SectionC3

Guilty or innocent of a crime if that was my son who pulled something like this and exploited a child there would be significant consequences. Also, Araiza doesn’t have a right to this job. He put himself in a bad spot. Maybe he didn’t act criminally. Maybe he did. But it seems like he’s guilty of behaving like an obnoxious frat boy and, if he loses his job over the issue, then that’s his problem.

I agree with you. The Bills probably don’t want any part of this mess. I do think Araiza punts tonight, because otherwise we either have to not punt tonight (hurts special teams evaluate) or fire someone other than Araiza to roster a new punter (and deprive that person of the opportunity to make tape).

Maybe. But the ID of Araiza isn’t a huge issue right now (unless the focus turns solely to the assault that occurred inside the room). The controlled call didn’t go so well for Araiza. And his attorney seems to have acknowledged “consensual” contact. There’s a good chance of a DNA deposit, too. (Although it might be cloudy because of the possibility of multiple contributors.). So I’m not too concerned with how the vic came to know Araiza’s identity.

You’re assuming the investigation was conducted well. I have doubts about that.

That’s not a bad idea. Depending on availability of other punters and mood with the locker room (don’t want to turn your back on guys based on mere allegations, because current and future teammates will take note), they may well decide that the “negative” of this significant distraction is not worth the “positive” that Araiza brings to the field.

I’m not convinced the attorney is acting like a clown. I don’t agree with negotiating something like this over text. I don’t agree with publishing the text messages. (I’d never trust this guy in a professional setting after something like that.) But we also don’t know what the goal is here. It could well be that the vic had a price of peace, that the vic was getting jerked around, and that she and her parents then decided that satisfaction would be achieved by destroying the person whom they believed to be one of her rapists. (They’re off to a good start in that respect.) Of course, it also could be that this guy, too, is exploiting the vic and using her case as free advertising. Or a combination of the two. But just as I’m not ready to convict Araiza yet, I’m not ready to condemn (most of) the strategy of the vic’s attorney.

That’s how I see the strategy, too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that he wasn't a full-time punter until the 2021 season, and that his NFL stock rose because of his punting that occurred during that season. He was principally a kicker before 2021 and, to my knowledge, he wasn't on NFL radars as a kicker. So I think my prior point stands.

The only thing they couldn't get from the rape kit themselves would be DNA swabs and any match that may have been made. Everything else could be obtained through a roughly simultaneous (and invasive and humiliating) independent physical examination.

Also makes me wonder about whether this was a pre-planned shakedown. This incident occurred before Araiza was on NFL radars, right? (Or maybe at about the same time as he was getting noticed.) Point is, the alleged vic made a point of finding Araiza to follow up on this before he was the "punt god" and a Buffalo Bill (fleeting as perhaps that may be). So while I acknowledge that what happened yesterday was driven in part by his status as a rostered member of the Bills (he's the "target" D; the filing was timed to leverage him and the Bills just before the start of the season and after Haack was cut), I frankly doubt that this is a situation in which the alleged vic had an encounter with a football star that was consensual and that she rethought for the purpose of extorting him immediately thereafter.

I agree with most of this except presumably. If they knew this is what the allegations were going to look like and they still thought it was worth taking the PR hit over a rookie punter (and cutting Haack before they knew who else might be around to take his place if they dumped Araiza first), then I would be very surprised.

Makes me wonder how thoroughly the Bills investigated the matter. The hit job was going to happen in the media whenever Araiza won the job. Maybe the Bills were sandbagged and led to believe the allegations weren't of this nature. Or maybe they didn't take is seriously. I don't know. But what came out in the complaint is pretty specific and pretty bad.

DNA might not be in a tear. Probably kind of rare to find it in such a place actually. But your scenario is one in which DNA deposit would not necessarily equate to rape. In that scenario we’d have a he said/she said, with potential input from non-party witnesses who, for example, might say that araiza wasn’t present inside the house in which a violent rape allegedly occurred. (Good luck selling a jury on that one, BTW.)

They’re going to clean out their legal department soon, too. This is a massive mess.

Even if all of this is true—and it isn’t—it wouldn’t support dismissal on the merits.

Your opinion of inside counsel is higher than mine.

I’ve practiced for a long time and this would be news to me.

I agree about not rushing to judgment. I don’t assume quality in internal investigation.

It might not be all he said she said. To my understanding the alleged vic submitted to a rape kit. Without getting too deep in the weeds, that exam can establish forcible penetration inconsistent with consensual intercourse. Medical evidence of rape. Then it’s a question of who did it. That’s where DNA helps. Got tearing plus DNA match? Also then have a perp. Only he said she said in that scenario would be him saying they were consensual partners and physical injury caused by a different partner.

I have no idea what this means.

Let’s add that she’s apparently going to testify that araiza forcibly penetrated her. More direct evidence. This is not a circumstantial evidence case.

Who said there’s little direct evidence? From what I understand the alleged victim disclosed quickly, submitted to a rape kit, and participated in a controlled call in which an alleged perp admitted sexual contact. Let’s assume the rape kit reflects trauma, tearing, and the collection of a DNA sample. If that isn’t significant direct evidence then I don’t know what is.

What’s your point? They had a number that they felt would give them peace, it wasn’t met, and the game plan may have changed. It happens.

Maybe. Depends what he wants. Assume all of this is true and you’re the parents who are paying the bill for his services. If that was my daughter, the goal would be to ruin araiza and everyone else involved. So far I’d say this attorney is off to a good start.

You assume it was handled properly by the bills. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I don’t know. I’m a skeptic of corporate counsel. But, again, time will tell.