Popeyejones":1g7dsn33 said:I can see both sides of this.
On the one hand, massively contradictory statements surely make someone an unreliable narrator, and I see the urge to just toss out everything they say.
On the other hand, I think that presents a bit of a false equivalence by flattening out all the context between the two statements.
If someone says two contrasting things, EVERY TIME I'm going to defer to:
1) The thing that was said under oath vs. the thing that wasn't said under oath.
2) The thing that puts the speaker in a negative light vs. the thing that doesn't (we all like to positively frame ourselves, and should perk up when people aren't doing that).
3) The thing that exposes the speaker to significant legal ramifications vs. the thing that doesn't.
4) The thing for which other evidence lines up vs. the thing for which other evidence does not.
FWIW I also don't think the question of if she's just unreliable or if she filed a false report and was reliable under oath is just an academic one.
If the judge deems that she's just unreliable, she can still think this should go to trial (the standard for that is low), whereas if she thinks her sworn testimony is the accurate one then this doesn't go to trial.
*Assuming* Foster didn't do this (if he did, he can rot), that decision has MAJOR ramifications for him and his career. If this goes to trial, even if he's found innocent that's probably going to cost him this full year of his football career. That's not a small thing. In that scenario, assuming he has a five or six year career that decision to go to trial costs him 15-20% of his lifetime earning potential for this career he's been prepping for his entire life. That's not nothing.
I can't understate how important the bolded statement is.
The burden of proof is FAR, FAR, FAR less to proceed at this stage than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is very possible this thing goes to trial and some will see that as we may not know something yet or there is more to this story.
That's not the case.
Today is simply a decision on whether there is SOMETHING worth presenting to a jury where it is HIGHLY likely he will be acquitted. My guess is alot of the charges go away today, but it is very possible it proceeds and Reuben has to stand trial.
To me, if what appears to have happened is in fact really what happened, that's real injustice.
Not only is it the time away from his career, its his name in the mud for several months longer AND legal fees.