Beast

And thought it would be a such a good idea keeping him and they could asorb the media blitz over a damned punter.

I'm not. Poyer and Hyde are fine. They will be great once again. the Bills are better at CB right now than they were at the end of last season, and they are much stronger on the d-line than they were last season. This is the best Bills team I have seen going into a season in my 49 years of fandom.

And that could be the most accurate statement in this thread. No way will the NFL allow Araiza to be on the Bills roster come opening night. Not after what has gone on with Watson. I see the Commissioners exempt list on the horizon for Mr. Araiza.

Who here, at dinner time, thought we’d be participating in a 67 page thread about a freaking punter six hours later?

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.

I can’t disagree with you. Someone mentioned the Commissioners exemption list. That may be the best solution moving forward.

Then he is in trouble. But how do you prove he led her to that bedroom knowing what would take place inside? I totally went from, after reading the allegations, to include hearing there was a recorded confession, to believing Araiza was toast to know believing he may have a solid defense. I will now sit back and wait to see what happens.

It doesn’t. But what Araiza’s attorney alluded to is now interesting. He basically said someone may be held liable criminally for what happened to the victim but Araiza shouldn’t. I went back and re-read the OP’s article. It said one of the accused was a freshman last year on the football team. That same person is not on the roster this year. I definitely don’t know what happened but it appears Araiza’s attorney is lining up a great defense for him. All it takes is multiple people saying they heard this victim telling people she was 18, especially is she was in Araiza’s company at any time, and having people say he wasn’t in that room. Araiza would never have to take the stand in his own defense.

I can’t imagine the police actually releasing those…..But the victim could tell her attorney they exist and put it in an affidavit. Plus, those phone calls aren’t anything that would surprise a suspects attorney. They are what they are. They will remain the same the day they were made until the case is disposed of.

They don’t need a warrant. Though it is a two party consent state, law enforcement is allowed to record phone calls within the scope of their investigation.

Yeah, there is still a big question of what went on in that bedroom and was Araiza involved? And if he led her to that bedroom and left, or stayed and watched and didn’t participate, is he an accomplice? His attorney made mention of something to the effect of someone could be in trouble for that….just not Araiza. I guess we’ll see. Isn’t one of those other two players mentioned no longer on the football team or at school? I wonder why? From the Op’s article; “Ewaliko was on the team last year as a freshman but is not on the current roster.” Hmmmmm.

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

No DA is going to charge? That’s funny. And wrong.

Correct. And that alone is a much more serious change than the statutory rape charge but a lot tougher to prove in a case like this.

You need to know the age of someone you are sticking your dick into. Assumptions are risky. At what point does that excuse end? Well, she had big breasts and looked 18. I had no idea she was 13! Young girls lie to impress older males.

In California law enforcement is allowed to record calls in the scope of their investigation. Araiza appears to be toast on face value. I can’t imagine an attorney including that there were recorded police calls in an affidavit if there weren’t any. I guess we’ll see.

This is hashed on in jury selection. It shouldn’t be a problem.

Exactly. And how do you know what she said on camera is the exact same thing she said in her statements? You don't and neither do I. I'm just telling you that IMO there is no good that will come from doing that interview and possibly even something that could hurt her. For example, she obviously told police who was involved as multiple controlled calls were made to these suspects. Who provided those names? She said on video she has issues with her memory from the incident. I believe on face value that what she is alleging is true. I'm just saying that going on and doing a television interview is risky and could hurt her in future court proceedings. Like the police love when a suspect continues to talk, defense attorney's love when victims and witnesses continue to talk in cases like these.

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.

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/teen-accusing-san-diego-state-football-players-of-rape-speaks/509-02de68ba-2cf8-43d5-b41e-dae06a48be2f

The only thing that bothers me about this girl is her doing television interviews regarding this incident. I can't imagine anyone advising her thinking that is a good idea regardless of her face being blurred.

My comment or his that this stuff happens at every high school or college party?

Nah. There is a question of force that would up the ante significantly. He could plea guilty to statutory and you wouldn't be able to charge him again for the same incident. Dotting i's and crossing t's. Plus, you want to put the victim through the least amount of proceedings as possible. I'd be willing to bet this will be put in front of a Grand Jury relatively soon.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that a thorough investigation would not be conducted. Thanks for telling me. I'll go back to the District Attorney's Special Victim's Unit where I work at tomorrow and let them know we are doing it all wrong. It's nice to know that a direct Grand Jury presentation is not a smart option. LOL

The article says the two other named suspects have attorney's. Araiza must also have one. At least you would think so. How could the Bills not know about this?