UKBillFan

Learned new information from the moment the civil lawsuit was released which they were not aware of previously.

They claim they did, so are you saying Beane and McDermott are lying?

This is putting two and two together and I could well make five from this. I think this is the case, for the defense attorney, which broke the camel's back. He has seemingly overseen more than one case where there have been alleged rape's and/or sexual assualts where Araiza's attorney has helped to get the defendants off; he referred to "two predators" in a previous tweet. Now there's a third, with one of the alleged perpetartors being plastered over the thread as "Punt God" and "Hold God". Araiza's attorney is presumably taking a similar approach which he took previously. The DA department has just received the material and is going through it but, based on the civil charge, there may already be an implication that Araiza, at least, will not be charged. He's had enough of what he sees sports people and/or men get off on crimes he believes they've committed, especially after having to deal with vulnerable alleged victims, who may be upset, blaming themselves, and under pressure from society who deem them as "not being able to keep their legs shut", a comment which has been posted on here today. It has tipped him over the edge and his emotion has taken over reason. His intention might have been to hurt Araiza's career. In the long term I am concerned, by arguably letting his emotions run unchecked, he's hurt his client's case more.

I'm not sure if He can help in this case.

This is painful to watch from a QB point of view. Hope Taylor is ok.

Can you explain how they tried to sneak one under the bench?

Yes, I feel the whole thing was to get Araiza cut, but I'm not sure if it's the best for this client long term.

Yes, so logically you would not raise a civil case whilst a criminal charge is still possible.

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. Some comments seem to contradict other things being 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?

That's what the defense attorney says. But someone with knowledge and experience on here (with the best post on this thread bar none) suggested that issuing a civil claims means they have been advised that the DA will not criminally charge Araiza. If they were, then putting the alleged victim through a civil case before could open up too many questions and counter-claims which might leave it almost possible to get a verdict in criminal court. Further to this, rape cases in the US take an average of ten months to go from accusation to charge - we've only just got to that point, time wise, now.

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.

I don't think they were investigating him at all. As said somewhere before, different teams have different sources - college coaches and coordinators who have links to franchises. When looking at SD players something may have been mentioned in passing to a trusted source which they quickly moved on from. All speculation, and I'm just trying to put two and two together of the back of Wawrow's report as that's what he said - two franchises knew of an incident but were not in the market for a punter.

Reportedly, in this case the execs in question were not in the market for a punter, so it was not of interest to them to investigate further.

Exactly. The way some are speaking it sounds like they've been proven.

But attorneys, with experience of the law, tend to guide clients what the goal should be. In this case, the advice probably is staying out of prison/being found not guilty is more important than staying on the Bills roster.

Any proof of any of this or are we jumping to conclusions... again?

He'll be placed on the practice squad and it's highly unlikely anyone will come in for him.

The civil claim was made on Thursday - that's when it was picked up by the wider media.

In an incident but they did not know the severity of it. How would theconversation have gone? Exec: Araiza may have been been involved in an incident. NFL: What kind of incident? Exec: No idea. NFL: Is it serious? Exec: No idea. NFL: Are any other people involved? Exec: No idea. NFL: Could it raise questions about his personal conduct? Exec: No idea. NFL: Well... thanks.

That first sentence. Wow. Just... wow.

What do you reckon we'll do? Run a training camp of sorts with those interested - perhaps see how they work with holding for Bass?

It's possible the Bills told him not too. Or his attorney (who isn't much better than the alleged victim's attorney) did. For his job, it might have been better to speak out. For his chances in court, it may be better to keep quiet for now other than the controlled statements.

We got through last year with Haack. OK, maybe we had higher hopes via the draft, but now we're in a position where we have to make the best of a bad situation. There are and will be adequate punters out there.

Araiza could have held a press conference and gone through each step of the lawsuit, denying each in turn. He still would have been cut.