Matt Araiza

[BillsFanForever19]

46 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

Yes, there is video that the DA has watched. I'm posting quotes from the articles because it's clearly obvious many are simply too lazy to read them.

 

“Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone of the sexual encounters did not suggest any forced behavior. “There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

Prosecutors also said that videos from the bedroom show that her piercings were not ripped at the time and she was not bleeding from any wounds from it. “I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounters,” Assistant District Attorney Amador said.”

 

 

Multiple witnesses at the party heard her saying “I want you to [expletive] me and if you don’t [expletive] me you’re a [expletive].” and you are bothered by the "asking for it mentality?" She wasn't asking for it, she was literally demanding it.

 

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it.

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, do whatever you want, whenever you want with me". 

 

She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others), in the same night. One does not preclude the other from possibly happening.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[phypon]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it. She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others). 

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, rape me". 

The information you are looking for is literally in the post you quoted.

[BillsFanForever19]

1 minute ago, phypon said:

The information you are looking for is literally in the post you quoted.

 

It says they have videos of her having encounters, in which her jewelry was in tact. It does not make clear whether or not those encounters include the multi-man gang rape she alleged to have happened. 

[phypon]

1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

It says they have videos of her having encounters, in which her jewelry was in tact. It does not make clear whether or not those encounters include the multi-man gang rape she alleged to have happened. 

They are referring to that night specifically.

[chongli]

1 hour ago, prissythecat said:

 

a sixth round pick?   thats hardly worth crying about.   

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

Edited May 10, 2023 by chongli

[BillsFanForever19]

5 minutes ago, phypon said:

They are referring to that night specifically.

 

Omg, I understand that.

 

What I'm trying to get across here is that just because she consented with one or more other people doesn't mean she consented with anyone and everyone whenever and however they wanted that night.

 

That's why I'm asking if the videos they have are of the alleged gang rape. Just because they have video of other encounters of her consenting doesn't mean she couldn't have been possibly raped by someone else in a different encounter?

 

Is the video(s) of the supposed 3 man encounter or are they of other acts. Promiscuous acts and statements with others doesn't discount the possibility of non consensual acts with someone (or multiple someone's) else.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the verbage and mentality. "She was literally asking for it" doesn't make physically taking advantage of someone okay. Her words and mentality could have easily made her a prime target because "who would believe her?". It's Law and Order SVU 101.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[NoSaint]

12 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it.

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, do whatever you want, whenever you want with me". 

 

She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others), in the same night. One does not preclude the other from possibly happening.

she can say no at any point and have the dynamic instantly change 

 

unfortunately not only did she accuse someone falsely, she had her attorney publicly try to wreck the guy in the most destructive manner possible. 
 

I don’t know if at some point she said no. I don’t feel comfortable giving her carte Blanche to accuse without more concrete information either though. It’s an unfortunate situation all around. 

[ScorpionZero]

24 minutes ago, Bills Bud said:

 

He admitted to having sex with a minor. No thanks.

Have you ever id'd a girl before hooking up. Cause I'm guessing if you did, you didn't hook up. Maybe they should have an app that uses the NFC in phones to check peoples ages you come in close enough contact with. 

[BillsFanForever19]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

she can say no at any point and have the dynamic instantly change 

 

unfortunately not only did she accuse someone falsely, she had her attorney publicly try to wreck the guy in the most destructive manner possible. 
 

I don’t know if at some point she said no. I don’t feel comfortable giving her carte Blanche to accuse without more concrete information either though. It’s an unfortunate situation all around. 

 

Thank you!

 

I'm not saying she isn't a liar. But I'm not comfortable saying nothing could have possibly happened to her simply based on her "acting like a slut", as many have so eloquently put it.

 

As you said, she could have acted like that, but if she said "no" at any time with anyone and if they didn't, recorded or not, she was raped. Regardless of how she was acting with others.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the totality of calling her a liar simply based on other instances that happened throughout the night and my questioning of whether or not the videos they do have are of THE alleged incident or of others.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[phypon]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Omg, I understand that.

 

What I'm trying to get across here is that just because she consented with one or more other people doesn't mean she consented with anyone and everyone whenever and however they wanted that night.

 

That's why I'm asking if the videos they have are of the alleged gang rape. Just because they have video of other encounters of her consenting doesn't mean she couldn't have been possibly raped by someone else in a different encounter?

 

Is the video(s) of the supposed 3 man encounter or are they of other acts. Promiscuous acts and statements with others doesn't discount the possibility of non consensual acts with someone (or multiple someone's) else.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the verbage and mentality. "She was literally asking for it" doesn't make physically taking advantage of someone okay. Her words and mentality could have easily made her a prime target because "who would believe her?". It's Law and Order SVU 101.

“Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone of the sexual encounters did not suggest any forced behavior. “There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

Prosecutors also said that videos from the bedroom show that her piercings were not ripped at the time and she was not bleeding from any wounds from it. “I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounters,” Assistant District Attorney Amador said.”

 

I don't know how this isn't clear to you.  The actual prosecutors that saw the video from the alleged gang activity have said there was no indication of her claims.  Based on the video they saw of that specific incident there is no evidence that she ever said "no".  It doesn't get anymore cut and dry then that.  The actual prosecutors have said this. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

25 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

AND Gary Anderson never sniffed a SB except for one NFC Conference Title that would have sent his team to the SuperBowl AND he choked!

 

"...Minnesota then drove to the Falcons' 20-yard line, setting up a 38-yard field goal attempt for Anderson, who had not missed a field goal all season. Another successful kick would have wrapped up the NFC title for Minnesota, but Anderson's kick sailed wide left, giving the ball back to Atlanta with 2:07 left and new life.  ..."

 

Karma is sure a muthaphu...!!

[Doc Brown]

Forty-two pages over a punter.  Gotta love this place.

[Doc Brown]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/09/matt-araiza-expresses-gratitude-to-prosecutors-for-his-exoneration/

 

“I am aware that the facts of this case have been made public,” Araiza said in a statement provided to PFT on Tuesday night.  “I am deeply gratified for the thorough work of the DA’s office in San Diego and for all the witnesses that were willing to come forward and tell the truth.  I am thankful that the facts of this case as provided by the witnesses will prove that what I have been saying from the beginning is, in fact, the truth.

 

“I can only hope that now people will assess me on the facts and not what was falsely claimed in both the civil suit and in the press.

 

“I am beyond thankful for the unwavering support of both my family and friends.  They have been a rock in what has been a very dark eight months for me.  However, now that the truth is out, I am amazed by the thousands of emails and tweets supporting me.  It has truly been a blessing to know so many people have now judged me by the facts.”

[QCity]

34 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

 

I'm not saying she isn't a liar.

 

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.

[Doc Brown]

53 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

Vikings fans know we could've relied on Gary Anderson in a pressure situation.

 

 

 

[HappyDays]

5 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

Think about it from a practical standpoint.  The anti-Araiza people have staked out that position because they got snookered into this "believe women" business.  If we want to persuade those folks over to our side -- and I do -- we need to show them that you can support women while also supporting due process rights, including and especially the presumption of innocence.  People from all across the political spectrum, ranging from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, would have agreed that those two values belong together and should not be placed in conflict.

 

The problem with posts like yours is that woke anti-Araiza types desperately want to believe that they're the good guys in this story.  They just learned that they railroaded an innocent person, so they're feeling some cognitive dissonance and looking for a way to regain their lost sense of moral superiority. Your post is the equivalent of tossing them a lifeline.  It helps them believe that people like you and me are just misogynists.  It makes it more difficult to win them over.  We're clearly winning this argument -- don't fumble at the goal line. 

 

This is the unfortunate reality of these conversations. On one hand you have very reasonable people who say "maybe we should let due process run its course before jumping to conclusions" and on the other hand you have people saying "BURN THE WH*RE!" People in that second group apparently don't understand the irony that they've become the very thing they're supposedly fighting against.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by HappyDays

[Bills Bud]

56 minutes ago, ScorpionZero said:

Have you ever id'd a girl before hooking up. Cause I'm guessing if you did, you didn't hook up. Maybe they should have an app that uses the NFC in phones to check peoples ages you come in close enough contact with. 

Yes I have

[chongli]

30 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Forty-two pages over a punter.  Gotta love this place.

 

In just over a day. Gotta be an all-time record for TBD!

[What a Tuel]

6 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

Think about it from a practical standpoint.  The anti-Araiza people have staked out that position because they got snookered into this "believe women" business.  If we want to persuade those folks over to our side -- and I do -- we need to show them that you can support women while also supporting due process rights, including and especially the presumption of innocence.  People from all across the political spectrum, ranging from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, would have agreed that those two values belong together and should not be placed in conflict.

 

The problem with posts like yours is that woke anti-Araiza types desperately want to believe that they're the good guys in this story.  They just learned that they railroaded an innocent person, so they're feeling some cognitive dissonance and looking for a way to regain their lost sense of moral superiority. Your post is the equivalent of tossing them a lifeline.  It helps them believe that people like you and me are just misogynists.  It makes it more difficult to win them over.  We're clearly winning this argument -- don't fumble at the goal line. 

 

I dont think the Bills railroaded Araiza. I think she did. The Buffalo Bills have every right to let the investigation play out and distance their organization from accusations of gang rape and minor sex. Araiza shouldn't assume his employer of 4 months (or 3 days?) needs to go to bat for him and put their reputation at risk under this pressure and serve as a distraction from their ultimate goal.

 

So to win us all over to the side of Araiza (which technically we are), you also need to stop implying that Araiza was wronged by anyone except his accuser and her lawyer.

[HappyDays]

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 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.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by HappyDays

[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