UKBillFan

A punter is still a human being. Decisions being made shouldn’t be based on the role on the team.

Problem is they’ve already released a press release stating that an investigation has been done. Something else will have to come out for them to go down the misled route, especially if, for the moment, the majority of the roster support the stance taken.

The key thing is the Bills we’re aware of this at the end of July, carried out an internal investigation and still decided to cut Haack over Araiza. They think they know something we don’t know and, like I said last night, they’re staking the culture and process on it. For their sakes, they better be right.

It feels like to me that the alleged victim’s attorney has a real issue with Araiza’s attorney. And he’s making a big thing about money, in the tweets and published texts, if it has nothing to do with it! Not saying you’re wrong but, in my mind, he’s letting his client down badly at the moment.

And also claiming two previous people who allegedly committed rape were guilty despite either charges never being brought or being found not guilty at trial. It says it all when attorneys do not accept the binding edict of law, which is innocent until proven guilty.

Have to say, this is a new one on me, where the prosecution basically posts all of it’s evidence on Twitter. I’m not hot on US law but I’m pretty sure in the U.K. it’s open up a risk of a mistrial and the defence arguing their client won’t get a fair trial if put in front of a jury. Though, in that case, a trial could go ahead with a judge alone deciding, I guess.

Great, cut everyone who gets accused of something whether guilty or not guilty. Wonder if the same would be said by the majority if this was about Josh? I do stick by my previous comment, though, that I would prefer him not to turn out for us until this sorted. Best solution would be if we can get him placed on the exempt list.

Lying about everything or just the NFL knowing?

So you know he’s guilty of the alleged offences then? Brilliant, what’s the legal system needed for?

The issue for me is the defence attorney is making it come across as a shakedown money grab. It may be that it’s anything but the text messages he’s posting and the stance he’s taking… the obsession with Araiza hiring a civil lawyer to take the case, perhaps Araiza prefers a criminal lawyer because he wants to be sure that he is represented by someone who knows criminal law inside and out should it get that far, rather than looking at a civil angle? It feels like he’s making it easier for Araiza to defend himself and creating doubt towards the alleged victim’s true intentions. If I was the alleged victim I think I’d feel like hiring someone else to take the case on.

He has not been found guilty of giving her a drugged drink. He has not been found guilty of taking advantage of an incapacitated 17 year old. He has not been found guilty of leading her to be gang-raped. He has not been found guilty of knowingly giving her chlamydia. As others indicated, it could be he found out after the event he had it, as the phone call took place eleven days later. Just as you seem to be speaking as if the trial has taken place and verdict has been handed down.

From a statutory rape point of view I think you may be right in this case, going on the claims which are circulating. But there is a bigger charge potentially in the offing than that. For all the arguments about awaiting due process, the Bills have almost said that they believe he is innocent by not cutting him. The issue they had is, if they had cut him and this came out, it’d look like they thought he was guilty. Once this leaked they were caught in a difficult situation where both decisions would tactically imply something. My favoured solution would be to put him on the exempt list until this is sorted. Get him out of the public eye and, if he’s not charged or found not guilty then he can return to play whilst, if found guilty, he can be cut and dealt with to the full extent of the law. I feel very uncomfortable at the idea of him playing for us until this is sorted.

I understand from what you’ve written where you have been on the wrong end of a made up allegation which affected you badly, so you have vested interest in this, but, whilst I’m sorry for what you went through and can appreciate how this must make you feel, most people don’t act the way those in question did against you and lying about age does not automatically result in open season on a person, whether it be allegations of shakedown or crimes of a violent nature. Of course, in Araiza’s case it MAY lead to the charge of statutory rape being dropped but it is too early to know this.

Most of the ‘facts’ which have come out are the case of the prosecution and will be countered by the defence, which we have less information on as it stands - hence I have put facts in inverted commas, because there will be counter claims against the majority made. If people only ever heard the prosecution’s case before coming to a decision no one would be able to move in prison for numbers in there.

Or alternatively… Araiza is guilty, he must be guilty because we think he is. The truth is none of us know and need to wait for due to process without acting as judge and jury towards Araiza or pointing the finger at the alleged victim.

I agree. Then his defence will be that they then either parted, or she asked to lay down so he led her to a room and let her rest. He left and has no idea what happened after that.

I think Doc is just referring to the statutory rape allegation.

Though I don’t think Jane Doe should be putting much faith in hers either.

A rape kit was carried out by the police on the day of the report. Seems that the Bill’s were unaware of the allegation at time of draft but found out at the end of July. They’re awaiting a response from the DA about whether criminal charges are to be bought. Araiza’s defence is either he didn’t have sex with her or it was consensual and he believed she was 18 because she was saying as such.

You have to think they’re highly confident that Araiza will be found not guilty, or charges won’t be brought, to stand by him the way they are. As stated before, a lot has been made of the culture and process - all of that is on the line.

And I would gamble there are different witnesses with different interpretations of whether the alleged victim was intoxicated or incapacitated.

The alleged victim has done well in presenting her side of the case. It feels like her lawyer is now ruin8ng it for her as the texts do not paint the defence in a good light.

But they could have even gone as far as dropped Araiza and then picked up someone from waivers to replace Haack. When the allegation came out people would realise why.

Because the alleged victim is pressing civil charges.

Honestly, would having Haack on the roster over Araiza really affect our chances moving forward? We’d be one of the favourites either way. As said above, they could have easily retained Haack over Araiza and came up with a reasonable excuse for doing so. The fact they didn’t, whilst knowing about the allegation and investigating it, over a player who shouldn’t have that much of an impact on a Super Bowl charge does indicate there are things which they (think) they know which we’re not privy too. And it’s not a case of “Protect the athlete, all women all liars”.