Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.


bill8164

Recommended Posts

Just now, UKBillFan said:


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

Yeah but loyal bills fans will just say she’s trying to do it just for money because he plays for the billsYeah but loyal bills fans will just say she’s trying to do it just for money because he plays for the bills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

NFL front offices are hardly moral compasses

 

I would argue that the Bills are as moral as they get though.  No way they stand with a guy if they found anything damning in their investigation.  I would confidently say that 0% chance Matt is still on this team if even their investigation was inconclusive.  They clearly are confident in what they found.  So, I suggest we all wait until we know more and stop assuming the worst given there is evidence here that maybe they know a lot more about it than any of us do.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Question, why is it the victims name is sealed but not the accused? I’ve always felt that in cases such as these the names of all parties should be sealed until charges are made.


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


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.


This is hashed on in jury selection. It shouldn’t be a problem.

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

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I would argue that the Bills are as moral as they get though.  No way they stand with a guy if they found anything damning in their investigation.  I would confidently say that 0% chance Matt is still on this team if even their investigation was inconclusive.  They clearly are confident in what they found.  So, I suggest we all wait until we know more and stop assuming the worst given there is evidence here that maybe they know a lot more about it than any of us do.

we like to believe that… I hope that after all the dust settles we don’t have strong reason to believe otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UKBillFan said:


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.

She was also underage. I believe she has since made a public statement after she turned 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I think you have to cut him regardless of whether or not you're sure he's guilty. The accusations are possibly the worst for an active NFL player since Hernandez.

 

He's just a punter and a rookie at that. The cost of being wrong is so much higher than the value of being right.

Cut anyone who’s accused is a good way to run an organization… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I would argue that the Bills are as moral as they get though.  No way they stand with a guy if they found anything damning in their investigation.  I would confidently say that 0% chance Matt is still on this team if even their investigation was inconclusive.  They clearly are confident in what they found.  So, I suggest we all wait until we know more and stop assuming the worst given there is evidence here that maybe they know a lot more about it than any of us do.


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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

So the Bills are trusting the lawyer and their player over an accuser which isn't a huge surprise.

 

 

 

I have to ask: If it were Josh Allen who was accused instead of a punter, how many here would want him cut on the allegation alone?

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

False

 

any recordings where both parties did not agree can not be used…even after being released like this.

 

You think the cops, as a routine, would begin their investigation by sabotaging it?

 

Even without the recordings, the cops will attest to what they heard on the call.  

Edited by Mr. WEO
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Cut anyone who’s accused is a good way to run an organization… 

Put him on administrative leave if you can and just send him away from the team he doesn’t need to be cut right now but he shouldn’t be around the team until resolved. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

Califirnia is a two party consent state so the calls recorded can’t be used as evidence that should apply in civil cases too

 

I was thinking that might apply.  So he gets off on a technicality, at least.

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RiotAct said:

we like to believe that… I hope that after all the dust settles we don’t have strong reason to believe otherwise.

They aren’t risking their image for a developing rookie punter. If there is evidence she’s telling the truth that he was involved in a gang rape he’s done. 

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

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I have to ask: If it were Josh Allen who was accused instead of a punter, how many here would want him cut on the allegation alone?

I would. For an organization who preaches culture and has shied away from drafting and signing players with character issues or previous legal trouble I would expect them to practice what they preach. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


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.

 

It was overlooked by EVERYONE. Not much gets past TBD members. If something was out there we would have had a 400-page thread on it before now.

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

12 minutes ago, extrahammer said:

Doe's attorney says he ignored the offer, then contradicts himself by saying the offer is withdrawn in the text messages he just posted. 

 

 

 

Yeah, this statement didn't seem smart for a lot of reasons. Wouldn't he presumably have more money as a Bill? Also he does seem to withdraw an offer.

 

Also I'd presume the other lawyer has the other half of this conversation including the offer that was withdrawn.

Edited by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very suspect timing of everything, both sides

 

Publicly come out the week araiza is named starter 

 

Publicly name araiza starter basically backing his side

 

To me it sounds like a negotiation gone wrong and both sides called each others bluffs

 

Or jane doe thinks there are other victims and this is watson 2.0 and is just trying to torpedo a scum bags career

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jkirchofer said:

I would. For an organization who preaches culture and has shied away from drafting and signing players with character issues or previous legal trouble I would expect them to practice what they preach. 

 

So all it would take is an accusation?  Maybe Bill Belichick knows someone who went to Wyoming around the same time Josh was there.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CountDorkula said:

Put him on administrative leave if you can and just send him away from the team he doesn’t need to be cut right now but he shouldn’t be around the team until resolved. 

I 1000% understand where you are coming from, putting him on leave makes more sense than cutting. For all we know the team has already investigated. Teams know shakedowns happen, A LOT. Vets usually sit with rookies and have that talk with them. The timing of this is very telling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

I have to ask: If it were Josh Allen who was accused instead of a punter, how many here would want him cut on the allegation alone?

I’d say the same thing I said about ariza. Put him on leave send him away from the team until it’s resolved if found guilty then cut him if not he can return. 
 

My moral compass is bigger than the bills

  • Vomit 1
  • Eyeroll 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

So the accusations are horrid, but it's not clear that Araiza is being accused of rape?

 

 

Note that while described as "a minor", the alleged victim was then 17 years old, which is above the age of consent anywhere, and what Araiza did is not being described as "rape", but as "having sex with".

 

I'm going to let this one play out.

In California, it is illegal for someone 18 or older to have sex with someone younger than 18, even if the sex is consensual. This is considered statutory rape under state law. Statutory rape laws are based on the assumption that minors are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Very suspect timing of everything, both sides

 

Publicly come out the week araiza is named starter 

 

Publicly name araiza starter basically backing his side

 

To me it sounds like a negotiation gone wrong and both sides called each others bluffs

 

Or jane doe thinks there are other victims and this is watson 2.0 and is just trying to torpedo a scum bags career

 

 

you have a lot more reading to do

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

1 minute ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Very suspect timing of everything, both sides

 

Publicly come out the week araiza is named starter 

 

Publicly name araiza starter basically backing his side

 

To me it sounds like a negotiation gone wrong and both sides called each others bluffs

 

Or jane doe thinks there are other victims and this is watson 2.0 and is just trying to torpedo a scum bags career

Could be, she could also be trying to rile up public opinion to apply pressure to make them settle. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Cut anyone who’s accused is a good way to run an organization… 


No, but cutting a player on the least important position on the team who is accused is a great way to run an organization. The team and city is going to be dragged through the mud just like Cleveland deservedly was for Watson.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc said:

 

It doesn't matter.  If she didn't inform him he was being recorded, it's inadmissible. 

 

The cops did the recording.

 

If the tapes aren't admissible, their description of the conversation they heard in real time is.  Wouldn't need the tapes.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...