Jump to content

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


YoloinOhio
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

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

 

It's quite plausible to me what someone suggested, that perhaps the Bills weren't expecting to draft Araiza in the round where they had him slotted, so they didn't put much of their horsepower into vetting him. 

 

But it's not "psychic needed" levels of implausible to believe that some info was out there and able to be uncovered, because reportedly at least two teams DID uncover it (AP report, two primary sources needed)

 

There was an active police investigation.  Teams employ former LEOs to research whether there are any police actions against a prospect - maybe not the details, but the fact that there is an open investigation.  If the LA times is correct (and they are a paper that confirms primary sources), this was not a cursory investigation.  It involved 20 personnel.  That's enough people that it seems fairly likely an insider police source would be able to find out an investigation was ongoing and it involved members of the SDSU football team.

 

There were student reports last fall of a gang rape in an off campus house, involving 5 football players including "Matt", stating that the football team all knew and rumors were spreading throughout the athletic department. 

 

That is the sort of thing that area scouts, student-ish age assistants, and deep background investigators are employed to find out, and in fact per AP, at least two teams (who weren't interested in a punter) did uncover something.

 

 

Edited by Beck Water
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The victim said she thinks someone was making a video of the rape. As soon as the police heard that ALL phones should have been seized with a warrant 

Agreed.  Maybe they were and maybe they were not.  The victim probably doesn’t know whether they were.  The SDPD is not going to share any of this with a football team.

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

46 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?

 

No, the SDPD concluded their nine month investigation on Aug 5th and turned all of their evidence over to the DA to determine what if any charged will be filed. 

 

The investigation includes TB's of data from search warrants they executed, recorded pretext calls with Araiza and who knows what else. 

 

Matt failing to tell the NFL, his agent and the Bills that he was under investigation by the police for allegations of rape during the draft process is the only reason the Bills organization is in the difficult situation they are in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Agreed.  Maybe they were and maybe they were not.  The victim probably doesn’t know whether they were.  The SDPD is not going to share any of this with a football team.

 

August 5 LA times article, police spokesman states the case they forwarded to the DA includes 3 terabytes of digital evidence.  That's a lot of terabytes if there aren't videos/photos.

 

28 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Section C3 stole my kittens is evidence?

 

Section C3 states under oath that he had kittens, and he remembers seeing 4merper4mer putting them in a basket and walking away with them, is, in fact, evidence.  I believe it's called "eyewitness testimony" FWIW.

Edited by Beck Water
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

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

 

Dude, AP has its detractors, but they do require that anything they publish be backed up by two independent primary sources.

 

Which goes quite  a bit beyond "conjecture" to most of us, even if the sources are anonymous and thus not "hard evidence".  The statement was these teams weren't interested in drafting a punter and that they didn't have details, but just uncovering such a report would be cause for a team that IS interested in drafting a punter to dig deeper and press harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 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. 

Did teams other than the Pats* know Aaron Hernandez was a homosexual sociopathic gang member? Because New England acted like they didn't know. 

 

All teams have problems vetting players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

August 5 LA times article, police spokesman states the case they forwarded to the DA includes 3 terabytes of digital evidence.  That's a lot of terabytes if there aren't videos/photos.

 

 

Section C3 states under oath that he had kittens, and he remembers seeing 4merper4mer putting them in a basket and walking away with them, is, in fact, evidence.  I believe it's called "eyewitness testimony" FWIW.

 

That's a lot of terebytes if they are video and photos. Like a years worth of work of a professional videographer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 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. 

 

Araiza went into the draft with doubts about his holding and hang time. On most mock drafts he was the third or fourth punter to be picked, and he went third. There is nothing to indicate whether the two who chose before us had a clue about any of the allegations or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don't understand your point.  The prior poster indicated that there is no evidence that Araiza participated in the alleged second encounter.  I pointed out that there is such evidence, in the form of a statement of the alleged victim.  I'm not sure where you're coming from here.  

 

36 minutes 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.

 

Say what?  An allegation isn't evidence of anything.  Much less enough to charge and convict.  Just on the face of it, her saying she was 90% unconscious during it makes anything she way unreliable. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UKBillFan said:

 

Araiza went into the draft with doubts about his holding and hang time. On most mock drafts he was the third or fourth punter to be picked, and he went third. There is nothing to indicate whether the two who chose before us had a clue about any of the allegations or not.

 

I don't think @SectionC3 was referencing the two teams that picked punters before Araiza.  I think he was referencing the AP report that two teams (who did not draft punters) learned there were allegations of some sort around SDSU football players and possibly involving Araiza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

 

That's a lot of terebytes if they are video and photos. Like a years worth of work of a professional videographer. 

Wouldn't you think if they had video evidence, they would have already arrested anyone involved? Not sure how that works, but I would think so...🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

 

Say what?  An allegation isn't evidence of anything.  Much less enough to charge and convict.  Just on the face of it, her saying she was 90% unconscious during it makes anything she way unreliable. 

 

 

You know, she's saying she things she was drugged as soon as she got to the party. She's saying he handed her a drink, she drank it and started feeling... Woozy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s ridiculously hypocritical is Beane saying if they knew about Azaria’s allegations he would have been removed from their draft board immediately. They knew about the allegations for 25 days before it was made public and they kept him on the team. They even cut his competition. “Trust the process”

  • Eyeroll 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dancing_joker said:

What’s ridiculously hypocritical is Beane saying if they knew about Azaria’s allegations he would have been removed from their draft board immediately. They knew about the allegations for 25 days before it was made public and they kept him on the team. They even cut his competition. “Trust the process”

 

 

Haack was gone anyway

 

I don't plan on punting much 

 

They didn't rush to cut based on allegations 

 

They let the process (a correct one) play out as long as they could.

 

They weren't hoping they'd "go away."

 

Skurski is a garbage human and anyone agreeing with his nonsense can go pound sand.  

 

 

 

Plus, It's a punter.  They could afford to wait it out unlike if it was a Left Tackle.  

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...