McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released

[BillsFan692]

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Well if it was so obvious why didn't you raise the issue weeks ago? Oh you didn't know about it? Gee.

I didnt know about it but they did thats the entire point, are you dim???

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, BillsFan692 said:

I didnt know about it but they did thats the entire point, are you dim???

 

None of us know what the Bills knew. Plenty of conjecture though.

[BillsFan692]

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

 

None of us know what the Bills knew. Plenty of conjecture though.

Beane told us in the press conference that the bills never contacted back to the victim or her attorney because "there was nothing else to gain as they had already been given all the boulders of the civil suit".

 

So, you are just lying or willfully ignorant either way I am done with this argument.

[SCBills]

13 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

They "did the right thing" only after a media ***** storm forced them too and not one minute before.

They did the necessary thing, which is framed as “the right thing” for PR purposes. 
 

Nobody has any idea if Araiza did what he accused of doing.  You don’t, I don’t, and the Bills Front Office doesn’t. 
 

Im assuming they were aware that Matt Araiza had sex with an underage woman at a college party who was allegedly portraying herself as college age.  I have zero issue with them standing by him, and/or believing that would blow over.  
 

Also, the gang rape allegation dropped - which is the primary driver of the outrage - of which it doesn’t sound like anyone knows the level of his involvement (if any - victims lawyer included) aside from he’s alleged to have potentially set the stage for it and/maybe participated.  
 

Bills FO had the media and Twitter mob banging down their door and took their time to work through this situation.. coming to the conclusion they wanted, just not in the timeframe they demanded.  
 

With all due respect…**** the Twitter mob and **** the media.  Human beings are involved here and people who have the least access to the facts are the ones making the loudest judgments. 
 

Bills handled this about as well as they could after the clumsy initial statement.  They even took ownership of that mistake.  
 

Move on. 
 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

 

Say what?  An allegation isn't evidence of anything.  Much less enough to charge and convict.  Just on the face of it, her saying she was 90% unconscious during it makes anything she way unreliable. 

First to say that her statement is not evidence.  Then you challenge its reliability.  Which one is it?  (Hint: it’s direct evidence.) 

[syhuang]

1 minute ago, BillsFan692 said:

Beane told us in the press conference that the bills never contacted back to the victim or her attorney because "there was nothing else to gain as they had already been given all the boulders of the civil suit".

 

So, you are just lying or willfully ignorant either way I am done with this argument.

 

That not all Beane said when replying that question though.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Asked why the team did not have follow-up conversations with Galliard or try to talk to Jane Doe after July 31, Beane said:

“I would say we had the boulders of what was going to be accused or alleged. But at that point, it wasn't an actual case. And there was, one of the things you look at is, where is this criminally? That’s what you're trying to find out. And so, we were just, again, trying to look at everything. (Any) one of those things on there, if true, would be a no go for us. You know what I mean? So we didn't need all that. We just needed to try and put as many facts together as we could in a limited amount of time.”

Added Beane: “All we were trying to do was use our resources in the time we had to put the pieces together and find out what happened, and Matt was very aware if anything was not on the up and up during our process that we would remove him. Once this became a civil case two days ago, it was very serious in nature, and we felt it was in Matt’s best interest.”

 

-------------------------------------------

[BillsFan692]

2 minutes ago, syhuang said:

 

That not all Beane said when replying that question though.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Asked why the team did not have follow-up conversations with Galliard or try to talk to Jane Doe after July 31, Beane said:

“I would say we had the boulders of what was going to be accused or alleged. But at that point, it wasn't an actual case. And there was, one of the things you look at is, where is this criminally? That’s what you're trying to find out. And so, we were just, again, trying to look at everything. (Any) one of those things on there, if true, would be a no go for us. You know what I mean? So we didn't need all that. We just needed to try and put as many facts together as we could in a limited amount of time.”

Added Beane: “All we were trying to do was use our resources in the time we had to put the pieces together and find out what happened, and Matt was very aware if anything was not on the up and up during our process that we would remove him. Once this became a civil case two days ago, it was very serious in nature, and we felt it was in Matt’s best interest.”

 

-------------------------------------------

Read: we werent going to do anything as evidenced by our firing of Hack. We only now decide to do something since entire world found out and our hand was stuck in the cookie jar.

 

Now love us and praise us for doing the right thing!!!!

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by BillsFan692

[JESSEFEFFER]

With rampant campus rumors and an extensive history of social media references, should any sports reporter worth a salary, have uncovered this too? 

 

People generally dont spread gossip and rumors to total strangers.  Best to go to a bar near the SDSU campus, get a haircut or rent a taxi/Uber.  Bartenders  barbers and drivers will talk.  

 

If the Bills had no trusted connection to staff at SDSU,  They were probably told not to talk about it.

[syhuang]

3 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

Read: we werent going to do anything as evidenced by our firing of Hack. We only now decide to do something since entire world found out and our hand was stuck in the cookie jar.

 

 

 

Everyone has different interpretation so I'll give you that. But obviously others may have different take on his statement.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Asked why the team did not have follow-up conversations with Galliard or try to talk to Jane Doe after July 31, Beane said:

“I would say we had the boulders of what was going to be accused or alleged. But at that point, it wasn't an actual case. And there was, one of the things you look at is, where is this criminally? That’s what you're trying to find out. And so, we were just, again, trying to look at everything. (Any) one of those things on there, if true, would be a no go for us. You know what I mean? So we didn't need all that. We just needed to try and put as many facts together as we could in a limited amount of time.”

Added Beane: “All we were trying to do was use our resources in the time we had to put the pieces together and find out what happened, and Matt was very aware if anything was not on the up and up during our process that we would remove him. Once this became a civil case two days ago, it was very serious in nature, and we felt it was in Matt’s best interest.”

 

-------------------------------------------

 

The Bills released veteran punter Matt Haack on Monday, effectively declaring Araiza the winner of the punter competition.

“It wasn’t a civil case,” Beane said. “There was no criminal case. What we had was accusations that could come forward and we were still piecing it together. Obviously, 48 hours ago or sometime around then, a civil case was filed. We read through that and circled back again with Matt. Again, it’s a lot of things that right now we can’t close the loop on.”

 

-------------------------------------------

Edited August 28, 2022 by syhuang

[78thealltimegreat]

Does anyone know if during the predraft process they do a blood test as the reports about Matt stating he had an STD wouldn’t that be a red flag that teams would look into? 

[Bangarang]

12 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

I didnt know about it but they did thats the entire point, are you dim???

Was there even a civil suit when the Bills first spoke with the lawyer? Or was it a conversation about the potential of a suit? My understanding is that there wasn’t a suit at the time. 

[UKBillFan]

3 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Was there even a civil suit when the Bills first spoke with the lawyer? Or was it a conversation about the potential of a suit? My understanding is that there wasn’t a suit at the time. 

 

The civil claim was made on Thursday - that's when it was picked up by the wider media.

[Motorin']

26 minutes ago, Rico said:

More like in the eyes of some nitwits on Twitter..

 

Yeah, I've seen plenty of national media hold the Bills up as examples of a class organization in stark contrast to the Browns. 

 

Anyone that wants to continue to equate a team that cut a player within 48 hours of a law suit being filed, and a team that guaranteed 250 million after multiple law suits were field just doesn't know what they're taking about. 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, UKBillFan said:

Ah, apologies for the misunderstanding if so. Odd how Wawrow apparently found these two teams but the Bills couldn't. Or perhaps did, and Beane answered the question very carefully.

 

Heh.  I think if it's random - if you have 2 purple balls, and you remove at least 10 balls out of a basket initially holding 32 balls - your odds of not pulling a purple ball in 10 removals are something like 45%.  Check me on that.  It's a ratio of factorials.

 

It's probably not random - Beane probably has closer connections to some teams than others,

AP writer Rob Maadi, who I believe is Tampa-based, likewise probably has closer connections to some teams than others.

They may not be the same teams.

 

1 hour ago, UKBillFan said:

In other words, did the Bills expect it to be settled? Otherwise, surely the risk of it coming out was obvious.

 

I've been talking about this with a guy who may know a guy.  And the best we can come up with, is a disconnect between the Bills legal department, PR departments, FO and coaching and a misunderstanding of what this was.

 

Kathryn D'Angelo's boss is....Gregg Brandon, brother of Russ Brandon.  So when she took the convo to her boss Brandon, his reaction may have been colored by "the way things were" (where people had more of a "players will be players, big deal" attitude).  And from that view, the first step was to contact Araiza and his attorney and get their take.  His attorney painted this publicly as a "cash grab" and may have been in settlement talks with the victim's attorney per the leaked texts.

 

If it was a "cash grab", actually filing the suit and publicizing the pictures is the nuclear option that would separate the cash cow from its lucrative grazing field. And apparently civil lawsuits are often nowhere near that specific and graphic if their intent is to be successful civil lawsuits, because that leaves the litigators more "wiggle room".

 

Believing it was a "cash grab" may have focused the Bills internal investigation (which I think they did conduct) on verifying Araiza's account of his involvement - reaching out independently to witnesses confirming the girl represented herself as in college, and that Araiza was not involved in the alleged rape -vs- actually trying to suss out the plaintiff's attorney's intentions and learn more about his intentions for the case, then conducting a broader review.

 

Also, it seems incredible to me, but I don't think the Bills actually had someone performing the due diligence of Googling LA Times articles and reading them.  Because if they did, it only takes the most rudimentary PR chops to plug Araiza's name into the details that were provided in the July 29th article and to see that the optics of "Civil suit filed against Bills punter Matt Araiza and others for gang rape which left 17 year old girl with bloody clothes, bleeding from her *****, and with bruises on her neck and legs" are gonna be Very Very Bad.

 

I think the Bills were honestly blindsided by the filing and the shitstorm which followed, and that McDermott was honestly horrified and distressed by the details in the lawsuit. He reacted like they were totally novel to him, and he had no idea Araiza might be linked to something like that.  But far from being "boulders" all those details were published in the press back in late July, just not linked to Araiza.

 

Clearly, we still only have allegations.  The lawsuit is only allegations.  Nothing likely changed in that regard between the lawyer's call, Monday when the Bills cut Haack, and Friday.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[PromoTheRobot]

40 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

Beane told us in the press conference that the bills never contacted back to the victim or her attorney because "there was nothing else to gain as they had already been given all the boulders of the civil suit".

 

So, you are just lying or willfully ignorant either way I am done with this argument.

 

So asking Jane Doe to recount her assault to Bills scouts is a great idea to you?

 

You gloss over the nagging little details if this case. Araiza was sued civilaly, not charged with a crime. The team spoke with Araiza and his agent and were told things that made them feel comfortable with moving forward. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[Beck Water]

20 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Was there even a civil suit when the Bills first spoke with the lawyer? Or was it a conversation about the potential of a suit? My understanding is that there wasn’t a suit at the time. 

 

You are correct, there was not a civil suit at the time.  However, the lawyer had given graphic details to the LA Times (without naming the defendents) and stated that he was preparing to file a civil suit, the day before he called the Bills

 

Which can be seen two ways:

1) Oh, surely not .... you will want to settle so you get money

or

2) The warning rattle of a rattlesnake, indicating that biting is imminent if you don't exercise due care

 

The Bills seem to have chosen Door Number One.

[Lost]

1 hour ago, BUFFALOBART said:

I don't 'hate' the Media. You do. Fair enough. Two different reference frames.

However, there are people out there, who wish to end the concept of a 'Free Press', by endlessly parroting how 'Evil', the Press is.

Some people, buy into it.

I don't.

 

Growing up I always assumed news reporters were purely objective. I had great respect for people like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Lester Holt.   It wasn't until the last 7 years when it became very obvious how blatantly biased even the most respected(at the time) news anchors are.   The framing of questions in press conferences are always worded in a way to get confirmation of the pre-drawn conclusion from the reporter/outlet and automatically demonize the interviewee if they provide an unapproved response.  This goes for right and left leaning outlets.   The job of a reporter is to gather facts/information and present them to the viewer and let the viewer make judgements on their own.   

 

The most honest reporters provide both the opponent and proponent viewpoints.   Very few do that anymore.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by Lost

[Bangarang]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You are correct, there was not a civil suit at the time.  However, the lawyer had given graphic details to the LA Times (without naming the defendents) and stated that he was preparing to file a civil suit, the day before he called the Bills

 

Which can be seen two ways:

1) Oh, surely not .... you will want to settle so you get money

or

2) The warning rattle of a rattlesnake, indicating that biting is imminent if you don't exercise due care

 

The Bills seem to have chosen Door Number One.

Sounds like they spoke to both sides, started to look into it more themselves and took the wait and see approach. 

[Beck Water]

41 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

None of us know what the Bills knew. Plenty of conjecture though.

 

You're correct that none of us know what the Bills knew or when.

 

All of us can see the 29 July LA Times article that was published, with graphic and specific details about Jane Doe's condition and mention of the lawyer by name and his intention to file a civil suit.  So the Bills knew, or could have known, all of those details then. 

 

Then they received a phone call and a follow up email from the lawyer on July 30/August 1.

 

I'm not going to second-guess the Bills on not talking to that attorney again or asking to talk to the victim - her lawyer's words were they didn't "ask for her statement", there is very very low likelihood that the Bills would have been allowed by her lawyer to interview the victim

 

But it is a point that by not circling back to the lawyer or asking to talk to the victim, the Bills left some sources of information untapped.

[Beck Water]

16 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Sounds like they spoke to both sides, started to look into it more themselves and took the wait and see approach. 

 

Absolutely.  So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?

 

This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed.  I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.

 

It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape.  They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.

 

So what changed?  It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times.  What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit.  That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".

 

When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen?  What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water