4merper4mer

Do you actually think that faster processing of rape kits will solve everything and eradicate rapists from our streets? Don’t get me wrong, I agree that faster processing, as long as accuracy standards are maintained, is desirable, but to ascribe results like you have done above is inaccurate. 50-ish years ago, DNA analysis didn’t even exist. It has clearly help solve many cases of all types…..rape, murder, everything……determining guilt and sometimes proving innocence. It is one of many ways crimes are solved, I’ll use video surveillance as another example that wasn’t really around until fairly recently. There are many. Evidence in a chain has to be maintained properly…..remember OJ? Processing has to be accurate. It is my impression….possibly incorrect…..that there are skills involved in DNA analysis aren’t easy to come by and thus there is a backlog. Technicians don’t grow on trees. Should we have them work 24/7? Should we put cameras in every wall of everyone’s home and record everything they do? That could be a solution and might even be less expensive. What could go wrong? All the DNA tests in the world are not going to prevent parties like the one on that film from happening and 17 year old girls showing up. That’s another problem altogether.

But we should be happy Tim Graham and the mob expect Beane to get to the truth in a week or so. That way they can get lots of clicks and prove that they are the most virtuous people on the planet.

The tape, if that girl in it is really the victim, makes this story even sadder……somehow. Yes she made an error in judgement attending that party. In an odd way it displays how everyone’s guard was down, because it was a chaotic rah rah party atmosphere with everyone seeming carefree and friendly. Clearly this was not the actual case. It’s awful beyond words. To me, in an environment like that it seems more plausible than before that something horrific like what she described happened. A few people in a massive crowd, with an evil plan whether premeditated or executed on the spur of the moment. Disgusting. I imagined…..not sure why…..a party that was a lot different than that hellscape. Does that make it more or less likely that if she was indeed thrown into a room to get raped that Araiza was the one who did that? I’m not sure how anyone could think it helps prove either side’s story. On the one hand he has apparently confirmed his presence and his attorney has stated….I haven’t see this but others on here have…..that Araiza had consensual sex with her, which connects them. On the other, it sure seems to me that a lot of things about that night would be cloudy in someone’s memory. If she was filmed before meeting Araiza, it shows her already impaired, if she was filmed after, it calls her story into question completely. To me, it exposes both lawyers as liars….beyond being the idiots that they have already shown themselves to be. This is the least surprising aspect of seeing the tape. I could have guessed it already. I’m wondering how the “Beane should have acted more quickly” crowd feels after watching this tape. Beane stated he was trying to get to the truth in order to do the right thing, The assertion of several on here is that he could have easily gotten to the heart of the matter by employing more “investigation resources”….you know, call around to some witnesses and get the straight scoop…..easy peasy. I’m wondering now if they see what a joke their premise was. I don’t expect much but more descriptions of how Beane should have gone about his job and turned over all the stones. Yeah ok.

Can you name a current team that meets your standards for success as an overall team, success at the RB position and an RB stable which has had a proper amount of resource expenditure?

Not only is he an idiot, he’s an idiot who is going to burn a boatload of money.

Oh my God to they watch things before putting them on air? A second chance and some deep pockets for her idiot lawyer. ABCWTF

Lots of ways to sneak him into the roster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6BP8fexNXw

It says an increase of 127,978 people which doesn’t sound like a lot but all of them are Canadian.

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting. Both of them are all over the floor. There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent. Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots. Your speculation about the victim wanting consequences instead of money is as good as any other speculation and personally, it makes sense to me especially from her perspective. It doesn’t line up however with some other things the lawyer has said. At one point he started calling the Bills enablers, which may suggest trying to cast a wider financial net. I don’t think anyone has even tried to make sense of some of the stuff her lawyer has done. I don’t disagree, just reporting what he is saying. I do find it somewhat believable that he answered a question without actually listening to it because he is a moron.

Although I agree with your overall assessment of both attorneys, this lawyer did later correct himself claiming he misunderstood the “before the draft” portion of the question.

The copying is annoying I suppose but they are also creating new Canadians. That’s a real problem.

Collins I’d their 2 but your point still holds.

Wrt to your first two lines I have no demand for you to anything. I simply pointed out the unprofessional nature of reporters in the presser. You not watching doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Some may have written viable articles but ignoring that does not make the unprofessionalism disappear. A difference of opinion is one thing. You making statements that are factually incorrect and me pointing that out does not constitute a difference of opinion. How do you know what ways the team explored or did not explore to distance themselves from Araiza. You literally have no idea what they did or did not do. You haven’t even claimed to know and yet you still stand in judgement.

I mean seriously do you own a mirror? We’re all supposed to defer to you because you read a few articles but you can’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt about what was said in a press conference? It’s not as if the recording is hard to find. But you’re not being self righteous? Geez dude. it is not my opinion that your solutions are unattainable as they would be in direct violation of league rules. Otherwise defined as a fact. And the stones question came from me as part of a post to which you responded, but only to a different portion. If on a computer, use the mouse to scroll up a bit, if on an iPad, use your finger.

No. You’re wrong. When you say “lots of information was available to them” how do you back that up? Based on what? And please qualify that as objective information and reassess how much was available. A court filing is a formal document the plaintiff intends to back up in a legal setting. A list of allegations, even if they say the exact same thing, need not be held to any standard at all by the complainant. There is a huge difference. The plaintiff’s lawyer is not an objective source of info and neither is Araiza and his legal team. SDPD is, but they could not help the Bills. Then you go on to accuse the Bills of trying to sweep a gang rape under the rug despite a multi year track record that seems to indicate that is something they would never do. I share your curiosity about how much McD initially knew as opposed to Beane and the Bills legal team. Based on the conversations I find it possible that there could be a gap there even though I hope not. I agree there is a world of difference between Allen’s stuff and the accusations about Araiza. The similar part is that both were assertions from sources that could not be objectively verified. So how serious of an assertion is enough to avoid drafting someone or keeping them on the team? Racist tweet assertions aren’t enough, gang rape assertions are more than enough. Where is the middle? A rumor of armed robbery? And what source is valid or invalid? If I call an anonymous tip line tonight and say Mac Jones is an arsonist and link a Boston Globe story about buildings in Foxboro burning down, should Jones career be halted? You make this out to be very simple but it is far from it. The entire process took a total of less than a month for the Bills. You don’t think that is quick enough. How long should it have taken?

Beane addressed that as well. Did you watch the press conference? If not you should. He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation. That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism. The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement. But in reality they had no way of knowing that. They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well. I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press. I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released. Oh, and what about drafting Allen? Still ok? Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal. Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded. We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

Goodbye to you too. You answered a question about something a reporter said that was demonstrably false and inflammatory by saying who cares if he didn’t write it. You’ve continued to state in generalities that the Bills should have done more and implied this would have been simple. You are completely wrong about that. You demand answers from everyone else, state solutions that are proven to be unattainable then hop to additional unattainable solutions. Why should I treat your question about Brady seriously when you so easily and with ridiculous premise dismiss the question about the reporter? Because you used to work in the newspaper industry and I just don’t understand? For Pete’s sake dude. You know that Brady asked for the time off right? You know that Araiza did not ask for time off right? You know Brady and Araiza’s league stature are slightly different right? Your question was stupid and it deserved the exact response it got. Oh, and you didn’t answer the stones question because you are clueless about what the Bills did or did not do in their investigation, yet you still stand in judgement of it.

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed. It was an 11 page document. Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature. So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player? And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny? And it will have no impact if these things turn out false? If so, where do you draw the line? Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen? He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft. They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him? Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that. So where is the line drawn? Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

The “I won six Super Bowls” rule. “No stones unturned” is a lazy platitude and too general to be useful. Please name a stone, how the Bills should have turned it over and whether it is plausible that they actually did but still found no answers.

That article contained a grand total of zero names. So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney? The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call. So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call? The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above. The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it. Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it. So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth. What am I missing? What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?

I think one possibility is that the lawyer was seeking cash but that the client saw cash as secondary and Araiza being held accountable as primary. I’m not sure how we’re supposed to know motivations outside of guessing, but this is one of the possibilities. One thing I do know: whatever the objective, her lawyer is an absolute moron and Araiza’s is at best two points higher on the IQ scale.

Ok well that clears it up a little. Was Araiza’s name…or anyone’s named in the article? Did the article have actual information from the internal real police report of an ongoing investigation or just third party information about what was supposedly in the report? Are you aware of an organization called the NFLPA and rules of engagement to which teams are bound in similar situations? You are essentially saying, and please tell me if I’m wrong, that the accusations on their own were enough to let him go or at least it would be easy to get to the truth once the allegations triggered the start of the investigation. Correct? Yet, the SDPD cannot share information and the college didn’t seem to have a lot because they had to defer to SDPD. So all information came from either the victim’s lawyer, or Araiza’s lawyer both of whom have proven themselves to be idiots and clearly neither is objective. Add NFL rules, NFLPA issues, whatever relationship had developed with Araiza and their impression of him as a person, what is certain to be their disgust with the underlying topic and tell me again how this was supposed to be a simple thing to handle? And please don’t bring up Haack because Araiza or no Araiza it is very possible that he was a goner anyway. In the end, they released him in a way that did not communicate any of their underlying feelings……which would be based on very limited objective information….about his guilt or innocence. They stated they thought it was best, not only for the team, but for Araiza and all involved to part ways. They stated that resolving this should be more important for Araiza than football. If they had communicated their underlying feelings of his guilt or innocence in any way THAT would have been an egregious error. The mob of moron reporters simply wanted either inside information that the Bills either did not know or are not at liberty to share, or blood. Giving in to that crap would have been dumb. Beane did say they made a mistake saying “thorough” when it should have been “ongoing”. Just guessing here but they may have actually thought they were thorough but they found out they weren’t, or nothing revealed in their initial investigation has been proven wrong at this point. It is impossible to know here. What is easy to know is that the press pool has stated several easily refutable things as facts and prescribed what they saw as appropriate remedies based on those supposed facts. They are idiots.

Out of curiosity why would a member of the Bills front office wake up in the morning in early June in Western NY and randomly type “San Diego State Rape” in Google? Should it have come to them in a dream? Should they randomly search topics on Google every day? Should they have also searched “Terrel Bernard murder investigation “ just in case?

Shirley you can’t be serious. Why are reporters not subject to stupid, reckless, irresponsible things they say? That’s just flat out ridiculous. And some of your opinions about remedies have been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing NFL rules. Those have ceased being opinions. They are simply wrong.

McD’s style is different and he wears his heart on his sleeve a bit. I think his presser let his heart show through which was probably tough because there were very limited specific things he was able to say.