Although Browns general Deshaun Watson was not charged with any of the 10 criminal charges against him, Houston Police Department Detective Kamesha Baker testified last week that she believed Watson had committed multiple crimes based on her investigation. . Yahoo Sports’ Charles Robinson has received a copy of Baker’s deposition, which is not subject to any court order. He has analyzed it in detail. Three important points stand out. They are summarized below. First, the interrogation of attorney Rusty Hardin promotes the misconception (as expressed last week by attorney Leah Graham) that the presumption of innocence in the trial should also apply in the investigation phase. Hardin and Graham essentially believe that when a woman makes a criminal complaint alleging sexual misconduct, the response from law enforcement should be skepticism and cynicism, not support and consolation. Think about how, in Hardin and Graham’s view of the system, things would go if / when a woman made a criminal complaint for sexual misconduct. “I’m sorry, ma’am, but we have to assume that the accused is innocent, so you better have something more substantial than your own story about what happened.” It just doesn’t work that way. Yes, it is up to the police to make a basic assessment of the credibility of the accuser. This is part of what the police have been trained to do. And if the person making the complaint seems credible to those who have the ability and experience in such matters, all you have to do is move on. If the suspect chooses to exercise his constitutional right to remain silent, what should the police do? To abandon the case? No, it does not make sense. But it’s very logical that Hardin and Graham (and Watson) would like that. It provides the clearest path to their insistence that Watson did nothing wrong. Second, Detective Baker’s testimony from time to time focused on the difference between consent and coercion. Baker argued that various elements inherent in the difference in size and stature of Watson and the women he hired on Instagram to provide him with private massages made it difficult to reach a consensus. That any sexual activity that occurred could indeed stem from a tacit concern about what would happen if the massage therapist denied Watson’s attempt to shift from massage to sexual intercourse. Third, the cases necessarily end up in every woman’s speech against Watson because that is how massage sessions were structured. Apparently that’s how Watson wanted these massages to go. Two people in the room. Nobody else. As a result, there was never a witness confirming the version of any of the participants. If Watson was really just looking for a massage, his protection should not come from a non-disclosure agreement provided by the Texas director of security but from a third person who could break the tie if the massage therapist later claimed something had happened. inappropriate. The circumstances that he forced to arrange result in the cases being summarized in the speech of one person against the other. And Hardin, as part of his quest to prove that all 24 (soon to be 26 and eventually maybe more) are lying, suggests that the police – and everyone else – should just assume that they are. This is why the raw number of categories becomes relevant and convincing. If it was just one person, okay. But when he’s 24 or 26, who all tell basically the same story of a massage that went in a different direction, Watson’s dependence on words to never attack, never to respect, never to do anything becomes more difficult to be accepted. Especially if you consider Hardin’s claim two weeks ago that there is no crime in having a “happy ending” or trying. These allegations against Watson stem from his alleged attempt to turn massage into sexual activity. All but three refused. The three who did so apparently claimed that there was no real consent. It is impossible to ignore prime numbers. If, as Hardin and Graham seem to believe, these hypotheses are trivial and fueled by a Pied Piper looking for payday and prominence, there would certainly be cracks in the foundations by now. Eighteen of the plaintiffs were willing to receive (before fees and costs) $ 100,000 each last year. They did not. Common sense says that at least one of them would be upset about money he thought he was getting last year if he were to actually throw cash at Watson. Hardin and Graham would probably argue that Buzbee has kept the plaintiffs along with promising to get more later. Again, common sense suggests that if this was really a big trick aimed at targeting Watson for “blackmail” or any other term used to describe the cases, someone would have left the classroom or spoken. out of order so far. Instead, the classes continue to be built – and the plaintiffs continue to live together. If not, and if Hardin and Graham want the championship, the media, the fans and finally the juries to know this, they need to gather evidence for this and make it known to those who are able to spread the word. Instead, the only thing that spreads is the raw number of cases pending against Watson. Either he is the victim of an unprecedented witch hunt against a rich and famous professional athlete, or he is a predator. At this point, there is no middle ground.
