UKBillFan

A couple of hours ago I would have agreed with you. Now, I’m not so sure about the morals of the Bills front office.

Because rapists don’t often stick to one victim; the more people who feel confident in coming forward the easier it is to get charges to stick. And it takes a lot for victims to admit to being raped, even without their names being made public.

I don’t think she’s suing for money; she’s doing this to get it into the public domain.

It was in the public domain on 30th July. There was a very early post on this thread about it though, for whatever reason, it was overlooked by the press.

If so, then the phone call may be able to be used for a civil charge, but not a criminal charge?

I assume the law is different in the US as, in the U.K., I would have thought that speaking to the press in this way would increase the likelihood of a mistrial - even if it is taken to criminal court, the defence would state that the defendant has no chance of a fair hearing because so much of one side is in the public domain, which may influence people’s opinions prior to the trial taking place.

Going off Warwow’s tweets, Araiza is possibly claiming never to have had sex with her, even with consent? But what about the detetive guided phone call? I can start to see what the Bills meant by a thorough investigation though still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing.

Surely not? I mean, I can accept he travelled with the belief that he would play before the civil charges were brought but not now?

Statutory rape with consent being given would still be treated differently to outright rape, though.

That tallies with my thinking - they found out on or around 30th July. So why keep him and cut Haack? I mean, to be blunt, perhaps they were very unimpressed with Haack and decided they could pick up an upgrade on him via waivers but…

Yeuch. And that’s very much not a case of two different versions of events as that was a recorded call. Would happily see him cut for that alone.

Then due diligence has been shocking. The Bills press release stated a full investigation has taken place, though goodness knows what that means. You’d think the phrasing would be very different had then been caught unawares.

The issue with rape, and why it’s so difficult to press criminal charges, is a lot of it is down to the alleged victim claiming one thing and the defendant saying something else. This is the allegation - Araiza’s statement will say something very different. Then there will probably be differing witness statements about her state of inebriation too, some saying she was in no state to give consent and others saying she was fully aware and capable of making decisions.

This story was seemingly in the public domain on 30th July. How could they not know?

For me, the following should be put to Beane. Whether he’ll answer is another question entirely. - Did the front office know about the allegation prior to Araiza being drafted? If so, why did they decide to draft him? - If not, did they know about the allegation prior to cutting Haack? If so, why did they decide to leave us in a potentially tricky position heading into a Super Bowl run? If not, why not, when it was in the public domain a month ago?

I wish someone losing his call whilst swinging a helmet was our biggest problem at the moment.

I hardly think we’re in a position to cast aspersions at the Browns currently.

Because this was in the public domain a month ago.

Allegation from the victim’s attorney.

Being from the other side of the pond, I don’t know how the college would have the power to limit and restrict a police investigation? The police themselves being corrupt and protecting famous (local) athletes I can understand, but the college being able to hold things back?

Or could be that he was aware that she had sex with numerous people (in his mind, either with consent or aware than she was raped) so advised her to be checked, rather than meaning he had a STD himself.

For most I agree - but I would have thought a supposed ‘open and shut’ case (to use the phrase used previously) would go through quicker? Certainly the alleged victim and her father expected resolution before now.

Araiza’s Defense Attorney claims to have witnesses saying something different. If it is open and shut you have to wonder why we’re ten months in without criminal proceedings commencing and that’s something which will surely turn the heat up under the state department and the college in particular.

Ask him to be put on the Exempt list makes most sense at this stage, I would have thought, then cut him if found guilty.

It’s now gone to the DA for a decision.