Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Forlorn hope]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Time frame is impossible to know from the video. But an important thing is she says witnesses told her who everyone involved was. She claims she didn’t know.

 

This case will come down to witnesses. Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. The girl didn’t know. 

Wrong again. Witnesses said arazia was not in the house. Including friends and aquiantences of Jane doe. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I’m not familiar with how rape investigations go. I know they can take a long time. The pretext calls happened not long after the alleged rape.

 

The police first questioned Matt Araiza in late July. Araiza’s reaction to the questioning was to hire a criminal defense attorney. 
 

So the police questioned Araiza 9 months after this video. We’re not trained detectives. There’s a reason those 3 football players were under investigation. I’m sure the girl lied about some stuff. She probably also believes some details happened that didn’t. Who hasn’t tried to piece together what they did after a night of heavy drinking?

 

I think most people believed she was lying about her age at the party. It doesn’t explain why witnesses told her Matt Araiza was one of the guys that was in the room. If that is also a lie then there’s no charges and no case. We’ll find out soon enough. The video clips do not solve the case.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Forlorn hope said:

Wrong again. Witnesses said arazia was not in the house. Including friends and aquiantences of Jane doe. 

That is not what she says in the interviews. She was told by witnesses who the guys were. 
 

There are different versions. Araiza’s lawyer said they have witnesses. That’s the version you’re mentioning. 

[Forlorn hope]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’m not familiar with how rape investigations go. I know they can take a long time. The pretext calls happened not long after the alleged rape.

 

The police first questioned Matt Araiza in late July. Araiza’s reaction to the questioning was to hire a criminal defense attorney. 
 

So the police questioned Araiza 9 months after this video. We’re not trained detectives. There’s a reason those 3 football players were under investigation. I’m sure the girl lied about some stuff. She probably also believes some details happened that didn’t. Who hasn’t tried to piece together what they did after a night of heavy drinking?

 

I think most people believed she was lying about her age at the party. It doesn’t explain why witnesses told her Matt Araiza was one of the guys that was in the room. If that is also a lie then there’s no charges and no case. We’ll find out soon enough. The video clips do not solve the case.

 

 

That is not what she says in the interviews. She was told by witnesses who the guys were. 
 

There are different versions. Araiza’s lawyer said they have witnesses. That’s the version you’re mentioning. 

You again don't know because the ,( alleged tapes) have not been released 

[JESSEFEFFER]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Let me put this another way.  In the video, the girl had obviously not been gang raped yet.  I think we can agree on that one.  So if she claimed that immediately after arriving at the party she had sex with Araiza and then he immediately took her inside to be raped, this video disproves that allegation.  If she said she was at the party for awhile, then it proves nothing WRT the gang rape, but proves she told people she was 18.

 

As for witnesses, I never heard any witnesses say they saw him in the room, just that he was the guy she was having sex with outside.  Armstrong says he has witnesses who say he wasn't in the room.  So yeah, it will come down to who has the better/more credible witnesses.  But no charges being filed in over 10 months suggest her story doesn't have much support.

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

[NoSaint]

39 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Time frame is impossible to know from the video. But an important thing is she says witnesses told her who everyone involved was. She claims she didn’t know.

 

This case will come down to witnesses. Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. The girl didn’t know. 

likewise, araiza says he left the house and will be able to prove that. 
 

and I’d point out I don’t think it was plural (witness not witnesses) putting him in the room, nor am I sure that has been consistent in tellings. 
 

we will see when the speculation goes fully on record though. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

Yes. And Araiza’s lawyer even says it wasn’t a party, it was a gathering of football players. The video posted is definitely a party. In the civil suit she said she attended other parties the same night and was drinking at them.

 

 

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

Maybe. Time stamps would be helpful there. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Here’s Araiza’s lawyer saying it wasn’t a party. I’m guessing the clips were from a different house.

 

 

 

[QCity]

22 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. 

 

I did not hear this, where is this coming from?

[stuvian]

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

[ExiledInIllinois]

8 minutes ago, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

Maybe the police and university are in cahoots to prevent a national scandal... Protect the cash cow? Cover-up? Notice the school took no action, they put it on shoulders of police when they said the police told them to not get involved.  Kinda heard nothing from the authorities.  Probably just hoping it goes away. 

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

 

Because as far as statutory rape goes, there is video evidence of and allegedly witnesses to her telling people she was 18.  There can be no other explanation as he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17, and it otherwise would be a slam dunk.

 

As for gang rape, her testimony has probably been deemed unreliable (drinking all night, "90% unconscious" during it and lying about telling people she was 17) and the DA doesn't believe he has a case he can win, even though she may have been raped, although not necessarily by Araiza.  Again his attorney says he has proof Araiza left after having sex with her outside/before the rape began. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 hours ago, QCity said:

 

I did not hear this, where is this coming from?

From the girl. I also miss spoke. She said talking to witnesses they found out who the guys were.

 

She didn’t say in the room.  But again it’s her version but she says she didn’t know who anyone was.

44 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

Nothing else to talk about here. It’ll change in a couple days. 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

 

Because while he'll never be a Buffalo Bill again (and that's the reason the story came to our attention) many of us still want to see a resolution.

[716er]

Is this longer than the Breece Hall-of-famer thread yet?

Edited September 6, 2022 by 716er

[Beck Water]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:33 PM, BananaB said:

It proves she was was in the house socializing rather then being lead to a bedroom where she was raped. 

 

We do know that video is put together from multiple times and locations?  For example, the end of the video gives a late October date, but the party in question occurred October 16th.  It contains clips of guys lifting and doing shots.  It contains shots of CVS.

 

And the girls were said to have gone to other parties first.   So which party was that video from?  I can't tell, how do you?

 

Or not to single you out, how does anyone citing that video as some kind of proof tell?

 

On 9/4/2022 at 10:52 PM, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

 

That's my take.  It seems to prove the girl was socializing and talking about being 18 and bragging about her "body count" somewhere at some time that evening.  But where and when?

 

That's the problem with trying a case in the court of public opinion.  People seize on all sorts of stuff as "proof" without really considering the quality or the context of the evidence.  For example the plaintiff's lawyer files a lawsuit stating Araiza admitted having sex with the girl.  That's an allegation, and from the victim's side, but people read it as Araiza admitting it. 

 

There's truth in this case somewhere, just like there's yeast in bread, but there are also a whole lot of other ingredients clouding up the picture.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Beck Water

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

 

There's truth in this case somewhere, just like there's yeast in bread, but there are also a whole lot of other ingredients clouding up the picture.

 

This should have been the most obvious trait of the entire saga from the outset, yet enclaves of posters and reporters held the expectation that Brandon Beane could and should get to the whole truth in a matter of a few days.  Now that it gets cloudier and cloudier, the whining and foot stomping have disappeared.  I’m not sure about the posters, but you can be sure that the next time something like this happens, no matter the underlying topic, Tim Graham and the like will be perched back atop their high horses.  For now, they has dismounted and the steeds are back in the stable.

[djp14150]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:15 PM, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

As others have said…

 

there are multiple witnesses saying she told others she was 18 which eliminated statutory rape charges for what ever type of sex they had ( I thought she just did oral).

 

therr is not the issue of her getting gang raped. The issue was who did it.  Witnesses also have stated he was not there when this happened.

 

thr other problem is witnesses saying she wasn’t obviously wanted/ drunk so she seemed to be sober enough fir consent with Matt.  Later that night she might have been worse and might have bern given a drug.  It sounds as if she might have been more passed out drunk when the tape occured by others.

 

she,with her condition, is unreliable.  There us believed to be video evidence of some events.

 

my thoughts….DA office felt there was not WPG ought evidence to know who did it. Maybe there is some video evidence they have not seen that connects her to a clear ID of the subjects.

 

with testimony/ video of Matt leaving, thrnen idence of the incident occuring there is no way he can be charged.

 

his statement in recording dies not mean he did it. He might know who did and heard later one had an STD.

 

thr actions of her lawyer was very sleepy.  Most lawyers wait fir criminal charges to occur before civil ones are filed.  Thry might have filed these knowing he wasn’t getting charged criminality.

 

 

[NoSaint]

Still super weird to me that they pushed to obliterate his career as soon as haack was cut and then went relatively radio silence in the week since he was cut. 
 

not saying they were right, wrong, or in between… but really don’t see the goal of the play unless it’s simply punitively punish araiza because you don’t think the case will go anywhere but at least that’s a bit of payback?