Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

why does this bother you?

 

 

 

I can't imagine any attorney advising her with civil and possible criminal proceeding ahead to be talking about it. Anything she says in these interviews she can be crossed examined on and used in court by the defense. There's just no good reason to even chance saying something stupid. You can bet defense attorney's will be asking the television studio for the whole interview, not just the snippets that were shown.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

i don’t know California law but there are exceptions such as meeting the person in a bar drinking alcohol you can assume they are 21.

Statutory rape is a California “wobbler” offense.  Depending on the circumstances it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.3

The age difference between the defendant and the minor is one of the major factors determining how the crime is tried. If the defendant is 21 or older and the minor is under the age of 16, the penalties are likely to be most severe.

In such a case they can include up to four (4) years in California state prison!

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Come on Bills. Please tell me there is something that clears Araiza and they know it. Because that recorded phone call looks really really bad.

[Steptide]

Just now, wppete said:

Agree give it some time but the first reaction does not look good on McBeane and the culture. This could spiral out of control in the locker room and the season. 

Give beane and McD a little more credit than that. They may not be perfect, but I don't believe for a second they knowingly kept a rapist on the team

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

i don’t know California law but there are exceptions such as meeting the person in a bar drinking alcohol you can assume they are 21.

 

lol what??

[aristocrat]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

That tallies with my thinking - they found out on or around 30th July.

 

So why keep him and cut Haack? I mean, to be blunt, perhaps they were very unimpressed with Haack and decided they could pick up an upgrade on him via waivers but…

They need to roll out why they think he’s innocent quickly 

[Turbo44]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

He actually wasnt the top punter on many teams boards.  Media hype...fan hype...etc in now way equates to actual draft study and research.  More teams had Stout as the top punter on the board, not Araiza.  All Araiza was good at was kicking long, thats not the name of the game in the NFL.  John Daily could always hit the golf ball long, but he wasn't as good at the other parts of his game.  

 

Araiza got all the hype because there is literally nothing at all exciting about a kicker, so when people saw one booming kicks that long, it created a hoopla over him.  But punting in the NFL is all about hang time and precision, not distance.  The distance is great, but without the other 2 you wont be a Punter very long in the NFL.  

 

So given he had several areas to prove himself on and work on, he was not the top punter in the draft, just the most talked about because he was the only one who wasnt boring.  

Daly did win two major championships (91 PGA and 95 British Open) ......

[Steptide]

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

1 hour ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Not as much of one as you assume.  All it necessarily tells is that he had sex with her.  He already admitted to that.  It doesn't necessarily tell that he raped her.

It is felony statutory rape, he was 21, she was 17. Doesn't matter if he knew her age or not, doesn't matter if she lied about her age, doesn't matter if she consented to everything, it is STILL felony statutory rape if he had sex with her, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances, except if they were married. Then it could be rape, depending on the circumstances.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

 

I can't imagine any attorney advising her with civil and possible criminal proceeding ahead to be talking about it. Anything she says in these interviews she can be crossed examined on. There's just no good reeason to even chance saying something stupid. You can bet defense attorney's will be askingvthe television studio for the whole interview, not justvthe snippets that were shown.

 

 

She's already provided statements to the cops soon after the event months ago.  Clearly she's not changing her story. She's putting out there.

[Steel City Mafia]

Just now, Steptide said:

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 

Must know something we don’t about the case

[CaliBills]

My guess, is suspension until this is resolved.  If (and there is a strong possibility) he is found guilty, then he is cut no question. But if he is found not guilty of ANY wrong doing, then he stays. 

 

The Bills can't afford a distraction within the team and organization of this severity.

 

 

[Stank_Nasty]

2 minutes ago, wppete said:

Agree give it some time but the first reaction does not look good on McBeane and the culture. This could spiral out of control in the locker room and the season. 

First reaction for anyone with common sense and level head is to just let it play out and not jump to a conclusion one way or another at first news…. I know know, it’s such a novel way of handling things in todays environment 

[StHustle]

50 minutes ago, NickelCity said:

 

She went to the cops a day later when he was in college. This is a bad take. 

I get that! But almost a year later no charges have been brought. So now after he secures his job less than a week later a lawsuit pops up. You don’t find that odd???

[Lost]

Just now, Steel City Mafia said:

Must know something we don’t about the case

 

Perhaps they know Araiza has retained the ghost of Johnnie Cochran deeming any case against him DOA

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Come on Bills. Please tell me there is something that clears Araiza and they know it. Because that recorded phone call looks really really bad.

 

 

lol what can they know?

[Beck Water]

34 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

wonder what warhow (spelling) will say?

 

Wawrow.  He posts here, btw: @john wawrow

Some of the tweets are replies, so it's worth taking a look at the originals as I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to capture them

 

But from what Wawrow is tweeting, it sounds as though the case may be less cut-and-dried than the lawsuit makes it seem.

 

People have different opinions, but I personally have a lot of respect for John Wawrow as a journalist working for AP and required to have two independent sources for everything he writes.

 

So I'll be interested to read his story.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Steptide said:

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 

Surely not? I mean, I can accept he travelled with the belief that he would play before the civil charges were brought but not now?

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, StHustle said:

I get that! But almost a year later no charges have been brought. So now after he secures his job less than a week later a lawsuit pops up. You don’t find that odd???

 

 

FFS, the DA just got the case!

[DCbillsfan]

7 minutes ago, Steptide said:

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 

Wow.  I thought for sure he would not play tomorrow.