Punt God/ Hand Arazia

[ThankyouArt!]

You weren't the only one. I still to this day have no issue w/Watson. He wasn't proven guilty of a damn thing. Is he probably a sleazeball? I'd say so, but I , nor anyone else has a shred of evidence to prove a thing. My guess is the large majority, if not all, of those women are/were plain ol' hookers. Chicken chokers.

You say that "he wasn't proven guilty of anything".......yet go on to accuse the woman of being prostitutes? Your proof they were prostitutes? Did you read your post before posting? You did exactly what you say others done. Accuse someone without evidence.

[Greg]

]What's odd about it? I said I think he is one[/U]. How many other players in the NFL might also fit that mold? I'd be more than happy to discuss him or the likely dozens or so more of guys that are playing, many who we actually DO know what they have done. Not much of a peep about them these days. You are playing a semantics game here. Big time. Read what I wrote. No, most if not all are/were likely hookers. Please tell me about all this "evidence" you mention. There is none.

So you have formed an opinion on his character (him likely being a sleazeball) without a shred of evidence?

The evidence would be the testimony of these women. It is evidence. It may or may not be good evidence but there is a lot of it. It could be a lot of lies, I don't know.

Do you have any evidence these women are hookers? Maybe you do, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to indicate they are. To be fair, I haven't followed this is closely as many so maybe these women have arrest records or something like that. Do you know of anything like that?

[Willbacker]

You say that "he wasn't proven guilty of anything".......yet go on to accuse the woman of being prostitutes? Your proof they were prostitutes? Did you read your post before posting? You did exactly what you say others done. Accuse someone without evidence.

A guess is an accusation? An opinion is an accusation?

[blueridgemtnman]

You say that "he wasn't proven guilty of anything".......yet go on to accuse the woman of being prostitutes? Your proof they were prostitutes? Did you read your post before posting? You did exactly what you say others done. Accuse someone without evidence.

Please read what is written. Every word. If you guys can't or won't read what is written, I can't help you. Every word. Be more than happy to discuss, but you need to sharpen up on the reading comprehension..... If not, well then.....carry on.

[blueridgemtnman]

A guess is an accusation? An opinion is an accusation?

Glad at least one poster can read and comprehend what is written. Congrats to you.

[blueridgemtnman]

So you have formed an opinion on his character (him likely being a sleazeball) without a shred of evidence?

The evidence would be the testimony of these women. It is evidence. It may or may not be good evidence but there is a lot of it. It could be a lot of lies, I don't know.

Do you have any evidence these women are hookers? Maybe you do, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to indicate they are. To be fair, I haven't followed this is closely as many so maybe these women have arrest records or something like that. Do you know of anything like that?

Are you actually serious when you type this stuff?

[Greg]

Are you actually serious when you type this stuff?

Yes. Are you actually serious when you don't respond to the actual take. The testimonies of these women is evidence. Do you deny that? Because it is evidence It is evidence that would be offered in court if this went to trial. The jury would then evaluate the evidence.

But . . . IT IS EVIDENCE!

There is also evidence that these women were alone with him. That is circumstantial evidence, but again.

IT IS EVIDENCE!

You can't say there isn't a shred of evidence. There is a mountain of it.

You might confusing evidence with proof. We use evidence to establish proof. The quantity and quality of the evidence determines if we can prove something.

[blah3]

Yes. Are you actually serious when you don't respond to the actual take. The testimonies of these women is evidence. Do you deny that? Because it is evidence It is evidence that would be offered in court if this went to trial. The jury would then evaluate the evidence.

But . . . IT IS EVIDENCE!

There is also evidence that these women were alone with him. That is circumstantial evidence, but again.

IT IS EVIDENCE!

You can't say there isn't a shred of evidence. There is a mountain of it.

You might confusing evidence with proof. We use evidence to establish proof. The quantity and quality of the evidence determines if we can prove something.

You know there was evidence against the punt god too. The woman”s testimony.

[Greg]

You know there was evidence against the punt god too. The woman”s testimony.

That's true. And it will be weighed against the other evidence that might tend to clear him. That evidence from all aspects will be weighed first by a DA to determine if there is something to charge him with, then possibly a grand jury that may or may not indict him, then if indicted and tried a jury would then weigh that evidence.

[blah3]

That's true. And it will be weighed against the other evidence that might tend to clear him. That evidence from all aspects will be weighed first by a DA to determine if there is something to charge him with, then possibly a grand jury that may or may not indict him, then if indicted and tried a jury would then weigh that evidence.

That probably wont happen, as the evidence provided by this woman seems unreliable at best.

It did happen in the Watson case and 2 grand juries did not seem there was enough reliable evidence to charge.

[Greg]

That probably wont happen, as the evidence provided by this woman seems unreliable at best.

It did happen in the Watson case and 2 grand juries did not seem there was enough reliable evidence to charge.

All true.

My only point was that there was and is evidence against Watson. Not good enough to indict him, which speaks to its quality, not quantity.