Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

bill8164

By bill8164
in Off the Wall

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Delusional Bills Optimist
Delusional Bills Optimist

As a lawyer who prosecutes civil/administrative sex abuse cases against minors (and thus is privy to the frequent companion criminal cases), my thoughts are as follows:   1. Of the alleged p

MPL
MPL

We could probably get a 1st round pick from Cleveland for him...     

Rc2catch
Rc2catch

I’ll hold off on judging any of this but it’s definitely not a good look. Hope it’s not true, not cause of football but it’s just a disgusting thing to happen to anyone. 

Posted Images

Alphadawg7 Hall of Famer

Alphadawg7

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

That’s very interesting and surprising to me. They must have WAY more info than we do. I’m super wrong. 

 

The fact that the Bills, a class act organization with women in leadership and coaching, chose to release their returning punter and keep Araiza after knowing the story and investigating it, tells me there is definitely more they know at this stage.  

 

This is why I always say wait to judge after all information is truly known.  When Watson's case first broke, I was actually on Watson's side initially as the way it first unfolded felt fishy.  Just to find dozens more women come forward.  You just never know this early in a story, but the Bills have had a month to research and investigate it and still felt comfortable with not only keeping him around but weathering the "guilty by social media" storm that was inevitably coming.  

 

Don't get me wrong, if he is guilty, then he is done and needs to face prison consequences.  Just saying, I have a lot of respect for the Bills organization and can't imagine they would have cut Haack if they didn't feel confident in their findings from their own investigation into the matter.  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 5
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wppete All Pro

wppete

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Give beane and McD a little more credit than that. They may not be perfect, but I don't believe for a second they knowingly kept a rapist on the team


It will be very interesting what they will say tomorrow. A lot of questions for them I’m sure. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beast All Pro

Beast

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

She's already provided statements to the cops soon after the event months ago.  Clearly she's not changing her story. She's putting out there.

 

Exactly. And how do you know what she said on camera is the exact same thing she said in her statements?

 

You don't and neither do I.

 

I'm just telling you that IMO there is no good that will come from doing that interview and possibly even something that could hurt her.

 

For example, she obviously told police who was involved as multiple controlled calls were made to these suspects. Who provided those names? She said on video she has issues with her memory from the incident. 
 

I believe on face value that what she is alleging is true. I'm just saying that going on and doing a television interview is risky and could hurt her in future court proceedings.

 

Like the police love when a suspect continues to talk, defense attorney's love when victims and witnesses continue to talk in cases like these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
loveorhatembillsfan4life Veteran

loveorhatembillsfan4life

Posted
Posted

My initial thought was this is not the Culture the Bills Stand by and will cut him Immediately.

 

However the longer this drags on and if the Bills have done their investigation , going to let him play tomorrow and with the comments of John Wawrow maybe they know something to this story that we just don’t know yet..

 

I don’t know, wasn’t expecting this on a Thursday night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
What a Tuel Veteran

What a Tuel

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

lol what can they know?

 

Only thing that would be is that the recorded phone call with her is not what they claim it to be. I have a suspicion the bills didnt know about the phone call and thought it was a he said she said case and he claimed he did nothing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mango All Pro

Mango

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 


Whats the difference between knowing when they drafted him and knowing when they cut their other “capable” punter. 
 

Obviously days on the calendar. But if they knew when they cut Haack, it implies they would have drafted him anyways because they decided to keep him on the roster when they had an out. 
 

If they knew a month ago, they knew he was going to make the news at some point. 
 

The McBeane botched this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BarleyNY All Pro

BarleyNY

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

We have one lawyer being interview by Cali news saying 3 years.

We have a law firm (I linked upthread) saying no fixed rule, but under 16 and over 21 tends to be charged as a felony.  Here's another

He was over 21, she was 17.  So it sounds as though it could go either way.

 

 

California’s Romeo and Juliet exception can change the statutory rape charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.  But it’s 3 years difference in age max. Araiza was 21 and the girl was 17.  Plus there’s everything else that is alleged to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djp14150 Veteran

djp14150

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Not per the LAT article

Except the tv story seems to imply otherwise.

 

this particular DA might have gotten assigned to the case today.

 

i don’t buy this was not known by the office.  This surfaced into the news over a month ago at least.  A few months ago thr police got evidence so DAs are usually involved early on in these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alphadawg7 Hall of Famer

Alphadawg7

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Steptide said:

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 

 

Just more evidence the Bills are comfortable with what they found in regard to their investigation into the matter.  So, like I keep saying, people should stop prematurely convicting and reserve opinions and judgement until we know what the Bills believe they know.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheyCallMeAndy Veteran

TheyCallMeAndy

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mango said:


Whats the difference between knowing when they drafted him and knowing when they cut their other “capable” punter. 
 

Obviously days on the calendar. But if they knew when they cut Haack, it implies they would have drafted him anyways because they decided to keep him on the roster when they had an out. 
 

If they knew a month ago, they knew he was going to make the news at some point. 
 

The McBeane botched this one. 

Unless they investigated and felt he’s innocent. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big Blitz Hall of Famer

Big Blitz

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Because he’s on a team? So that also makes DeShaun Watson “Not Guilty”

 

 

Did we give Matt 250 million dollars to play the most important position in sports?

 

We'd drop this kid like a bad habit if they thought he was guilty of anything.  

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. WEO Hall of Famer

Mr. WEO

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Beast said:

 

Exactly. And how do you know what she said on camera is the exact same thing she said in her statements?

 

You don't and neither do I.

 

I'm just telling you that IMO there is no good that will come from doing that interview and possibly even something that could hurt her.

 

For example, she obviously told police who was involved as multiple controlled calls were made to these suspects. Who provided those names? She said on video she has issues with her memory from the incident. 
 

I believe on face value that what she is alleging is true. I'm just saying that going on and doing a television interview is risky and could hurt her in future court proceedings.

 

Like the police love when a suspect continues to talk, defense attorney's love when victims and witnesses continue to talk in cases like these. 

 

Her attorney  clearly didn't;t share your concerns, knowing what they know and what she has said.   She isn't going rogue, safe to say.

 

What she has done is put this out there to the jury pool---it's a sharp move on the part of her and her father.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UKBillFan Veteran

UKBillFan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Beast said:

 

Exactly. And how do you know what she said on camera is the exact same thing she said in her statements?

 

You don't and neither do I.

 

I'm just telling you that IMO there is no good that will come from doing that interview and possibly even something that could hurt her.

 

For example, she obviously told police who was involved as multiple controlled calls were made to these suspects. Who provided those names? She said on video she has issues with her memory from the incident. 
 

I believe on face value that what she is alleging is true. I'm just saying that going on and doing a television interview is risky and could hurt her in future court proceedings.

 

Like the police love when a suspect continues to talk, defense attorney's love when victims and witnesses continue to talk in cases like these. 


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterStrategist Veteran

MasterStrategist

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

If there is anything I am sure of, it’s that the Bills just found out about this within the last day or 2. Beane and McD aren’t going to burn down what they’ve built on a freaking punter. And they literally just had him in front if the media next to Josh 2 days ago. McD was just joking around about him this week on pardon my take. That’s completely opposite of everything else we’ve seen from them for 6 years if they knew anything about this. 

whether they or someone else who reports to them ***** up and they SHOULD have known at some point earlier is another story. 

 

Bills would not have said they conducted, past tense, if they just found out.  These private investigations/fact finding missions are not rushed and would take more time.

 

I think you're off base, assuming the Bills just found out in the last day or so.  Maybe about the civil case officially being brought forth, but not the underlying accusation.  

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. WEO Hall of Famer

Mr. WEO

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Only thing that would be is that the recorded phone call with her is not what they claim it to be. I have a suspicion the bills didnt know about the phone call and thought it was a he said she said case and he claimed he did nothing wrong.

 

The suit alleges the cops prompted her to call and taped it.  This would be easy to prove.  It's evidence.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoBills808 Hall of Famer

GoBills808

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Just more evidence the Bills are comfortable with what they found in regard to their investigation into the matter.  So, like I keep saying, people should stop prematurely convicting and reserve opinions and judgement until we know what the Bills believe they know.  

NFL front offices are hardly moral compasses

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AuntieEm Veteran

AuntieEm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't think anything "automatically makes a charge stick" anywhere, but according to the attorney interviewed in the clip linked above, not knowing the age of the alleged victim is not apparently a defense.

 

    And he was apparently already 22 at the time of the alleged incident per the report.  Certainly old enough to know better and not put yourself at risk with young girls.  In fact at 22 in college being a star on the football team you'd think he'd be in a steady relationship with someone in the appropriate age group.  

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PromoTheRobot Hall of Famer

PromoTheRobot

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

Just like FSU did with Rapeis Winston.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Matt Arapeza.  ***** me.  How the hell did the Bills not do their due diligence on this guy?

 

Well who knew any of this 90 minutes ago? Did you? I didn't. None of the media did either or we'd have heard about it before today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djp14150 Veteran

djp14150

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

California’s Romeo and Juliet exception can change the statutory rape charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.  But it’s 3 years difference in age max. Araiza was 21 and the girl was 17.  Plus there’s everything else that is alleged to happen.

What does the law define as sex?  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mango All Pro

Mango

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Steptide said:

This CAN'T be accurate right? 

 

 


The Bills are obligated to have a punter I think. Possibly too close to get somebody else in? Generally when these things happen there’s always a backup OL, DT, CB, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...