UKBillFan

Yes, so logically you would not raise a civil case whilst a criminal charge is still possible.

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient. So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media. Some comments seem to contradict other things being said.

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

That's what the defense attorney says. But someone with knowledge and experience on here (with the best post on this thread bar none) suggested that issuing a civil claims means they have been advised that the DA will not criminally charge Araiza. If they were, then putting the alleged victim through a civil case before could open up too many questions and counter-claims which might leave it almost possible to get a verdict in criminal court. Further to this, rape cases in the US take an average of ten months to go from accusation to charge - we've only just got to that point, time wise, now.

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

I don't think they were investigating him at all. As said somewhere before, different teams have different sources - college coaches and coordinators who have links to franchises. When looking at SD players something may have been mentioned in passing to a trusted source which they quickly moved on from. All speculation, and I'm just trying to put two and two together of the back of Wawrow's report as that's what he said - two franchises knew of an incident but were not in the market for a punter.

Reportedly, in this case the execs in question were not in the market for a punter, so it was not of interest to them to investigate further.

Exactly. The way some are speaking it sounds like they've been proven.

But attorneys, with experience of the law, tend to guide clients what the goal should be. In this case, the advice probably is staying out of prison/being found not guilty is more important than staying on the Bills roster.

Any proof of any of this or are we jumping to conclusions... again?

He'll be placed on the practice squad and it's highly unlikely anyone will come in for him.

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

In an incident but they did not know the severity of it. How would theconversation have gone? Exec: Araiza may have been been involved in an incident. NFL: What kind of incident? Exec: No idea. NFL: Is it serious? Exec: No idea. NFL: Are any other people involved? Exec: No idea. NFL: Could it raise questions about his personal conduct? Exec: No idea. NFL: Well... thanks.

That first sentence. Wow. Just... wow.

What do you reckon we'll do? Run a training camp of sorts with those interested - perhaps see how they work with holding for Bass?

It's possible the Bills told him not too. Or his attorney (who isn't much better than the alleged victim's attorney) did. For his job, it might have been better to speak out. For his chances in court, it may be better to keep quiet for now other than the controlled statements.

We got through last year with Haack. OK, maybe we had higher hopes via the draft, but now we're in a position where we have to make the best of a bad situation. There are and will be adequate punters out there.

Araiza could have held a press conference and gone through each step of the lawsuit, denying each in turn. He still would have been cut.

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

Araiza went into the draft with doubts about his holding and hang time. On most mock drafts he was the third or fourth punter to be picked, and he went third. There is nothing to indicate whether the two who chose before us had a clue about any of the allegations or not.

Regarding Haack, if we wanted him we wouldn't have cut him in the first place.

Except he's basically doing the defense's job for them by posting contradictory statements and texts. Think it was pointed out that the journal (horrific as it was to read) even countered some points made in the lawsuit. Now he's saying that an apology and a donation to a rape charity would make all of this go away??? He's harming the alleged victim's case, not helping it.

Seems to be a lot of confusion about the defence of statutory rape in Californian law. Some assume witnesses claiming she was saying she 18 will be enough to mean charges won't be made (if substantial), others think it won't be enough.

McDemott mentioned Hyde in the press conference, indicating he had an input in this manner.

Exactly. The law should be carried out in court; not on social media.