Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Forlorn hope]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Time frame is impossible to know from the video. But an important thing is she says witnesses told her who everyone involved was. She claims she didn’t know.

 

This case will come down to witnesses. Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. The girl didn’t know. 

Wrong again. Witnesses said arazia was not in the house. Including friends and aquiantences of Jane doe. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I’m not familiar with how rape investigations go. I know they can take a long time. The pretext calls happened not long after the alleged rape.

 

The police first questioned Matt Araiza in late July. Araiza’s reaction to the questioning was to hire a criminal defense attorney. 
 

So the police questioned Araiza 9 months after this video. We’re not trained detectives. There’s a reason those 3 football players were under investigation. I’m sure the girl lied about some stuff. She probably also believes some details happened that didn’t. Who hasn’t tried to piece together what they did after a night of heavy drinking?

 

I think most people believed she was lying about her age at the party. It doesn’t explain why witnesses told her Matt Araiza was one of the guys that was in the room. If that is also a lie then there’s no charges and no case. We’ll find out soon enough. The video clips do not solve the case.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Forlorn hope said:

Wrong again. Witnesses said arazia was not in the house. Including friends and aquiantences of Jane doe. 

That is not what she says in the interviews. She was told by witnesses who the guys were. 
 

There are different versions. Araiza’s lawyer said they have witnesses. That’s the version you’re mentioning. 

[Forlorn hope]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’m not familiar with how rape investigations go. I know they can take a long time. The pretext calls happened not long after the alleged rape.

 

The police first questioned Matt Araiza in late July. Araiza’s reaction to the questioning was to hire a criminal defense attorney. 
 

So the police questioned Araiza 9 months after this video. We’re not trained detectives. There’s a reason those 3 football players were under investigation. I’m sure the girl lied about some stuff. She probably also believes some details happened that didn’t. Who hasn’t tried to piece together what they did after a night of heavy drinking?

 

I think most people believed she was lying about her age at the party. It doesn’t explain why witnesses told her Matt Araiza was one of the guys that was in the room. If that is also a lie then there’s no charges and no case. We’ll find out soon enough. The video clips do not solve the case.

 

 

That is not what she says in the interviews. She was told by witnesses who the guys were. 
 

There are different versions. Araiza’s lawyer said they have witnesses. That’s the version you’re mentioning. 

You again don't know because the ,( alleged tapes) have not been released 

[JESSEFEFFER]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Let me put this another way.  In the video, the girl had obviously not been gang raped yet.  I think we can agree on that one.  So if she claimed that immediately after arriving at the party she had sex with Araiza and then he immediately took her inside to be raped, this video disproves that allegation.  If she said she was at the party for awhile, then it proves nothing WRT the gang rape, but proves she told people she was 18.

 

As for witnesses, I never heard any witnesses say they saw him in the room, just that he was the guy she was having sex with outside.  Armstrong says he has witnesses who say he wasn't in the room.  So yeah, it will come down to who has the better/more credible witnesses.  But no charges being filed in over 10 months suggest her story doesn't have much support.

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

[NoSaint]

39 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Time frame is impossible to know from the video. But an important thing is she says witnesses told her who everyone involved was. She claims she didn’t know.

 

This case will come down to witnesses. Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. The girl didn’t know. 

likewise, araiza says he left the house and will be able to prove that. 
 

and I’d point out I don’t think it was plural (witness not witnesses) putting him in the room, nor am I sure that has been consistent in tellings. 
 

we will see when the speculation goes fully on record though. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

Yes. And Araiza’s lawyer even says it wasn’t a party, it was a gathering of football players. The video posted is definitely a party. In the civil suit she said she attended other parties the same night and was drinking at them.

 

 

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

Maybe. Time stamps would be helpful there. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Here’s Araiza’s lawyer saying it wasn’t a party. I’m guessing the clips were from a different house.

 

 

 

[QCity]

22 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Witnesses said Matt Araiza and the 2 other players were in the room when the rape happened. 

 

I did not hear this, where is this coming from?

[stuvian]

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

[ExiledInIllinois]

8 minutes ago, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

Maybe the police and university are in cahoots to prevent a national scandal... Protect the cash cow? Cover-up? Notice the school took no action, they put it on shoulders of police when they said the police told them to not get involved.  Kinda heard nothing from the authorities.  Probably just hoping it goes away. 

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

 

Because as far as statutory rape goes, there is video evidence of and allegedly witnesses to her telling people she was 18.  There can be no other explanation as he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17, and it otherwise would be a slam dunk.

 

As for gang rape, her testimony has probably been deemed unreliable (drinking all night, "90% unconscious" during it and lying about telling people she was 17) and the DA doesn't believe he has a case he can win, even though she may have been raped, although not necessarily by Araiza.  Again his attorney says he has proof Araiza left after having sex with her outside/before the rape began. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 hours ago, QCity said:

 

I did not hear this, where is this coming from?

From the girl. I also miss spoke. She said talking to witnesses they found out who the guys were.

 

She didn’t say in the room.  But again it’s her version but she says she didn’t know who anyone was.

44 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

Nothing else to talk about here. It’ll change in a couple days. 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

I can't believe this thread keeps going, he's gone who GAF

 

Because while he'll never be a Buffalo Bill again (and that's the reason the story came to our attention) many of us still want to see a resolution.

[716er]

Is this longer than the Breece Hall-of-famer thread yet?

Edited September 6, 2022 by 716er

[Beck Water]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:33 PM, BananaB said:

It proves she was was in the house socializing rather then being lead to a bedroom where she was raped. 

 

We do know that video is put together from multiple times and locations?  For example, the end of the video gives a late October date, but the party in question occurred October 16th.  It contains clips of guys lifting and doing shots.  It contains shots of CVS.

 

And the girls were said to have gone to other parties first.   So which party was that video from?  I can't tell, how do you?

 

Or not to single you out, how does anyone citing that video as some kind of proof tell?

 

On 9/4/2022 at 10:52 PM, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

Might have been video taken earlier at a different party?  At some point she claimed to have attended two parties prior to the one in question where she did some drinking.  The video seems to to be a compilation from different party scenes at different locations.

 

That's my take.  It seems to prove the girl was socializing and talking about being 18 and bragging about her "body count" somewhere at some time that evening.  But where and when?

 

That's the problem with trying a case in the court of public opinion.  People seize on all sorts of stuff as "proof" without really considering the quality or the context of the evidence.  For example the plaintiff's lawyer files a lawsuit stating Araiza admitted having sex with the girl.  That's an allegation, and from the victim's side, but people read it as Araiza admitting it. 

 

There's truth in this case somewhere, just like there's yeast in bread, but there are also a whole lot of other ingredients clouding up the picture.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Beck Water

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

 

There's truth in this case somewhere, just like there's yeast in bread, but there are also a whole lot of other ingredients clouding up the picture.

 

This should have been the most obvious trait of the entire saga from the outset, yet enclaves of posters and reporters held the expectation that Brandon Beane could and should get to the whole truth in a matter of a few days.  Now that it gets cloudier and cloudier, the whining and foot stomping have disappeared.  I’m not sure about the posters, but you can be sure that the next time something like this happens, no matter the underlying topic, Tim Graham and the like will be perched back atop their high horses.  For now, they has dismounted and the steeds are back in the stable.

[djp14150]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:15 PM, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

As others have said…

 

there are multiple witnesses saying she told others she was 18 which eliminated statutory rape charges for what ever type of sex they had ( I thought she just did oral).

 

therr is not the issue of her getting gang raped. The issue was who did it.  Witnesses also have stated he was not there when this happened.

 

thr other problem is witnesses saying she wasn’t obviously wanted/ drunk so she seemed to be sober enough fir consent with Matt.  Later that night she might have been worse and might have bern given a drug.  It sounds as if she might have been more passed out drunk when the tape occured by others.

 

she,with her condition, is unreliable.  There us believed to be video evidence of some events.

 

my thoughts….DA office felt there was not WPG ought evidence to know who did it. Maybe there is some video evidence they have not seen that connects her to a clear ID of the subjects.

 

with testimony/ video of Matt leaving, thrnen idence of the incident occuring there is no way he can be charged.

 

his statement in recording dies not mean he did it. He might know who did and heard later one had an STD.

 

thr actions of her lawyer was very sleepy.  Most lawyers wait fir criminal charges to occur before civil ones are filed.  Thry might have filed these knowing he wasn’t getting charged criminality.

 

 

[NoSaint]

Still super weird to me that they pushed to obliterate his career as soon as haack was cut and then went relatively radio silence in the week since he was cut. 
 

not saying they were right, wrong, or in between… but really don’t see the goal of the play unless it’s simply punitively punish araiza because you don’t think the case will go anywhere but at least that’s a bit of payback? 

[boater]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:15 PM, stuvian said:

why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?

No criminal case because the evidence is flimsy.

 

A civil suit because they think they were suing an NFL player for big bucks. Imagine their disappointment when MA got released and now their civil suit is against an unemployed college dropout.

[TBBills]

Is he still being accused or did they do it just to kick him out the NFL?

[Jauronimo]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:53 PM, NoSaint said:

Still super weird to me that they pushed to obliterate his career as soon as haack was cut and then went relatively radio silence in the week since he was cut. 
 

not saying they were right, wrong, or in between… but really don’t see the goal of the play unless it’s simply punitively punish araiza because you don’t think the case will go anywhere but at least that’s a bit of payback? 

The victims attorney basically said the civil suit was meant to draw attention and public pressure to motivate the DA and local police to take some kind of action.  It doesn't appear to have worked yet.  

[K-9]

16 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

The victims attorney basically said the civil suit was meant to draw attention and public pressure to motivate the DA and local police to take some kind of action.  It doesn't appear to have worked yet.  

Draw attention as well as bolster his civil suit with the gravitas of criminal charges being filed. Given the extent of her injuries and the fact that she went to the police the next day, I find it hard to believe that the police and DA wouldn’t like anything better than to have gathered enough evidence to press criminal charges. The fact they haven’t to this point speaks volumes. The plaintiff’s attorney looks to have gambled and failed in his strategy by filing the civil action. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by K-9

[Doc]

Her lawyer probably had no idea about the existence of that YouTube video, considering he went radio silent once it was discovered (thanks in large part to him accidentally tweeting out her name and her interviews giving clues as to her identity and details of that night).  It basically killed not only the criminal case, but also their civil suit.  He also might have believed that once the Bills cut Haack, Araiza was assured the job and the entire $3.9M contract.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

Her lawyer probably had no idea about the existence of that YouTube video, considering he went radio silent once it was discovered (thanks in large part to him accidentally tweeting out her name and her interviews giving clues as to her identity and details of that night).  It basically killed not only the criminal case, but also their civil suit.  He also might have believed that once the Bills cut Haack, Araiza was assured the job and the entire $3.9M contract.

 

It seems he not only botched her case, but maybe his own career as well. It’s hard to know what he should have or could have known, and when, but this was NOT well managed. 

 

Something happened, and I feel badly for anyone involved. 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Augie said:

It seems he not only botched her case, but maybe his own career as well. It’s hard to know what he should have or could have known, and when, but this was NOT well managed. 

 

Something happened, and I feel badly for anyone involved. 

 

I want to see the evidence for or against Araiza being involved in the gang rape.

[boater]

I used to respect Chuck Pollock as a Bills writer. I lost that respect when he ended up sensationalizing the MA story against the Bills front office. What a tool. https://www.oleantimesherald.com/sports/bills/araiza-scandal-reflects-badly-on-bills-hierarchy/article_db4362ab-9942-5f0c-8e6d-58ec4e57a544.html

[Gugny]

17 hours ago, boater said:

No criminal case because the evidence is flimsy.

 

A civil suit because they think they were suing an NFL player for big bucks. Imagine their disappointment when MA got released and now their civil suit is against an unemployed college dropout.

 

 

If going for the big NFL bucks was the goal, I'd think they'd have waited until he signed a contract.

 

[Augie]

23 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

 

If going for the big NFL bucks was the goal, I'd think they'd have waited until he signed a contract.

 

 

On the long list of things that went wrong here, somewhere you will find her choice of an attorney. 

[Gugny]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

On the long list of things that went wrong here, somewhere you will find her choice of an attorney. 

 

I agree 100%.  But I also feel like I'm in the minority when I say that this girl is not just some slut looking for a big payday.

[Augie]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

I agree 100%.  But I also feel like I'm in the minority when I say that this girl is not just some slut looking for a big payday.

 

I don’t know what anyone else may know, but I don’t know enough to really have an opinion on her motivation then or now. Whatever she did, she did not deserve what seems to have happened to her. NOBODY deserves that. 

 

I do think her chances of getting some satisfaction would be improved with a better choice of counsel. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

In a possibly related matter which I have not heard reported anywhere else

 

buffalo-bills-legal-chief-away-from-team-as-nfl-season-begins

 

Some sort of fallout from the handling of the Matt Araiza accusations?  The timing would be after the call from the plaintiffs' attorney and before the civil lawsuit was filed.  Interesting to say the least but I doubt we will learn what this is all about.

[Draconator]

23 hours ago, Doc said:

Her lawyer probably had no idea about the existence of that YouTube video, considering he went radio silent once it was discovered (thanks in large part to him accidentally tweeting out her name and her interviews giving clues as to her identity and details of that night).  It basically killed not only the criminal case, but also their civil suit.  He also might have believed that once the Bills cut Haack, Araiza was assured the job and the entire $3.9M contract.

 

Admittedly I have not been following up on this. What YouTube video?

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Draconator said:

Admittedly I have not been following up on this. What YouTube video?

 

It's on (for me) page 289, from August 31st.  Basically the girl was at some party the night the incidents took place (not sure if it was the one Araiza was at, since she went to more than one party) where she's telling people that she's "only" 18.  As well as some other unsavory things.

[phypon]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

It's on (for me) page 289, from August 31st.  Basically the girl was at some party the night the incidents took place (not sure if it was the one Araiza was at, since she went to more than one party) where she's telling people that she's "only" 18.  As well as some other unsavory things.

adjective

disagreeable to taste, smell, or look at.

 

 

I see what you did there...

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, phypon said:

adjective

disagreeable to taste, smell, or look at.

 

 

I see what you did there...

 

I had to do it because a previous post on the subject matter was removed.  Which was understandable.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Doc

[Augie]

I think 300 pages is almost a lock, as we limp to the finish line. 

[phypon]

48 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I had to do it because a previous post on the subject matter was removed.  Which was understandable.

I know the post you are talking about.  

[JESSEFEFFER]

If criminal charges are ever filed or there is a civil trial, this thread will have new life.  We love our court room dramas even if cameras are not present.  I'd say the statutory rape charge is a no go with the accuser being recorded claiming to be 18 and bragging about her 'body count" at 20.  Her attorney seemed to have much less to say after it came out.  I wonder if there may be a grand jury that is reviewing the evidence.  That would explain the appearance of DA inaction.