Testifying under oath, Watson admits Solis cried at end of massage

Barring one or more settlements, Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson eventually will stand trial in 22 different cases with 22 different juries regarding claims made by 22 different massage therapists.

Last week, Watson testified in one of the pre-trial depositions that a massage ended with the therapist crying, according to Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today. Watson also admitted that he sent her an apology via text message.

The testimony came in the case brought by Ashley Solis. She was the first therapist to go public with her claims.

Watson claimed he didn’t know why she had cried. Solis claims that Watson intentionally touched her with his penis during the massage, prompting the reaction.

“Sorry about you feeling uncomfortable,” Watson texted. “Never were the intentions. Lmk if you want to work in the future. My apologies.”

Asked why he sent an apology, Watson testified: “Yes, because she was teary-eyed. And I was trying to figure out what was going on. So, I assumed that she was uncomfortable in whatever reason. And we talked about working in the future. And so, I said, `We can work in the future. Just let me know.’ And then I sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for.”

With no court order in place preventing the deposition transcripts from being disseminated to reporters, the lawyers can share any, some, or all of the information. This specific testimony was provided by attorney Tony Buzbee, who represents the 22 plaintiffs.

The report lands one day after multiple reports indicated that the NFL will meet with Watson this week. As explained earlier today, the league has much to do in order to get any disciplinary process fully resolved by the start of the 2022 regular season.

Jets Global

 

[Tinstar]

...and that my closest friends and associates is the reason our justice system requires a presumption of innocence, and the best reason society shouldn't be presumptive at all.

I don’t disagree with you friend . The trouble is there’s some stink that you just can’t wash off in our society . That’s why it’s best to do your best to avoid certain situations. It can be argued that mr Watson didn’t do that .

 

[skop]

I don’t disagree with you friend . The trouble is there’s some stink that you just can’t wash off in our society . That’s why it’s best to do your best to avoid certain situations. It can be argued that mr Watson didn’t do that .

true statement... "if you don't wanna donut, don't hang out in a bakery".

 

[Bigmoe]

. Is this guy living in a porno movie?
.

I think you have him confused with
Buck Naked

 

[Innocenti]

...and that my closest friends and associates is the reason our justice system requires a presumption of innocence, and the best reason society shouldn't be presumptive at all.

No, no, no. Presumption of innocence is only for criminal trials. For civil trials, it's preponderance of evidence. Because of this, you can't pigeon-hole an appropriate reaction for society.

 

[skop]

No, no, no. Presumption of innocence is only for criminal trials. For civil trials, it's preponderance of evidence. Because of this, you can't pigeon-hole an appropriate reaction for society.

no, no, no. you co-mingled the threshold of finding a defendant's liability in a civil case (preponderance of evidence) vs. the threshold of guilt in a criminal case (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) "with" a defendant's right in a criminal case, a presumption of innocence.

you are correct in that there is no presumption of innocence in a civil matter, but i am not saying that members of society don't have a right to an opinion; surely they do.

what i am saying as a member of society, and not a seated member of a civil jury, is that "after" a grand jury was convened for a criminal case "and" that grand jury determined that there was not even enough evidence to have Watson stand trial under the criminal code, the preponderance of evidence for liability in a civil case shouldn't automatically be presumed.

my feelings would be far different if a criminal trial was finished in which the jury had reasonable doubt to conclude a not guilty verdict, but there was so much evidence a reasonable person could put 1 and 2 together in a civil case.

the state was told they didn't even have a case!

 

[Tinstar]

Probably because it’s not illegal for a man to get a woody with a beautiful woman rubbing on him . Now what he does with said woody is subject to civil interpretation and conversations around water coolers .

 

[Innocenti]

no, no, no. you co-mingled the threshold of finding a defendant's liability in a civil case (preponderance of evidence) vs. the threshold of guilt in a criminal case (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) "with" a defendant's right in a criminal case, a presumption of innocence.

you are correct in that there is no presumption of innocence in a civil matter, but i am not saying that members of society don't have a right to an opinion; surely they do.

what i am saying as a member of society, and not a seated member of a civil jury, is that "after" a grand jury was convened for a criminal case "and" that grand jury determined that there was not even enough evidence to have Watson stand trial under the criminal code, the preponderance of evidence for liability in a civil case shouldn't automatically be presumed.

my feelings would be far different if a criminal trial was finished in which the jury had reasonable doubt to conclude a not guilty verdict, but there was so much evidence a reasonable person could put 1 and 2 together in a civil case.

the state was told they didn't even have a case!

Oh ok. The grand jury stuff was not mentioned in the thread that you were replying to. And I did not infer any of it. I'm still not sure I agree with that.

I should add that some on here are presuming things about Micheal Clemens based on some charges filed after a traffic stop...where presumably he was found to be sober.