Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[hondo in seattle]

Why I think Araiza is innocent:

*  He rebuffed Jane Doe's offer to settle out of court, knowing that his refusal meant a media storm.

*  Presumption of innocence is an American value

 

What I think Araiza is guilty:

*  I read the account in the civil suit.  It sounds believable and most rape allegations are, in fact, true.

*  I saw the pics of the injuries she sustained.  Something really bad happened.

 

I hope the Bills quickly get access to the evidence collected by the police during their long investigation so they can make an informed decision rather than a knee-jerk reaction.  

[djp14150]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

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.  

The Bills have a lot more money to pay out to make it go away.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Saying she lied about her age has nothing to do with her culpability for anything that happened that night. It is about Araiza's defense on the alleged statutory rape. High school seniors go to college parties and lie about their age all the time. No one is judging her character for that, but similarly you shouldn't inherently judge Araiza's character for having sex with a 17 year old at a college party. There is a ton of missing context involved that drastically changes the tone of that accusation. If for example he spiked her drink and knew she was a high schooler that is a very different narrative than if he hooked up with what he believed to be a college freshman who appeared to be in full control of her faculties. You're trying to ascribe a black and white narrative to something that everybody with a brain knows isn't black and white.

Which is precisely why states have provisions to address legal gray areas. 

[Motorin']

31 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

At this point we don’t know if she lied or didn’t lie. Araizas lawyer claims he has witnesses that say she told everyone she was in college. But that’s beside the overall point of the rape allegation.

 

There's also the possibility that she neither said high school nor college. And just said she went to "Grossmont." Which is both a high school and college. So it was up for interpretation. 

[HOUSE]

An then, keyboard arthritis set in....

Some people miss work from this....

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Actually, they were told on 7/30 that a civil suit was coming. They knew it would be public. 

 

But did they know what was going to be in it, or did they think it involved him having sex with a minor or sex with a person too drunk to consent?  and not the whole horrific, piercings ripped out, bruises on neck and body, bleeding from ***** gang rape story?

[NoSaint]

24 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

Whether she lied about her age or not, putting that out in the public media is simply trying to shame the victim and dirty her up in the court of public opinion, taint the jury pool, etc.  Keep repeating that she lied about her age, had "consensual" sex that she "agreed" to, even though legally she couldn't consent and couldn't agree.  The dirtier the better.  And judging by many responses in this forum, it's working to a T.  You are correct about the "mistake in age", but few are drawing that distinction in these pages.

you might not agree but it’s a real defense to the charge here. It is 100% a consideration on whether he is guilty of the crime. And whether he is guilty or not is a consideration that matters. There are also other moral considerations involved in the earlier half of the night but what age she represented to him is not trivial and having that discussion is not trying to shame her.

 

with it a viable defense to the crime I will admit to not knowing the proper term to use to discuss the distinction between a forcible rape (back half of the night), a date rape situation involving alcohol removing ability to consent (possible still early in the night), and this 17 year old who may have been too young to consent but could still be legally defensible if she was a willing participant? Her willingness to engage would still be a key point in the discussion at that point.

Edited August 27, 2022 by NoSaint

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, Herc11 said:

 

 

Maybe its not even a money grab as Matt's lawyer suggests. Maybe they decided to include the name of the person that had the most celebrity status, knowing it would get tons of media attention. The other two named are nobodies and just naming them doesn't get headlines. Her lawyer may know they have nothing on Matt, in terms of gang rape, and truly only cares about getting this moving to get the other two.

 

 

It is definitely possible that the Bills were led to believe he wasn’t involved - by Matt, his lawyer, the investigator. They felt comfortable with what his role was that night based on the info that they had. Then the civil suit drops and he’s the central figure. Now they need to do more work. And it’s possible he still wasn’t involved.

[Big Blitz]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Saying she lied about her age has nothing to do with her culpability for anything that happened that night. It is about Araiza's defense on the alleged statutory rape. High school seniors go to college parties and lie about their age all the time. No one is judging her character for that, but similarly you shouldn't inherently judge Araiza's character for having sex with a 17 year old at a college party. There is a ton of missing context involved that drastically changes the tone of that accusation. If for example he spiked her drink and knew she was a high schooler that is a very different narrative than if he hooked up with what he believed to be a college freshman who appeared to be in full control of her faculties. You're trying to ascribe a black and white narrative to something that everybody with a brain knows isn't black and white.

 

 

Exactly right.  

 

Which is why there is something inherently wrong with automatically assuming guilt (or innocence) and just saying screw it you're fired.  

 

We're now saying don't even bother going to parties now.  

 

If you're around guys that may have been involved in something the night of said party - you'll be guilty in court of social media and Schoop and the Chris Parker public opinion and should be executed 

[djp14150]

2 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

 

 

Maybe its not even a money grab as Matt's lawyer suggests. Maybe they decided to include the name of the person that had the most celebrity status, knowing it would get tons of media attention. The other two named are nobodies and just naming them doesn't get headlines. Her lawyer may know they have nothing on Matt, in terms of gang rape, and truly only cares about getting this moving to get the other two.

 

 

Filing a civil lawsuit against someone knowing he wasn’t involved is something that can cause a lawyer to lose their license

[Herc11]

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

No.  Being at that party tho - please tell me her intentions that night.  

 

Why was she at this party - she didn't deserve to be sexually assaulted or raped.  And before you start with "oh another well why was she wearing an outfit like that" guy.  Nope.  That's totally different.  

 

Hopefully men have gotten past that b.s. 

 

 

 

Our culture is a disaster.  She had no business being at that party because of what her intent likely was (gtfo if you think it was anything other then hook up with some college dudes - you're delusional if you think otherwise.)  Which automatically is opening the door to all kinds of problems and disaster.  

 

Who was there looking out for their drunk friend?

 

Who was there to tell the guys "she's only 17!"  

 

I guess those drunk dudes should have insisted on ID.  

 

 

This is all such a pathetic mess that won't get its proper q and a because the players and the university are already to blame.   

My response was purely about the other poster inferring that she is a slut if she lies about her age. Which is ridiculous.

 

You and I, nor anyone else, but her and maybe her friends know about her intentions of going to a college party. She may have lied about her age because she wanted to fit in. Young girls like to look and be presumed they are older than they are..

 

 

 

 

[QLBillsFan]

7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Actually, they were told on 7/30 that a civil suit was coming. They knew it would be public. 

Yes correct but not pre draft. To your point yes once they knew from JD’s lawyer they apparently were and potentially are so confident in what they know-they were ok with it. That seems to not align with McDermy’s presser post game. But your point reinforces Bills were aware and so confident they cut Haack. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by QLBillsFan

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, Beck Water said:

 

But did they know what was going to be in it, or did they think it involved him having sex with a minor or sex with a person too drunk to consent?  and not the whole horrific, piercings ripped out, bruises on neck and body, bleeding from ***** gang rape story?

No I definitely don’t think they knew what was going to be in it - at least not the details. This is what changed in the 24 hours for McDermott 

[djp14150]

1 minute ago, HOUSE said:

An then, keyboard arthritis set in....

Some people miss work from this....

Is that so bad?

[Herc11]

Just now, djp14150 said:

Filing a civil lawsuit against someone knowing he wasn’t involved is something that can cause a lawyer to lose their license

Try proving that in court. Especially with the circumstances that Matt did have sex with her that night.

[hondo in seattle]

7 minutes ago, Draconator said:

The girls attorney was frustrated by the lack of action/attention from the San Diego police, so he filed the civil suit to get the police going and file charges if they should apply. 

 

That's true.   But I also suspect it's also this:  Jane Doe's attorney already said he tried to negotiate a settlement before this went public.  I'll assume that he made some offers and threats to induce a generous settlement.  When Araiza refused, he had to carry through on his threat to take it to the media.  

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

But did they know what was going to be in it, or did they think it involved him having sex with a minor or sex with a person too drunk to consent?  and not the whole horrific, piercings ripped out, bruises on neck and body, bleeding from ***** gang rape story?

Maybe Araiza didn't know either because he wasn't in that room where this took place?

 

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, QLBillsFan said:

I think Bills discussion should have been to 19-tell us before the draft. Since he didn’t it appears they took calculated risk that this would not go public. And they lost. Now imho just for not helping Bills be prepared that justifies his release today. Even if ultimately innocent. The Bills brand can’t have 6-9 months of being dragged an enablers. Given how hard they have worked over 5-6 years to seriously become of the top respected franchises in the NFL. 

What was Araiza supposed to tell the Bills (and the other teams) pre-draft?
 

 Again, the “Araiza misled the Bills” narrative makes no sense at all.  

[NoSaint]

15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

And as we saw with McDermott he is extremely conflicted. He wants to the right thing. For the girl. For araiza. For the team. for the organization. But the truth is not evident. And the regular season is 12 days away. I feel for him in a big way. 
 

the Easy thing to do is cut him, sign another punter, get it out of the way so they don’t have it hanging over them and prepare for the rams. He doesn’t know if that’s the right thing to do. Because he doesn’t know if he was involved. 

i agree. 
 

For now, I won’t be upset if they let this play out and facts get established. I also understand if they walk away from it. I’m not feeling the need to rush them or race my own opinion. 
 

I think he messed up early in the night. I suspect he thought she was in college. I’d likely not cut him for that.

 

I have no idea what happened later. I don’t think I’d cut him until there’s something more tangible. 
 

I don’t know what he told the team but if he straight out lied on a meaningful point that they can verify I don’t think he would have fallen asleep a bill last night. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by NoSaint

[Captain Caveman]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

But did they know what was going to be in it, or did they think it involved him having sex with a minor or sex with a person too drunk to consent?  and not the whole horrific, piercings ripped out, bruises on neck and body, bleeding from ***** gang rape story?

If they didn't know those details it's because they failed to investigate / ask.  It's pretty clear her attorney was disappointed in the organization's follow up with them on the details of the case.