SectionC3

What do you mean no? The worst part about this is the incident itself. We're talking here about an entertainment component to a friggin human tragedy. Some laundry that we have been conditioned to love and some guy who kicks a ball a great distance pale in comparison to what a family likely is enduring as a result of this incident.

Maybe. Or maybe this lawyer was intentionally coy and didn't show his full hand. (He had no obligation to do so and, if anything, may have served his client best by playing it this way.) Or maybe the Bills didn't have the sense to think the lawyer might have been holding card. (Asking for a preview of the complaint is a good way to get a handle on something like that.)

What would really suck is if all of this is true. And it has more than a hint of merit. I'm not worried about Araiza here. It's the author of those diary entries who has my concern.

Once, right? And they didn't follow up. And they didn't ask to talk to her. And they didn't ask to see a copy of a draft complaint. (The last point is an assumption, but holy cow, I can't imagine this guy sticking around if McD/Beane/anyone with a brain saw that thing.) The easiest way to resolve this is to get discovery moving and to get Araiza under oath. Let's see if he invokes the 5A under questioning. If that's the case, the Bills side of this is easily resolved. Of course, that won't happen until after the season starts. Hence the jam that we're in.

To me the easy one is to look at the campus sexual assault reporting with respect to any player you're looking to bring in. Campus sexual assault has been an issue at several college football programs recently. Then, I don't know, make a phone call to the AD, to the coach, to campus police and see if there's anything you need to know about these prospects. It doesn't even have to be "is this guy involved in this issue?" It can be as simple as "should I keep looking on this issue?" or "do you have any character concerns, even if you can't get into specifics?" or "is there anything that you can't tell me that might embarrass me later?" It's not that hard. Two teams were able to figure this out. Why weren't we? That's a problem. Don't forget prison. He may go to prison. He's not out of the woods yet there.

His attorney is out of his depth. Releasing a statement during the game was absurd. Not getting in front of this mess with the Bills was absurd. Make it easy for corporation counsel to investigate. Sounds like he didn't do that. Now corp counsel (Russ Brandon's brother, FYI, and an inexperienced associate) is going to blame him. And that blame is going to get pushed to Araiza. And this will result in Araiza's termination. Lack of full disclosure. McD (and anyone else associated with the Bills) shouldn't have learned anything new about this after July 30. Particularly not last night. I appreciate that I don't know that the new information was withheld by Araiza. But I was asked what I think. And that's what I suspect.

And that corporation counsel did a half-arsed, lousy investigation that put everyone in a bind.

This is the out and the way that McDermott gets out of this mess. The Bills can say that the legal issues should run their courses. But the separate issue is that Araiza was dishonest with the team about this incident, and that error, which is inconsistent organization ethos, is the ground for termination. It's telling to me that Araiza didn't wear the team logo at the stadium last night, and that McDermott didn't defend him (or at least suggest that brakes should be tapped in this situation) in the press conference.

My sense of this is that the organization didn't properly investigate the allegations beginning about a month ago. Then, after Araiza refused to settle, plaintiff decided that, with Araiza having destroyed her dignity, she would destroy Araiza. It's been a pretty successful 36 hours in that respect. In the meantime, the Bills, having not thoroughly investigated this issue, cut Araiza's competition at punter. At that point, plaintiff had all the opportunity she needed to put the Bills in a bind, generate a major, multi-news cycle story, and leverage Araiza, his employer, the San Diego PD, and anyone else with a stake in the issue. McDermott is left holding a bag containing part of this mess, and he's got to balance sticking with Araiza long enough to have the support of the locker room (can't look like he cuts and runs on mere allegations) with sticking too long with a guy accused of a heinous crime who, from all appearances, wasn't candid with his employers about the situation. Add in the human element of a guy who has an intelligent wife (who's probably deeply upset about this), an intelligent female boss (likely also a touch perturbed), two young daughters (I can relate there; I'm appalled), and a football team already dealing with a tragedy, and it's a real mess.

Hoax. There’s nothing authoritarian or missing in empathy here. I just want to make sure all these MAGA members practice what they preach. Rugged individualism. Don’t come to the government for socialism bucks when the going gets tough with your diabetes and lung cancer. Take your Ivermectin and tough it out.

Looks like bass is going to handle it.

I’m not your guy. One more time: what’s your profession?

No need to deflect. I’m just trying to assess your expertise in this area. Or lack of expertise, as the case apparently is.

Please. It will be out there soon enough for those who want to find it. So, your profession?

Yup. And this is my profession. What’s yours?

I did before I typed that post. Sticking by my opinion.

They’re young kids who had a friend who was just raped (allegedly). Hardly is it a problem that they didn’t think to direct her to a hospital for the administration of a rape kit.

How is this unprofessional? What’s the goal? At bottom, probably justice. And in this instance, justice might have been a cash transfer that made the victim feel whole (or at least less unwhole). Araiza’s attorney apparently attempted to call what he thought was a bluff. Turns out it might not have been a bluff, and justice may now be ruining the guy who someone believes ruined her/their daughter. I’ll get back to the point that if Araiza is not guilty of a crime and he would like to keep his job, then he needs to get someone speaking effectively on his behalf ASAP. Give the Bills PR cover to keep him. Otherwise, he’s relying on the strength of the Bills to allow this, from his perspective, to hopefully blow over. At some point (and I think we’re getting close to being there), it’s not worth the aggravation to keep this guy around.

I disagree. He has our attention. And, if he’s done this for awhile, he’s probably had his client pass a poly and exhausted all other means of obtaining his price of peace before scorching the earth.

Have the attorney hold a presser, deny everything, say our thoughts are with the victim, particularly after the release of those horrible photos and journal entries, and get on a video a statement that your client had nothing to do with any of those injuries or that harm. He’s losing the air war. And the team’s statement means nothing here. They investigated at a prior time, based on information that may or may not have been complete, and with tools that didn’t allow access to any meaning physical evidence in this case.

I don’t doubt that he would say that. I’m sure the witnesses are experts in that field. (Yes, that was sarcastic.). A lot of this is posturing. But I’ll say that Araiza better start fighting back because the alleged vic’s lawyer is killing him on the PR front.

I think you’re thinking about her mom, if I recall correctly. You might be right, but I thought it was mom who intervened in that respect.

I just read the diary entries and saw the photos. Woof. New thought: the alleged vic and the parents are at the end of their ropes with all of this, they don’t like the way the SD has acted, and they’re looking to both burn down Araiza and cajole the cops into prosecuting the case. That is, this may be a leverage play on the SD cops as well.

Nobody said that it was automatically anything. I’m just curious why that person things that accuser stopped cooperating. There are other reasons, in addition to those you mentioned, as to why accusers sometimes stop cooperating. The reasons I’m thinking of are not that the case is BS, for what it’s worth.

Why did the accuser stop cooperating?