Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

She had already spoken publicly about her ordeal, plus the full details of her claim were known in the lawsuit.  Why wouldn’t the lawyer let the Bills reach out to her, with the lawyer present?

Because the lawyer wants to control what is presented to the Bills and how it's presented. He has no obligation to open his client up to questioning from the organization who employs the defendant.

3 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Not sure about "setting up." IMO, he's very much liable for where he drops her off.  

She's contending that he set it up. The complaint seems pretty clear on that.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

You don’t contact a civil attorney, whose  100% biased and being paid by a client to win money for said client, to do your investigation.  Especially one that has been contacting the team in an effort to spur and push for a cash settlement.
 

A third party PI was hired to do the investigation which is 100% the proper path to take in any situation like this.  
 

And the Bills decisions were based on that investigators findings.  
 

IMHO they did it the right way by taking it to a 3rd party and steering clear of a civil attorney looking for money for his client.  Her attorney has released text messages already showing he was pushing for a settlement and emailing the Bills and the Bills attorney.  

Where do I say that the Bills should ask the lawyer to do their investigation lol wtf?  
 

Simply interview the plaintiff.  

[mannc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

So they should have instead said “our investigation was limited to only the counterclaims of Matt Araiza and what we could find out second hand from others”. 
 

Instead, they said it was “thorough”.  That’s obviously a lie.  And ridiculous. 

Not at all. If an investigation explored all possible avenues, then it was thorough. Again, I don’t know if this one was, but the victim’s refusal to talk to them doesn’t make it less than thorough, especially if they talked to her lawyer.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

Because the lawyer wants to control what is presented to the Bills and how it's presented. He has no obligation to open his client up to questioning from the organization who employs the defendant.

She's contending that he set it up. The complaint seems pretty clear on that.

Then the Bills should say they did an incomplete investigation 

[ExiledInIllinois]

38 minutes ago, Shake_My_Head said:

I may have it missed in all 200+ pages (and counting) but there's another really relevant reason for cutting MA:  the 53 players who'll make up the roster, especially the veterans, who in all likelihood want this distraction to go away NOW in what's expected to be their best shot at a Super Bowl run this season.

 

The vets have no ties to a rookie punter, know this will be a season-long media cluster**** and are way more likely to push for it to be over so they can concentrate on football.   

 

While I'm at heart a "due process" supporter, I can suck it up and advocate for what may be an unfair, career-ruining decision that causes Matt's name to never again appear on a Bills roster if it means better odds of winning a Lombardi this year.   

 

Shallow?   Cruel?   Yeah, I feel bad.   But I can carry that weight...

He's a punter.  Already in a hermetically sealed tube on the team.  Make him eat at the kid table  on the road. I think we are overhypping the distraction.   A QB yes.  Punter... 😆... Except,  he will draw attention when he kicks from our 10 to their end zone.   Wallbash.  But I can live with that. 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

3 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

No time for McBean to lay up short.  The time was before they cut Haack.

 

Laughable that the release of Haack should somehow make them pot-committed to Araiza's success or demise.

 

Haack is a marginal-at-best NFL punter, and that's why Araiza was drafted in the first place! 

 

And with your poor golf analogy, you're trying to say McDermott & Beane should go all-in on the 'punt god' who might also be Bill Cosby Jr. because they already cut Haack.  That's absurd. 👎

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

You don’t contact a civil attorney, whose  100% biased and being paid by a client to win money for said client, to do your investigation.  Especially one that has been contacting the team in an effort to spur and push for a cash settlement.
 

A third party PI was hired to do the investigation which is 100% the proper path to take in any situation like this.  
 

And the Bills decisions were based on that investigators findings.  
 

IMHO they did it the right way by taking it to a 3rd party and steering clear of a civil attorney looking for money for his client.  Her attorney has released text messages already showing he was pushing for a settlement and emailing the Bills and the Bills attorney.  

The Bills absolutely spoke to her attorney as part of their investigation, as they should have. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, HankBulloughMellencamp said:

 

Laughable that the release of Haack should somehow make them pot-committed to Araiza's success or demise.

 

Haack is a marginal-at-best NFL punter, and that's why Araiza was drafted in the first place! 

 

And with your poor golf analogy, you're trying to say McDermott & Beane should go all-in on the 'punt god' who might also be Bill Cosby Jr. because they already cut Haack.  That's absurd. 👎

Absurd... But we might have a generational leg here. 

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

I feel like the fact that he was in street clothes and the plate was taken off his locker tells us everything we need to know.

[Alphadawg7]

7 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

Seems like the situation was common knowledge around SDSU and should have been uncovered with pre-draft vetting.

Yet it wasn’t.  And I would not classify it as “common knowledge” because some students were aware.  It’s pretty unreasonable to think teams should interview the entire student base on every player at every college.  
 

That’s not common knowledge and not something that’s ever going to come out in any teams due diligence on a player.  The School and the Coaches did not disclose the story, no charges were filed, there were no law suits filed or even in motion, and no news outlets were aware.  Matt’s record at the time was squeaky clean by all accounts.  
 

So, it’s just incredibly unreasonable to expect any team to uncover a story like this that could only be uncovered if they conducted individual interviews of the entire student base attending the same college to see if there is any other dirt or rumors that no other part of their due diligence process would ever discover.  And then do that at every college in the country for every athlete they are evaluating.  
 

So hard disagree this is on the Bills front office for not knowing before the draft.  

[Livinginthepast]

As excellent as this regime has been in the past few years there have been a few curious hickups in judgement here or there on player personnel but this situation takes the cake. How on earth did a team that prizes "character" traits and intangibles not get wind of serious allegations of sexual assault that were apparently in plain sight. Did they attempt any investigation? And once they found out why did they cut their incumbent punter and stick with the controversial choice. What were the Bills thinking?

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

The Bills absolutely spoke to her attorney as part of their investigation, as they should have. 

Not according to her attorney whose complaining he was not involved in the Bills investigation on social media.  

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, mannc said:

The Bills absolutely spoke to her attorney as part of their investigation, as they should have. 

Again, the alleged victim didn’t refuse to speak with the Bills.  The Bills never asked to speak with her,

[SectionC3]

22 minutes ago, mannc said:

So are you saying you think he was asking the Bills to pay to settle the case? That would be highly unusual, since the Bills certainly couldn’t be held liable for what happened when Araiza was at SDSU…

No.  I’m saying he was looping in the employer to turn up the heat on the employee. Employer goes to employee, employee gets scared, employee pays.  

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Then the Bills should say they did an incomplete investigation 

Okay WEO.

 

[CNYfan]

Just now, Livinginthepast said:

As excellent as this regime has been in the past few years there have been a few curious hickups in judgement here or there on player personnel but this situation takes the cake. How on earth did a team that prizes "character" traits and intangibles not get wind of serious allegations of sexual assault that were apparently in plain sight. Did they attempt any investigation? And once they found out why did they cut their incumbent punter and stick with the controversial choice. What were the Bills thinking?

I have to agree.  And our favorite GM, the wizard, BBB, etc is directly in the crosshairs of this immense faux pas.  

[RiotAct]

32 minutes ago, Bubba Gump said:

What I don't get is that he is a good looking dude. And yes, I am secure in my masculinity, lol. He could land any girl he wanted too. Idk why these guys get so stupid. They could have anything they want.

feeling of power, and the “forbidden fruit” effect.

[That's No Moon]

2 hours ago, eball said:

 

Why does anyone need to “pick a side” before the facts are known?  If the facts show that Araiza had consensual sex at a college party with a girl he thought was 18 and played no part in any alleged assault, does he deserve to lose his job?

 

I don’t understand the need to rush to judgment.  From what I’ve read, I think both of the lawyers involved have acted pretty terribly.

 

Because the Bills need to decide what to do. Whichever choice they make will be wrong in the eyes of many. 

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Again, the alleged victim didn’t refuse to speak with the Bills.  The Bills never asked to speak with her,

How do you know they didn’t ask?

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

You don’t contact a civil attorney, whose  100% biased and being paid by a client to win money for said client, to do your investigation.  Especially one that has been contacting the team in an effort to spur and push for a cash settlement.
 

A third party PI was hired to do the investigation which is 100% the proper path to take in any situation like this.  
 

And the Bills decisions were based on that investigators findings.  
 

IMHO they did it the right way by taking it to a 3rd party and steering clear of a civil attorney looking for money for his client.  Her attorney has released text messages already showing he was pushing for a settlement and emailing the Bills and the Bills attorney.  

No.  Absolutely not.  Take all info.  Use it to piece puzzle together.  Major error by bills.