Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBud17 said:

This story is on GMA this morning. They are also interviewing the victims father, this is not going away. The Bills will still have to deal with backlash throughout the season probably.

It’ll last a few more days involving the Bills and then fade away. That’s why they cut him because it was a PR nightmare that was just beginning.  There are so many layers. It’s even possible there was a cover up by a major university football program.  A football program trying to be accepted into the new PAC 12 conference. Some very shady stuff going on.

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, CoudyBills said:

Take your bs to ppp where people care.

I didn't levy the accusations. I responded to them.

 

Pay attention.

[hemma]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And she went right to the police, didn't she? This sounds terrible. Blood and bruising are not good. 

I think she went the next day, not immediately after the incident.

 

Ideally the police would have gotten a warrant and immediately searched the house & occupants for physical evidence, but I think that stuff mostly happens on TV.  Too late now.

 

I do think the police will try to determine a timeline & what happened right after after she left the house as I believe the pics of her were taken the next day.  They may even investigate her father as a family problem (underage coming home late/drunk) can certainly escalate to violence. Who knows?

 

The whole thing is quicksand.  I think the Bills lawyers told the Bills to walk around it as there is no way to know how bad all of this will get.

[extrahammer]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

This is nonsense. The baseless attacks attempting to discredit the broad journalist community over the last several years based on ominous "agendas" is a tired take.

 

What "agenda" is in play here? Should the news be burying the story like the university did?

It's been asked repeatedly from a ton of fans why her attorney is lying about not making an initial settlement offer attempt. It's also been repeatedly asked why her attorney is lying that he can issue subpoenas now when in fact he cannot. He can't until the court reviews his filed complaint and makes a decision. Even then, if he gets that, a court clerk will still have to review and approve every subpoena he wants to serve. 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, extrahammer said:

It's been asked repeatedly from a ton of fans why her attorney is lying about not making an initial settlement offer attempt. It's also been repeatedly asked why her attorney is lying that he can issue subpoenas now when in fact he cannot. He can't until the court reviews his filed complaint and makes a decision. Even then, if he gets that, a court clerk will still have to review and approve every subpoena he wants to serve. 

Ok, cool. That all seems like fluff to me well outside of the main story.

[extrahammer]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Ok, cool. That all seems like fluff to me well outside of the main story.

 

I mean these are serious allegations so the fact that her attorney is being grossly misleading and lying at best, along with changing the narrative a few times deserves more scrutiny. Reporters should be asking all the questions. That's what I would call good journalism. He's also eliminated all of her chances to recover any monetary damages, which is the whole point of him filing the complaint to try to sue. Like I really feel bad for this girl. Like really. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by extrahammer

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Ok, cool. That all seems like fluff to me well outside of the main story.

“Fluff”… that lawyers main mission, allegedly on behalf of the woman he is representing, was to make sure Matt Araiza never plays football. 
 

Yet, nobody can question why he’s contradicting himself, making false statements, holding a personal grudge against Araiza/Araiza’s lawyer and then saying Matt Araiza could have made this all go away with an apology and donation?

 

None of that seems newsworthy to you?

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, extrahammer said:

 

I mean these are serious allegations so the fact that her attorney is being grossly misleading and lying at best, along with changing the narrative a few times deserves more scrutiny. Reporters should be asking all the questions. That's what I would call good journalism. 

Attempting to discredit the plaintiffs attorney only serves to discredit the plaintiff which is highly inappropriate.

 

So the attorney can't issue subpoenas. Cool. We know that and can move on froma pretty innocuous detail. With respect to lying about a settlement offer? I think that's all caught in the bickering between the two lawyers, and if it isn't again I'm not really concerned.

 

I care about the actual story, not the way the lawyer does his job.

[mannc]

10 minutes ago, extrahammer said:

It's been asked repeatedly from a ton of fans why her attorney is lying about not making an initial settlement offer attempt. It's also been repeatedly asked why her attorney is lying that he can issue subpoenas now when in fact he cannot. He can't until the court reviews his filed complaint and makes a decision. Even then, if he gets that, a court clerk will still have to review and approve every subpoena he wants to serve. 

Wrong

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Attempting to discredit the plaintiffs attorney only serves to discredit the plaintiff which is highly inappropriate.

 

So the attorney can't issue subpoenas. Cool. We know that and can move on froma pretty innocuous detail. With respect to lying about a settlement offer? I think that's all caught in the bickering between the two lawyers, and if it isn't again I'm not really concerned.

 

I care about the actual story, not the way the lawyer does his job.

Nah. You’ve decided Matt Araiza is guilty before hearing all the facts/both sides and solely seek confirmation bias. 
 

You may be correct.  You may not be. 
 

However, the one thing you are not seeking is justice.  
 

You’re displaying bias and advocating for vengeance. 
 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[extrahammer]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Attempting to discredit the plaintiffs attorney only serves to discredit the plaintiff which is highly inappropriate.

 

 

 

I disagree, respectfully. My concern in this is the victim and her getting the resolution she deserves. His pattern of contradictions and not being an A level attorney in this field will potentially just snowball until he gets exposed -- ruining her chances at getting the resolution she deserves. So it's my personal opinion that if anyone truly cares about her, they would be concerned with these things, all of the things. 

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, SCBills said:

“Fluff”… that lawyers main mission, allegedly on behalf of the woman he is representing, was to make sure Matt Araiza never plays football. 
 

Yet, nobody can question why he’s contradicting himself, making false statements, holding a personal grudge against Araiza/Araiza’s lawyer and then saying Matt Araiza could have made this all go away with an apology and donation?

 

None of that seems newsworthy to you?

 

Not really, no. See my previous comment.

 

Going after her lawyer just seems like an ad hominem to me. Jane Doe could fire him tomorrow and we don't have any reason to believe that anything about the story would change. To me, that's the only thing that matters.

 

There's been an attempt to discredit her legal representation since the very early pages on this thread based on things as unrelated as who he talks to on Twitter. That's very troublesome to me.

[BullBuchanan]

9 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Nah. You’ve decided Matt Araiza is guilty before hearing all the facts/both sides and solely seek confirmation bias. 
 

You may be correct.  You may not be. 
 

However, the one thing you are not seeking is justice.  
 

You’re displaying bias and advocating for vengeance. 
 

No, I didn't. My take has been consistent from the very beginning. I wanted him released regardless of guilt due to his distraction to the team. I believe I e told you this on multiple occasions. I'm perfectly capable of saying what I believe without you having to define it for me.

 

I believe in truth and justice, which victims of sexual assault overwhelmingly do not receive. If he's innocent, he'll walk. If he's guilty he may walk too. All of that is to be determined.

 

If he was trying to convince anyone of his innocence however, he hasn't succeeded. No one says he has to, and maybe legally that isn't the right thing for him to do. It doesn't make him guilty, but it's an odd look to not publicly deny the allegations in a stronger manner than he did.

Edited August 28, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Not really, no. See my previous comment.

 

Going after her lawyer just seems like an ad hominem to me. Jane Doe could fire him tomorrow and we don't have any reason to believe that anything about the story would change. To me, that's the only thing that matters.

 

There's been an attempt to discredit her legal representation since the very early pages on this thread based on things as unrelated as who he talks to on Twitter. That's very troublesome to me.

 

And you believe the lawyer does not deserve it?

[extrahammer]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

Wrong

 

Please elaborate on what part you think is wrong. Right now Jane Doe's attorney cannot issue subpoenas based on California law because he's only filed a civil complaint. A court does have to review the civil complaint and make a decision first before he's able to issue subpoenas. There's no stamp on the filing complaint based on what I've seen, so if there is, let me know. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

No, I didn't. My take has been consistent from the very beginning. I wanted him released regardless of guilt due to his distraction to the team. I believe I e told you this on multiple occasions. I'm perfectly capable of saying what I believe without you having to define it for me.

 

I believe in truth and justice, which victims of sexual assault overwhelmingly do not receive. If he's innocent, he'll walk. If he's guilty he may walk too. All of that is to be determined.

 

If he was trying to convince anyone of his innocence however, he hasn't succeeded. No one says he has to, and maybe legally that isn't the right thing for him to do. It doesn't make him guilty, but it's an odd look to not publicly deny the allegations in a stronger manner than he did.

I don’t agree with much you’ve said on this matter, but I fully agree with your last sentence.  Team Araiza did not distinguish itself over the last three days.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don’t agree with much you’ve said on this matter, but I fully agree with your last sentence.  Team Araiza did not distinguish itself over the last three days.

 

I disagree with that.  They're the team that's actually behaving in a professional manner, mostly by not saying much of anything.

[PromoTheRobot]

16 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don’t agree with much you’ve said on this matter, but I fully agree with your last sentence.  Team Araiza did not distinguish itself over the last three days.

 

It's was a crap show all around. I don't know what Jane Doe's attorney's end game is. His behavior could jeopardize his client's ability to bring Araiza and his accomplices to justice, or even win a civil judgement.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I disagree with that.  They're the team that's actually behaving in a professional manner, mostly by not saying much of anything.

 

Exactly. The law should be carried out in court; not on social media.

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, UKBillFan said:

I don’t think they would have covered it; they would have gone down the route of “no comment” or “due to legal issues, we do not want to discuss background conversations”. In answering a further question, Beane even went out of his way to stress again that Araiza’s story hadn’t changed.

 

That’s not to say which side is telling the truth, just that Araiza has been consistent with what he told the Bills.

 

 

His story could have stayed the same with or without lies included or an insufficient amount of information.  The Bills could have discovered more detail, or a lie.  It does not mean this is what happened, we just can’t know that it did not.

Edited August 28, 2022 by 4merper4mer