Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Ray Berni]

A lot of things are being said, mostly without the benefit of evidence presented.

Being a retired Police Officer of over 35 years on the 7th largest PD in America.  Done thousands of investigations and I have a few questions.

1.  Why after almost a year why have no criminal charges been filed?

2.  Criminal charges always precede civil suits.  Criminal charges almost always add to the credibility of the civil suit. 
3.  Why did the Bills release Haack when they supposedly knew about the allegation on July 30th?

4.  If San Diego PD knew if the allegation and she had a Rape kit done why did they hold back?

Everyone has an opinion and it’s their right.

But as a Cop you have to look at evidence and ignore speculation and conjecture.

No one here wants to be found guilty without overwhelming evidence.  That’s just not right.

I’m going to wait until this all the facts are presented before I formulate an opinion.

I hope this young man did not do this as I have 3 daughters and 8 Grandkids of my own.

But if he did and it’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I don’t care who he is.  He has to pay the price.

 

[gobills404]

43 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Araiza’s lawyer went on local news and called the victim a liar. How else do you respond? Obviously this guy doesn’t care about how he’s perceived, he’s doing what he feels is best for his client. Right now the more attention and the more it’s talked about is definitely helping his client.

Literally every lawyer ever will say the claims against there client are false. Did you want him to say “yeah there’s definitely some merit behind the accusation”? 

[dje85]

11 minutes ago, sven233 said:

I mentioned this last night, but admitted that maybe I just hadn't see everything out there yet.  However, it's the next day and not a whole lot new has been reported.  Can someone let me know why there seems to be 100% focus on Ariaza and none on the other players involved?  It just seems like the lawyer is throwing anything and everything at 1 guy while the others are hardly mentioned to this point.  Just odd, that's all.

Araiza is a professional sports player who was just signed to a pro sports contract. That means he can pay. The other two are no names who likely will no longer be playing college sports regardless as one was a redshirt and the other already wasn't returning prior to this civil suit.  The lawyer doesn't care about the non famous guys who can't pay up in a civil suit. Why would he? Civil suits won't lead to prosecution. The suit is just about getting paid.

 

The others will likely get a lot more attention come the prosecution if it ever occurs. 

[The Red King]

Just now, BarleyNY said:

FFS. That’s ridiculous. 

 

So, to be clear, you are saying that there is no possibility, at all, that this could have happened?  Based on?  The same things that lead you to be 100% convinced he did it at so early a stage, right?  I get it, you somehow know for certain.  Don't assume people who are waiting for the facts to come out are somehow convinced 100% the opposite way.  It *is* possible for people to wait before passing judgement either way, you know.

[Royale with Cheese]

Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone here in this thread was in the same room?  Even better if a lot of alcohol was involved?

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Yup.  And this is my profession.  What’s yours?

If you're keeping your clients identity anonymous you should probably redact her friends name if you're competent.

[sven233]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

thats my thoughts as well...put him on the commissioners reserve list till this plays out...why is that so hard?

 

If I had to guess, I don't think he will end up playing tonight.  But, if he does, it is probably because the team has known this was going to come out for a month or more at this point, have a lot more information than the public does about it, have not seen any additional information about it the last day or so that they didn't already have weeks ago, and are completely comfortable as to where this actually sits behind the scenes. 

 

Honestly, if he plays tonight, it will be really telling where the Bills organization is on all the evidence they have at this point.  I don't expect him to play, but am definitely interested to see what the Bills do as I expect a lot more punting opportunities tonight than there has been in the first couple preseason games.

[gobills404]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Yup.  And this is my profession.  What’s yours?

Having no knowledge of professional etiquette is your profession? How are the benefits?

[Rc2catch]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

Wouldn't it be awesome if everyone here in this thread was in the same room?  Even better if a lot of alcohol was involved?

Lol no.. I would get punched in the face for rolling my eyes I’m guessing based off my inbox 😜

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, Dr.Mantis_Toboggan said:

No it’s stances like yours that lead to victim shaming/blaming. You’re completely out of pocket here.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/
 

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT get convicted…

 

Yet I did not once victim shame...there you go...those pesky facts again screwing your rant.  

 

And your link you keep posting, while factual, true, and sad, is not relevant to what people are saying.  So once again, please post your interviews of the witnesses, the facts you found in your investigation, and the timeline of the night corroborated by those findings to show:

1. Matt was even at the house when the rape occurred.  You know, to be convicted of rape you need to present and have some participation in the actual rape.  
   1. There are a lot of eyewitness testimonies, allegedly including her own friend at the party with her, that say Matt was not even at the house when the attack and rape happened.  
2. That Matt was present in the room or had any connection to the assault.
   1. Her own journal written the day after and continued in the days following, released by her own attorney, literally names no one, gives no indication of who was in the room and repeated says she has no idea who was in there.  

Until you can at least prove those 2 things, your 1% conviction article is 100% irrelevant.  You DO NOT KNOW if Matt was actually involved in the rape.  This is not a situation where its clear who the assaulter was, an assault happened, and now you have to prove it in a court of law.  There is a massive difference between what we know now and the 1% conviction rate you are rearing too where the assault is valid and the assaulter is known but in a court of law its not what you know, its what you can prove.  

 

Here, you dont KNOW yet he was even involved in an assault.  All we know is PRIOR to the assault there appears to be a then consensual encounter in a different location, but that does not automatically mean he was also part of the later tragic assault on her by a group of horrible guys.  

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[Yobogoya!]

6 minutes ago, appoo said:

Our Justice system is not built for sexual crimes - mostly because when the system was set up there was no such things as sexual crimes.

 

To simply say “innocent until proven guilty” in this specific situation is also to agree that “accuser is lying until proven to be honest”, and that’s a BS stance. 
 

We have more reason to believe the accuser than we do the accused in this case, based on what we know. That should be enough. 
 

 But regardless, in cases involving sexual crimes, one can not hide behind “Innocent until proven guilty”

 

Actually the physical evidence we've seen so far (victim's diary) shows exactly the opposite -- that we don't have any reason to believe the accuser named Araiza or any of the other men as the perpetrators of the assault. 

 

If the criminal investigation led to them, it almost certainly did so on the accounts of other witnesses at the party. And so far, I don't believe we've seen any direct and verified statements from those people published. 

[Pokebball]

20 minutes ago, BillsfaninSB said:

Civil suit was filed yesterday.

 

Post intercourse, Plaintiff claims Arazia took her to a bedroom occupied by the former teammates and threw her face down on to the bed.  Have not heard whether or not someone is claiming this is not true.  It sounds like what happened next with respect to Arazia is unclear.  Was he in the room, did he watch and do nothing, did he participate or did he walk away?

Arazia's attorney is disputing this. Some claim that this was Arazia's house...it wasn't. His attorney says Arazia didn't bring her to the bedroom and claims Arazia wasn't even in this house this particular night. He claims to have seen witness testimony to support Arazia's claim. But who the heck knows?

[Bruffalo]

I'm all for cutting him.  It's probably the right thing to do considering the circumstances. 

 

I feel like there should be some kind of "administrative leave" for players going through ***** like this.  Suspend pay, no playing, roster spot doesn't count until investigation is complete. 

[YoloinOhio]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

thats my thoughts as well...put him on the commissioners reserve list till this plays out...why is that so hard?

That is an nfl league list, not a team list. He’s not subject to this list as the  civil allegations occurred prior to him being in the nfl. 
 

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances," NFL.com points out, citing the league's manual. "The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. 
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/just-what-nfl-commissioners-exempt-list

 

[mannc]

21 minutes ago, BillsfaninSB said:

Civil suit was filed yesterday.

 

Post intercourse, Plaintiff claims Arazia took her to a bedroom occupied by the former teammates and threw her face down on to the bed.  Have not heard whether or not someone is claiming this is not true.  It sounds like what happened next with respect to Arazia is unclear.  Was he in the room, did he watch and do nothing, did he participate or did he walk away?

You are reciting allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as if they are established facts because no one has expressly rebutted them in the 24 hours since the lawsuit was filed.  That's just not the way it works.  It's unfortunate that Araiza doesn't have more capable counsel, but you would do well not to take Mr. Gilleon's assertions (any of them) as facts.  

[pocoboy]

Man, why couldn't we have just kept Bojorquez?

[ColoradoBills]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

so if he was accused of this while on a roster, he could go on the reserve list? Did not now that. I understand they cannot punish him as it was before his time in the NFL, was not aware of the inability to reserve list him

 

I only became aware of it today in this thread.  It seems to be accurate.  I don't understand the reasoning for it as none was given.

It would be a good question for Beane/McDermott to be asked.

[GoBills808]

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 Are you aware that Matt, an alleged gang raper, reached out to her about getting tested for an STD? 

My understanding is that this conversation occurred during a pretext call made by the girl and detectives as part of the investigation.

[Dr.Mantis_Toboggan]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yet I did not once victim shame...there you go...those pesky facts again screwing your rant.  

 

And your stupid story you keep posting, while factual, true, and sad, is not relevant to what people are saying.  So once again, please post your interviews of the witnesses, the facts you found in your investigation, and the timeline of the night corroborated by those findings to show:

1. Matt was even at the house when the rape occurred.  You know, to be convicted of rape you need to present and have some participation in the actual rape.  
   1. There are a lot of eyewitness testimonies, allegedly including her own friend at the party with her, that say Matt was not even at the house when the attack and rape happened.  
2. That Matt was present in the room or had any connection to the assault.
   1. Her own journal written the day after and continued in the days following, released by her own attorney, literally names no one, gives no indication of who was in the room and repeated says she has no idea who was in there.  

Until you can at least prove those 2 things, your 1% conviction article is 100% irrelevant.  You DO NOT KNOW if Matt was actually involved in the rape.  This is not a situation where its clear who the assaulter was, an assault happened, and now you have to prove it in a court of law.  There is a massive difference between what we know now and the 1% conviction rate you are rearing too where the assault is valid and the assaulter is known but in a court of law its not what you know, its what you can prove.  

 

Here, you dont KNOW yet he was even involved in an assault.  All we know is PRIOR to the assault there appears to be a then consensual encounter in a different location, but that does not automatically mean he was also part of the later tragic assault on her by a group of horrible guys.  

 

 

Just because you post some diatribe of long winded nonsense doesn’t make you any more right… the way you’re going to bat for this dude is just weird. 

And these stats are 100% relevant

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/

 

Because? Everybody keeps saying why didn’t they file a criminal case? Why file a case that’s 99% likely to end in favor of the defendant? More of those mental gymnastics you like so much.

[Buffalo716]

14 minutes ago, Dr.Mantis_Toboggan said:

No it’s stances like yours that lead to victim shaming/blaming. You’re completely out of pocket here.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/
 

LESS THAN ONE PERCENT get convicted…

Even that article says their numbers are approximations and not scientific facts though… Based on using different methodologies… I understand the point Completely 

 

https://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/
 

This article says 58% Of people that get prosecuted for rape are convicted

Edited August 26, 2022 by Buffalo716