Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

If cash was the goal, wouldn't it have made more sense to do this after he signed a contract with the Bills?

I think one possibility is that the lawyer was seeking cash but that the client saw cash as secondary and Araiza being held accountable as primary.  I’m not sure how we’re supposed to know motivations outside of guessing, but this is one of the possibilities.  One thing I do know: whatever the objective, her lawyer is an absolute moron and Araiza’s is at best two points higher on the IQ scale.

[Captain Caveman]

7 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Ok well that clears it up a little.  
 

Was Araiza’s name…or anyone’s named in the article?  Did the article have actual information from the internal real police report of an ongoing investigation or just third party information about what was supposedly in the report?  Are you aware of an organization called the NFLPA and rules of engagement to which teams are bound in similar situations?  
 

You are essentially saying, and please tell me if I’m wrong, that the accusations on their own were enough to let him go or at least it would be easy to get to the truth once the allegations triggered the start of the investigation.  Correct?  Yet, the SDPD cannot share information and the college didn’t seem to have a lot because they had to defer to SDPD.  So all information came from either the victim’s lawyer, or Araiza’s lawyer both of whom have proven themselves to be idiots and clearly neither is objective.  Add NFL rules, NFLPA issues, whatever relationship had developed with Araiza and their impression of him as a person, what is certain to be their disgust with the underlying topic and tell me again how this was supposed to be a simple thing to handle?  
 

And please don’t bring up Haack because Araiza or no Araiza it is very possible that he was a goner anyway.

 

In the end, they released him in a way that did not communicate any of their underlying feelings……which would be based on very limited objective information….about his guilt or innocence.  They stated they thought it was best, not only for the team, but for Araiza and all involved to part ways.  They stated that resolving this should be more important for Araiza then football.  If they had communicated their underlying feelings of his guilt or innocence in any way THAT would have been an egregious error.  The mob of moron reporters simply wanted either inside information that the Bills either did not know or are not at liberty to share, or blood.  Giving in to that crap would have been dumb.  
 

Beane did say they made a mistake saying “thorough” when it should have been “ongoing”.  Just guessing here but they may have actually thought they were thorough but they found out they weren’t, or nothing revealed i their initial investigation has been proven wrong at this point.  It is impossible to know here.  What is easy to know is that the press pool has stated several easily refutable things as facts and prescribed what they saw as appropriate remedies based on those supposed facts.  They are idiots.

 

I am saying the below article, available in June, along with the details that were included in the victim's attorney to the Bills (including details of the police led phone conversation between Araiza and the victim) should have been enough information for them to make this decision earlier.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

If cash was the goal, wouldn't it have made more sense to do this after he signed a contract with the Bills?

You are assuming MA is the only/prime target of the litigation.  I'm not so inclined. 

 

I also have no idea what assets are in play, who the parties are to litigation, whether or not there are other defendants the plaintiff may add later on or anything else.  If I were to assume cash grab--and I'm not--then the decision to supersize the lawsuit into a national story by involving a guy called "the punt God", the Buffalo Bills and an NFL not exactly known for championing women's rights cannot be underestimated.  

 

How do you reconcile the comments made by the plaintiff that an apology and donation may have solved the problem for Araiza? Does that make any sense to you given what has been alleged?  

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

It's my understanding that Araiza/family offered a settlement before he was drafted and that the victim/her attorney declined.

 

 

I believe there were settlement offers presented by each side at various points…none of the lawyers actions on either side make any sense to me though so maybe I am just confused lol 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

I am saying the below article, available in June, along with the details that were included in the victim's attorney to the Bills (including details of the police led phone conversation between Araiza and the victim) should have been enough information for them to make this decision earlier.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

That article contained a grand total of zero names.

 

So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney?

 

The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call.  So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call?  
 

The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above.  The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it.  Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it.  So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth.  What am I missing?  What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?  

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Well... MA showed her to the room.  That's where it happened.  So he led her there.  Seems negligent to me because he wasn't thinking of her safety all that well. Did he get one of her friends to be with her? She was in a vulnerable state. 

 

I keep hearing this.  Has Araiza admitted this?  And even if he did, unless he told his teammates where she was and/or to rape her (by them saying he did), he has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make sure she's safe inside the house, especially since it wasn't his.  

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, aristocrat said:

 

Araiza didn't bring the girl there. She came with friends as I understand it and apparently told people she was in college. What high schooler goes to a college party and would claim to be in high school?

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

what IDIOT brings a High School girl to. Party with legal ages college students?

 

 

same applies to you Doc. 
 

[Captain Caveman]

11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That article contained a grand total of zero names.

 

So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney?

 

The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call.  So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call?  
 

The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above.  The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it.  Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it.  So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth.  What am I missing?  What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?  

 

 

 

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

same applies to you Doc. 

 

Same what applies to me?

 

 

1 minute ago, Captain Caveman said:

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Just a sidebar for reference to an earlier time. 

 

Here's the famous picture from the Kent State shootings in May of 1970:

Guess how old the female that's over the deceased is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you need help... She was 14 in this picture.  Yup 14!

Lightweight! 😉 😜 😘 

not atoll 

 

now I can comment on people w/o having posts deleted or be put on vacation  

[Captain Caveman]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

 

Guilty of having sex with an underage girl who said she was drunk beyond the point of consent and raped.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same what applies to me?

 

 

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

 

for boys. Keep it in your pants 

 

for girls. HS’ers messing with college boys = trouble 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

Guilty of having sex with an underage girl who said she was drunk beyond the point of consent and raped.

 

He admitted to having sex with her, but not that she was drunk beyond the point of consent or that she admitted to being underage.

 

30 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

for boys. Keep it in your pants 

 

for girls. HS’ers messing with college boys = trouble 

 

Araiza was 21.  When should boys stop keeping it in their pants? 

 

And a 17-year old HS girl going to a college party, drinking and telling people she's 18 is looking for something.  In no way am I saying she deserved to be gang raped, but trying to hide behind statutory rape laws to get him into trouble for consensual sex is unacceptable.  If he took part in the gang rape though, he deserves to be prosecuted.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[Gugny]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He admitted to having sex with her, but not that she was drunk beyond the point of consent or that she admitted to being underage.

 

 

Araiza was 21.  When should boys stop keeping it in their pants? 

 

And a 17-year old HS girl going to a college party, drinking and telling people she's 18 is looking for something.  In no way am I saying she deserved to be gang raped, but trying to hide behind statutory rape laws to get him into trouble for consensual sex is unacceptable.  If he took part in the gang rape though, he deserves to be prosecuted.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean by this and am asking for clarification, please.

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

I don't understand what you mean by this and am asking for clarification, please.

 

I'm talking about the consensual encounter outside the house only.  Not the gang rape.  It's obvious she/her lawyer are trying to nail him for statutory rape.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

same applies to you Doc. 
 

can you point to where I blamed the girl?  I did no such thing.  

[Captain Caveman]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

trying to hide behind statutory rape laws

 

 

WTF

 

 

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 It's obvious she/her lawyer are trying to nail him for statutory rape.

 

Her claim is that she was ordered to perform a sex act, was too drunk to consent, and was then passed around by multiple attackers afterwards.  The statutory rape is a part of it, but I don't really understand why you're focusing on it.

[4merper4mer]

58 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed.  It was an 11 page document.  Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature.  
 

So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player?  And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny?  And it will have no impact if these things turn out false?  If so, where do you draw the line?  
 

Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen?  He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft.  They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him?  Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that.  So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

[Captain Caveman]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed.  It was an 11 page document.  Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature.  
 

So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player?  And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny?  And it will have no impact if these things turn out false?  If so, where do you draw the line?  
 

Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen?  He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft.  They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him?  Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that.  So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

 

If that's the case why did they come out on Thursday and say they had already performed a thorough investigation and made it seem like they intended to keep him on the team?

[Gugny]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

 

Craigslist masseuse handys?

[4merper4mer]

13 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

If that's the case why did they come out on Thursday and say they had already performed a thorough investigation and made it seem like they intended to keep him on the team?

Beane addressed that as well.  Did you watch the press conference?  If not you should.  He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation.

 

That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism.  The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement.  But in reality they had no way of knowing that.  They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well.  I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press.  I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released.

 

Oh, and what about drafting Allen?  Still ok?

6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Craigslist masseuse handys?

Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal.  Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded.  We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Captain Caveman]

25 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Beane addressed that as well.  Did you watch the press conference?  If not you should.  He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation.

 

That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism.  The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement.  But in reality they had no way of knowing that.  They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well.  I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press.  I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released.

 

Oh, and what about drafting Allen?  Still ok?

Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal.  Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded.  We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

 

It seems to me you're going in circles here.  Yes I watched the press conference - my critique of how the Bills handled this isn't about the use of the words "thorough investigation."   If their only excuse is - our investigation wasn't really thorough - my question is why not?  Lots of information was available to them, and as you said the only thing that changed was the claim being filed formally.  If the claim being filed formally actually changed things, why come out with a statement that seems to indicate he's gonna stay on the team? 

 

IMO the most likely opinion is that they did have the same information 2 weeks ago that was released on Thursday, but they were hoping they could get away with keeping him.  I also wonder (based on McDermott's first press conference after the Carolina game) if he maybe wasn't aware of the full details of the complaint, and made a decision after reading them that he didn't want the kid on the team.

 

I'm not going to get into it about Allen except to say that at the time I WAS disappointed that they drafted him, and since that time I believe he's proven himself as a decent person, and I was wrong.  There's a world of difference between what Allen did and what Araiza has been accused of.  And maybe I'm wrong about Araiza, but based on the conversation I believe he did have with the victim, it seems like he's a POS, and I'm glad he's off the team.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Captain Caveman

[4merper4mer]

41 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

It seems to me you're going in circles here.  Yes I watched the press conference - my critique of how the Bills handled this isn't about the use of the words "thorough investigation."   If their only excuse is - our investigation wasn't really thorough - my question is why not?  Lots of information was available to them, and as you said the only thing that changed was the claim being filed formally.  If the claim being filed formally actually changed things, why come out with a statement that seems to indicate he's gonna stay on the team? 

 

IMO the most likely opinion is that they did have the same information 2 weeks ago that was released on Thursday, but they were hoping they could get away with keeping him.  I also wonder (based on McDermott's first press conference after the Carolina game) if he maybe wasn't aware of the full details of the complaint, and made a decision after reading them that he didn't want the kid on the team.

 

I'm not going to get into it about Allen except to say that at the time I WAS disappointed that they drafted him, and since that time I believe he's proven himself as a decent person, and I was wrong.  There's a world of difference between what Allen did and what Araiza has been accused of.  And maybe I'm wrong about Araiza, but based on the conversation I believe he did have with the victim, it seems like he's a POS, and I'm glad he's off the team.

No.  You’re wrong.  When you say “lots of information was available to them” how do you back that up?  Based on what?  And please qualify that as objective information and reassess how much was available.  A court filing is a formal document the plaintiff intends to back up in a legal setting.  A list of allegations, even if they say the exact same thing, need not be held to any standard at all by the complainant.  There is a huge difference.  The plaintiff’s lawyer is not an objective source of info and neither is Araiza and his legal team.  SDPD is, but they could not help the Bills.
 

Then you go on to accuse the Bills of trying to sweep a gang rape under the rug despite a multi year track record that seems to indicate that is something they would never do.  I share your curiosity about how much McD initially knew as opposed to Beane and the Bills legal team.  Based on the conversations I find it possible that there could be a gap there even though I hope not. 
 

I agree there is a world of difference between Allen’s stuff and the accusations about Araiza.  The similar part is that both were assertions from sources that could not be objectively verified.  So how serious of an assertion is enough to avoid drafting someone or keeping them on the team?  Racist tweet assertions aren’t enough, gang rape assertions are more than enough.  Where is the middle?  A rumor of armed robbery?  And what source is valid or invalid?  If I call an anonymous tip line tonight and say Mac Jones is an arsonist and link a Boston Globe story about buildings in Foxboro burning down, should Jones career be halted?  You make this out to be very simple but it is far from it.  The entire process took a total of less than a month for the Bills.  You don’t think that is quick enough.  How long should it have taken?  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Captain Caveman said:

WTF

 

Her claim is that she was ordered to perform a sex act, was too drunk to consent, and was then passed around by multiple attackers afterwards.  The statutory rape is a part of it, but I don't really understand why you're focusing on it.

 

I'm not.  It's a non-event.  The real issue is the ***** that happened inside the house later.  If he was involved with that, he should be prosecuted.  But we need to see the facts, not allegations.

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I keep hearing this.  Has Araiza admitted this?  And even if he did, unless he told his teammates where she was and/or to rape her (by them saying he did), he has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make sure she's safe inside the house, especially since it wasn't his.  

 

No.  Araiza has not admitted this.

 

I disagree with that last statement "no obligation ....or otherwise".  And according to the lawsuit, he was residing there.

 

7 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

AND she was led to the gang rape by Araiza... 

 

According to her attorney.  Allegedly.

 

Can we be better than those media shills who take allegations as fact?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

No.  Araiza has not admitted this.

 

I disagree with that last statement "no obligation ....or otherwise".  And according to the lawsuit, he was residing there.

 

His attorney has emphatically denied this.

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

His attorney has emphatically denied this.

 

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

[Doc]

Just now, Beck Water said:

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

 

It's an easy thing to verify.  

[Beck Water]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

It's an easy thing to verify.  

 

For college students?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

If it were such an easy thing to verify, you would kind of tend to think one attorney wouldn't have made a mistake.

 

You wanna address your thing about "he has no obligation, legal or otherwise" to the safety of the young woman he just boffed in a social setting?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

For college students?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

If it were such an easy thing to verify, you would kind of tend to think one attorney wouldn't have made a mistake.

 

You wanna address your thing about "he has no obligation, legal or otherwise" to the safety of the young woman he just boffed in a social setting?

 

I not sure what you're getting at here or what relevance it has, but the point I was making was that her lawyer, a professional and an adult, could have easily verified where Araiza lived before making a false claim.  And since he claimed that she was 17 and Araiza's attorney says he has witnesses, including one of her friends, who will testify she claimed she was 18, he's either misinformed or lying, neither of which is a good look.  At least Araiza's lawyer's claim that the NFL (he never said the Bills) knew about it isn't pertinent to what transpired that night.

 

And as for the last sentence, just because he boffed her doesn't make him her protector.  But looking at one of the videos with his attorney again, he denies ever taking her into the house anyway.

[The Frankish Reich]

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

[4merper4mer]

13 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

His attorney has also emphatically asserted that Araiza told the Bills and the NFL about the incident before the draft - which the NFL and the Bills dispute

 

Let's just say I consider what both attorneys say to fall in the category of "allegations"

Although I agree with your overall assessment of both attorneys, this lawyer did later correct himself claiming he misunderstood the “before the draft” portion of the question. 

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Although I agree with your overall assessment of both attorneys, this lawyer did later correct himself claiming he misunderstood the “before the draft” portion of the question. 

I mean the questions was very clear and he answered with an Emphatic "You better believe he did"

 

Me thinks he just got caught and had to walk it back. 

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  
 

Your speculation about the victim wanting consequences instead of money is as good as any other speculation and personally, it makes sense to me especially from her perspective.  It doesn’t line up however with some other things the lawyer has said.  At one point he started calling the Bills enablers, which may suggest trying to cast a wider financial net.  I don’t think anyone has even tried to make sense of some of the stuff her lawyer has done.

5 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I mean the questions was very clear and he answered with an Emphatic "You better believe he did"

 

Me thinks he just got caught and had to walk it back. 

I don’t disagree, just reporting what he is saying.  I do find it somewhat believable that he answered a question without actually listening to it because he is a moron.

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  

Thanks. As the old saying goes: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 
There is no legal doctrine that would ever make the Bills liable for damages. None. So maybe this was an attempt to put a squeeze on the deep pocket - the Bills - since without an NFL punting job Araiza is just a 22 year old kid with no real job prospects. I guess the theory would be “you are not legally liable, but if you give us money anyway my client may sign a non disclosure agreement and you can keep the Punt God on your roster without fear of this blowing up later.” If so, the Bills made a prudent business decision and just extricated themselves from a mess that was not of their making. 
I can’t help but thing this poor girl is being used by an unscrupulous operator, in it for his own publicity rather than his client’s best interest. If anything, going full fiasco mode here makes a prosecution less likely, not more likely, and the poor girl is left with no one to collect damages from (a judgment against an unemployable punter?) and no criminal charges against him either. 

[YoloinOhio]

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, so maybe someone can help me here - I've been on vacation so I missed some of the details here.

My big question: everyone is reporting that the Bills learned about the allegations in late July from the victim's attorney. Why would the (alleged) victim's attorney be contacting the (alleged) perpetrator's employer? I've never heard of that before, and I wonder whether it's even kosher under the rules of legal ethics. Sometimes an accuser will hire a lawyer to deal with expected pushback or counter-allegations from the (alleged) perpetrator, but this was different: the lawyer was playing offense, not defense. And it's a civil lawsuit seeking money damages. If you want money damages, why on earth are you trying to render the (alleged) perpetrator permanently unemployable in his potentially lucrative field of business?

Look, I have no idea of what really happened or didn't happen. My hunch is that there's more than a kernal of truth here, and that we do have a young woman (more accurately: a girl) who feels traumatized and wants some consequences for the guy who caused that trauma, whether he's criminally liable or not. But the way this is unfolding is weird enough for me to be skeptical, not necessarily of the victim's motivation, but of the lawyer's motivation and tactics.

All of those questions are fair. I’m sure there is a lot more to the story that we don’t know. 

[djp14150]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Thanks. As the old saying goes: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. 
There is no legal doctrine that would ever make the Bills liable for damages. None. So maybe this was an attempt to put a squeeze on the deep pocket - the Bills - since without an NFL punting job Araiza is just a 22 year old kid with no real job prospects. I guess the theory would be “you are not legally liable, but if you give us money anyway my client may sign a non disclosure agreement and you can keep the Punt God on your roster without fear of this blowing up later.” If so, the Bills made a prudent business decision and just extricated themselves from a mess that was not of their making. 
I can’t help but thing this poor girl is being used by an unscrupulous operator, in it for his own publicity rather than his client’s best interest. If anything, going full fiasco mode here makes a prosecution less likely, not more likely, and the poor girl is left with no one to collect damages from (a judgment against an unemployable punter?) and no criminal charges against him either. 

 

her attorney….he saw football pro…means money.

 

he contacted the team to try and get go away money fir a settlement.  They said no.

 

all Matt got was some sort of contract signing bonus.

 

evidence reported says there are witnesses on record ( under perjury) that (1) she said she was 18 and (2) he was not in the building when the rape incident occurred.

 

 

[Beck Water]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You can read through the whole thread but you won’t find anyone able to explain why either lawyer is acting the way they are acting.  Both of them are all over the floor.  There are lots of arguments and opinions in here but I have not seen a single person that thinks either lawyer seems competent.  Maybe I missed one but most seem to agree the lawyers are idiots.  
 

Your speculation about the victim wanting consequences instead of money is as good as any other speculation and personally, it makes sense to me especially from her perspective.  It doesn’t line up however with some other things the lawyer has said.  At one point he started calling the Bills enablers, which may suggest trying to cast a wider financial net.  I don’t think anyone has even tried to make sense of some of the stuff her lawyer has done.

I don’t disagree, just reporting what he is saying.  I do find it somewhat believable that he answered a question without actually listening to it because he is a moron.

 

I laughed out loud at this last.  I guess I've become "easily amused"

 

IMO calling the Bills "enablers" was intended as warning shot to another NFL team that might want "Punt God" on their roster: "Sign this guy, and you, too, win a free trip to the cross-hairs of a social media firestorm where I call YOU "rapist enablers" and send the flying monkeys your way.

 

I have had the pleasure of several PM convos with self-identified lawyers.  They all seem to concur with the gist of your take on the lawyers, esp, the plaintiff's, that he's doing things regarded as poor practice in litigation and that don't make sense if the goal is to settle for $$ or win.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

And as for the last sentence, just because he boffed her doesn't make him her protector. 

 

Why Bless Your Little Heart.

 

I guess back in Da Day at a party, "Doc" would get a BJ and boff a drunk chick, wipe his dick on his shirttail, stick it back in his pants, say "see ya sweet-cheeks!" and walk away.  Not his problem what happens next, He's Not Her Keeper.

 

She's a human being.  And whether or not she's in college, she's clearly young.  Decent people at least try to help her find her friends.  If it's your sis or your daughter, how would you want her treated?

 

I've seen people display higher levels of empathy and concern for the welfare of a lost cat that hid under their rosebush or a loose dog seen running down the street, and exert more effort to help them find safety.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Beck Water

[dakrider]

I just heard about this 2 days ago and what an awful thing for everyone.  I don't know any real facts about it, but for the Bills a crappy thing to have to deal with and now left scrambling for a punter.