UKBillFan

I don’t think her attorney is helping her in that regard, especially with the latest tweets which were posted on here. Even Araiza’s attorney is making clear that he believes she may have been raped, just not by Araiza.

Depends how they handle it - they could decide to treat it as a misdemeanour rather than a felony. From what I read, he was 21 and she was 17. They usually treat anyone where the age gap is under 16/over 21 as a felony so it may be treated as a misdemeanour. If so, he won’t be done, notwithstanding the other allegations.

Morally, I’m more concerned that he allegedly had Chlamydia but still committed an unprotected sexual act plus the questions surrounding how drunk she was than her age.

Blue texts from the victim’s attorney, grey texts from someone linked to Araiza. The grey text says they will pass the advice to Araiza but he has no interest in settling, I think?

If cleared a number of teams will be looking to sign him. Would he return to the one who cut him rather than stand by him?

Is it me or do those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

There is a difference between accused and being found guilty. Put him on admin leave, best option would be to ask the commissioner to add him to the exempt list, and cut if found guilty. Though, as I said before, morally I’d happily cut him if he admitted to having unprotected sex despite being diagnosed with Chlamydia.

A couple of hours ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I’m not so sure about the morals of the Bills front office.

Because rapists don’t often stick to one victim; the more people who feel confident in coming forward the easier it is to get charges to stick. And it takes a lot for victims to admit to being raped, even without their names being made public.

I don’t think she’s suing for money; she’s doing this to get it into the public domain.

It was in the public domain on 30th July. There was a very early post on this thread about it though, for whatever reason, it was overlooked by the press.

If so, then the phone call may be able to be used for a civil charge, but not a criminal charge?

I assume the law is different in the US as, in the U.K., I would have thought that speaking to the press in this way would increase the likelihood of a mistrial - even if it is taken to criminal court, the defence would state that the defendant has no chance of a fair hearing because so much of one side is in the public domain, which may influence people’s opinions prior to the trial taking place.

Going off Warwow’s tweets, Araiza is possibly claiming never to have had sex with her, even with consent? But what about the detetive guided phone call? I can start to see what the Bills meant by a thorough investigation though still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing.

Surely not? I mean, I can accept he travelled with the belief that he would play before the civil charges were brought but not now?

Statutory rape with consent being given would still be treated differently to outright rape, though.

That tallies with my thinking - they found out on or around 30th July. So why keep him and cut Haack? I mean, to be blunt, perhaps they were very unimpressed with Haack and decided they could pick up an upgrade on him via waivers but…

Yeuch. And that’s very much not a case of two different versions of events as that was a recorded call. Would happily see him cut for that alone.

Then due diligence has been shocking. The Bills press release stated a full investigation has taken place, though goodness knows what that means. You’d think the phrasing would be very different had then been caught unawares.

The issue with rape, and why it’s so difficult to press criminal charges, is a lot of it is down to the alleged victim claiming one thing and the defendant saying something else. This is the allegation - Araiza’s statement will say something very different. Then there will probably be differing witness statements about her state of inebriation too, some saying she was in no state to give consent and others saying she was fully aware and capable of making decisions.

This story was seemingly in the public domain on 30th July. How could they not know?

For me, the following should be put to Beane. Whether he’ll answer is another question entirely. - Did the front office know about the allegation prior to Araiza being drafted? If so, why did they decide to draft him? - If not, did they know about the allegation prior to cutting Haack? If so, why did they decide to leave us in a potentially tricky position heading into a Super Bowl run? If not, why not, when it was in the public domain a month ago?

I wish someone losing his call whilst swinging a helmet was our biggest problem at the moment.

I hardly think we’re in a position to cast aspersions at the Browns currently.

Because this was in the public domain a month ago.