Mr. WEO

That would make him top 32 in one position.

It should be obvious that the only thing they figured out is they should have cut him as soon as the suit was made public, instead of inviting the predictable onslaught of bad public reaction before admitting the inevitable—Araiza had to go. Someone in the building, after knowing he was being sued for “gang rape” and “intoxicated rape” for a month, and then faced with the public release of the gross details, should have said: “ok that’s it. Rook P has to go or we’re going to get creamed until we cut him”. No one said this obvious truth….instead they double down on the bungling by announcing their decision (firing a radioactive player) was in HIS “best interest”. Lol wtf.

Watson put himself “on the shelf” before he was sued. He refused to play for them ever again. Why do people keep getting this wrong?

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him. So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info. The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable. Who didn't see that coming?? He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable embarrassment for the organization. The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet. Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday. Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined. 2 days later, they cut him. Shocking...

After they were given a heads up of the impending filing and the nature of the allegations and after they conducted a thorough investigation, what did they learn Thursday? They were still publicly standing behind him. Did they learn something new Friday? They still sent him to Carolina as the intended Punter for the game. Did they learn something new at 5:30 Friday, when they pulled him from the lineup? Was is on Saturday when they finally cut him loose that they learned this new info?

Claim they did what?

The standard for teams handling issues such as this should not be the the Browns and the Texans, who have been widely and righteously trashed for their Watson actions. By the start of the season, Watson was not practicing or traveling with the Texans, nor was he on the sidelines during home games. He was listed as inactive week to week. The Bills, after Thursday's bombshell hit, still intended for Araiza to play Friday night. It wasn't until 5:30 PM that the news broke that he would not appear in the game. Also, the Plaintiff seems to have gone a long way to "cook up" these allegations, wouldn't you say? The reasonable criticism they are facing, obviously, is "acted faster" meaning in late July when had the same info the rest of the world found out Thursday. "something happened"--the cat was out of the bag on what the Bills were sitting on (this lawsuit). They didn't suddenly "find out" something on Thursday.

What would be considered an "outright lie" as opposed to a regular straight up type of lie in this case? Also, if her lawyer is manufacturing false evidence and submits it to the court as genuine, he is committing fraud against the court.

The consequence is that it would tank his lawsuit in court.

It would be discoverable. Obviously Araiza's (new) lawyer would find out what's on there. It would an incredibly weak bluff if plaintiff's is lying about its contents. It's a cornerstone of his case. A guy isn't going to base a lawsuit on an easily disproven piece of evidence's existence .

Do you think it's likely, or even possible, that plaintiff's lawyer would lie about the contents of the taped call in his submission of the suit? Why would he commit such an easily exposed lie?

Nope. His best outing was against Broncos, who had 20 starters in tee shirts.

Or just start a new "acquisition corporation" to sucker in more investor cash.

He knew a month ago. Maybe he's shook up because the public heard this story and reacted to them knowing a month ago? What pat are you claiming is inaccurate? She went to the cops, then the hospital then the cops had her make a pretext call and they taped it. You think the plaintiff will withdraw the suit now that he's been cut?? If that was true, why did he give the Bills a heads out the suit a month ago, knowing there was a strong possibility the outcome of that was Araiza getting cut? The suit was likely filed to prompt the SDPD, SDC DA to move the criminal case along after a lot of foot dragging.

Yeah, it’s real good for Matt. Lol. That’s such a bad lie.

The criminal case began the day after the alleged rape. 9 days later the cops were taking a pretext call to Araiza. The Bills firing was inevitable. The Bills knew a civil suit was coming weeks ago. Their “thorough investigation” would have made them aware of many of the details of the suit. Yet the still did nothing, other than cut last year’s punter. Then, after a massive and predictable PR disaster follows once the public is aware of what the Bills already knew about this whole thing, and with no new info….they cut him. Real class.

The plaintiffs lawyer says the Bill have not asked to speak to her. He contacted THEM weeks ago to give them a heads up that his client was filing a suit against Araiza. If he’s looking for big money, why would he take the chance that the Bills would cut him after hearing this?

You are handling it correctly. The alternative is that everyone will feel compelled to start a new thread about what HE/SHE just learned about this case, and wanted to let us all know. The whole first thread list page would be about a rookie Punter nope

Name any team where, after their stalwart Punter was cut, their collective psyche and chemistry were damaged..

It’s been reported everywhere (just read it in NYT) and her lawyer is saying so.

Again, the alleged victim didn’t refuse to speak with the Bills. The Bills never asked to speak with her,

Then the Bills should say they did an incomplete investigation

Where do I say that the Bills should ask the lawyer to do their investigation lol wtf? Simply interview the plaintiff.

So they should have instead said “our investigation was limited to only the counterclaims of Matt Araiza and what we could find out second hand from others”. Instead, they said it was “thorough”. That’s obviously a lie. And ridiculous.

She had already spoken publicly about her ordeal, plus the full details of her claim were known in the lawsuit. Why wouldn’t the lawyer let the Bills reach out to her, with the lawyer present?