I don't know every specific allegation, but two grand juries heard them all and didn't consider the allegations to be about criminal behavior.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...n-sports-and-law/id1478344564?i=1000566978514 Interesting interview with DA Kim Ogg. She discusses the insinuations made in the NYT article about her contact with Hardin during the grand jury process. Says the NYT article took some "artistic liberties."
Remember that there was one case in Brazoria County reviewed by the grand jury. You really think that there are two corrupt district attornies for both Harris (Kim Ogg) and Brazoria County (Tom Selleck), and they would go to such lengths to protect Deshaun Watson...after he had already requested for a trade. If so, that's one hell of a conspiracy theory.
I think neither of them want to make powerful enemies by pursuing these cases. They need to win elections so they need rich donors. Legitimately pursuing the cases would be difficult and would anger the local donor class because it would have killed Watson's trade value. Given that a grand jury is all but a rubber stamp, when you fail to get an indictment, it's because you didn't want one. You can frame the evidence any way you want and even hide any evidence that runs counter to your narrative.... and it's not challenged... and the whole thing is in secret. C'mon man, I know Watson is your guy, but no one else is cool with actively supporting a serial sexual predator.
This is not completely correct. She wasn't asked to testify in the Harris County grand jury, but she did in the Brazoria County one. https://sports.yahoo.com/tense-depo...ercion-vs-consent-010619990.html?guccounter=1 In her deposition for the civil trial, Hardin made clear that this investigator has biases which could prove a problem for her if she's called upon again to give future testimony.
I seriously doubt the rape allegations, as both grand juries found those witnesses to be non-credible (while never being cross-examined) or more likely, they didn't want to testify to possibly commit perjury. This is speculation because grand jury testimony is secret; however, the threshold for grand jury indictments is considered low. That stated, Watson definitely has a fetish/perversion/predatorial thing. There are gray areas between asking for sex and demanding sex from someone you have power over - and Watson was living in that gray zone all the time. What were his specific actions with each woman? And to what level of liability do those actions cause? We'll find out. Louis CK trapped employees in the bathroom and jerked off in front of them. He got Me Too'd but didn't get sued. Aziz Anzari thought a fan wanted to bang him and she wrote a column calling him a predator after regretful sex. He got Me Too'd but then defended as people were saying the woman has agency and is not a child. Where does Watson fit on that Louis CK - Aziz spectrum? Or is he way beyond it? Don't know, but I'm staying tuned.
Just read that yahoo article. She said that she starts her investigation by believing the victims and the defendant (Watson) has to prove his innocence which is not how a criminal investigation is supposed to work. She also said, "when power and influence is in the room consent cannot be." During one instance where the woman gave Watson oral sex, the accuser admitted that Watson did not tell her to do it. However, she said that she felt coerced because she thought not doing so would harm her business (e.g. Watson would give her a negative review, he wouldn't give her money to support her business, etc.).
Louis CK asked 2 women if he could jerk off in front of them, they said yes, so he did.....and that was it. Aziz Anzari went on a date with a crazy woman who was upset that he wasn't a mind reader. She consented to sexual activity at first and then later said no so they immediately stopped and then just watched TV for the rest of the night.....and that was it. Those are 2 examples of women attempting to exploit the "me too" hysteria very similar to Amber Heard. Those instances have NOTHING at all to do with the Watson allegations where he legitimately forced himself on women who were employed by him. The correct comparison is to Harvey Weinstein....and that's basically what Watson is, the Harvey Weinstein of the NFL.
I figured that's what you were talking about, but that's textbook how every criminal investigation should *start*. The Jon Krakauer book "Missoula" covers this in detail when dealing with the investigation of sexual assault complaints; it's not perfect, but you should check it out.
You left out the rest of what I said, the part where the investigator said Watson has to prove his innocence after an allegation has been made. This is absolutely not how a criminal investigation should work. An investigator's job is to check out the story and uncover compelling evidence that can be used to prosecute. The accused doesn't have a burden of proof. They may have assumptions but without evidence, it's just their opinion. If the investigator had done her job properly, she may have uncovered the necessary amount of evidence to get an indictment, or maybe the evidence was never there at all to prove that Watson is guilty of what he's being accused of.
