OT: Investigstors: Araiza was not present at house where allege rape occurred

[18IsTheMan]

Bills cut him last year after he’d won the starting job when the civil suit was made public, even though they had already investigated the claim and determined he was clean.

Investigators decided last December not to pursue charges, but many continued to assume Araiza must be guilty because…..?

Now a 200 page report has been released and it shows that investigators found Araiza wasn’t even at the house where the allege rape occurred. Beyond that, they say video video evidence contradicts the woman’s claim that sex with the other men was not consensual.

Yet people continue to rush to judgment time and time and time again with no facts in hand. Some will even still contend that Araiza is guilty of SOMETHING even though he wasn’t even there.

 

[Lurker123]

Bills cut him last year after he’d won the starting job when the civil suit was made public, even though they had already investigated the claim and determined he was clean.

Investigators decided last December not to pursue charges, but many continued to assume Araiza must be guilty because…..?

Now a 200 page report has been released and it shows that investigators found Araiza wasn’t even at the house where the allege rape occurred. Beyond that, they say video video evidence contradicts the woman’s claim that sex with the other men was not consensual.

Yet people continue to rush to judgment time and time and time again with no facts in hand. Some will even still contend that Araiza is guilty of SOMETHING even though he wasn’t even there.

Is he still out of a job?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Is he still out of a job?

I believe so. Nobody would touch him once the Bills cut him. A whole year of his career stolen.

I’d sue that girl to the high heavens. And then I’d look at wrongful termination.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I believe so. Nobody would touch him once the Bills cut him. A whole year of his career stolen.

I’d sue that girl to the high heavens. And then I’d look at wrongful termination.

It's a little more complicated as it relates to him and NFL employment. He admits to "hooking up" with the girl on the side of the house (which included oral and possibly regular sex) - which he says was consensual. However, she was underage and intoxicated (two things that make consent impossible). There is question as to whether or not anyone could have known either of those two things, but much like Bud Light is finding out - who a brand associates itself with can have lasting effects.

So the NFL chooses not to associate with a punter, who by the letter of the law, is an admitted rapist (because again, underage and/or intoxicated people can't consent). So his actions violate League policy and there's no wrongful termination. And really, you can be cut for any reason from the NFL (and only owed guaranteed money). It's basically an at-will (yet under a "contract") employment.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It's a little more complicated as it relates to him and NFL employment. He admits to "hooking up" with the girl on the side of the house (which included oral and possibly regular sex) - which he says was consensual. However, she was underage and intoxicated (two things that make consent impossible). There is question as to whether or not anyone could have known either of those two things, but much like Bud Light is finding out - who a brand associates itself with can have lasting effects.

So the NFL chooses not to associate with a punter, who by the letter of the law, is an admitted rapist (because again, underage and/or intoxicated people can't consent). So his actions violate League policy and there's no wrongful termination. And really, you can be cut for any reason from the NFL (and only owed guaranteed money). It's basically an at-will (yet under a "contract") employment.

Nope again.

Investigators determined that she was telling people at the party she was 18. Multiple witnesses and even her friends confirmed. So no charges for statutory rape because she lied about her age and he had no way of knowing.

However, the key is that Araiza was not there when the rape in the house was claimed to have happened. AND the investigators say cell phone video contradicts her claims that the sex acts with the other men in the bedroom were not consensual.

So she lied all around. Lied about her age. Lied about the rape. Lied about Araiza being involved. But, as is the case, facts matter little. This is what pisses me off. Even though everything she alleged has been shown to be 100% false and Araiza has been thoroughly exonerated, he will be considered by some to be a rapist for his whole life. As your post is evidence. Facts be da*ned.

She lied and stole a year of his career and would have ruined his entire career and sent him to jail if she could have, but she'll get off scot-free because......?

 

[ToddFlanders]

Nope again.

Investigators determined that she was telling people at the party she was 18. Multiple witnesses and even her friends confirmed. So no charges for statutory rape because she lied about her age and he had no way of knowing.

However, the key is that Araiza was not there when the rape in the house was claimed to have happened. AND the investigators say cell phone video contradicts her claims that the sex acts with the other men in the bedroom were not consensual.

So she lied all around. Lied about her age. Lied about the rape. Lied about Araiza being involved. But, as is the case, facts matter little. This is what pisses me off. Even though everything she alleged has been shown to be 100% false and Araiza has been thoroughly exonerated, he will be considered by some to be a rapist for his whole life. As your post is evidence. Facts be da*ned.

She lied and stole a year of his career and would have ruined his entire career and sent him to jail if she could have, but she'll get off scot-free because......?

No charges doesn't mean he didn't do it. The NFL doesn't want any of the smoke that comes with a guy that has admitted that he had sex with an underage and intoxicated girl. Did he know at the time she was underage, or intoxicated? Even giving him the benefit of the doubt - he still did it, knowingly or not.

And yes, she appears to have lied about him being present at the gang rape - but you're conflating two different instances. He wasn't there with the group by all accounts - but he was at the party earlier and admits he had a "consensual" encounter with the girl. That's all it takes.

 

[18IsTheMan]

No charges doesn't mean he didn't do it. The NFL doesn't want any of the smoke that comes with a guy that has admitted that he had sex with an underage and intoxicated girl. Did he know at the time she was underage, or intoxicated? Even giving him the benefit of the doubt - he still did it, knowingly or not.

And yes, she appears to have lied about him being present at the gang rape - but you're conflating two different instances. He wasn't there with the group by all accounts - but he was at the party earlier and admits he had a "consensual" encounter with the girl. That's all it takes.

lol, the investigator's report explicitly says he didn't do it.

 

[ToddFlanders]

lol, the investigator's report explicitly says he didn't do it.

It explicitly says he was not in that room. He admitted to "consensual" contact with her earlier that night, last year on a recorded phone conversation - he even told the accuser to get tested for chlamydia.

And she did lie about her age from all the evidence out there. A little word of advice for all the dudes out there - if you need to ask if a girl is of the age of consent, it's probably best to do a little more digging before planting your flag.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Nope again.

Investigators determined that she was telling people at the party she was 18. Multiple witnesses and even her friends confirmed. So no charges for statutory rape because she lied about her age and he had no way of knowing.

However, the key is that Araiza was not there when the rape in the house was claimed to have happened. AND the investigators say cell phone video contradicts her claims that the sex acts with the other men in the bedroom were not consensual.

So she lied all around. Lied about her age. Lied about the rape. Lied about Araiza being involved. But, as is the case, facts matter little. This is what pisses me off. Even though everything she alleged has been shown to be 100% false and Araiza has been thoroughly exonerated, he will be considered by some to be a rapist for his whole life. As your post is evidence. Facts be da*ned.

She lied and stole a year of his career and would have ruined his entire career and sent him to jail if she could have, but she'll get off scot-free because......?

I'm not going to get in the middle of this debate, but your first sentence is incorrect from a legal standpoint.

What if a Minor Lies About Their Age?​

This means that even if you made a mistake regarding the victim’s age, you would face criminal charges. If the victim looks older than their age, lied about their age online, or showed you a fake ID, you will still be facing sexual assault, statutory rape, or other sex crime charges. These are all felony charges.

 

[Go Gamecocks]

It explicitly says he was not in that room. He admitted to "consensual" contact with her earlier that night, last year on a recorded phone conversation - he even told the accuser to get tested for chlamydia.

Seems the rape incident caused Mr Araiza to fess up to being with a drunk & underaged girl. He probably wishes he'd have denied all of it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Araiza was fully exonerated yet:

Deadspin | Every athlete accused of mistreating women is as expendable as punter Matt Araiza

Deadspin | Every athlete accused of mistreating women is as expendable as punter Matt Araiza

deadspin.com

sigh