Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[4merper4mer]

13 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

If that's the case why did they come out on Thursday and say they had already performed a thorough investigation and made it seem like they intended to keep him on the team?

Beane addressed that as well.  Did you watch the press conference?  If not you should.  He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation.

 

That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism.  The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement.  But in reality they had no way of knowing that.  They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well.  I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press.  I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released.

 

Oh, and what about drafting Allen?  Still ok?

6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Craigslist masseuse handys?

Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal.  Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded.  We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Captain Caveman]

25 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Beane addressed that as well.  Did you watch the press conference?  If not you should.  He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation.

 

That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism.  The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement.  But in reality they had no way of knowing that.  They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well.  I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press.  I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released.

 

Oh, and what about drafting Allen?  Still ok?

Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal.  Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded.  We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

 

It seems to me you're going in circles here.  Yes I watched the press conference - my critique of how the Bills handled this isn't about the use of the words "thorough investigation."   If their only excuse is - our investigation wasn't really thorough - my question is why not?  Lots of information was available to them, and as you said the only thing that changed was the claim being filed formally.  If the claim being filed formally actually changed things, why come out with a statement that seems to indicate he's gonna stay on the team? 

 

IMO the most likely opinion is that they did have the same information 2 weeks ago that was released on Thursday, but they were hoping they could get away with keeping him.  I also wonder (based on McDermott's first press conference after the Carolina game) if he maybe wasn't aware of the full details of the complaint, and made a decision after reading them that he didn't want the kid on the team.

 

I'm not going to get into it about Allen except to say that at the time I WAS disappointed that they drafted him, and since that time I believe he's proven himself as a decent person, and I was wrong.  There's a world of difference between what Allen did and what Araiza has been accused of.  And maybe I'm wrong about Araiza, but based on the conversation I believe he did have with the victim, it seems like he's a POS, and I'm glad he's off the team.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Captain Caveman

[4merper4mer]

41 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

It seems to me you're going in circles here.  Yes I watched the press conference - my critique of how the Bills handled this isn't about the use of the words "thorough investigation."   If their only excuse is - our investigation wasn't really thorough - my question is why not?  Lots of information was available to them, and as you said the only thing that changed was the claim being filed formally.  If the claim being filed formally actually changed things, why come out with a statement that seems to indicate he's gonna stay on the team? 

 

IMO the most likely opinion is that they did have the same information 2 weeks ago that was released on Thursday, but they were hoping they could get away with keeping him.  I also wonder (based on McDermott's first press conference after the Carolina game) if he maybe wasn't aware of the full details of the complaint, and made a decision after reading them that he didn't want the kid on the team.

 

I'm not going to get into it about Allen except to say that at the time I WAS disappointed that they drafted him, and since that time I believe he's proven himself as a decent person, and I was wrong.  There's a world of difference between what Allen did and what Araiza has been accused of.  And maybe I'm wrong about Araiza, but based on the conversation I believe he did have with the victim, it seems like he's a POS, and I'm glad he's off the team.

No.  You’re wrong.  When you say “lots of information was available to them” how do you back that up?  Based on what?  And please qualify that as objective information and reassess how much was available.  A court filing is a formal document the plaintiff intends to back up in a legal setting.  A list of allegations, even if they say the exact same thing, need not be held to any standard at all by the complainant.  There is a huge difference.  The plaintiff’s lawyer is not an objective source of info and neither is Araiza and his legal team.  SDPD is, but they could not help the Bills.
 

Then you go on to accuse the Bills of trying to sweep a gang rape under the rug despite a multi year track record that seems to indicate that is something they would never do.  I share your curiosity about how much McD initially knew as opposed to Beane and the Bills legal team.  Based on the conversations I find it possible that there could be a gap there even though I hope not. 
 

I agree there is a world of difference between Allen’s stuff and the accusations about Araiza.  The similar part is that both were assertions from sources that could not be objectively verified.  So how serious of an assertion is enough to avoid drafting someone or keeping them on the team?  Racist tweet assertions aren’t enough, gang rape assertions are more than enough.  Where is the middle?  A rumor of armed robbery?  And what source is valid or invalid?  If I call an anonymous tip line tonight and say Mac Jones is an arsonist and link a Boston Globe story about buildings in Foxboro burning down, should Jones career be halted?  You make this out to be very simple but it is far from it.  The entire process took a total of less than a month for the Bills.  You don’t think that is quick enough.  How long should it have taken?  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Captain Caveman said:

WTF

 

Her claim is that she was ordered to perform a sex act, was too drunk to consent, and was then passed around by multiple attackers afterwards.  The statutory rape is a part of it, but I don't really understand why you're focusing on it.

 

I'm not.  It's a non-event.  The real issue is the ***** that happened inside the house later.  If he was involved with that, he should be prosecuted.  But we need to see the facts, not allegations.

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I keep hearing this.  Has Araiza admitted this?  And even if he did, unless he told his teammates where she was and/or to rape her (by them saying he did), he has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make sure she's safe inside the house, especially since it wasn't his.  

 

No.  Araiza has not admitted this.

 

I disagree with that last statement "no obligation ....or otherwise".  And according to the lawsuit, he was residing there.

 

7 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

AND she was led to the gang rape by Araiza... 

 

According to her attorney.  Allegedly.

 

Can we be better than those media shills who take allegations as fact?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

No.  Araiza has not admitted this.

 

I disagree with that last statement "no obligation ....or otherwise".  And according to the lawsuit, he was residing there.

 

His attorney has emphatically denied this.

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

His attorney has emphatically denied this.

 

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

[Doc]

Just now, Beck Water said:

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

 

It's an easy thing to verify.  

[Beck Water]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

It's an easy thing to verify.  

 

For college students?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

If it were such an easy thing to verify, you would kind of tend to think one attorney wouldn't have made a mistake.

 

You wanna address your thing about "he has no obligation, legal or otherwise" to the safety of the young woman he just boffed in a social setting?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

For college students?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

If it were such an easy thing to verify, you would kind of tend to think one attorney wouldn't have made a mistake.

 

You wanna address your thing about "he has no obligation, legal or otherwise" to the safety of the young woman he just boffed in a social setting?

 

I not sure what you're getting at here or what relevance it has, but the point I was making was that her lawyer, a professional and an adult, could have easily verified where Araiza lived before making a false claim.  And since he claimed that she was 17 and Araiza's attorney says he has witnesses, including one of her friends, who will testify she claimed she was 18, he's either misinformed or lying, neither of which is a good look.  At least Araiza's lawyer's claim that the NFL (he never said the Bills) knew about it isn't pertinent to what transpired that night.

 

And as for the last sentence, just because he boffed her doesn't make him her protector.  But looking at one of the videos with his attorney again, he denies ever taking her into the house anyway.

[The Frankish Reich]

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

[4merper4mer]

13 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

Although I agree with your overall assessment of both attorneys, this lawyer did later correct himself claiming he misunderstood the “before the draft” portion of the question. 

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Although I agree with your overall assessment of both attorneys, this lawyer did later correct himself claiming he misunderstood the “before the draft” portion of the question. 

I mean the questions was very clear and he answered with an Emphatic "You better believe he did"

 

Me thinks he just got caught and had to walk it back. 

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  
 

Your speculation about the victim wanting consequences instead of money is as good as any other speculation and personally, it makes sense to me especially from her perspective.  It doesn’t line up however with some other things the lawyer has said.  At one point he started calling the Bills enablers, which may suggest trying to cast a wider financial net.  I don’t think anyone has even tried to make sense of some of the stuff her lawyer has done.

5 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I mean the questions was very clear and he answered with an Emphatic "You better believe he did"

 

Me thinks he just got caught and had to walk it back. 

I don’t disagree, just reporting what he is saying.  I do find it somewhat believable that he answered a question without actually listening to it because he is a moron.

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  

Thanks. As the old saying goes: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 
There is no legal doctrine that would ever make the Bills liable for damages. None. So maybe this was an attempt to put a squeeze on the deep pocket - the Bills - since without an NFL punting job Araiza is just a 22 year old kid with no real job prospects. I guess the theory would be “you are not legally liable, but if you give us money anyway my client may sign a non disclosure agreement and you can keep the Punt God on your roster without fear of this blowing up later.” If so, the Bills made a prudent business decision and just extricated themselves from a mess that was not of their making. 
I can’t help but thing this poor girl is being used by an unscrupulous operator, in it for his own publicity rather than his client’s best interest. If anything, going full fiasco mode here makes a prosecution less likely, not more likely, and the poor girl is left with no one to collect damages from (a judgment against an unemployable punter?) and no criminal charges against him either. 

[YoloinOhio]

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

All of those questions are fair. I’m sure there is a lot more to the story that we don’t know. 

[djp14150]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Thanks. As the old saying goes: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 
There is no legal doctrine that would ever make the Bills liable for damages. None. So maybe this was an attempt to put a squeeze on the deep pocket - the Bills - since without an NFL punting job Araiza is just a 22 year old kid with no real job prospects. I guess the theory would be “you are not legally liable, but if you give us money anyway my client may sign a non disclosure agreement and you can keep the Punt God on your roster without fear of this blowing up later.” If so, the Bills made a prudent business decision and just extricated themselves from a mess that was not of their making. 
I can’t help but thing this poor girl is being used by an unscrupulous operator, in it for his own publicity rather than his client’s best interest. If anything, going full fiasco mode here makes a prosecution less likely, not more likely, and the poor girl is left with no one to collect damages from (a judgment against an unemployable punter?) and no criminal charges against him either. 

 

her attorney….he saw football pro…means money.

 

he contacted the team to try and get go away money fir a settlement.  They said no.

 

all Matt got was some sort of contract signing bonus.

 

evidence reported says there are witnesses on record ( under perjury) that (1) she said she was 18 and (2) he was not in the building when the rape incident occurred.

 

 

[Beck Water]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  
 

Your speculation about the victim wanting consequences instead of money is as good as any other speculation and personally, it makes sense to me especially from her perspective.  It doesn’t line up however with some other things the lawyer has said.  At one point he started calling the Bills enablers, which may suggest trying to cast a wider financial net.  I don’t think anyone has even tried to make sense of some of the stuff her lawyer has done.

I don’t disagree, just reporting what he is saying.  I do find it somewhat believable that he answered a question without actually listening to it because he is a moron.

 

I laughed out loud at this last.  I guess I've become "easily amused"

 

IMO calling the Bills "enablers" was intended as warning shot to another NFL team that might want "Punt God" on their roster: "Sign this guy, and you, too, win a free trip to the cross-hairs of a social media firestorm where I call YOU "rapist enablers" and send the flying monkeys your way.

 

I have had the pleasure of several PM convos with self-identified lawyers.  They all seem to concur with the gist of your take on the lawyers, esp, the plaintiff's, that he's doing things regarded as poor practice in litigation and that don't make sense if the goal is to settle for $$ or win.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

And as for the last sentence, just because he boffed her doesn't make him her protector. 

 

Why Bless Your Little Heart.

 

I guess back in Da Day at a party, "Doc" would get a BJ and boff a drunk chick, wipe his dick on his shirttail, stick it back in his pants, say "see ya sweet-cheeks!" and walk away.  Not his problem what happens next, He's Not Her Keeper.

 

She's a human being.  And whether or not she's in college, she's clearly young.  Decent people at least try to help her find her friends.  If it's your sis or your daughter, how would you want her treated?

 

I've seen people display higher levels of empathy and concern for the welfare of a lost cat that hid under their rosebush or a loose dog seen running down the street, and exert more effort to help them find safety.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[dakrider]

I just heard about this 2 days ago and what an awful thing for everyone.  I don't know any real facts about it, but for the Bills a crappy thing to have to deal with and now left scrambling for a punter.