the wrong.


It is simply assumption on your part that these women may have "violated the licensing guidelines."


1 - they were all legal citizens.

2 - Any minors were provided by .... Jasmine Brooks, the woman who plead the 5th.

3 - they weren't nude or partially nude.

4 - It is Watson who initiated and, on several occasions, forced sexual acts be that oral, anal or vaginal.

5 - Again these women were not nekked
Click to expand...
But aren't you assuming that the women were forced and were fully dressed as you were not there? I am not trying to argue with you but you always make declarative statements when you do not know what was actually said. You just assumed because he has been accused that he was guilty. I don't know if he is or is not but I'm willing to let it play out in the courts. To me you just seem like you want something to be your way regardless of what the facts may end up being. Some here also have posted about having female relatives or friends placed in this type situation. While I get that, those people should not be on a jury in my opinion. It should be on an unbiased group of jurists. Verdicts need to be based only on facts presented not facts guessed at or presumed.
 
The assumption of the obvious has seen a many of innocent individuals killed…..murdered. The only side being presented for public consumption is coming from the Buzzbee camp. Hardin has kept his camp fairly tight lipped and from all appearances….just waiting for their day in court.
 
badboy said:
But aren't you assuming that the women were forced and were fully dressed as you were not there? I am not trying to argue with you but you always make declarative statements when you do not know what was actually said. You just assumed because he has been accused that he was guilty. I don't know if he is or is not but I'm willing to let it play out in the courts. To me you just seem like you want something to be your way regardless of what the facts may end up being. Some here also have posted about having female relatives or friends placed in this type situation. While I get that, those people should not be on a jury in my opinion. It should be on an unbiased group of jurists. Verdicts need to be based only on facts presented not facts guessed at or presumed.
Click to expand...
If Corrosion or Cloak say something, it’s a fact. Watson has engaged in forced sexual acts on multiple occasions. To you that’s debatable. Not for much longer though.
 
OptimisticTexan said:
Again….you have made assumptions as well. A court of law has yet to convict Watson of any of the crimes you laid out. The only outpouring of information that has come has been from one side of the coin exclusively. Has anyone gone back and looked up each of these masseuses private Instagram sites? Was anyone in the room, from this message boards, when Watson was getting his massages? If not, why the hard lines on guilt?

If Brooks is called to the stand and she states for the record that each masseuse she contacted for an appointment was informed that Watson “may” want to engage in consensual sex before, during, or after the massage. She would then clarify that Watson was willing to pay for any additional services provided. Then she informed each masseuse that her cut for anything beyond a massage would also be subject to her 20% - 30% fee. Again, it’s a “he said-she said” case with little to no physical evidence. In Brooks case, it would be a “she said-she said” case with no physical evidence to discern one way or the other as to who is truly telling the truth. Bringing Brooks into the arena certainly could influence the outcome.
Click to expand...
You do realize none of that still would be good for her right and she could be criminally liable?

Also, it is very real the FBI is looking into her too.
 
Last edited:
A judge reportedly signed search warrants for several of Deshaun Watson’s social media accounts, according to ABC13.com.

The warrants reportedly include access to all platforms owned by Facebook, such as Instagram, and Cash App, and details allegations from nine women that the Texans quarterback coerced them into sexual encounters.
Click to expand...

I want to also come back to this. A judge signed search warrants, as in plural, for his electronic communications. Why? Because the judge believed there was probable cause a crime or crimes were committed, and those would be essential to such a case.
 
badboy said:
But aren't you assuming that the women were forced and were fully dressed as you were not there? I am not trying to argue with you but you always make declarative statements when you do not know what was actually said. You just assumed because he has been accused that he was guilty. I don't know if he is or is not but I'm willing to let it play out in the courts. To me you just seem like you want something to be your way regardless of what the facts may end up being. Some here also have posted about having female relatives or friends placed in this type situation. While I get that, those people should not be on a jury in my opinion. It should be on an unbiased group of jurists. Verdicts need to be based only on facts presented not facts guessed at or presumed.
Click to expand...


I am not making assumptions at all.


If you haven't paid attention, both @CloakNNNdagger and I have explained multiple times since the start of this debacle that we have had access to information that the general public does not. You just haven't listened.

None of these women are whores you might find at the local Asian massage parlor that offers happy endings nor are they sex workers of any kind and No, they weren't nekked or half nekked during their sessions either.
None of them were receptive to Watson's advances. Those that did have sexual encounters were either physically forced or otherwise coerced which is for legal purposes the same thing.


These women are professionals in their fields - Some weren't even massage therapists but state licensed Estheticians - skin care professionals who were recruited by Brooks or Avery and were clueless as to Watson's reputation or intentions going in. These individuals were targeted because of the reputation Watson had made himself in the industry of actual massage therapists, many of whom wanted no part of dealing with him.

The text messages are terribly damaging to the defense, strongly supporting victim's statements .... there is also the money trail. These things support every single case, both civil and criminal.


Ask yourself why Brooks took the 5th. She can only take the 5th to protect herself, not to protect anyone else. That her lawyers (paid for by Watson) felt the need to protect herself from liability should tell you something funny is going on. She was knowingly sending those women into potentially dangerous situations.

It's likely that Avery will do the same when it's his turn.
 
Corrosion said:
I am not making assumptions at all.


If you haven't paid attention, both @CloakNNNdagger and I have explained multiple times since the start of this debacle that we have had access to information that the general public does not. You just haven't listened.

None of these women are whores you might find at the local Asian massage parlor that offers happy endings nor are they sex workers of any kind and No, they weren't nekked or half nekked during their sessions either.
None of them were receptive to Watson's advances. Those that did have sexual encounters were either physically forced or otherwise coerced which is for legal purposes the same thing.


These women are professionals in their fields - Some weren't even massage therapists but state licensed Estheticians - skin care professionals who were recruited by Brooks or Avery and were clueless as to Watson's reputation or intentions going in. These individuals were targeted because of the reputation Watson had made himself in the industry of actual massage therapists, many of whom wanted no part of dealing with him.

The text messages are terribly damaging to the defense, strongly supporting victim's statements .... there is also the money trail. These things support every single case, both civil and criminal.


Ask yourself why Brooks took the 5th. She can only take the 5th to protect herself, not to protect anyone else. That her lawyers (paid for by Watson) felt the need to protect herself from liability should tell you something funny is going on. She was knowingly sending those women into potentially dangerous situations.

It's likely that Avery will do the same when it's his turn.
Click to expand...
Very bad situation.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
I would like to make this clear. It doesn’t matter what they were wearing if the answer was no and he still proceeded.
Click to expand...
Agree but that is not what my question of your post about massage establishments asked. You focused on one point and I asked about some of those that some accusers might be guilty of.

djohn2oo8 said:
Was looking up some things. This I found very interesting, #5 from the Texas Department of Licensing and Registration:

A massage establishment may not:
(1) employ an individual who is not a United States
citizen or a legal permanent resident with a valid work permit;
(2) employ a minor unless the minor's parent or legal
guardian authorizes in writing the minor's employment by the
establishment;
(3) allow a nude or partially nude employee to provide
massage therapy or other massage services to a customer;
(4) allow any individual, including a client, student,
license holder, or employee, to engage in sexual contact in the
massage establishment; or
(5) allow any individual, including a student, license
holder, or employee, to practice massage therapy in the nude or in
clothing designed to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
individual.
Click to expand...


If you think that that does not matter or that Rusty Hardin will not pursue that then I think you are incorrect. In reply to one of my posts you stated that some the women did not work at the massage places. You did not address the other women who may have. I and others believe that you focus only on what you want to and brush over the rest. I want all the info looked at as I am hopefully it will be if a trial is needed.
To your point if a woman said no and Watson continued anyway that is wrong. But I did not hear her say no and have not seen any evidence that proves that that is what occurred. I am willing to let Justice play out. You and others are obviously not.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
I want to also come back to this. A judge signed search warrants, as in plural, for his electronic communications. Why? Because the judge believed there was probable cause a crime or crimes were committed, and those would be essential to such a case.
Click to expand...
Well cool! But if overwhelming evidence was found why hasn't the grand jury indicted yet? I know I just don't understand how it works.
 
badboy said:
No no. This is not been brought up before. The information that was posted about organizations not allowing their masseuses to do or wear certain things is what I responded to. Based on the information that has been posted here it does appear like some of the women may have violated that. That does not remove or cancel any action against Watson. However wrong is wrong and it seems like some of those ladies did violate the rules that were posted.
Click to expand...

Nice way to try to victim shame these ladies while saying you aren't victim shaming. I dont care if they were naked, if what they claim Derrick did is correct then only Derrick was in the wrong.
 
badboy said:
Well cool! But if overwhelming evidence was found why hasn't the grand jury indicted yet? I know I just don't understand how it works.
Click to expand...

The grand jury has other cases and works at their own pace. Not the pace that Derrick or draftniks like yourself would like. This really isn't that hard to understand. It's also likely why he wont be traded before the last weekend in April. Atleast without a bunch of provisions in the trade.

I know this doesn't fit your timeline for these trade proposals you seem to come up with out of the blue.
 
badboy said:
Agree but that is not what my question of your post about massage establishments asked. You focused on one point and I asked about some of those that some accusers might be guilty of.




If you think that that does not matter or that Rusty Hardin will not pursue that then I think you are incorrect. In reply to one of my posts you stated that some the women did not work at the massage places. You did not address the other women who may have. I and others believe that you focus only on what you want to and brush over the rest. I want all the info looked at as I am hopefully it will be if a trial is needed.
To your point if a woman said no and Watson continued anyway that is wrong. But I did not hear her say no and have not seen any evidence that proves that that is what occurred. I am willing to let Justice play out. You and others are obviously not.
Click to expand...

All I know for sure is Derrick's character witness Brooks took the 5th. That should speak volumes to you, but it wont.
 
badboy said:
But aren't you assuming that the women were forced and were fully dressed as you were not there? I am not trying to argue with you but you always make declarative statements when you do not know what was actually said. You just assumed because he has been accused that he was guilty. I don't know if he is or is not but I'm willing to let it play out in the courts. To me you just seem like you want something to be your way regardless of what the facts may end up being. Some here also have posted about having female relatives or friends placed in this type situation. While I get that, those people should not be on a jury in my opinion. It should be on an unbiased group of jurists. Verdicts need to be based only on facts presented not facts guessed at or presumed.
Click to expand...

You are trying to argue and say you aren't trying to argue.

Why dont you come out and say what you really think. That CnD/Corrosion's sources are wrong and be done with this charade. Then we can tell who's right when the GJ/trials, if there are any are completed.
 
steelbtexan said:
You are trying to argue and say you aren't trying to argue.

Why dont you come out and say what you really think. That CnD/Corrosion's sources are wrong and be done with this charade. Then we can tell who's right when the GJ/trials, if there are any are completed.
Click to expand...


If we're gonna just convict folks before trial what's the point in having a court system?

Let's just get some rope.

Does this mean I can skip jury duty from now on?
 
powda said:
If we're gonna just convict folks before trial what's the point in having a court system?

Let's just get some rope.

Does this mean I can skip jury duty from now on?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is you either believe what CnD/Corrosion puts out there or not. If you dont believe them just say so. But dont go passive aggressive like BBB is doing. Like I said we will eventaully see who was right.
 
steelbtexan said:
What I'm saying is you either believe what CnD/Corrosion puts out there or not. If you dont believe them just say so. But dont go passive aggressive like BBB is doing. Like I said we will eventaully see who was right.
Click to expand...


I believe cnd and Corrosion likely do have some insider info. I don't believe they have it all.

Let the process (however slow and stupid it is) play out.
 
steelbtexan said:
What I'm saying is you either believe what CnD/Corrosion puts out there or not. If you dont believe them just say so. But dont go passive aggressive like BBB is doing. Like I said we will eventaully see who was right.
Click to expand...

Not everything is 0 or 100, black or white, yes or no. I believe CND and Corrosion when they relay their insider information. But like myself and many other people have said, I don't know their sources, I don't know the sources' agenda, I don't know where the sources get their info, and I don't know how they process it. So, forgive me for reading all this stuff with my thinking cap on, as I do everything.
 
powda said:
If we're gonna just convict folks before trial what's the point in having a court system?

Let's just get some rope
Click to expand...
The whole idea about a system is about not getting a rope.

But still, life goes on & decisions need to be made. Our decisions don't matter much, buying tickets, Watson swag, etc... spouting off on MBs.

Texans still have to field a team & the way that affects our opinions of the team will be voiced here.

I think he's guilty of a lot of what he's accused of. I'm not sold on the rape allegations, but that doesn’t prevent me from saying he needs to go & I hope he never plays another down in the NFL.

I Also think we need to trade him ASAP before his value plummets
 
thunderkyss said:
The whole idea about a system is about not getting a rope.

But still, life goes on & decisions need to be made. Our decisions don't matter much, buying tickets, Watson swag, etc... spouting off on MBs.

Texans still have to field a team & the way that affects our opinions of the team will be voiced here.

I think he's guilty of a lot of what he's accused of. I'm not sold on the rape allegations, but that doesn’t prevent me from saying he needs to go & I hope he never plays another down in the NFL.

I Also think we need to trade him ASAP before his value plummets
Click to expand...


Let me be clear, that post was pure sarcasm.
 
badboy said:
Well cool! But if overwhelming evidence was found why hasn't the grand jury indicted yet? I know I just don't understand how it works.
Click to expand...
It’s possible the grand jury is also looking at Brooks and Avery as well. Remember a GJ in Texas can be in session up to around 24 months on average.

The longer the GJ takes, it’s not good for Watson.
 
badboy said:
Agree but that is not what my question of your post about massage establishments asked. You focused on one point and I asked about some of those that some accusers might be guilty of.




If you think that that does not matter or that Rusty Hardin will not pursue that then I think you are incorrect. In reply to one of my posts you stated that some the women did not work at the massage places. You did not address the other women who may have. I and others believe that you focus only on what you want to and brush over the rest. I want all the info looked at as I am hopefully it will be if a trial is needed.
To your point if a woman said no and Watson continued anyway that is wrong. But I did not hear her say no and have not seen any evidence that proves that that is what occurred. I am willing to let Justice play out. You and others are obviously not.
Click to expand...
???? Rusty pursue what? What I posted is in regards to Jasmine Brooks referring women to Watson while knowing he was trying to have sex forcibly with them.
 
powda said:
If we're gonna just convict folks before trial what's the point in having a court system?

Let's just get some rope.

Does this mean I can skip jury duty from now on?
Click to expand...

See that’s where I’ve been having an issue with the “wait for evidence” line of thinking. None of us have the power to convict Watson of anything. If a person on here wants to say Watson is 100% guilty and he should be tar and feathered then that is nothing but their opinion, it’s has no real world effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top