Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.


bill8164

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ethan in Portland said:

And what if Araiza led her into that bedroom to be assaulted as is stated in the lawsuit? 


Then he is in trouble.

 

But how do you prove he led her to that bedroom knowing what would take place inside? 
 

I totally went from, after reading the allegations, to include hearing there was a recorded confession, to believing Araiza was toast to know believing he may have a solid defense.

 

I will now sit back and wait to see what happens.

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

32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He has no recollection of any of those conversations

We cant assume him saying that means he was black out drunk. Dude gets a call of a girl speaking very unnaturally, blatantly asking "did we have sex", he smells cops says, i dont remember (sounds a lot like- i do not recall- aka dont wish to self incriminate).

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

4 minutes ago, nkreed said:

On a phone call in which he is not under oath. I think a good defense attorney will state that the question asked was accusatory and that this answer was his way of ending the conversation. If the DA has access to witnesses that say she had been misrepresenting herself, he won't need to have a defense.

And a good prosecutor would say Okay his defense is I don’t remember anything, so he wouldn’t remember her telling him or anyone she was 18. 
 

he wouldn’t remember asking her her age.  
 

she very well could have told him she was underage, and he wouldn’t remember. 
 

Those eyewitnesses didn’t have sex with her, he allegedly did. 

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

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Yes. He is responsible for not having sex w intoxicated women of questionable age

 

You might wanna check the law out on that one

 

From what has been posted here from actual California law, the burden is on the prosecution if the defendant claims he didn't know she was underage.

 

They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know

 

Witnesses saying she was claiming to be of age blows that out of the water 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Maybe. Maybe not.  He’s setting araiza up to avoid liability for the forcible penetration that allegedly occurred inside the house.  It’s early though.  Time will tell.  Let’s see what the DA does. 
 

that’s a legal analysis.  Football analysis includes a PR/distraction component.  Not sure araiza makes it to the field tomorrow.  This is a big story and a big mess.  It’s early, and he might be cleared.  But I’m not sure the bills will deem him worth the headache. 

 

 


I can’t disagree with you.

 

Someone mentioned the Commissioners exemption list. That may be the best solution moving forward. 

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

Just now, BillsShredder83 said:

We cant assume him saying that means he was black out drunk. Dude gets a call of a girl speaking very unnaturally, blatantly asking "did we have sex", he smells cops says, i dont remember (sounds a lot like- i do not recall- aka dont wish to self incriminate).

 

Problem is he admitted to having sex and told her she should get checked out, and when she asked him if he had actual sex with her, is when he turned into a robot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beast said:


Then he is in trouble.

 

But how do you prove he led her to that bedroom knowing what would take place inside? 
 

I totally went from, after reading the allegations, to include hearing there was a recorded confession, to believing Araiza was toast to know believing he may have a solid defense.

 

I will now sit back and wait to see what happens.


I followed the same track as you. 

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

2 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

We cant assume him saying that means he was black out drunk. Dude gets a call of a girl speaking very unnaturally, blatantly asking "did we have sex", he smells cops says, i dont remember (sounds a lot like- i do not recall- aka dont wish to self incriminate).

 

He would have to assert that under oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read all 63 pages and at least four news articles covering the topic.

I'm sufficiently satisfied this guy is scum. At a minimum he took advantage of a drunk girl unable to consent, and at its worst he led her into a room to be repeatedly assaulted.  

I want no part of him on the team. I dont care or need to care about due process.  That's his problem not the Bills'.  Cutting him has nothing to do with legal innocence.  He's a punter and one of multiple guys that can be replaced with a street free agent or trade. He is not worth one minute of negative press. If McDermott believes what he preaches then he should have cut him a month ago. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beast said:


I can’t disagree with you.

 

Someone mentioned the Commissioners exemption list. That may be the best solution moving forward. 

League is probably gonna jump on this asap. He can’t take the field tomorrow with all this happening tonight. Exempt list basically just sends him home until it’s resolved 

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

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