OT-ish: New info sheds light on prosecutors' decision not to charge former SDSU punter Matt Araiza who was accused of rape
TL;DR - New information indicates that the rape allegations against former SDSU punter Matt Araiza may be false.
Former SDSU punter Matt Araiza and other SDSU players were accused of gang raping a high school girl at a party, leading to Araiza being cut by the Bills (who had drafted him in 2022) and essentially blacklisted from the NFL. The girl filed a civil lawsuit against Araiza, and the allegations in the lawsuit are shocking to say the least.
Apparently, San Diego prosecutors conducted their own investigation into the allegations (separate from the investigation that the police had conducted), as a result of which they decided not to file criminal charges against Araiza and the other accused SDSU players. They also met with the accuser and her attorneys to explain their decision. Yahoo Sports obtained a transcript of that meeting, which reveals potentially exculpatory information about the alleged encounter. Per Yahoo Sports' report, prosecutors informed the girl that they believe Araiza left the party before the time the gang rape was alleged to have occurred. They also told her that witness testimony conflicted with her claim that she had been raped and supported the claims of the accused SDSU players that any sexual encounter that may have occured was consensual.
If the information in the transcript and Yahoo Sports' report is accurate and Araiza really didn't rape anyone, then let's hope he's fully exonerated in the court of public opinion and is able to get his career back on track. And if Araiza is innocent, we can also take this episode off the list of Brady Hoke's shortcomings.
Nobody here has referred to Araiza as a "noble hero." But, consensual sex with a 17-year-old who stated herself to be 18 (California's age-of-consent is 18 but CA also recognizes the "mistake of age" argument) isn't a felony, or even a misdemenor.
But don't worry. Nobody in the NFL is going to sign Araiza anyway. If he were instead ....... oh, I don't know, let's say a former 1st-round pick quarterback ...... someone would probably trade away 3 1st-round draft picks and sign him for $230,000,000.
But that's a whole other story. Privilege is for some and not for others. Be a QB, not a punter.
sign him for a guaranteed $230,000,000.
Fixed that for ya Nittany 😉
But that's a whole other story.
But that's a whole 'nother story. FIFY
If I'm at a party taking a piss outside and some hottie comes out saying she's 18 and wants to suck my dick, it'd be pretty hard to say no.
Oyster, WTF article did you read? The title of the article said
Prosecutors: Former Bills punter Matt Araiza wasn't present during alleged gang rape
Yet, you claim the article said he had consensual sex that would be statutory rape. That’s BS. The prosecution said he wasn’t even there.
You need to buy some new reading glasses.
Are you illiterate? According to the prosecutors,
the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual.
Who tries to correct someone based on pretending to have read an article?
And people are upvoting him anyways.
Because Jon’s quote is misleading BS
You don’t seem to be able to evaluate the context of an entire article. Your quote from the following is misleading:
“The witnesses say … that shortly after you arrived at the party, you left and came back shortly thereafter,” Amador said. “And you told [a friend], ‘I just had sex.’ ... You didn’t appear unhappy. You appeared to be having fun and that the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual."
Amador also explained to the girl that additional witness testimony alleged that at this period of time, “you were approaching men at the party saying, ‘I want you to [expletive] me and if you don’t [expletive] me you’re a [expletive].”
The prosecutor is questioning the girl about HER STATEMENT about having sex with Araiza. And only in that quote is it suggested that the sex she had was actually with Araiza. Yet elsewhere it’s it’s not mentioned or at best inconclusive, with no witnesses or proof, as to whether or not there was any sexual encounter between the two earlier on.
The lawsuit is about an alleged gang rape that occurred later on where you specifically and completely ignore this quote directly from the prosecutor:
Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he had “left” the home at about 12:30 a.m., an hour prior to when evidence suggested the alleged gang rape would have occurred.
“He wasn’t even at the party anymore,” deputy district attorney Trisha Amador explained to the girl. Later Amador stated of the timeline of events, “All I know is that at that point, suspect Araiza is gone from the party.”
Now the videos and statements in this case seem clear and it’s important to understand what is being reported. But for every falsely accused case, there are probably 100 unreported or un-prosecuted rapes. That is the far bigger tragedy, more important story, and more worthy of discussion.
I am confused. Oyster said he was not a part of the gangrape but had consensual sex with a drunk minor.
You responded with "Yet, you claim the article said he had consensual sex that would be statutory rape. That’s BS. The prosecution said he wasn’t even there."
Then in another response used the same quote of "You didn’t appear unhappy. You appeared to be having fun and that the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual." and that he wasn't there for the gang rape but does not mean he wasn't there prior to that.
So yes, the word allegedly could be added but there is nothing there saying he did not have consensual sex with a drunk minor, which is what you suggested. So am I missing something?
“So yes, the word allegedly could be added but there is nothing there saying he did not have consensual sex with a drunk minor, which is what you suggested. So am I missing something?”
The first time I read the article I read it that he did, but upon reading it again it doesn’t say that. It actually doesn’t say that he did or didn’t, but rather just the statements of witnesses about what she said and how she was behaving. I don’t see anything there that says he did OR did not.
Yes It’s a confusing. Most of the article, and the title, had talked about how he wasn’t there for the alleged gang rape. That’s the conclusion of the prosecutor. Most of the rest of the article is about her behavior, either lying about her age or wanting to have sex or having sex with other men. Their are conflicting statements about an alleged consensual sex with him before the gang rape. But that seems to be a he said she said thing with no witnesses. The quote from the prosecutor, used above by Jon however wasn’t the prosecutor concluding they had consensual sex, it was the prosecutor questioning her about her statement that they did.
I was only trying to clarify what the prosecutor actually said and didn’t say. For all i know, it still appears someone could have lied for him about his whereabouts and he could be lying about it all so I am not going to point out the prosecutor’s pov anymore.
In Oyster’s defense, it appears he is reacting to the fact that there are so many rapes that go unreported and, though he doesnt say it, so many that are unreported or un prosecuted because of threats by rich parents, other parties or similar. I agree.
In Jon’s case that quote was inaccurately taken out of context and made it look like the prosecutor made a statement of fact when actually the prosecutor was questioning the girl about her statement.
I haven't been following the case but I'm pretty sure there is a recorded phone call with the police on which Araiza confirmed hooking up with her in those terms. You guys are bending over backwards to misread the prosecutor's statement to try to put even that in doubt. Why?
This is correct. He did. It would have been helpful if that was in the article linked in the OP (as someone who also hasn’t been following the ins and outs). So he clearly did hook up with her, apparently consensually, so that matter is concluded.
“For all i know, it still appears someone could have lied for him about his whereabouts and he could be lying about it all”
The article currently on the main page of the ESPN app is helpful here. It talks about how they used time-stamping data unknown to the witness to corroborate the witness’ timeline.
Well, one of us knows how "the" works, and it's not you. (Nobody says "the encounter on the side of the house" if whether there was an encounter there is in doubt.)
Google the pretext phone call. Seems to me he confirmed that. Why are you invested in misreading the evidence?
I was actually just coming back to comment about the pretext call. The existence of that call/conversation was not in the article linked in the OP - I just read about it a few minutes ago in the article on the main page of the ESPN app.
Agree, this call wasn't in the Yahoo article. Sounds like he’s made somewhat conflicting statements. He stated he consensual sex at the party according to the call (ESPN article) or was it that any sex he’s had was consensual. Not sure which? But then he denied having consensual sex with this woman in the Yahoo article I believe. (Edit, he denied taking her back to the side of the house. He hasn’t admitted or denied having sex with her). I certainly haven’t read all the other articles. But this kind of nuance makes him look worse that what the prosecutor says.
Again, I am not defending him
"Any sexual contact, Ariaza has said, was consensual."
Look, stop cherry picking statements. He also denied any sex with that girl in that article. But who knows he could be a lier so I am not defending him. Just stop taking shit out of context to make an argument.
Where did he deny it? I don’t see it in the article.
except the 17 year old is on camera stating she’s 18, her friends who were with her that night have stated she wasn’t drunk and that she was lying about her age, and trying to sleep with as many people as possible. She also was stating “if you don’t sleep with me you’re a (insert naughty word)” to numerous people there. She slept with at least 3 other people besides Ariza, all consensually.
it doesn’t make it right, but your portrayal of the situation is incorrect based on known facts
If we're going to stay technical regarding Hoke the two other guys involved were also football players and they were also on the team until the civil suit was filed. They just were still in school when the accusations were made and were then kicked off the team. But if the timelines are to be believed Hoke and co. knew about this incident prior to the season and let them stay on, same as Ariza.
I don't know what happened here but there's clear evidence that at least those 2 players engaged in sexual intercourse with this then-17-year-old woman.
I agree there's a reason to be posted here because it is newsworthy-ish but this thread is pretty gross especially when it's clear a lot of people didn't read the actual article and instead are going off the headline.
“I don't know what happened here but there's clear evidence that at least those 2 players engaged in sexual intercourse with this then-17-year-old woman.”
This is the correct take. And neither of those two players was Araiza.
I've seen stats for this incredibly rare claim to range from 2% to 10%. 10% doesn't feel incredibly rare. 5% I wouldn't categorize as incredibly rare. 2 to 4%, I would call rare, but even then I'd probably reserve incredibly rare for when we hit a fraction of a percent.
Trying to dismiss a sports related post from a sports blog based on dismissing the topic at hand with subjective phraseology like "incredibly rare" feels shitty. If you want to dismiss idiots complaining about false rape accusations, please do so, I think that argument has merits, even when the subject of this article is a false rape accusation. But a blanket statement dismissing this topic citing it's incredibly rarity doesn't seem like it has much merit, given the subject matter of this post.
I suppose partly it's a matter of semantics whether you think something that happens less than once in ten counts as incredibly rare. But let's say 5% of rape allegations (sort of middle of the road for estimates I've seen) turn out to be false, then add to that the number of rape instances where no one is accused (i.e., no accusation, no false accusation), then add the fact that by some estimates 60%+ of sexual assaults go unreported--I'd say in the universe of total sexual assaults, the incidence of false accusations is rare enough to merit caution in posting a high profile story on a message board that has shown in the past that a substantial user proportion has a tendency to knee jerk reaction in favor of whoever is accused. The first comment on this post is fantasizing about punishing women who make false allegations. How does that reaction to a rape claim make it more likely that one of those 60% feels comfortable coming forward? Yes, false allegations are bad. But they are much rarer than rapes that go unprosecuted and unpunished.
Here with popcorn!
Anyone want to talk debt ceiling?
I am interested in discussing debt basements
I miss basements.
You may visit my basement. It comes complete with cobwebs, boxes and your very own non functional sex robot
When you say non functional...
Did you check the owner's manual?
I think Darker Blue is the non-functional sex robot.
Did you move to Vegas or something? Where are all the basements?
Also here for the popcorn.
Let's talk Maria Butina, the NRA, politicians that get campaign donations from them, espionage, and the Russian disinformation archetype. I'm sure that'll go well. 😂
I’m listening
Same here. I wish all board threads were this entertaining.
Nothing about this article suggests a false accusation. There are videos where she seems happy and not injured. There is nothing in the article that suggests she was not later injured. What the prosecutors seem to have decided is that she is on video being a slut so it's impossible to prove she was raped.
Amador said her behavior on the videos made prosecuting anyone for rape impossible.
It also says Araiza wasn’t at the party at the time the alleged incident occurred
“Nothing about this article suggests a false accusation.”
If we take what you said as true - that it happened later - then it clearly DOES establish that it was a false accusation pertaining to Araiza’s purported role (since the investigation established that he left earlier, which means he couldn’t have been there if it happened later). Remember, the allegation pertains to Araiza’s involvement.
This is impossible to tell. People who ripped out a bunch of this minor girl's piercings in the course of what was at least a raucous sexual encounter, some of which they filmed, managed to get the videos time-stamped so that Araiza has an alibi. Maybe they are actual gang rapists who realized they had a 17 year old child in their clutches who was never going to be able to hold them accountable for whatever their sick little minds decided to do.
Maybe not, of course. But I suspect anyone leaping to the conclusion that this was obviously a false accusation is doing some motivated reasoning. Why they are so motivated, I truly do not know. I mean, I don't think I want to know, either, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Wait, the prosecutors’ theory of the case is both that 1) he was alibied, and 2) intercourse was consensual ?
Not the most compelling defense theory of the case
There is a huge gap between a case that gets dropped because of weaknesses with a witness and a demonstration of innocence.
This looks a lot more like prosecutors trying to cover themselves, rather than any kind of full exoneration.
I'm going to stay out of the various discussions related to how prevalent false accusations of sexual assault are here because, frankly, this place isn't remotely the type of venue for such discussions, but what I was most take aback from this article was how gross the whole situation sounded even in the best light for the former players involved. The victim was underage (regardless of her saying she was 18) and seemingly not completely with it (they mentioned she went around the party asking men to have sex with her and if they didn't she insinuated they were sexually limited), and apparently there were multiple clips of her having sex with multiple men. That doesn't sound like a healthy situation to me regardless of the legal conclusions around consensual encounters.
If Ariza wasn't there at the time of the video taped encounters that's obviously quite relevant, though again we don't know what happened before that point. I presume the police have cell phone records or some other location-based data to show he left before 1:30, so I don't doubt that's the case.
Maybe she consented fully and then made up the story afterwards, maybe she was intoxicated or otherwise mentally incapacitated in a way that wasn't apparent to her friends (who were probably also underage and maybe not paying a ton of attention to her), or maybe it's somewhere in between. But reading that story it mostly reads as a teenager having multiple sexual partners at a house party while a number of them recorded those encounters. They don't mention if she consented to being video taped either, so that's also an issue. But regardless, it sounds immensely gross and awful and even if the civil suit is dismissed it's still immensely troubling that all of this happened.
Separate from this incident, the prevalence of people recording sexual encounters is mind-boggling to me, especially encounters with virtual strangers. There's something really bankrupt about that -- videotaping other people at parties having sex, especially when you know this is just some random hook up.
Yeah, the fact that seems almost a given now is just mind-boggling to me. Also, the part in the article where the woman was shown one clip and then didn't want to see any more had to have been harrowing regardless of whether or not she consented to the encounters.
this thread sucks.
I'll just say these types of cases always suck. Big ramifications for both parties and it's almost impossible to tell who is telling the truth - the fact that alcohol was involved muddies the waters further.
I'd feel terrible for the girl if she was raped and no charges were brought
I'd feel terrible for Araiza if he had consensual sex with a girl and had his NFL career ruined over a lie
Who knows if we'll ever know the truth of it
Who knows if we'll ever know the truth of it
This is lazy. In this case, the Araiza has an alibi at the time of the alleged rape. There is also a video of the alleged rape, and he's not on it.
I agree with everything that's been said upthread about most accusations being true, and it being important not to overpunish false accusations, but, come on, this one has clear exculpatory evidence. The vast majority of rape accusations don't come with this much evidence. If Araiza can't clear his name here, then you're basically saying it's impossible for any accusation to be proven false.
(Obviously Araiza may have had sex with the girl earlier in the evening, but the prosecutors developed what appears to be extensive evidence that the encounter was consensual and that Araiza could assert an affirmative defense to statutory rape.)
Evidence matters. Most accusations are true, but not all.
It's not clear that there's a video of the alleged rape. Nothing on the video, according to the prosecutors, looks non-consensual. She was apparently later non-trivially injured, with multiple piercings ripped out of her body. Is there a video of that? Or did these guys only make videos before they attacked her?
All the article establishes is that prosecutors didn't think they could win the case.