JoPoy88

respectfully, we do know the girl is a victim based on her injuries and actions the following day. Unless she went to very extraordinary lengths to set up some kind of con, something very bad happened to her. So yes, she is a victim in my mind right now.

sorry wasn’t clear - there definitely direct evidence of the what - bodily injury and we know a rape kit was administered but don’t know the results yet. Something certainly terrible to this girl.

she certainly does. I don’t know WEO there’s parts of this story that sort of work in his favor and obviously some that are pretty damning.

long story short is the police just wrapped up their findings recently and passed them along to the DA. Which is not uncommon in cases with little direct evidence.

I think his side may cop to the oral intercourse outside the house, which she herself claimed was willing and consensual in her complaint, but deny everything that happened in the house. Which is why he’s only stated there was no “forcible” sex or however he phrased it.

he appears to be following the Buzbee playbook

For sure. The optics are infinitely worse now that the suit has been filed though.

I followed the same track as you.

just relaying what I’ve heard at this point. i’m certainly not considering what either side is alleging at this point as god’s honest word.

As far as I know Araiza’s lawyer was stating he has witnesses making statements claiming that the victim was saying she was 18 the night of the party.

I mean I definitely believe it, who in his position wouldn’t be. But that also begs the question - the HC is blindsided by this? When the team’s PR claims today that they knew about this and investigated it already? But they didn’t tell coach? Hmmm

this is all one side’s story - conjecture at this point. It also doesn’t explain her injuries.

so based on the clip of the statute someone posted up thread, mistake of age is a standard not an affirmative defense in CA, meaning he has no burden of proof to support it, the burden still remains on the prosecution. So he doesn’t have to provide any evidence in support of it.

it’s a very fuzzy defense but in CA it does apparently work from time to time. It doesn’t require direct evidence like a fake ID - setting and circumstance can be used as well.

par for the course for ol’ T

yes. I can kinda see how Araiza’s going to approach this - there was sex, it was “consensual” (in the non-legal sense) and non-violent. Also, he reasonably believed she was of age at the time so the statutory charge is beat.

he’s not wrong -he’s addressing the consent defense -there is none in statutory rape cases. there is the reasonable and honest belief defense in statutory cases, which is entirely another thing

that’s exactly why his lawyer is making those statements - he’s setting up that defense.

I’d assume they definitely have to bring a few guys in for a look-see at least.

very well could be true - just going off the plaintiff’s complaint as that’s the only thing down on paper at this point.

it was some room in his residence. I assume he had housemates so who knows.

not a problem it’s already a massive thread I get it

one more time for the peeps in the back: “Law enforcement personnel are allowed to legally record conversations that they are not a party to. Police officers may then legally use this evidence for criminal prosecutions. Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met: The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state, [and,] They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.” exceptions to every law…

1. there is no consent in “consensual” sex if the victim is too intoxicated. 2. There is no consent defense in cases of statutory rape.

that’s right. There’s also this: “Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met: The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state. They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”