nkreed
-
Posts
833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nkreed
-
-
4 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:
I also noticed that McDermott stopped short and rephrased to avoid referring to MA as "one of our players"
Possibly. It could be confirmation bias too. (Not accusing you of anything purposely. Psychologically, humans don't want to be the odd one out when in a crowd)
2 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:Something not being considered much in this press conference commentary, is maybe, just maybe, Sean McDermott is incredibly upset by the gravity of the allegations and the potential that a young woman was savagely attacked. Maybe his demeanor was an honest reaction now that the game's over and he can finally and/or must finally face this horrible situation. I thought he was fighting tears several times.
And I agree with your assessment. He was in a tough spot no doubt.
-
One thing in here that hasn't been mentioned yet is that MA is flying back with the team tonight.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:
That press conference was extremely concerning to me not only about the Araiza situation but that there could be a very big disconnect in the organization
I disagree completely with the second half. This is a tough thing that he is dealing with, walking the tight rope of saying something about it without saying anything at all.
I don't believe there's a disconnect here, I think it's just an extremely difficult position for him to be in.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Beck Water said:
I think it's very telling that McDermott was asked straight out whether he thinks Matt lied to him and he said "I'm not going to get into that".
I think if he felt the answer was "No, Never" he'd have said so.
I don't. Because of this thread and how Twitter is, if he comes out and says that, well then, "The Bills think that gang rape is okay."
Because that's exactly what has happened in the last 24+ hours.
-
4
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, davefan66 said:
I believe he should not have been the first Bills person to speak publicly about the allegations. I’m sure that played into his emotions.Sean is a stand up guy who expects everyone around him to also be. I believe he feels he was lied to by MA regarding the facts. The kind of person he is, breaking his trust is devastating.
Personally, that doesn't jive with his first statement. Specifically the part where McDermott says that his "heart and prayers go out to all involved, and that includes Matt..." This came on the heels of the Skurski question about Matt being a great kid.
Is there a chance that the Bills know more information and that Ariza is being slandered and McD is angry at that?
(I'm not saying that's the case)
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
Araiza attorney said the Bills used a private investigator
John Wawrow's article explains why this was escalated:
Gilleon said the decision to file the lawsuit three days after Araiza was awarded the punting job was the result of his growing frustration over the lack of feedback he was receiving from police on the progress of their investigation.
“They’re just blowing us off,” Gilleon said. “By filing a lawsuit, we have the power of subpoena and so I can force them to do what they’re supposed to do.”
Back last night I predicted this was to get the DA to do their job/influence their decision in bringing up criminal charges.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:
Has the criminal one even been released to the public yet?No. It's in the DAs hands to propose charges.
-
2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
We won't be awaiting DA's determination for that.
Obviously. We are awaiting the rape by intoxication charge from the DA... As you implied the allegation was made, to which I responded the allegation was made in a civil suit not a criminal suit
-
3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
There is no allegation made in that text that Araiza participated in the rape. And let's keep in mind this is the plaintiff's wording. A phrase like "Araiza threw her onto the bed face first" is very specifically worded to make his actions look worse. I'm not going to sit here and act like I know how much of the girl's story is true. I'm usually inclined to believe the victim in cases like this. To me, if Araiza even knew that a gang rape was happening and didn't do anything that is more than enough for me to want him gone yesterday. But the civil suit doesn't directly allege that he participated or knew anything was going on.
Hence why I said strongly implies.
-
3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
It's in the lawsuit.
The Civil one yes, not the criminal one.
-
3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
It actually is not clear to me that Araiza is being accused of participating in the alleged gang rape. That was my initial perception too, but the LA Times story doesn't make that connection. It seems like he is being accused of statutory rape with a 17 year old, and others at the party were responsible for anything else that allegedly happened. Is a 21 year old unknowingly having sex with a 17 year old at a college party an unspeakable crime? I don't think it is. At the very least Araiza put himself in a really bad situation, but everyone who went to college knows that drunk sex between strangers happens all the time.
I will wait for more facts to come out before I decide if Araiza should lose his career over this. I think the Bills should at least sideline him for the final preseason game and give the story a couple weeks to develop before putting him in front of fans.
The civil suit implies strongly that Ariza was involved in the gang rape. From the suit directly:
Araiza then led Doe inside the house, past the living room, and into a bedroom. There
were at least three other men already in the bedroom, including defendants Leonard and Ewaliko.
Once inside, Araiza threw Doe onto the bed face first. Doe went in and out of consciousness while
she was being raped, but she does remember some moments from the horrific gang rape. -
1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:
Cut off a limb and count the rings?
Anyway, they are also alleging rape by intoxication. There is no mistake of fact defense for that.
To which we await the DA to make that determination.
-
2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
"the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age."
If she testifies that he never asked her age, the prosecutor can claim that there was no way he could "reasonably and actually have mistaken her age"
Defense comes back with a bunch of witnesses who say she said her age in front of everyone, including Ariza. Then there is a reasonable way to determine her age without asking her directly.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, phypon said:
Talking about allegations has nothing to do with you abusing your ridiculous "moderator" powers on a message board.
Do you understand that those injuries seem to have occurred AFTER she appears to have willingly performed falatio on said punter?
I thing you should lose your moderator status.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:
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.
Believe me I know that. It's why this civil case was filled today. I still sitting believe it's Jane Doe's attorney putting pressure on the DA to prosecute the statutory rape.
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:
Arazia claims to remember nothing about that night, so he can’t really say he thought she was 18.
On a phone call in which he is not under oath. I think a good defense attorney will state that the question asked was accusatory and that this answer was his way of ending the conversation. If the DA has access to witnesses that say she had been misrepresenting herself, he won't need to have a defense.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
How does he assert the mistaken age defense? What evidence does he provide? Fake ID?
If you have a background in law, then you know that the DAs decision isn't made in a vacuum. If the DA can find plausible witnesses to the victim misrepresenting her age, combined with California case law, the DA will not bring that charge to court, understanding it's on them to prove she didn't. Ariza doesn't need to do a damn thing in that scenario.
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
I think he's trolling.
Not trolling Doc. If fact BillShredder83 and I were saying the exact same thing. There have been a few on this thread who are assuming that Ariza purposefully gave the Jane Doe an STI. I was just pointing out that there was 11 days between the party and the phone call.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
also those context calls the police had her make had her bringing up STDs, it's possible that had something to do with it.
You're right, it's possible, and both of us don't know. That's all I wanted to say and not immediately assume that Ariza is a sketchy dude.
-
5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
See above. A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent. If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent. But he can try to use it as a defense. Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.
If his criminal attorney, who has spoken with the DA, can produce multiple witnesses saying she was purposely inflating her age, combined with the mistaken age ruling, a DA would need to prove that she didn't misrepresent beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't, the likelihood of the charge goes down the drain.
I still believe the blow up of this case now is because the DA needs to make a decision, and the Jane Doe lawyer is using the court of public opinion to make the DA charge Ariza. (No statement made on if that's a good or a bad thing, just a statement of facts)
1 minute ago, Simon said:It's thin
But not implausible. I think that we are keyboard warriors who are making decisions without evidence. I am not defending Ariza, just wanted to offer out a plausible explanation without calling him sketchy.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Simon said:
I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.
That's pretty ***** up.
Playing Devil's Advocate here, there's a timeline to include here. What if he didn't know he had an STI and learned about it in the 11 days between the alleged sex and the phone conversation saying the female should get tested?
Because 11 days is how long between the event and the police led phone call.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Beast said:
OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age.
That's an interesting angle that covers the stat Rape charge, and likely where the Bills and other lawyers are landing. Because, from your link,
Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:
Civil suit filed before charges brought makes zero sense
I truly believe that this is a powerplay by the attorney to force the DA to charge Ariza with Stat Rape.
-
1
-
Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.
in Off the Wall
Posted
That's your confirmation bias saying that.
When looked at with a little more background, he can't say a thing. He was between a rock and a hard place. He could not confirm or deny anything coming his way.