Matt Araiza

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, QCity said:

 

She went to the police and told them Matt Araiza threw her face down on a bed and then gang raped her.

 

She's a liar.

 

First of all, have you read the police complaint?  I don't believe that has been released. 

 

Second, what we do have, the civil suit filed by her attorney, specifically does NOT say that.  It alleges that Araiza led her to a room and threw her face down on a bed, where OTHER people (not Araiza) gang raped her.

 

If you're gonna toss around terms like "liar" for things said that appear to be factually untrue, you might want to take a bit more care with your words.

 

I tend to agree with @HappyDays take on this, although what the civil suit alleges would probably make him an accessory (so not just accused of statutory rape)

Edited May 10, 2023 by Beck Water

[QCity]

45 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

She actually did not! Or at least it wasn't part of the official complaint issued by her attorney. This is the weirdest part of the whole situation that everyone glosses over. The complaint very specifically does not implicate Araiza as one of the alleged rapists. It says he "threw her face down on the bed" where the alleged rape eventually took place but there is no specific allegation that Araiza himself raped her. The attorney very carefully chose his words. As soon as I caught that missing detail in the complaint I knew something was up. My read on it at the time (and now I feel even more strongly about it) was that they were basically trying to use Araiza's name to bring attention to the case without ever actually alleging that he raped her, which indicated to me that they knew there was no evidence Araiza had anything to do with the alleged rape. He was just a convenient buzzy name they used to get the media interested. This was completely missed by everybody that reported on it, a reminder that almost no media outlet can be trusted to report on complicated legal matters.

 

If you read the original complaint to the letter the only thing Araiza is directly accused of is statutory rape, and an offhand baseless suggestion by the plaintiff that she "thinks Araiza might have spiked her drink." He was never directly accused of gang raping her. I've seen no one else pick up on this and it's making me lose my mind.

 

 

I stand corrected then. That is very interesting wording.

 

11 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

First of all, have you read the police complaint?  I don't believe that has been released. 

 

Second, what we do have, the civil suit filed by her attorney, specifically does NOT say that.  It alleges that Araiza led her to a room and threw her face down on a bed, where OTHER people (not Araiza) gang raped her.

 

If you're gonna toss around terms like "liar" for things said that appear to be factually untrue, you might want to take a bit more care with your words.

 

I tend to agree with @HappyDays take on this, although what the civil suit alleges would probably make him an accessory (so not just accused of statutory rape)

 

Ok, so she lied about Araiza leading her to the room and then lied about being gang raped.

 

We're getting close to the point where some will soon be accusing the DA and prosecutors of lying or covering it up.

 

[HappyDays]

13 minutes ago, QCity said:

I stand corrected then. That is very interesting wording.

 

It's not your fault at all. The reporting around the allegation has been horribly mismanaged. The media did exactly what the plaintiff and her attorney wanted - they drew a connection between the words "gang rape" and "Matt Araiza." The pesky little details about what he was actually alleged to have done were inconsequential as far as the clickbait army was concerned. The juicier the headline the better. Why bother reading the legal complaint that you're reporting on?

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, SCBills said:

I mean.. fwiw, if you’re someone “insecure about sexual performance” that girl who’s been with 4 guys, is probably comparing you to each one.  
 

That girl who’s been with 100 dudes, unless you’re straight trash in bed, isn’t comparing you to anyone. 
 

The reason they aren’t comparing you, is because they all blend in .. which is my point .. that you run the risk of not being able to connect on a deeper level.  Sex doesn’t become a bond.  It becomes a hobby.. or when in a relationship, an activity.  
 

Sex may not be a bonding experience for that person, like it may be for others.  
 

I don’t think this is earth shattering psychology here.  
 

 

Fair. I see that perspective. Still find it odd personally, but I get it not everyone is wired the same. 

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Doc said:

 

More like common sense.  No one really believed she told people at the party she was 17, especially after the video came to light, so that meant statutory rape was off the table.  And that made her claim that Araiza later participated in a gang rape, which was similarly unbelievable, worthless until proven otherwise.  I suspected there was evidence he left via geolocation of his phone, which we found out about recently, but I never expected there to be video of it as well exonerating the other guys.

 

That's right--you didn't know.  That was the whole point: until we knew, we really didn't know...claims otherwise not withstanding.

 

As for "common sense"...didn't it lead you to conclude, in another such case, that:

 

The plaintiff's  "own words about the incident will kill her case" and "I don't think that (the plaintiff) wants to be put on the stand" and "She'd be shredded", "a whack job".

 

How did your spidey sense work out for you there?  Now we know!

[Beck Water]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

It's not your fault at all. The reporting around the allegation has been horribly mismanaged. The media did exactly what the plaintiff and her attorney wanted - they drew a connection between the words "gang rape" and "Matt Araiza." The pesky little details about what he was actually alleged to have done were inconsequential as far as the clickbait army was concerned. The juicier the headline the better. Why bother reading the legal complaint that you're reporting on?

 

To be a bit fair to the actual media, I remember most of the actual reporting on the incident being pretty careful - and I'm fairly sure that if (as the civil suit alleged) I incapacitate you, lead you to the scene of an assault, and throw you down in front of your assaulters I'm legally held to have something to do with their crimes.  Accessory or something.

 

I also remember a number of opinion guys and some local press, as well as (of course) social media absolutely foaming at the mouth, and you're completely correct that they weren't interested in pesky details.

[Beck Water]

8 hours ago, QCity said:

Ok, so she lied about Araiza leading her to the room and then lied about being gang raped.

 

We don't know, that's the thing. 

 

Please keep in mind that the DA is not in the business of "exonerating Matt Araiza".  The DA is in the business of deciding whether they can prosecute a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  So if they have a witness who says Araiza left the party prior to the timeline when this occurred, and they have videotape in which the alleged victim appears to be having consensual sex or at least isn't clearly having non-consensual sex, there is reasonable doubt and the DA has no case.

 

On the other hand, the alleged victim's lawyer says they are proceeding with the civil suit, and has this to say:

Gilleon claims they have been asking for corroborating evidence (cell phone geolocation? security video?) that Araiza left the party, and have yet to receive it.

 

We're kind of in a similar place to where we were last summer, where a bunch of people were yelling "guilty! guilty! guilty!" at Araiza because of the civil suit allegations (and without knowing what evidence did or didn't show).  They were off-base.   Now we have people pointing at the victim yelling "liar! liar! liar!" , again without knowing what all the evidence shows. 

She may have lied, she may have been too drunk or high to have clear memories, she may be telling the truth but it's not enough to support criminal charges.

 

8 hours ago, QCity said:

We're getting close to the point where some will soon be accusing the DA and prosecutors of lying or covering it up.

 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here - that the DA is covering up false accusations?  I doubt it.

 

I think it's worthwhile remembering that the police and DA evidently put serious investigative muscle and serious time into this, and it's doubtful they do this if there wasn't significant credible evidence that a possible crime (rape) took place.

 

I think Gilleon seems like a slithy tove, but he's right about this:

NOTE: I am NOT saying that Araiza was accessory to a gang rape, or that a gang rape was committed.  I am saying the DA's office sitting down and explaining to the victim and her attorney why they won't be prosecuting a crime, or the existence of videos apparently showing consensual sex at some point in the evening, does not of itself exonerate or show the alleged victim lied about a gang rape that took place later.

 

I'm also saying Araiza's legal journey is apparently not over yet.  That ain't my opinion, that's straight from the alleged victim's lawyer.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Beck Water

[phypon]

24 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

NOTE: I am NOT saying that Araiza was accessory to a gang rape, or that a gang rape was committed.  I am saying the DA's office sitting down and explaining to the victim and her attorney why they won't be prosecuting a crime, or the existence of videos apparently showing consensual sex at some point in the evening, does not of itself exonerate or show the alleged victim lied about a gang rape that took place later.

The video that the DA saw actually does exonerate the accused (which is not even MA).  What is wrong with you?  Do you want this young woman to be raped so you can say you were right about your initial opinion?  It sure seems that some posters want that.  The evidence is there.  The chick lied.  With all of the horridness of this situation there is a silver lining, a young woman was not raped.  That's a big, big win here.  Stop trying to say "but, but, but...she still could have been raped".  She wasn't.  She lied. 

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, phypon said:

The video that the DA saw actually does exonerate the accused (which is not even MA).

 

Really?  How do you know this?  You're full of baloney.  You have no idea. None of us do.  The lawyers didn't even see the videos because they're "child pornography".

 

As for the rest, I don't think you're capable of understanding what I'm writing, much less what my personal opinion is.  Prove me wrong.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Beck Water

[phypon]

The DA and t

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Really?  How do you know this?  You're full of baloney.  You have no idea. None of us do.  The lawyers didn't even see the videos because they're "child pornography".

 

As for the rest, I don't think you're capable of understanding what I'm writing, much less what my personal opinion is.  Prove me wrong.

The DA and prosecutors said so.  That's how.  That was their statement.  The DA saw the videos and made a statement.  You have been proved wrong.   

[PrimeTime101]

lol

[Jauronimo]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Huh?  The point is that underage girls can look legal if they dress up.  It's not a novel concept.

ESpecially so when they go around telling everyone at the party they are 18 and demanding that dudes "love" them unless they're a homosexual. 

[Doc]

11 hours ago, QCity said:

She went to the police and told them Matt Araiza threw her face down on a bed and then gang raped her.

 

She's a liar.

 

She's trash.  Lying to get a guy into serious legal trouble (at least with the statutory rape charge) is lowlife behavior.  I don't care what anyone says.  

Edited May 10, 2023 by Doc

[Beck Water]

58 minutes ago, phypon said:

The DA and t

The DA and prosecutors said so.  That's how.  That was their statement.  The DA saw the videos and made a statement.  You have been proved wrong.   

 

You're mis-remembering and mis-understanding what the DA actually said.  But it's pretty clear we won't agree, so unless you care to post a link where the DA says "The video we saw actually does exonerate the accused" (hint: you won't find one), I'm outta here.

 

Here, I'll even help:

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/documents-prosecutor-claims-evidence-shows-matt-araiza-was-not-at-the-party-at-the-time-of-alleged-gang-rape/

 

Quote

The prosecutors said there was video evidence, the alleged victim asked, “So there was a sex tape?” The prosecutor said, “There was.” And the alleged victim asked, “And that wasn’t enough?” In regards to filing charges. The prosecutor responded, “in looking at the videos on the sex tape, I absolutely cannot prove any forceable sexual assault happened based upon what happened.”

 

There's a difference between "I can not prove any forceable sexual assault happened" and "the accused absolutely did not sexually assault you, they are exonerated". 

 

From how you're coming at me, I don't expect you to be able to understand the difference, but legally, it's there. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Beck Water

[Fleezoid]

I'm confused. What year is it?

 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, phypon said:

The video that the DA saw actually does exonerate the accused (which is not even MA).  What is wrong with you?  Do you want this young woman to be raped so you can say you were right about your initial opinion?  It sure seems that some posters want that.  The evidence is there.  The chick lied.  With all of the horridness of this situation there is a silver lining, a young woman was not raped.  That's a big, big win here.  Stop trying to say "but, but, but...she still could have been raped".  She wasn't.  She lied. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways. It has not been proven that the woman lied about being raped. The DA is welcome to charge her if they feel they have enough evidence to convict her of a false accusation, which is a crime by the way.

 

This is the weird legal gray area that no one wants to live in, but it's the best we have in this case - the woman is innocent, the men are innocent. I have my own suspicions about the true narrative that took place that night. But I haven't seen enough evidence to definitively ascribe wrongdoing to any involved party.

[nedboy7]

13 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

Gotta change the energy in here:

 

Yeah but how many burgers did that guy sleep with? 

[Beck Water]

10 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways. It has not been proven that the woman lied about being raped. The DA is welcome to charge her if they feel they have enough evidence to convict her of a false accusation, which is a crime by the way.

 

This is the weird legal gray area that no one wants to live in, but it's the best we have in this case - the woman is innocent, the men are innocent. I have my own suspicions about the true narrative that took place that night. But I haven't seen enough evidence to definitively ascribe wrongdoing to any involved party.

 

Exactly.  Well put. 

 

With the addendum that, whether or not anyone wants to hear it, the alleged victim's lawyer is sending up smoke signals that Araiza's legal troubles are not over and he is still facing a civil suit where the standard of proof is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

So I hope for his sake that Araiza's attorney actually does have all the stuff he claims he has (cell phone signals etc), and not just what the DA told the alleged victim's lawyer about - though it's a bit puzzling that wasn't apparently provided to the alleged victim and her lawyer at the DA meeting.  And I hope the civil suit progresses promptly so he can get on with his life.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Beck Water

[phypon]

29 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You're mis-remembering and mis-understanding what the DA actually said.  But it's pretty clear we won't agree, so unless you care to post a link where the DA says "The video we saw actually does exonerate the accused" (hint: you won't find one), I'm outta here.

 

“I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounter,” Amador said.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/araiza-not-present-time-alleged-215711086.html

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/witness-matt-araiza-present-time-alleged-rape/story?id=99204260

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/09/prosecutor-matt-araiza-not-present-during-alleged-gang-rape

Edited May 10, 2023 by phypon

[Doc]

3 hours ago, phypon said:

“I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounter,” Amador said.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/araiza-not-present-time-alleged-215711086.html

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/witness-matt-araiza-present-time-alleged-rape/story?id=99204260

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/09/prosecutor-matt-araiza-not-present-during-alleged-gang-rape

 

The above, plus the witnesses saying she lied about her age and no videos with him present exonerate Araiza.  At best her rape charges would be against the other men.  However the videos of her having non-impaired and consensual sex with them severely damages her claim she was raped.  

Edited May 10, 2023 by Doc