Jump to content

McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released


YoloinOhio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, RunTheBall said:

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned - I bet McD met with the vet leaders of the team to get the temperature of the locker room. I suspect there wasn’t any pressure to stick by a rookie punter which helped with the decision to cut him.

 

I can't find an interview, but there were some tweets from Micah Hyde which rather implied that he had.  I wouldn't be surprised if allowing such a meeting might have been one reason why practice was delayed yesterday, and that perhaps meeting with the team after practice and before the presser was one reason the presser was delayed.

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

2 minutes ago, RunTheBall said:

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned - I bet McD met with the vet leaders of the team to get the temperature of the locker room. I suspect there wasn’t any pressure to stick by a rookie punter which helped with the decision to cut him.

I suspect that's part of why practice was moved back yesterday, Araiza was out of the building, and the PC started as late as it did. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Sorry, but you're wrong.  The statement is evidence.  She said it happened.  Standing alone, it's sufficient to indict and to convict.  

Or they employ arguably the best punter in the NFL and had no reason to waste time vetting Araiza.

Section C3 stole my kittens is evidence?

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

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don't know the context to which you're referring, but her statement that Araiza participated in a gang rape damn sure is.  

Especially if it was said in front of witnesses while she was covered in blood and had bruises, as has been alleged 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I can't find an interview, but there were some tweets from Micah Hyde which rather implied that he had.  I wouldn't be surprised if allowing such a meeting might have been one reason why practice was delayed yesterday, and that perhaps meeting with the team after practice and before the presser was one reason the presser was delayed.

 

McDemott mentioned Hyde in the press conference, indicating he had an input in this manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

I don't know the context to which you're referring, but her statement that Araiza participated in a gang rape damn sure is.  

What is your overall point here?

 

They should have cut him the minute they heard something because the is evidence in the form of an allegation that was contained in neither a criminal nor a civil filing at the time?  Do you think the NFLPA might not have liked that?  Do you think the process for something like that is simple?  

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

33 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's an allegation at this point.  One that wasn't even followed-up by the SDPD.  If Araiza wasn't involved with it, what information did you want him to provide?

 

Um....how do you know it was not followed up by the SDPD?  They sent their investigation to prosecutors August 5th.  It sounds comprehensive.

:

Quote

More than 20 investigative personnel worked on the case, resulting in nearly 200 hours of overtime, said police spokesperson Lt. Adam Sharki. Detectives obtained and executed 10 search warrants, interviewed multiple witnesses, examined physical evidence, and reviewed more than three terabytes of digital evidence, he added.

 

The "more than 3 terabytes of digital evidence" has a rather ominous ring to those involved, given the alleged victim's statement that she saw a light at times, as though someone were videoing or taking pictures.

 

When cases like this have been successfully prosecuted, it's because the doofuses involved created digital evidence, which police were able to recover and introduce at trial.

Edited by Beck Water
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

What is your overall point here?

 

They should have cut him the minute they heard something because the is evidence in the form of an allegation that was contained in neither a criminal nor a civil filing at the time?  Do you think the NFLPA might not have liked that?  Do you think the process for something like that is simple?  

Actually my point was that I'm not sure about the context in which your kitten statement applies.  If you're asking whether it's evidence of a theft of kittens, I suppose it is.  The problem is, in that context, it's weak evidence. We don't know whether you owned kittens, and we don't know whether said kittens were stolen.  

 

In a different context, such as one that considers the issue whether you're out of your depth in this area, it's rather strong evidence.  

 

So context counts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

He’s gotten national attention for his work thus far, elevating his status and his style of practicing law.  One could argue it all makes sense, and he’s doing exactly what he set out to do. 

is bad publicity suddenly good publicity in the legal field?  I think his style of rhetoric could cause his career to plummet not succeed. JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It's been about nine months and no charges though they have a girl who suppossidly was covered in blood and bruised. That's strange, I'd say.

 

They also have a girl who stated her memory of the events was incomplete because she was in and out of consciousness.  She couldn't even state definitively whether the bruises on her neck were from strangulation or hickies.

 

I believe those are hard cases to prosecute, and require that the detectives painstakingly work around the gap in credible victim testimony.  I'm not surprised that it's taken this long.

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

1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Maybe they should employ psychics? People keep asking "why didn't they know?"

Two other teams figured out there was a problem with this guy.  If they didn't get it through psychic intervention, then we have work to do. 

  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Two other teams figured out there was a problem with this guy.  If they didn't get it through psychic intervention, then we have work to do. 

 

There's no hard evidence of that. Just conjecture. Also no evidence of what was known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, loyal2dagame said:

 

All NFL teams have problems vetting college players. 

 

Well, I think part of McD's process philosophy is continuous improvement.

 

Regardless of what they said publicly, I would guess that they will also sit down and evaluate what they could have done to avoid this situation so that they can improve their screening process.

 

Again, the information available so far suggests that most teams were in the same boat as the Bills, but a few ones had a deeper understanding of Araiza's background.

 

I'm pretty sure that behind closed doors their approach won't be to the tune of "well, all teams have problems vetting players, let's move on".

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Actually my point was that I'm not sure about the context in which your kitten statement applies.  If you're asking whether it's evidence of a theft of kittens, I suppose it is.  The problem is, in that context, it's weak evidence. We don't know whether you owned kittens, and we don't know whether said kittens were stolen.  

 

In a different context, such as one that considers the issue whether you're out of your depth in this area, it's rather strong evidence.  

 

So context counts. 

The Bills decision and timing should be based on as much truth as they can find.  Your impression of what constitutes truth or your perception of how long it should take to find are utterly meaningless.  Sorry.

 

No organization operates to 100% efficiency….ever.  Im sure the Bills did not.  
 

There are people implying SDPD is corrupt in this matter.  The sad truth is that these cases take a long time to investigate and are difficult.  The timeline on this case isn’t unusual…..that doesn’t make it optimal.  Sure, maybe SDPD is covering up but it’s more likely that it was a difficult process.  One thing is for sure…..they would never and should never share the results of their objective analysis with a football team while the case is ongoing.  That left the Bills with two conflicting parties feeding them diametrically opposed information starting three weeks ago.  The accusing party had not taken any formal legal action whatsoever until two days ago.   If you think things were easy for the Bills, you’re living in a dreamworld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to happen. Can't have that kind of drama hanging over the team. Media are like sharks, that's all they'd ask about. Keeping him around just continues the distraction and you can see it's already affected McDermott. Can't have it. Especially with the type of culture they're always preaching. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SDS unpinned this topic
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...