RolandDeschain wrote:If video comes out, I do believe Marvin will be like "It's only 720P; not clear enough, can't tell what really happened."

Dude, if he hit her I want him gone. Simple as that.

The video tho is of her getting hit my another woman, not Reuben.

We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

QuickLightning wrote:We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

It rarely does, unfortunately.

original poster wrote:

QuickLightning wrote:We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

It rarely does, unfortunately.

True.

BTW, quick update:

Her attorney states Elissa Ennis will be testifying in court on Thurs that he didn't hit her.

QuickLightning wrote:We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

He will be in the same situation within 1 - 3 months. He has nothing for brains. Just a total idiot for decision making. I can't see him holding it together for very long.

Marvin49 wrote:

original poster wrote:

QuickLightning wrote:We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

It rarely does, unfortunately.

True.

BTW, quick update:

Her attorney states Elissa Ennis will be testifying in court on Thurs that he didn't hit her.

I haven't been following it closely Marvin.

Could you answer why she is now saying he didn't hit her? From an outsider with no real knowledge of the situation it shouts money talks but appreciate there may be way more to it than that?

original poster wrote:I haven't been following it closely Marvin.

Could you answer why she is now saying he didn't hit her? From an outsider with no real knowledge of the situation it shouts money talks but appreciate there may be way more to it than that?

The "more to it than that" is that her lawyer has given the DA video evidence of her physical injuries purportedly being caused the day before in a fistfight she got in with another woman in a road rage incident. The DA has also acknowledged receipt of this video and delayed things to investigate it.

Of course, maybe the video doesn't show what her and her lawyer claim is on it, but there's video evidence involved, not just her now claiming that she filed a false police report.

Long story short, at time of arrest she had a swollen lip and ruptured ear drum. She said Foster did that too her. She's now saying she lied about that and has the video evidence to prove it.

We should have more details about the quality of this video evidence in the next 48 hours or so.

TRANSITION OVER TO MY CONJECTURE:

My *guess* is the DV might get dropped in the preliminary hearing tomorrow, but they'll move forward with the weapons charge and *maybe* a DV charge at the misdemeanor level (for breaking her phone -- that one is complicated).

If that happens I'm guessing he pleas out and gets a fine and community service for the gun, in addition to a healthy suspension from the NFL.

Appreciate it, Popeye.

original poster wrote:

Marvin49 wrote:

original poster wrote:

QuickLightning wrote:We'll know within 60 days of Thursday. Since Foster and his lawyer did not waive the right to a speedy trial.

Sounds like he'll be fine. Hopefully it scares him away from even getting into these situations though.

It rarely does, unfortunately.

True.

BTW, quick update:

Her attorney states Elissa Ennis will be testifying in court on Thurs that he didn't hit her.

I haven't been following it closely Marvin.

Could you answer why she is now saying he didn't hit her? From an outsider with no real knowledge of the situation it shouts money talks but appreciate there may be way more to it than that?

Popeye laid a lot of it out, but some context...

According to her statement through her attorney, She says that she got into an altercation with another woman and when she spoke with Reuben about the encounter he attempted to break up with her. She then threatened to "trash his career". these are her words, not his.

She apparently attempted to recant her initial statement very soon after the day of the incident but the DA pressed charges anyway.

After the charges were filed, she hired a lawyer and that lawyer released a public statement that Reuben did not hit her and that she lied because he was breaking up with her. She apologized to the police and to Reuben in the statement.

From the outside if you aren't really paying attention its easy to say "ok so now all of the sudden she changes her story...she got paid". I'm not saying that's no correct...but she tried to recant what she told police almost immediately. They just pressed charges anyway...something that they have felt compelled to do given how many accusers recant their stories.

He could be guilty. I won't say that isn't possible...but I tend to believe her now.

She is putting herself in legal jeopardy by saying she lied AND she would be committing perjury when she testifies on Thurs if she is lying now.

Another thing: I don't think this is a "saving her man" thing either as they are broken up.

We'll see though. Tomorrow is a big day for this case.

Thanks Marv!

Marvin49 wrote:

original poster wrote:

Marvin49 wrote:

original poster wrote:
It rarely does, unfortunately.

True.

BTW, quick update:

Her attorney states Elissa Ennis will be testifying in court on Thurs that he didn't hit her.

I haven't been following it closely Marvin.

Could you answer why she is now saying he didn't hit her? From an outsider with no real knowledge of the situation it shouts money talks but appreciate there may be way more to it than that?

Popeye laid a lot of it out, but some context...

According to her statement through her attorney, She says that she got into an altercation with another woman and when she spoke with Reuben about the encounter he attempted to break up with her. She then threatened to "trash his career". these are her words, not his.

She apparently attempted to recant her initial statement very soon after the day of the incident but the DA pressed charges anyway.

After the charges were filed, she hired a lawyer and that lawyer released a public statement that Reuben did not hit her and that she lied because he was breaking up with her. She apologized to the police and to Reuben in the statement.

From the outside if you aren't really paying attention its easy to say "ok so now all of the sudden she changes her story...she got paid". I'm not saying that's no correct...but she tried to recant what she told police almost immediately. They just pressed charges anyway...something that they have felt compelled to do given how many accusers recant their stories.

He could be guilty. I won't say that isn't possible...but I tend to believe her now.

She is putting herself in legal jeopardy by saying she lied AND she would be committing perjury when she testifies on Thurs if she is lying now.

Another thing: I don't think this is a "saving her man" thing either as they are broken up.

We'll see though. Tomorrow is a big day for this case.

Yeah that donation to her account after this clears up though will sure be nice, emotional duress is a great excuse for exageration.

He's too dumb to stay out of trouble even if he didn't do this. He will be in new trouble within a short time. Reuben never goes very long without doing something of terrible judgement. It's just how his mind works. He's a pretty good player when he is in there and healthy. But I don't think you can count on him for the long term.

If it's on Twitter it must be true. I'm sure he's an angel in all of this.

SoulfishHawk wrote:If it's on Twitter it must be true. I'm sure he's an angel in all of this.

Pretty sure I didn't say that.

All I'm doing is posting her testimony that we've be talking about for several days and the testimony of the guy she flagged down.

I'm sure tho that he's a 49er so for some on this page he's guilty regardless of what comes out.

Has anyone (outside the defense) seen and/or commented on the video tape? IMO, that's got to be the deciding factor here. If it exists, and isn't faked in any way, then he should be exonerated on the DV charges. If it doesn't exist or is doctored, then it's going to be hard to believe he's not guilty. Either way, the gun charge is still an issue, especially in California.

kidhawk wrote:Has anyone (outside the defense) seen and/or commented on the video tape? IMO, that's got to be the deciding factor here. If it exists, and isn't faked in any way, then he should be exonerated on the DV charges. If it doesn't exist or is doctored, then it's going to be hard to believe he's not guilty. Either way, the gun charge is still an issue, especially in California.

Defense and DA have both seen it.

It was posted on Instagram apparently and pulled down quickly...so not publically available.

BTW: Apparently she is testifying against the advice of Counsel. Her Lawyer told her to plead the fifth as she is currently incriminating herself.

SoulfishHawk wrote:If it's on Twitter it must be true. I'm sure he's an angel in all of this.

You might not be following along too well, but Marvin is relaying beat reporters who are live tweeting the testimony of the purported victim in the pre-trial hearing right now.

Honestly, and this is probably just the cynic in me, I think it's far more likely she's recanting because there's money with her name on it if Foster is cleared than anything else.

Victims of DV do this type of stuff - even when there isn't massive financial gain to be had like in this situation. They go back on what they said, they say it's their own fault for things escalating, they say things didn't actually happen the way they initially explained it, they say that they somehow already had their injuries, etc. They stop working with the prosecutors and then the next thing we know the perp. gets a slap on the wrist.

Even if this all blows over, I would never trust Foster moving forward. I'm not rooting for his demise, but I would be surprised if he straightened up and didn't have trouble continue to follow him.

JGfromtheNW wrote:Honestly, and this is probably just the cynic in me, I think it's far more likely she's recanting because there's money with her name on it if Foster is cleared than anything else.

Victims of DV do this type of stuff - even when there isn't massive financial gain to be had like in this situation. They go back on what they said, they say it's their own fault for things escalating, they say things didn't actually happen the way they initially explained it, they say that they somehow already had their injuries, etc. They stop working with the prosecutors and then the next thing we know the perp. gets a slap on the wrist.

Even if this all blows over, I would never trust Foster moving forward. I'm not rooting for his demise, but I would be surprised if he straightened up and didn't have trouble continue to follow him.

...and that's what really sucks about this whole thing.

People will always assume he paid her off. The accusation was enough.

The way this thing has happened makes me believe her now but I can't say 100% that it didn't happen.

I get the reasons why the DA has to push this since so many accusers recant, but I also know from some experience that some accusers don't understand that once they make the accusation they can't just take it back. The Da will continue without you and it isn't just a matter of backing out.

IE, I totally get why the law is setup the way it is to essentially protect accusers from themselves but the law also entraps some people who were innocent from the start when someone says something in anger that they can't take back.

I've seen it happen.

The DA is doing what they are supposed to do and unfortunately (assuming he's innocent) Fosters name is permanently tainted.

It is possible she is being paid off. See Greg Hardy’s ex.
But then again, if what she is telling the truth NOW and she made the original story up, she needs to be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law.

Marvin49 wrote:

JGfromtheNW wrote:Honestly, and this is probably just the cynic in me, I think it's far more likely she's recanting because there's money with her name on it if Foster is cleared than anything else.

Victims of DV do this type of stuff - even when there isn't massive financial gain to be had like in this situation. They go back on what they said, they say it's their own fault for things escalating, they say things didn't actually happen the way they initially explained it, they say that they somehow already had their injuries, etc. They stop working with the prosecutors and then the next thing we know the perp. gets a slap on the wrist.

Even if this all blows over, I would never trust Foster moving forward. I'm not rooting for his demise, but I would be surprised if he straightened up and didn't have trouble continue to follow him.

...and that's what really sucks about this whole thing.

People will always assume he paid her off. The accusation was enough.

The way this thing has happened makes me believe her now but I can't say 100% that it didn't happen.

I get the reasons why the DA has to push this since so many accusers recant, but I also know from some experience that some accusers don't understand that once they make the accusation they can't just take it back. The Da will continue without you and it isn't just a matter of backing out.

IE, I totally get why the law is setup the way it is to essentially protect accusers from themselves but the law also entraps some people who were innocent from the start when someone says something in anger that they can't take back.

I've seen it happen.

The DA is doing what they are supposed to do and unfortunately (assuming he's innocent) Fosters name is permanently tainted.

I agree with a lot of what you've been posting in this thread, Marvin. The accusation is all it really took for his image to be seriously tarnished and that might end up being the saddest part of this entire story.

Sports Hernia wrote:It is possible she is being paid off. See Greg Hardy’s ex.
But then again, if what she is telling the truth NOW and she made the original story up, she needs to be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law.

Agreed.

Apparently she also said she was jailed in 2011 for falsely accusing a boyfriend of DV.

Either we believe her testimony or she is legit a crazy person and making up a criminal record.

Popeyejones wrote:Apparently she also said she was jailed in 2011 for falsely accusing a boyfriend of DV.

Either we believe her testimony or she is legit a crazy person and making up a criminal record.

They're not mutually exclusive.

People keep talking about this supposed "Patriarchy" we live in, but man... women have a lot of power with one single accusation.

The other day our elderly neighbor was accosted by a 12 and 13 year old girl who wanted money to go buy stuff. They cornered him outside the laundry room and told him that if he didn't give them money they would tell the police that he tried to molest them. They had him completely terrorized and he ended up giving them 100 dollars just to leave him alone.

The dude was completely rattled.

Chicks be crazier than they've ever been.

If she did in fact make this whole thing up to make some $, she needs to be behind bars for a LONG time. That's some weak sauce right there.

They won't jail her, she can pull emotional duress, the law made to protect also incriminates and puts the accused in a mode he has to defend his innocence versus a accuser just making a statement that causes all this. Gold Diggers can ruin people, still get paid off in these high profile situations. I mean think of the interviews that people are going to pay her for now right or wrong because she is a story, that doesn't include whatever she gets if she is recanting to save Foster. If she isn't getting paid Foster still is out the stuff she took and whatever his fees for court are.

I had a Aunt that was really bad, she has had 5 husbands, to get one out of the house because he would not leave she smashed her face with a plastic coffee cup and said her husband hit her, they took him away, while gone she emptied the bank account ran up his credit cards moved out of the house and foiled for divorce, alimony, his pension and half his social security on retirement. She did this 5 times in different places and states. Also they all mysteriously died within 3 months of her leaving.

^^^ maybe you missed the part where she’s already been jailed for this?

Assuming her statements are true, for my money she’s putting herself at massive legal risk in order to be contrite and tell the truth. She needs state paid for and mandated psychological counciling — more jail isn’t going to help her or anyone else.

(FWIW if it was the reverse and a domestic abuser took the stand and said I did this and I’m wrong and broke down crying throughout his testimony I’d say the exact same like thing about him.)

Put folks like this in rights restricted halfway houses and get them th help they need. The help they need isn’t found sitting in a jail cell.

Hearing reconvened at 1:30 BTW. Won't be any more tweets from Beat Writers in room until they break again.