JoPoy88

depends. Are they clients?

thank you. Of course it’s completely common. There were a bunch of Halloween parties the night in question. Campus police aren’t spread in and around the college IDing people on the streets.

they’ve only sided with him up to this point. Yes, the team claims they did an investigation. Who knows how thorough it was? Was it Browns-level thorough, where they didn’t interview a single victim? NFL teams have tons of financial resources to conduct these things, but little to no power to convince or compel people to talk to them. Who knows how they landed after this private investigation. Now that this is public, the optics are entirely different. The fact that they stuck with him up to today means little.

lotta “shoulds” in there. Fortunately the law doesn’t agree with you.

that’s been asked all over the place today - it does and it doesn’t. Araiza was a phenom and a star in college, sure. But he was the beneficiary of a lot of hype by college reporters at The Ringer and other places for his huge leg. NFL scouts may have had differing grades on the him and the other guys taken. The Bills only learned about this July 30, well after the draft. Did other teams know sooner, pre-draft and affect their grades? Possibly.

EWWWWW man. what the hell

there are no criminal charges yet

exactly that’s why I passed no judgment or offered any opinion on Matt. I simply don’t know yet

From what I understand, his attorney now speaking on his case is a criminal defense attorney. He hasn’t even retained a civil litigator yet (which is an astonishing lack of foresight.) So I agree, the fact that he and his representation c**ked this up is bad, but not surprising.

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.