Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

 

Are we really attached to a guy we apparently only signed 3 days ago?

regardless of what happened. Her attorney needs to STFU. 
 

he’s tip-toeing a very fine line. 

[RunTheBall]

This thread is going down in TBD history.

 

I’m in!

 

I’ll wait until we get more facts before I draw any conclusions but the fact that the Bills knew about these allegations and still cut Haack says a lot because I trust them.

 

If the allegations are true, I hope this woman gets the justice she deserves from the men who committed the crimes.

 

If Matt isn’t one of them, there aren’t enough crows in the world for the majority of this thread to eat. 

[Beast]

5 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

I've read all 63 pages and at least four news articles covering the topic.

I'm sufficiently satisfied this guy is scum. At a minimum he took advantage of a drunk girl unable to consent, and at its worst he led her into a room to be repeatedly assaulted.  

I want no part of him on the team. I dont care or need to care about due process.  That's his problem not the Bills'.  Cutting him has nothing to do with legal innocence.  He's a punter and one of multiple guys that can be replaced with a street free agent or trade. He is not worth one minute of negative press. If McDermott believes what he preaches then he should have cut him a month ago. 

I’m no longer sure about him being criminally liable for anything. I will wait to hear more.

 

However something seems pretty sketchy about this whole ordeal and with Matt Araiza.

[nkreed]

2 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

And a good prosecutor would say Okay his defense is I don’t remember anything, so he wouldn’t remember her telling him or anyone she was 18. 
 

he wouldn’t remember asking her her age.  
 

she very well could have told him she was underage, and he wouldn’t remember. 
 

Those eyewitnesses didn’t have sex with her, he allegedly did. 

 

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

When will he state this?  In his opening remarks?  How will he convince the jury this is true if his client doesn't testify?  If he does testify he will have to swear that he was lying on that phone call. 

Look I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night. 

 

Dorkula, your same questions can be used on the Jane Doe with a simple cross examination of of the allegations asking if she had alcohol. How can she confirm that she told him she was under 18 if under the influence? Then it becomes a he said/she said. That's not going to play out well.

 

WEO, you would bring up the question based on the only evidence, at this point, of him having sex with her came from the phone call. That should open the entire phone call up to cross examination. 

[Rc2catch]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

Are we really attached to a guy we apparently only signed 3 days ago?

I dislike this lawyer 

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

True.  Neither then should be a guy having sex with a girl who tells him she's 18. 

 

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And the legal age of consent is 16+ in 40 states.  Means nothing as we're talking about California.

 

What if she's 15 and says she's 18 in those other states?  Cool with that too or nah?

[JoPoy88]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I mean, on what day is it acceptable for him to play then?

 

Apparently (per Wawrow article) the Bills have known about this for something like 6 weeks.  That's certainly long enough for them to have looked into it and decided  based upon what they learned, whether the allegations were credible or not and whether or not they were going to discipline or cut him.

 

If there are criminal charges, or new evidence comes to light, their POV could change of course.

For sure. The optics are infinitely worse now that the suit has been filed though.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

I’m no longer sure about him being criminally liable for anything. I will wait to hear more.

 

However something seems pretty sketchy about this whole ordeal and with Matt Araiza.

Agreed. Cut this guy now and get back to focusing on winning the SuperBowl.  Who the punter is has zero impact on the season. 

[appoo]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

I mean, on what day is it acceptable for him to play then?

 

Apparently (per Wawrow article) the Bills have known about this for something like 6 weeks.  That's certainly long enough for them to have looked into it and decided  based upon what they learned, whether the allegations were credible or not and whether or not they were going to discipline or cut him.

 

If there are criminal charges, or new evidence comes to light, their POV could change of course.

 

The Bills shouldn't be cutting players for sleeping around. I'm less inclined to be critical of the Bills right now, given that Matt likely told them "we were at a party, she said she was 18, she didn't seem drunk. I had no idea what happened to her after she gave me a BJ outside".  There's evidence of rape, but there's only circumstantial evidence that includes Araiza. 

 

I don't blame them for keeping him around. If the working world got rid of people that someone somewhere morally objected to we wouldn't have a functional economy

[NickelCity]

3 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

regardless of what happened. Her attorney needs to STFU. 
 

he’s tip-toeing a very fine line. 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty shocked by his behavior. Is this at all normal?

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:

regardless of what happened. Her attorney needs to STFU. 
 

he’s tip-toeing a very fine line. 

 

I thought the Bills "picked up" Matt Araiza on April 30, 2022 (in the draft) and signed him shortly thereafter

 

But say more about the very fine line please?

[Simon]

6 minutes ago, phypon said:

You just crossed the line with that comment.  I'm not going to go all keyboard warrior here.  Any chance you live in RI?

 

I'm referring to locking out your account.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

I dislike this lawyer 

He's an idiot.

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I mean, on what day is it acceptable for him to play then?

 

Apparently (per Wawrow article) the Bills have known about this for something like 6 weeks.  That's certainly long enough for them to have looked into it and decided  based upon what they learned, whether the allegations were credible or not and whether or not they were going to discipline or cut him.

 

If there are criminal charges, or new evidence comes to light, their POV could change of course.

You assume it was handled properly by the bills.  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t.  I don’t know.  I’m a skeptic of corporate counsel.  But, again, time will tell.  

[phypon]

Just now, Simon said:

 

I'm referring to locking out your account.

What are you talking about?  

[gobills404]

5 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

Are we really attached to a guy we apparently only signed 3 days ago?

“The offer is withdrawn” coming from the alleged victims attorney? Sure makes it look like they were just looking for a settlement.

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, NickelCity said:

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty shocked by his behavior. Is this at all normal?

he appears to be following the Buzbee playbook

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:

I dislike this lawyer 

It’s the Watson playbook all over again. 

 

Sleazy lawyer litigates over social media to win the case in the court of public opinion. 
 

Only problem is Matt Araiza is not Deshaun Watson.   Bills may feel strongly that he’s innocent right now, but (sadly or justifiably) the second this goes a bit sideways, Bills likely cut bait. 

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, nkreed said:

 

Look I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night. 

 

Dorkula, your same questions can be used on the Jane Doe with a simple cross examination of of the allegations asking if she had alcohol. How can she confirm that she told him she was under 18 if under the influence? Then it becomes a he said/she said. That's not going to play out well.

 

WEO, you would bring up the question based on the only evidence, at this point, of him having sex with her came from the phone call. That should open the entire phone call up to cross examination. 

 

She can say "he  never asked".

 

Also, his lawyer in 2 interviews so far, has not denied they had sex.  He has denied he sexually assaulted her. 

[phypon]

1 minute ago, Simon said:

 

I'm referring to locking out your account.

Oh, I see, you're a moderator.  Go ***** yourself simon.  You threaten people and then want to lock accounts.  Please....