2022 Around league

[beardown3231]

8 hours ago, blkwdw13 said:

The weird thing about this is people were saying this has been going around since October and it was never brought up until now. We’ll see what actually comes out of it all. 

It was brought up a month ago by the victim's attorney on twitter and it was swept under the rug. No shot BUF didn't know about this

[dll2000]

11 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

It's obviously only preseason but if there is one time you want to play the 49ers it is in the first game of the season...Lance looks shaky against the Texans' D which shares a lot of our strengths...not as easy a start for the 9ers as the media might think it will be.

Lance has not played a lot of football and that is a factor.

I wouldn’t read a lot into 49ers D though.  A lot of guys weren’t playing.  Their D is good.  

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, beardown3231 said:

It was brought up a month ago by the victim's attorney on twitter and it was swept under the rug. No shot BUF didn't know about this

They knew before they released Matt Haack in favor of Ariaza last week. Were they hoping this would just go away? That’s a bad look for BUF IMO.

Araiza is supposed to be some kind of freak unicorn punter (we talked about him so much in here) but ended up not even being the first punter drafted this year. Makes me think teams might have known pre-draft. 

[AZBearsFan]

50 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Lance has not played a lot of football and that is a factor.

I wouldn’t read a lot into 49ers D though.  A lot of guys weren’t playing.  Their D is good.  

The SF game is definitely one of those I was referencing a few days back when I said our defense could put us in position to win some games we have no business winning. Could be a 17-16 grind type of game. 

[CBears019]

8 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Yeah. The school, the SD police department, and even the DA apparently knew all about it back in October. On the 27th they got him to admit he had sex via text by helping coach the girl through a string of texts.  Which makes it even worse.  And the fact he was still allowed to play in the Fresno game on October 30th is just sick.
 

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/complaint-accuses-former-sdsu-star-punter-two-other-players-in-gang-rape-of-teen-at-party-last-fall/3032239/

 

Proven until innocent...okay...I get it.  But why was this kid even still allowed to play 7 more games after this?  This is the part where I hold law enforcement and the school responsible..... just like Penn State.

If a player is under an investigation of this magnitude and the case already has enough legs then that player should not be allowed to continue playing and possible use his stature as a "football player" in order to possibly coax other girls until the case is dissolved. Or, at the very least, to the point where law enforcement doesn't have enough evidence to go on. Which clearly isn't the case here.

It's just like if a regular person, who isn't an athlete, is under investigation for child porn,  molestation, or anything of that nature then they are immediately forbidden to be around children in most states.

Whats more, and what's REALLY funny about all of this, is that law enforcement can stop and "detain" you strictly because of  "suspicion for committing a crime". So why wasn't this applied back in October? 

And why didn't SDSU push for it? Or do something about it on their own outside of law enforcement (which they have the right to do)?  I have my own conspiracy theory behind it and it leads me back to the Sandusky case. Penn State hid it for years because it would've hurt their amount of high level recruits and reputation and they cared more about that than they did about the victims.

End rant. Sorry Blk. I obviously had a lot to say on the subject. Nothing towards you lol.

 

So I’ll preface this by saying we’re likely going to be learning a lot more about each institutions reaction to this report in the coming days.  Seeing as this just came to light yesterday afternoon I’m sure the SDPD is getting flooded with FOIA requests for that report (hell, even i made a request out of curiosity).

Im speculating here, but I’ll say that building a strong case against someone, especially for something as serious and egregious as this, takes a long time.  The fact that the victim reported this to the police the next day is awesome and gives them a legitimate shot at collecting physical evidence if she agrees to do a sex assault kit at the hospital.

At this point they don’t have a ton of evidence to put Araiza away for a long time, if at all (I’m basing this off of what’s been reported publicly).  They have the victims allegation and a vague admission over the phone.  Could they have arrested Araiza immediately following that phone call?  Sure they probably could have.  But then you’ve got 48 hours to make your case against him.  At that point, all they’ve got is a weak statutory rape case against just Araiza being that the victim was 17 and he was 21.  And I’m pretty sure that only would allow for somewhere between 1-3 years in jail if convicted.  For a (presumably) first time offender, i doubt he’d see a day inside a prison cell.  And that’s only one of the three offenders.
 

He would then make the defense that he thought she was 18.  Being that she was at a college house party and her actual age is less than a year away from age of consent, he will say it’s reasonable for him to believe that all attendees at that party were fellow SDSU students and therefore a minimum of 18 years old.  I’m sure his defense would also attack that phone call - how do they know he was the person on the other end of the call?  I’m sure that would be hard to convince the judge of if the voices sound similar and the phone actually registers to him, but it would be attacked nonetheless.

I personally would not feel comfortable bringing something as egregious as this to court like that.  I’d be selling my victim short.  The fact that all her piercings were ripped out is horrific.  Thats showing a use of force and intent, both significantly aggravating factors.  There’s also a possibility that she was drugged.  If she did a sexual assault kit they could collect DNA samples as well as take a blood draw to see if there was another intoxicating compound in her system.  All of that testing takes a looooong time - months at least.

Then you need DNA from the suspects to compare to samples found on/in the victim. It’s unlikely they’ll give it up willingly, so they need a search warrant for a Buccal swab.  Literally entering a persons body to collect evidence is as intrusive a search the police can do.  Judges won’t rubber stamp those search warrants, so the police are going to need some corroboration.  Who witnessed Araiza et Al and this victim interacting at the party?  Who was at the party?  Seeing as the victim was a high schooler, she probably didn’t know a whole lot of people there by name.  Is Araiza going to tell the police who else was there?  

But let’s say they get search warrants signed for all three offenders.  Then they gotta send those swabs to the lab to be compared to the DNA collected from the victim.  Again, comparisons take a long time.

Another investigative step - what do teens/young adults love doing?  Recoding EVERYTHING.  They’d be smart to find every social media account for all involved parties and send search warrants for those.  If they can collect the phones for all involved, same thing.  That could be great evidence showing conversations about these allegations, pictures/videos from the party, pictures/videos of the actual assault, etc. But if the police aren’t given the passcodes to the phones it could take a long time for them to be cracked and have the data extracted from the phones.

Say the victims blood work comes back showing the presence of some sort of date rape drug.  Probably a good idea to search the home of Araiza to see if he has more of those drugs lying around.  

With three offenders named on this report, the police have to essentially do three separate investigations.  And then once they’re all done with that leg work, they have to present it to the DAs office.  The DA will review all their evidence and determine if it’s a case they want to prosecute or not.  Sometimes you do all that legwork and don’t get all the damning evidence you were hoping to, and the prosecution decides they dont want to take the case.  It sucks, trust me.
 

What I’m getting at is good police work takes a long time - it’s meticulous and thorough.  In this case it could be the difference between charging one offender with statutory rape and maybe getting probation if convicted, or charging three offenders with various aggravated sexual assault charges and serving some serious time in prison (i don’t have the energy to research california law to get specifics).

Fwiw, one of the articles i read stated that the police submitted their case to the DA this week.

[Madmike90]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Lance has not played a lot of football and that is a factor.

I wouldn’t read a lot into 49ers D though.  A lot of guys weren’t playing.  Their D is good.  

No question their D is good…boarderline great but that offence isn’t anything close to as efficient as it has been…there will be growing pains so it is a good time to play them…

Mon a side note it will be interesting to see who they cut when it comes to their OL & DL…lots of depth and talent on both sides that could fit our scheme.

[HuskieBear]

^^^^ these two posts being back to back is just *chef's kiss*

[JAF-N72EX]

I appreciate the insight @CBears019  Thanks. Maybe you can help me understand a few more things here.

Based on what you know so far about the case, is there any reason why couldn't they have at least brought him in shortly after based on what they had while they waited on DNA.....even if he did make bail?  There are similar cases in Cali (such as a recent one involving a youth coach) where an arrest was made less than 2 weeks after the start of the investigation. The same thing happened with another gang rape case involving a minor in Fresno back in 2006 in which 3 people were arrested and charged almost immediately. I know each case is different but I hope you get my point here.

Also, according to reports, the PD asked the SDSU officials not to launch their own investigation because they were afraid it might compromise the case and that makes sense. I get it....as you perfectly explained building a case takes time. But they supposedly didn't give them okay until July 22nd. Nine months into the investigation and coincidentally just ~6 weeks after  the LA times first reported on the case back in June about how long the case was taking and people feeling like it was being swept under the rug. 

Now all of this may be over my head so you may have to excuse my ignorance here, but 9 months seems like a ridiculously long time. I would be flipping out if this was my daughter.

 

[CBears019]

8 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I appreciate the insight @CBears019  Thanks. Maybe you can help me understand a few more things here.

[1] Based on what you know so far about the case, is there any reason why couldn't they have at least brought him in shortly after based on what they had while they waited on DNA.....even if he did make bail? 
 

[2] There are similar cases in Cali (such as a recent one involving a youth coach) where an arrest was made less than 2 weeks after the start of the investigation.
 

[3] The same thing happened with another gang rape case involving a minor in Fresno back in 2006 in which 3 people were arrested and charged almost immediately. I know each case is different but I hope you get my point here.

[4] Also, according to reports, the PD asked the SDSU officials not to launch their own investigation because they were afraid it might compromise the case and that makes sense. I get it....as you perfectly explained building a case takes time. But they supposedly didn't give them okay until July 22nd. Nine months into the investigation and coincidentally just ~6 weeks after  the LA times first reported on the case back in June about how long the case was taking and people feeling like it was being swept under the rug. 

Now all of this may be over my head so you may have to excuse my ignorance here, but 9 months seems like a ridiculously long time. I would be flipping out if this was my daughter.

 

[1] To be clear, are you suggesting they arrest him for that statutory rape charge, work on the other evidence for a more serious charge(s), and then indict him on those charges at a later date assuming the evidence is there?  If so, that’s something I’ve considered in cases in the past.  My fear with that, and I’d like an attorneys take on it ( @dll2000), is if the defendant has an even halfway decent attorney who can see the writing on the wall (potential for more serious charges down the road).  That attorney would strongly advise his client to demand trial early on.  Now the prosecution is kinda caught with their pants down.  Conviction or acquittal, i don’t think the state could introduce those other more serious charges since it’s all stemming from the same incident.

[2] The Flores article doesnt give a ton of details, so again I’m going to have to speculate.  My guess is the allegations were delayed, therefore no physical evidence to be tested.  There was mention of text conversations.  If that’s the case I’ll assume the minors’ phones were turned over voluntarily by the parents to the police, so that speeds things up considerably (potentially by months).  It’ll come down to the minors’ statements.  Do they come off as credible?  Can they be corroborated?  For example, if they said they were sexually assaulted by him on October 1, 2021 (arbitrary date), is there documentation/video evidence to show that they were with Flores on that date at his facility?  In my experience with cases involving minors, the state will typically err on the side of the minor if there is even the slightest bit of corroboration.  Especially when there’s multiple victims against the same offender.  Since that case is heavily reliant on statements from victims/outcry witnesses, that can be wrapped up very quickly.

[3] Unfortunately that Fresno article is bare bones, so it’s hard for me to give any insight.  “Evidence of sexual activity” is so vague and can mean a lot of different things.  Maybe the two they arrested made admissions on scene?  Maybe the 11 year old pointed them out as guys who raped her?  If that’s the case, yeah you throw the cuffs on them right away.  You can make a reasonable defense that you thought a 17 year old at a college party was 18.  You cannot, under any circumstances, make that defense with an 11 year old.

[4] That article about SDSU/SDPD actually gives me hope with this case.  Multiple anonymous users of that campus reporting system made mention of the victim getting a sex assault kit done.  Hopefully it’s true and was done immediately.  That same reporting system gives them plenty of potential witnesses to interview.  Iirc you work in IT, so you know better than I do that NOTHING online is truly “anonymous.”  They can very likely ID those potential witnesses by subpoenaing those IP addresses.  But that, again, takes time.  
 

I agree, 9 months is a very long time.  But a lot of that can be out of their control.  I worked a fatal DUI crash last year and i had to get blood/urine from one of the drivers.  It took over 6 months to get those results back showing weed and cocaine in his system.  In this case we’re talking about (speculating about) blood/urine results, DNA testing from the sex kit, DNA comparisons to potentially three offenders, mobile forensics, many search warrants, locating/identifying witnesses, etc.  Then throw in the fact that the detectives working on this case and probably working a couple dozen other cases that require attention too. The wheels of justice move slow.

[JAF-N72EX]

14 hours ago, CBears019 said:

[1] To be clear, are you suggesting they arrest him for that statutory rape charge, work on the other evidence for a more serious charge(s), and then indict him on those charges at a later date assuming the evidence is there?  If so, that’s something I’ve considered in cases in the past.  My fear with that, and I’d like an attorneys take on it ( @dll2000), is if the defendant has an even halfway decent attorney who can see the writing on the wall (potential for more serious charges down the road).  That attorney would strongly advise his client to demand trial early on.  Now the prosecution is kinda caught with their pants down.  Conviction or acquittal, i don’t think the state could introduce those other more serious charges since it’s all stemming from the same incident.

 

**I’ll get to the other points in a bit after i read those articles.  Been a busy day, though apropos, charging a guy for sexually assaulting his 6 year old grandaughters a few years ago.

Yes. For more than a few of different reasons but I'll give you two.

One, this would have at least raised a flagged big enough to force SDSU officials to take action sooner than they did (after it reach the news in October) and more than likely suspended the players until further notice to prevent them from possibly doing the same to other girls.

Two, and most importantly, at the very least, show the girl and her family that law enforcement AND the school were taking it very serious and give them some kind of closure that the people involved will be dealt with accordingly. Even if the case was far from over. As opposed to going months thinking nobody cared at all and that they were going to get away with it --just like we have seen with so many others.

Edited August 27, 2022 by JAF-N72EX

[JAF-N72EX]

I know people like to talk about the US justice department being ****ed up, but it all starts with those who run it, teach it, and hire them.

[dll2000]

8 hours ago, CBears019 said:

[1] To be clear, are you suggesting they arrest him for that statutory rape charge, work on the other evidence for a more serious charge(s), and then indict him on those charges at a later date assuming the evidence is there?  If so, that’s something I’ve considered in cases in the past.  My fear with that, and I’d like an attorneys take on it ( @dll2000), is if the defendant has an even halfway decent attorney who can see the writing on the wall (potential for more serious charges down the road).  That attorney would strongly advise his client to demand trial early on.  Now the prosecution is kinda caught with their pants down.  Conviction or acquittal, i don’t think the state could introduce those other more serious charges since it’s all stemming from the same incident.

[2] The Flores article doesnt give a ton of details, so again I’m going to have to speculate.  My guess is the allegations were delayed, therefore no physical evidence to be tested.  There was mention of text conversations.  If that’s the case I’ll assume the minors’ phones were turned over voluntarily by the parents to the police, so that speeds things up considerably (potentially by months).  It’ll come down to the minors’ statements.  Do they come off as credible?  Can they be corroborated?  For example, if they said they were sexually assaulted by him on October 1, 2021 (arbitrary date), is there documentation/video evidence to show that they were with Flores on that date at his facility?  In my experience with cases involving minors, the state will typically err on the side of the minor if there is even the slightest bit of corroboration.  Especially when there’s multiple victims against the same offender.  Since that case is heavily reliant on statements from victims/outcry witnesses, that can be wrapped up very quickly.

[3] Unfortunately that Fresno article is bare bones, so it’s hard for me to give any insight.  “Evidence of sexual activity” is so vague and can mean a lot of different things.  Maybe the two they arrested made admissions on scene?  Maybe the 11 year old pointed them out as guys who raped her?  If that’s the case, yeah you throw the cuffs on them right away.  You can make a reasonable defense that you thought a 17 year old at a college party was 18.  You cannot, under any circumstances, make that defense with an 11 year old.

[4] That article about SDSU/SDPD actually gives me hope with this case.  Multiple anonymous users of that campus reporting system made mention of the victim getting a sex assault kit done.  Hopefully it’s true and was done immediately.  That same reporting system gives them plenty of potential witnesses to interview.  Iirc you work in IT, so you know better than I do that NOTHING online is truly “anonymous.”  They can very likely ID those potential witnesses by subpoenaing those IP addresses.  But that, again, takes time.  
 

I agree, 9 months is a very long time.  But a lot of that can be out of their control.  I worked a fatal DUI crash last year and i had to get blood/urine from one of the drivers.  It took over 6 months to get those results back showing weed and cocaine in his system.  In this case we’re talking about (speculating about) blood/urine results, DNA testing from the sex kit, DNA comparisons to potentially three offenders, mobile forensics, many search warrants, locating/identifying witnesses, etc.  Then throw in the fact that the detectives working on this case and probably working a couple dozen other cases that require attention too. The wheels of justice move slow.

Most serious criminal case I worked on was DUIs as I only did criminal traffic. 

But a tactic defense attorneys use when important evidence is slow coming due to backed up labs or whatever is make a speedy trial demand.

Prosecutors can lose cases not having all their evidence ready to go.

 

[Superman(DH23)]

California's age of consent is 17, so I don't believe stat rape was an option here.  Honestly, the whole minor thing can be thrown out, it's a rape case.  As CBears said it takes a long time to build a good case, and just to be clear, the report is in regards to a civil suit being filed, to my knowledge nobody has been charged with anything yet.  Everybody wants to know why he's not in jail yet, he's not in jail yet bc he enjoys his civil liberties and the presumption of innocence.  The criminal burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, is a hard burden to meet.  If the evidence is lacking prosecutor would likely decide not to prosecute.  The civil suit burden of preponderance of evidence is much easier standard to meet.

[JAF-N72EX]

56 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

California's age of consent is 17, so I don't believe stat rape was an option here.  Honestly, the whole minor thing can be thrown out, it's a rape case. 

Age of consent is 18.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=261.5.

261.5.  

(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a “minor” is a person under the age of 18 years and an “adult” is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

 

 

14 hours ago, CBears019 said:

I agree, 9 months is a very long time.  But a lot of that can be out of their control.  I worked a fatal DUI crash last year and i had to get blood/urine from one of the drivers.  It took over 6 months to get those results back showing weed and cocaine in his system.  In this case we’re talking about (speculating about) blood/urine results, DNA testing from the sex kit, DNA comparisons to potentially three offenders, mobile forensics, many search warrants, locating/identifying witnesses, etc.  Then throw in the fact that the detectives working on this case and probably working a couple dozen other cases that require attention too. The wheels of justice move slow.

Makes sense. That's gotta suck waiting that long to do your job.

All in all, I just hope the case they're building against them makes it worth the time they spent on it and they get what they deserve in the end, and then some.

The girls lawyer posted some diary notes that she allegedly jotted down as a reminder.  Between this and the photos allegedly taken shortly after the attack is just sick.

 

 

 

 

[Madmike90]