Rusty Hardin’s latest statement on behalf of Deshaun Watson raises more questions

In an effort to score points in the court of public opinion, attorney Rusty Hardin released three statements on behalf of Texas quarterback Deshaun Watson. All of these statements raised separate questions regarding the allegations in 21 lawsuits against Watson.

The latest statement, which contains official accounts from 18 massage therapists who claim that Watson did not commit any fault with them and, for some of the 18 massage therapists, attacked the credibility of those who allege otherwise, prompted many to make the claims. math and ask the simple question of whether it makes sense for Watson to have had at least 40 different massage therapists in such a short period of time.

Former NFL offensive lineman Jermon Bushrod fueled that skepticism with a now-deleted tweet in response to our article regarding Hardin’s latest statement. “I played 12 years,” Bushrod tweeted, “I think I’ve had half of it throughout my career.”

Bushrod, in response to the tweet, was asked by another user if soccer players typically stay with a massage therapist for an extended period of time.

“Yes,” Bushrod said in the response, which was also deleted. “No way I can have several therapists per week of play.”

That doesn’t mean Watson did anything wrong with the 21 plaintiffs who sued him or the woman who told his story (but didn’t sue Watson) to SI.com. But it makes a lot of wonder why Watson or anyone else would need to have 40 different massage therapists. Which opens the door to more questions about why he has so many massages with so many different people.

Also, claims by 18 massage therapists that Watson acted appropriately don’t necessarily mean the other 21 are incorrect. It is possible that all 40 people are telling the truth.

It is also possible that the rules of evidence in Texas would consider any testimony from these 18 massage therapists to be inadmissible in a civil or, if it occurs, criminal case. But everything and everything is admissible in the court of public opinion. The real question is whether Hardin’s latest effort to bolster Watson’s case there has helped, hurt, or had no net impact.