Beck Water
-
Posts
12,336 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Beck Water
-
-
1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:
I’m not upset. There are people here that SERIOUSLY think the Bills should consider it. “I know that guy.” Those people lose a ton of credibility in my eyes. People are all over Jake Schum on Twitter as well. The Bills are the Super Bowl Favorite. They aren’t considering guys that last played in 2013 or 2016. They are going to upgrade from Haack. That was always the plan. It still is and there are a few options that are clear upgrades.
Such as?
-
5 hours ago, Motorin' said:
Oh, I see what you mean. I read it as a sarcastic dig at the Bills attorney for denying that the team had any knowledge of the accusations when Araiza's lawyer stated that they had already informed the Bills.
Like -- What a class act, she starts off by lying to me that she doesn't know anything about this...
I'm not saying his style isn't bombastic and unorthodox. But I've seen more contradictions from Araiza's lawyer. Like going on TV and saying "you better believe" Araiza informed the NFL pre-draft.
I took it the other way - that he formed some respect for D'Angelo, feels she genuinely didn't know, and was taking a dig at Araiza's lawyer for claiming he'd fully informed the Bills when he hadn't.
Since (as you note) we've seen other contradictions from Araiza's lawyer, it's not unbelievable to me that he'd mix up or mistake the timing and extent of his communicatons
But
It's also possible he and Araiza were talking to (say) Beane, and there was a communication gap within the organization where D'Angelo wasn't in the loop. Maybe COO Raccuia or her boss Gregg Brandon knew but didn't inform her.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Starr Almighty said:
He didn't call the Bills lawyer a class act? And then said they had their heads in the sand? Please interpret that correctly for me.
I think what he meant (and keep in mind the opinion I've stated of this guy):
-He formed a favorable opinion of Kathryn D'Angelo during his conversation and email exchange with her
-She told him she wasn't aware of the criminal investigation or potential lawsuit Araiza was facing)
-Araiza's attorney has said that Matt and he were communicating with the team from the time he was hired, 6 weeks ago
I think in the plaintiff attorney's mind, he's dunking on Araiza's attorney and Araiza for misrepresenting their communication with the Bills
IMO it's equally or more likely that there are communication gaps across lines that this situation revealed and that things known to Beane and the football side might not have been fully and promptly communicated to Legal, things communicated to Legal and the business side might not have been fully communicated to the football side, etcetera
-
6 hours ago, SCBills said:
I think he has a point about what Bruce said. Dude played through cracked ribs in the playoffs and here comes Bruce Smith to tell you you don’t care about your teammates unless you do this.
Other than that.. agreed. I like Cole. Like the stand he took. But he never stops talking…
I liked Cole as a player and I have no problem with his personal choice to not get vaccinated.
But it seems ironic to me that he has a problem with Bruce Smith expressing his personal opinion while claiming the same right for himself.
Getting "testy"
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
He hasn't admitted to that, that is the recollection of the pretext call being used in the lawsuit by the victim. Maybe that is true but as it stands it is currently disputed.
you give me faith. in a thread where people who raise factual points are being teed off on by people with opposing viewpoints, you persist in calmly pointing out the fact: the lawsuit is a set of allegations, even if they are stated and set forth as factual and refer to recorded calls (which the police, not the plaintiff, have).
If the lawsuit states Araiza said that on tape, at this point it is still an allegation
-
4
-
-
45 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
Not so sure - surely that suggests she was incapcitated which implies she could not give consent? Though they'll have to rely on witnesses and the rape kit to get to the bottom of what happened.
It definitely says she was unable to give consent, and yes that means they'll have to rely on witnesses and other evidence - photos, videos etc to build a case. It's harder.
45 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:And that could be why the alleged victim's attorney actions are suggesting that Araiza is not to be issued criminal charges. If both parties agree they had consensual sex earlier in the evening, and there are no witnesses placing him in the room (which is what the defence attorney claims) then they would possibly struggle to acquire enough evidence to charge.
I will add that the DA office obviously has all the evidence, and the above is piecing social media comments with the excellent post from an attorney made yesterday on here, breaking down the case. So I may be well off.
I think you're talking about this post, which I agree was a rare insight by someone who knows something.
She or he says "I infer that there aren’t going to be charges forthcoming against MA, which is interesting because so-called statutory rape is practically a strict liability crime, and the proffering of an affirmative defense doesn’t usually dissuade a prosecutor from levying charges. The accuser’s/victim’s attorney would be in the loop regarding the charging decision, and the likely decision not to charge resulted in the filing of the civil suit. In a case like this, a prosecutor is not going to want to expose their complainant to adverse examination in a civil arena, either at trial or in depositions. You don’t want your witness pinned down under oath in advance of your trial, especially given the much higher criminal burden of proof."
That seems reasonable on the face of it, but this lawyer has already done a bunch of things that (as I understand it from practicing attorneys) are unexpected or considered poor practice. For example, putting her journal out on the Interwebs; publicizing settlement discussions; etc.
So possibly, the reasonable inferences of an experienced attorney may be less predictive here.
The victim's attorney states that they've heard nothing from the DA or the police
15 minutes ago, Warcodered said:From the lawsuit the victim claims to have told him she was a minor making it non consensual automatically and also claims to have been drugged by him.
Gene is back! Apparently he disagrees with a factual statement of claims in the lawsuit. 🙄
29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:In the statement the lawyer claims that Araiza raped her
Claims he was in the room where she was raped, anyway.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dr.Sack said:
The plaintiffs attorney comment yesterday on the Bills “putting their heads in the sand” is weird. Instead of using the news of Araiza’s release as evidence in his favor public opinion, he took a low blow at a standup Org. Meanwhile SDSU and local LE likely helped cover up the allegation. Misplaced anger is real.
Personally I think that guy has an ego that would fill SoFi stadium capacity all by itself, with room left for Matt Stafford but not Matt Stafford's helmet
This may sound victim-blaming and I'm sorry if so, that's not how it's intended. When a guy's client brings the police "I can barely even remember" "what the hell did they do to me in there?" "my neck is disgusting, I don't know if they are hickies or bruises" "not really sure what happened next" "I don't remember" "everything else is very hazy" "I don't think I was even awake", it is absolutely not her fault that rapists raped her, but from a law enforcement and prosecution point of view, she's handing them a steep uphill climb to build a case that will sustain charges.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:
As a man of principles, perhaps McD’s faith in humanity was shaken by the cacophony of the media swarming like hyenas on a freshly killed carcass.
I think McDermott has witnessed his share of swarming hyenas in the press and on social media, including in response to situations like the Shady McCoy bar fight and home invasion accusations or even lesser things like Josh Allen's texts or Jake Fromm's texts.
I don't think he says "It’s not easy to hear about some of the things that I’ve heard about over the last, several hours, say. Haven’t slept a lot to be honest" because of press and social media clamor.
McDermott also wasn't the only person shaken - remember Keenum "Still processing a lot of it" and Barkley "Some of that stuff is hard to read. There's a lot to work through"
But YMMV
-
17 minutes ago, SCBills said:
Yo, Beasley.....how's that "interest from multiple teams" worked out since this July 27 report?
Says here you're still a free agent
I hear you're down to praising Dan Campbell as an "awesome coach to play for" from your living room
https://www.si.com/nfl/lions/news/cole-beasley-praises-dan-campbell
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
Do you know the Bills at all the hosses at work? It didn't sound that way to me. Sounded like Beane said "we looked at it at the end of July, learned what we could, and then we waited."
I think you may have misunderstood my comment "This is me using all the powers of 20-20 hindsight, but I think the Bills put all the Hosses they can on the investigation, and see what they can turn up between July 30 and August 23. And if you haven't turned up anything definitive by the time the roster cuts to 80, you quietly cut Araiza and keep Haack and put out some performance-related reasons for the choice. Haack is the more reliable holder, Haack is the more experienced and proficient directional punter and their analysis indicates that may be critical more often than a booming punt may be, Araiza is a fine player who can have a long career in the NFL but that's our decision today. And if you're not happy with Haack, keep your eye on the cut-out bin, bring in FA/look for trades, and swap."
I can see that I wrote ambiguously, but I meant "with 20-20 hindsight, this is what I think the Bills should have done: put all the Hosses they can...."
I would like to think that the Bills put all the hosses to work, but actually, no, I agree with you - I don't think they did. The key was that initially they said "thorough examination". I think that means D'Angelo and Brandon and maybe others in Raccuia's line reviewed the lawyer's communications, Araiza's lawyer's communications and perhaps exculpatory evidence he presented, reviewed their area scout's deep background pre-draft. They may have (and should have) engaged an investigator in San Diego to talk to the people whose evidence Araiza was relying on, talk to contacts in the SDPD and DA's office, hang out and talk to people on the team. But no, I don't think it was a full-court press and I think Beane was "kept in the loop" but getting summaries and not looking over primary documents; I think McDermott was getting "high level summaries" other than maybe talking directly to Araiza again.
I don't think anyone was monitoring the Interwebs or social media to see what was out there, which is bizarre to me but I've personally run into bigger communication gaps in large organizations so....
19 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:Finally, one chair or two. I think it was completely clear, both days, that McDermott was not comfortable delivering the agreed up messages. He was really struggling to find words. Someone in the organization, someone who was prepping McDermott or maybe McDermott himself, finally said no, we can't put him out there alone. I saw somewhere that Beane was flying into Buffalo yesterday afternoon - probably stayed in Carolina to be with friends or family. So, they rushed him back, because if it wasn't going to be McD and it wasn't going to be Pegula, it had to be Beane. I think you're correct, that he wasn't as well prepared as we're used to. He hadn't been in the room with people for the previous 24 hours, talking about it.
I hadn't read that Beane was flying into Buffalo yesterday afternoon. I think that explains the press conference delay right there. Perhaps he had a flight delay or missed a connection, and then when he arrived he needed to regroup and get prepared.
19 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:I loved it when Beane said, "Look, Sean's a coach and I'm a GM, and we need help on stuff like this."
And that's a very fair point
11 minutes ago, Doc said:
From conferring with legal experts, former DAs, etc. Or as was speculated, the DA declined to press charges.If the SD DA has declined, they certainly haven't said so officially. To the contrary, they say charges are still under consideration.
Legal experts and former DAs are fine people, but without the details of exactly what the SDPD has in that file, are their opinions of great value?
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, K-9 said:
I think he is destined for the PS. If the Giants claim him off the PS then don’t the Bills have to sign him to the 53 or lose him or does that rule not apply to vested vets? I’m inclined to believe the Bills don’t wanna carry three QBs on the 53.
Agree entirely that Barkley would wanna have more fun on a SB contender.
PS players are free agents. If another team offers to sign any player, vested or not, the player has the choice to sign, or to say "no thanks, I'm Good here."
Of course, there's enough of a pay raise that for a young player the motivation to take it is strong.
-
24 minutes ago, Doc said:
I think they investigated it and were confident that no criminal charges against Araiza would be forthcoming, so they went ahead and cut Haack. Then to their surprise, the lawyer filed the civil suit and it blew up on them.
And I can see McD believing and being devastated by what happened to the girl when she was gang-raped, but that's separate from her interaction with Araiza prior to that.
That could be. I'm not quite sure how confident they can be about the "no criminal charges" when the DA just got the file August 5th. But it's possible.
-
15 minutes ago, Rico said:
Two scrubs, I will wait for Sully's take.
If you really want to win a prize-winning character assassination piece, strap on Matt Fairburn's article in The Athletic.
I'm not linking it, but the headline is "Fairburn: Bills’ handling of Matt Araiza undermined trust".
A key piece of ASS U ME tion in it:
"McDermott said of the accuser’s words, “We did take those very seriously. I want everyone to understand that. That’s a serious deal there.” But he also went on a podcast with Barstool Sports weeks after hearing those accusations and happily referred to Araiza as “The Punt God,” called him a fan favorite and said he is a “great kid.”
Fairburn just assumes that when the lawyer called Bills counsel Kathryn D'Angelo, he was given and read a transcript of the conversation.
It's at least an equally good assumption, and IMO from McDermott's very visceral and emotional reaction to the lawsuit actually more plausible, that he was being exposed to most of those accusations for the first time.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
If they're really in it for you he money, they'd go after the deep pockets. San Diego State University. Not after a punter who hasn't even gotten a paycheck yet.
One of the best posts in the "lawsuit" thread, from a litigator, mentioned just this point, and suggested there may be some barrier to having included them in the suit.
I will say I know of at least one lawsuit over an off-campus gang rape that was moved on-campus, where the university was yet excluded from the lawsuit by an appeals court. And this action was 100% off-campus. So there may be a body of legal precedent there? But I dunno, I would think you would try it nonetheless and force the university to fight it off.
Strange strategies overall.
-
5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
So, what were they supposed to do? Believe me, I'm not arguing
Fair question, keeping in mind that they have a kid's career in their hands and the "Golden Rule" is "treat people as you want to be treated". None of us wants to be at the "Choo! Choo!" end of a railroad op.
This is me using all the powers of 20-20 hindsight, but I think the Bills put all the Hosses they can on the investigation, and see what they can turn up between July 30 and August 23. And if you haven't turned up anything definitive by the time the roster cuts to 80, you quietly cut Araiza and keep Haack and put out some performance-related reasons for the choice. Haack is the more reliable holder, Haack is the more experienced and proficient directional punter and their analysis indicates that may be critical more often than a booming punt may be, Araiza is a fine player who can have a long career in the NFL but that's our decision today.
And if you're not happy with Haack, keep your eye on the cut-out bin, bring in FA/look for trades, and swap.
Why take the risk of having a major distraction break over the team during the season due to your punter?
5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:Let's play out the scenario. So, the Bills circle back five or seven days later and ask if there's anything new? The Bills are told "no, we continue to work on our civil complaint." Now what? Bills ask if they can interview the woman, and the lawyer says either no or yes, but on the following condition: NOTHING she says in your interview can be used as part of your defense if she chooses to sue you. At which point the Bills say, "whoa, you're thinking of suing US? We're out of here, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers."
I think that's a bit far fetched. For one thing, friends and acquaintance who are attorneys tell me NO WAY that lawyer is going to allow his client to be deposed or even freely interviewed by the Bills. The most they get is to listen to her read a statement, or just get a written statement emailed to them. Why? Because with a criminal case pending and a civil suit pending, anything she says to the Bills would be discoverable and could be scrutinized for contradictions to challenge her credibility, and experienced lawyers know that it's very very difficult for a witness to avoid anything that can be challenged in an open-ended interview.
I think the key point here is for the Bills to gain as much understanding as they can of this lawyer's intentions and motivations. To do that, you keep the lines of communication open and just see what you can get. Personally, from what he's presented on social media, he seems a guy that I'd want to keep a barrel of bleach handy to disinfect my ears after speaking to, but Ya Gotta do What Ya Gotta Do for the good of the club.
5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:So, I think I just convinced myself. Bills should have been more proactive after first learning of it in July. They should have checked with her lawyer, and Araiza's lawyer, asking if there are any developments. That way, at least, they might get advance notice of the filing of the suit. Keep pursuing it in any way you can, just the way your scouts track down old coaches and other people. Talk to the coaches at his college, talk his teammates. Keep Haack on the team. Then, when you get to this weekend, when final cuts are made, you make a decision. Maybe you've learned enough to know that the whole thing is dying, or has settled quietly. You keep Araiza. Or, you've learned nothing new (where the Bills were a few days ago), and decide you don't want to risk a November scenario, so you cut him and keep Haack.
Pretty well where I am except I woulda done it this week, so that I can reach out to punter's agents and teams who might trade and schedule things. Because I think it's pretty clear the Bills were not happy standing pat with Haack. So unless you have a clear resolution for Araiza, you keep Haack and keep looking.
5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:I also think you have to assume that their decision making was guided (not directed, but guided) by the League. Beane did mention being in touch with the League, and you can be sure the league was over it. All of the NFL's marketing has the Bills shown as a marquee name, and they don't want a sex scandal associated with that marketing. It's a good bet that the Bills dug exactly as deep as the NFL suggested. Beane didn't say, "the NFL made some suggestions, but we decided they weren't overkill." The NFL was no doubt very clear about how they thought it should be handled, and I can't imagine that these managers - Beane and McDermott - would not do at least what the league suggested.
I think it's a very safe bet the league weighed in on this. Good points.
5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:One final thought, off the subject. Where was Terry Pegula in this? Did he tell Beane and McD to handle it and keep him out of it? I might have thought he would have participated in a press conference, saying how important these issues are in the country, and how concerned Kim and Terry are about them. Which leads to the bigger question: Where's Kim? Was there news that I missed one day? We haven't heard a word, so far as I know, and now Terry is AWOL. I wonder if Beane and McDermott have been left in charge of the place while Terry and Kim are dealing with some tough stuff. Beane and McDermott probably are working under a lot of pressure. That may explain why even Beane had trouble handling that press conference.
Terry has a past history of not taking the stage when perhaps he should at difficult moments (the Rex Ryan firing). But I think it's very possible that one or both of them weighed in strongly and drove the final decision.
I think Beane had trouble handling that press conference because he didn't plan to go out there. Originally one chair in the original room. I think they were both being prepped and briefed by lawyers, the communications people, and perhaps someone from the league office on what to say and how to say it, and McDermott balked and said "not going out there alone". So I think Beane was less prepared than usual in a situation where sticking to the script was more important than usual, so he spent more time checking his notes.
-
43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
They didn't ignore anything.
They clearly investigated it all.
I mean, I believe (or hope) that they investigated and investigated hard and thoroughly... but that's my belief.
I can''t say "they clearly investigated it all", because if they did, and read the details in the 29 July LA Times article, why was McDermott so devastated?
43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:People need to understand something that is sadly not going to matter because he's already a rapist. Araiza's livelihood was literally in their hands - releasing him before their own investigation and before anything came to the surface would have cemented this kid as guilty
If the Bills cut him some August 5th afternoon completely out of nowhere - they've just told the public he's guilty.
I think this is a false dichotomy. The Bills had the opportunity to quietly cut Araiza either with the initial roster cut-down to 85 almost 2 weeks ago or the second cut down to 80 on Tuesday. All they had to do was release him and keep Haack and make a statement about both punting very well, but choosing the experienced holder and directional punter over the high-ceiling "boomer".
No one would have blinked, there would be no presumption of guilt.
I'm not sure what you mean by "he's already a rapist". If you mean he's already convicted in the Court of Social Media, I sadly agree with you and think that's despicable.
43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:The more I think about this the more convinced I am the Bills couldn't have handled it any better.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.
-
1 minute ago, SCBills said:
I actually buy this, and it doesn’t change my opinion of Beane at all.. because I truly believe he has no clue if Araiza did it or not.
That makes sense to cut Haack after learning about this, to speed up the lawyers timeline of playing his hand.
Thus allowing us to be in the position we are now, which is the ability to get a good punter off cutdowns or via trade if the lawyer pulled the trigger.
Also, avoiding this happening the day before a game.
It’s calculated af, but I’m not passing any moral judgments because Beane likely feels like most us do… sickened by the allegation, but with no clue whether any of it pertaining to Araiza is accurate.
I think the holier than thou crowd may be a little surprised at how many times that approach to a player (banking on allegations never going public) panned out.
The thing that wouldn't make sense to me about all this is....
.....the Bills could have simply kept Haack, scrutinized the cut-down list and potential trades/FA for an upgrade punter, and *totally avoided* all the distress and angst that McDermott plainly went through and that the team went through (judging by Barkley and Keenum)
I'm sure you're correct that the "banking on allegations not going public" approach has worked more often than we know, and teams have gambled on it to obtain a competitive advantage from a superior player. Is Araiza really such a superior punter that the competitive advantage he provides to the Bills is worth the PR Sword of Damocles hanging over him? As people have said, we didn't punt that much last year, and there are other aspects to punting where he's "developing" (like directional control, ability to punt short and pin a team deep, and of course holding)
-
1
-
-
Just now, UKBillFan said:
And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient.
So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media.
Actually, the best explanation to all this might be "Unpredictable Behavior of Crazed Rabid Litigator"
I think that guy is trolling Araiza in the media, same has he's trashing Beane in the Bills
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
What changed was the law suit was actually filed and it became a national story. The team became heavily scrutinized and it obviously became a distraction. If none of that happens then I’m sure Araiza is still on the team.Right. But Beane kind of cast this as "they wanted time to investigate/due process/only allegations/boulders not details"
My point is exactly what you stated: they seem to have cut Araiza because it had become a national story with huge negative PR and a distracting/distressing impact on the coaches and team.
Of course, I can not rule out that they uncovered some new information that contradicted Araiza's story and made him less credible, or information that criminal charges are likely.
2 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?
Well, there was that text where Araiza's lawyer said his parents wanted to know what amount the client had in mind. So I'm inferring that Araiza did not have a conversation with them saying "I will not settle".
-
3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.
Oh, Gee. I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me. (I'm assuming you mean plaintiff's attorney, as Araiza is the defendent)
I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do, because this is actually a relatively good time for this to come out, vs. during the regular season. I would NOT play poker with that man.
I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing. I felt awful watching him in those two pressers.
I guess overall, I don't think Beane would bet that poker hand. It obviously had a huge impact on the mood of the team and on McDermott and his ability to coach/focus.
I think the Bills Brain Trust, meaning in this instance Gregg Brandon and legal, and Raccuia with Beane being in the loop, honestly assessed this as a "cash grab" move and did not believe that a civil lawsuit would be filed.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:
How much are they asking for in the lawsuit?
It has to be quite a bit or why wouldn’t he just pay whatever the offer that was withdrawn was?A specific sum is not named
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
Sounds like they spoke to both sides, started to look into it more themselves and took the wait and see approach.Absolutely. So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?
This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed. I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.
It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape. They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.
So what changed? It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times. What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit. That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".
When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen? What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
None of us know what the Bills knew. Plenty of conjecture though.
You're correct that none of us know what the Bills knew or when.
All of us can see the 29 July LA Times article that was published, with graphic and specific details about Jane Doe's condition and mention of the lawyer by name and his intention to file a civil suit. So the Bills knew, or could have known, all of those details then.
Then they received a phone call and a follow up email from the lawyer on July 30/August 1.
I'm not going to second-guess the Bills on not talking to that attorney again or asking to talk to the victim - her lawyer's words were they didn't "ask for her statement", there is very very low likelihood that the Bills would have been allowed by her lawyer to interview the victim
But it is a point that by not circling back to the lawyer or asking to talk to the victim, the Bills left some sources of information untapped.
-
20 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
Was there even a civil suit when the Bills first spoke with the lawyer? Or was it a conversation about the potential of a suit? My understanding is that there wasn’t a suit at the time.You are correct, there was not a civil suit at the time. However, the lawyer had given graphic details to the LA Times (without naming the defendents) and stated that he was preparing to file a civil suit, the day before he called the Bills
Which can be seen two ways:
1) Oh, surely not .... you will want to settle so you get money
or
2) The warning rattle of a rattlesnake, indicating that biting is imminent if you don't exercise due care
The Bills seem to have chosen Door Number One.
Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.
in Off the Wall
Posted
Because in this case, Tim Graham is wrong