UKBillFan

If the Bills' front office serioulsy thought there was no risk of a civil case being brought then they need their collective heads testing.

I wonder what the alleged victim's attorney fascination with Araiza is? There are two others who have been named in the gang rape, who I think have had civil charges brought against them too but not a sound. I can think of three possibilities: 1) The attorney is playing off Araiza being a rising 'star' in the NFL for attention 2) He thinks that the DA may not press criminal charges against Araiza, so wants to court public opinion for the civil case, whereas it's looking more likely that the other two will be charged 3) He dislikes Araiza's attorney and that is driving him as much as the case is. The other two defendants have different attorney's Perhaps it's a bit of all three.

Just in terms of the Bills options away from cutting him and including him on the roster, could we include him on the practice squad and leave him there until this is sorted?

I'm not saying the case isn't legitimate - just it's coming across that both attorney's are letting down their clients.

Neither attorney in this case are coming across well. Perhaps the Bills should get their own attorney involved.

That's the big question. You have to wonder what their investigation turned up to decide to keep him on.

And this is what grates with me - if it was a rookie first round QB the risk would be a fair one to pay? The decision should be based on the actions, not the role on the team.

It was eleven days after the incident.

Most are not defending him - simply sticking with the mantra innocent until proven guilt and letting the legal process play out. If he is charged and found guilty then he deserves the punishment he will get.

Especially as it feels like he's hindering rather than helping his client.

I don’t know - I think the defence is she asked to lie down so he took her to a room to do so then left. It may be more in depth in the official statements which have not been released.

I don’t think there is complete agreement that she wanted to lie down because she was drunk. If she was, then if it goes to court, the question will be put as intoxicated or incapacitated. ETA - Until defendants are found guilty in court, it is a case of innocent until proven guilty, and therefore is alleged.

The consent question is alleged by the prosecution, and countered by the defence. It has not been proven.

Not sure as rape cases tend to take ten months to review, so the length of time is not unusual. Mind you, I did say last night that for what seemed an “open and shut” case it did seem a long time. Even Araiza’s attorney isn’t denying a rape took place - just that Araiza wasn’t involved. I presume you mean, if the police hadn’t stalled, everything would be sorted now either way.

If they were satisfied that eyewitnesses stated that she told people she was not a minor then possibly.

The thing is you have seemingly decided he is guilty based on the lawsuit, which is going to be weighted for the prosecution, without considering what his defence might be. A bit like another poster who has decided Araiza must be innocent based on what he experienced in the fast which has affected his life moving forward. Allegations have been made and he has a right to defend them. The DA will decide to press charges and/or it’ll go through civil court. Until then he cannot be treated as guilty and the victim should not be dismissed as a liar.

What about counter eyewitnesses provided by the defence?

I agree, I’m just saying the allegations are more than what I saw in your original post - apologies if I misread or missed a bit.

This was in the mock drafts - pretty sure the media were relatively clueless about this otherwise surely it’d have been front and centre.

The victim alleges he took her to the room where the other guys were and, I believe, joined in.

From memory, Araiza was the third or fourth punter in the draft due to his downsides (lack of experience with holding and hang time) so he went where he was expected to go, in punter terms.

The thing is the Bills had an easy out - choose Haack based on his experience and cut Araiza. There may have been some blowback but, if this came out as it has, it would suddenly be more accepted. They ran an investigation and decided to keep him on. Big decision.

In the eyes of the law, at this point an alleged rape took place. If they press charges, then they do believe it took place and, probably more importantly, they feel they have enough evidence for a conviction. Officially if some or all are found guilty, then a rape did take place; if all are found not guilty then it didn’t.

Apologies, you’re right, beyond reasonable doubt.

Dare I say it but the Steelers reputation didn’t seem to be overly harmed long term despite the presence of Roethlisberger, who was instead affectionately called Big Ben. I’m not saying that’s right for a moment and I seriously hope Beane and co have good grounds for sticking by Araiza, otherwise their feet should be held to the metaphorical fire. But will it have that much of an impact?