Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.


bill8164

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:


Asked this earlier but could we put him on the practice squad until he is cleared/settles or charged/sentenced?

That's assuming another team doesn't pick him up, and something tells me there would be a team that would do just that. 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gobills404 said:

Sorry that’s not how it works anymore. Not automatically believing every accusation means you’re a victim blamer. And if you aren’t immediately calling for the accused to be fired/arrested then that means you’re complicit.

Yeah it shouldn't mean that but I know what you mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Araiza's "team" doesn't issue that response if they know he's still on the team.  

 

He'll be cut by 5pm tomorrow.  

 

 

And I think by the sounds of it McD did not know some of the details.  

 

He responded to a question about that with "a few...yea."  

 

And did not sound happy saying it.  

 

Why does none of this surprise me?  They couldn't and still won't to this day explain 13 seconds. 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Would this count against the Bills' 53-man roster spot or a PS spot, or is there a list like a suspended list they could place him on without repercussion? Just asking, because I am not sure how this would work.

Didn’t we have Dotson on a list like this last year

 

I’ll tell you what though after listening to McDermott and that press conference I don’t think there’s a chance in hell punt God is on this team tomorrow

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

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:


Asked this earlier but could we put him on the practice squad until he is cleared/settles or charged/sentenced?

They could, but I highly doubt they’d waste a spot there. I’m not for cutting him but it’s looking like the only option unless they have real info and think he can be cleared quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Draconator said:

That's assuming another team doesn't pick him up, and something tells me there would be a team that would do just that. 


Surely they wouldn’t take the gamble at this stage? We’ll see if he is cut, I guess.

 

There is a feeling of guilty before being proven innocent around all of this.

  • Like (+1) 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, muppy said:

I think Coach McDermott handled this as honestly, as real, and as transparent as he can be considering the circumstances. And the position this debacle has placed on his team And himself as a man of character. Im proud of him. well done Coach. You answered as succinctly as was necessary imo. He's not going to spout off any clickbait headlines that is for sure.

He looked so uncomfortable he may have been hoping for "13 seconds" questions.

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

15 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Matt araiza is a rookie punter, he is young and AT BEST put himself in a terrible position and made some dumb decisions that could have derailed his professional career

 

With that said why are fans/people so upset he might get cut because of this? being cut might be the best out come for the guy

 

 

Because if the accusations are unfounded it could be the worst outcome for the guy.

 

Are you familiar with the Duke lacrosse case from 2006? Back then I took the bait and assumed the worst of the accused - turned out that was a big swing and a miss. I have no idea whether that will be the case here but I don't see any need for a rush to judgement based solely on allegations.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bills!Win! said:

I thought I read somewhere that he was unsigned. Maybe I’m dreaming about this place in my sleep again 

 NFL.com had him listed on the Browns.  Punted in last weeks game for the Browns.

Edited by davefan66
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Just watched the post-game press conference. Seems pretty obvious to me McD did not have all the facts that came out in the lawsuit. That tells me two things. Araiza lied to the Bills and the organization did not get all the facts. I don't blame the organization. Its ludicrous to think they can investigate this on their own.

Knowing what they know they should have cut him before the game. Even letting him fly home is wrong. 

McD's reaction when asked about female members of Bills mafia was painful to watch. I've been a vocal critic of McD frequently on this board, but he generally looked broken in that press conference. I will have a new found respect for him when they release Araiza tomorrow. 

How can the organization possibly not be to blame? The said that they did a “thorough investigation” and then decided to cut Haack. Now it looks like they were full of crap and just did a cursory investigation before dismissing the issue. Obviously they took it very lightly which was a huge mistake and is frankly unbelievable given the seriousness of the accusations and the current environment with Watson.

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

2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Is bojo available?

No bojo. He was holding for Green Bay kicker last year. That’s why Crosby had a down year.

I think Matt will be looking for work tomorrow and we will be looking for a punter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Does a good man get put into a position where he can be accused of gang rape?

 

 


Araiza’s defence is that he led her to a room to rest, left her alone, and there are witnesses saying he was not in the house when the rape took place IIRC.

 

I’m not saying he’s being truthful or lying - just laying out the defence.

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

3 minutes ago, vincec said:

How can the organization possibly not be to blame? The said that they did a “thorough investigation” and then decided to cut Haack. Now it looks like they were full of crap and just did a cursory investigation before dismissing the issue. Obviously they took it very lightly which was a huge mistake and is frankly unbelievable given the seriousness of the accusations and the current environment with Watson.

I think the wording was “thorough examination” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, StHustle said:

At this point I think the only thing that can save this kid is taking a polygraph test by an independent firm and passing with flying colors. Not sure if this sort of resolution has been discussed within the 50 pages since I was last active.

polygraphs are WILDLY inaccurate.

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

2 minutes ago, vincec said:

How can the organization possibly not be to blame? The said that they did a “thorough investigation” and then decided to cut Haack. Now it looks like they were full of crap and just did a cursory investigation before dismissing the issue. Obviously they took it very lightly which was a huge mistake and is frankly unbelievable given the seriousness of the accusations and the current environment with Watson.


we don’t know they took it lightly. They spoke to both attorneys and probably tried the police. What if they know no charges are coming? His attorney seems pretty confident in no charges. If he thought they were coming he’d be saying much different things. 

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

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

I think the wording was “thorough examination” 


There is also no evidence that the Bills did not conduct a thorough examination but I highly doubt they would have been able to access the alleged victim’s journal or the text messages between the attorneys, for example.

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

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:


we don’t know they took it lightly. They spoke to both attorneys and probably tried the police. What if they know no charges are coming? His attorney seems pretty confident in no charges. If he thought they were coming he’d be saying much different things. 

So I’m just spit balling on this maybe they talked to both of the lawyers and tried to talk to the police who wouldn’t give any information because there was no information to give at that time and that’s where they left their investigation you got admit it’s a long time from the time that it happened to today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:


we don’t know they took it lightly. They spoke to both attorneys and probably tried the police. What if they know no charges are coming? His attorney seems pretty confident in no charges. If he thought they were coming he’d be saying much different things. 


If the alleged victim’s attorney was confident of criminal charges he wouldn’t be pushing a civil case. I think the statue is 12 months so he could have held back another eight weeks if the criminal charge was moving at a glacial pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a weird feeling that there is something else bothering McD about this.  
 

He needs to snap out of it, trim the roster, get a punter/holder and get ready for the season.  
 

Someone else (Beane and the legal department) in the organization should be working the issue of getting the information they need.  

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

Just now, Bob in STL said:

I get a weird feeling that there is something else bothering McD about this.  
 

He needs to snap out of it, trim the roster, get a punter/holder and get ready for the season.  
 

Someone else (Beane and the legal department) in the organization should be working the issue of getting the information they need.  

Agree with first part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accused and rape are the hard things for me to come to terms with on this. The rape I can't comprehend how awful that must be. Accused of something you (maybe) didn't do also awful. I say the second part because it's still possible, although unlikely.

Edited by london_bills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:


we don’t know they took it lightly. They spoke to both attorneys and probably tried the police. What if they know no charges are coming? His attorney seems pretty confident in no charges. If he thought they were coming he’d be saying much different things. 

If they really thought there would not be a massive public backlash then they are out of touch with reality. If they were going to stick with Araiza through this then they needed to be 100% confident in his side, which McDermott didn’t sound like at the PC.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

I get a weird feeling that there is something else bothering McD about this.  
 

He needs to snap out of it, trim the roster, get a punter/holder and get ready for the season.  
 

Someone else (Beane and the legal department) in the organization should be working the issue of getting the information they need.  

 

Someone lied to him is what I think. 

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

Just now, Bob in STL said:

I get a weird feeling that there is something else bothering McD about this.  
 

He needs to snap out of it, trim the roster, get a punter/holder and get ready for the season.  
 

Someone else (Beane and the legal department) in the organization should be working the issue of getting the information they need.  


I believe he should not have been the first Bills person to speak publicly about the allegations.  I’m sure that played into his emotions.

 

Sean is a stand up guy who expects everyone around him to also be.  I believe he feels he was lied to by MA regarding the facts.  The kind of person he is, breaking his trust is devastating.

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

2 minutes ago, JakeFrommStateFarm said:

Are you serious?

 

He evaded every question. 

 

How many times did he say "we have work to do"

 

Wtf does that even mean ?

 

Well, I can give you my "reading of the tea leaves" but there is no guarantee it's correct.

-contrary to the statement put out by the Bills, McDermott does not feel the Bills investigation was thorough enough: "We've got work to do" was his answer to that question.  Translation: "No."

-He is dissatisfied with the statement put out by the Bills organization and by the policy of "wait and see" that it implies: " We've got work to do" means no, we're not going to wait and see, we're going to get to the bottom of this as best we can, make sure we have all the information we can gather, and show leadership.

-He refused to answer a direct question "do you feel Matt lied to you?"  He said he was not aware that Matt/his attorney were going to put out a statement during the game, he's aware of it now (he did not look happy about this).  I think if he felt Araiza had been completely honest and transparent with him he would have said "Yes"

-When asked if there was information he didn't already have, he said "some, I'm not going to deny that" - that reinforces the impression he doesn't feel the Bills investigation was thorough or that Araiza was completely honest and transparent.

 

The "work we have to do" is to gather and lay out all the information the Bills already have access to and any more they can collect, decide whether that information justifies keeping Matt Araiza and whether it indicates lack of honesty or transparency on Araiza's part, and act accordingly.  He is not going to let the organization adopt a stone-wall "wait and see" approach

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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