JGfromtheNW
Well-known member
Funny how a 30 year old man is still that petty on social media.
Reuben Foster Arrested On Domestic Violence Charges
- Thread starter massari
- Start date
Sports Hernia":ei0bccmn said:
I'm not even going to try and pretend that isn't true.
I STILL have reservations about him...
...but to be honest my attention skewed quite a bit more toward politics the past few years and I rarely hear him say something on any social issue that I don't agree with entirely. The "hate" softened quite a bit...and of course lets be real: The demise of the Niners greatly lessened the impact of the rivalry.
I think he'd say that too as I don't think it was ever really the 49ers he had problems with...it was Harbaugh and Crabtree.
Still...gonna take ALOT of getting used to this year seeing him in red and gold.
kidhawk":1ofksn1w said:
I can't blame you for not accepting her recant, but for me its the nature of the recant and not the fact that she recanted that has me convinced.
I mean now neither cop nor the passerby can even say she had any physical signs of being hit.
She went to jail in 2011 for...wait for it...lying about an ex-boyfriend hitting her.
I also don't think the video would prove anything. The only way it makes a HUGE difference is if it was falsified.
I did learn a little more BTW:
The video was presented on an iPad by Fosters attorney to one of the detectives. Only the detective and Fosters Lawyer could see it. At NO POINT did the DA or any detective in the room question the validity of the video. The point there was to show that some scratches on her neck could have come from that fight with another woman.
Heres the problem though. Even if the video shows that diffinitively, that isn't proof that he never hit her. Its simply evidense that suggests any injuries she had could have come from someplace else.
Again tho...the important thing here is the video was used in the courtroom and NOBODY challenged its validity. They only questioned whether it explained injuries she had at the hospital.
This is kinda damning too...She recanted the story two days after the initial report and a point was made that there was no evidence of any contact between Foster and Ennis in that time. The detective that heard her initial recant admitted he NEVER INVESTIGATED her story and chose only to pursue evidence on Foster.
To be honest on all of this, while I can't say 100% that he didn't do it, Its really hard for me to envision the scenario in which she admits to having done it before, admits to stealing his Rolex, admits to stealing his clothes, admits to going back in the house after he was arrested and stealing his bank routing numbers, admits to following him around and taking pictures after the fact so she could sell them to TMZ...and for her to be lying about all of that.
All she had to do for him was say he didn't do it. Her Counsel advised her to plead the fifth so as not to incriminate herself.
She admitted to stuff she didn't need to admit.
In short...I think she needs help. It isn't really hard for me to say I think he's innocent because it isn't JUST her testimony that tells me that. I can't say that 100%, but honestly no matter what happens I don't think I'll ever be able to say he 100% didn't do it.
That's what sucks here. If he's innocent, it won't matter to many people. He'll always be guilty of having been accused. That'll be enough for many.
seahawkfreak
New member
So there is due process? Or should we just believe what women say automatically because they are women and should be believed without being questioned?
Or should we just let the media just prosecute the allegations because we all know the allegation is just as bad as the crime,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?
Or should we just let the media just prosecute the allegations because we all know the allegation is just as bad as the crime,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Sherm loves playing the victim, even if it's not him. Can't go 5 minutes w/out opening his trap and/or talking down to people.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
SoulfishHawk":12l0l1qy said:
How is this him playing the victim? His point is valid.
Heck, I'm the one who bumped the Foster thread when news of this arrest broke and the totality of my post was "CUT HIM NOW."
Yesterday after the pre-trial hearing even Tim friggin Kawakami offered a mea culpa and said he was wrong to argue that Foster should have been cut -- Kawkami's been around since I was a kid, and I've never seen him own up to being wrong before in my entire life. :lol:
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
Marvin49":f5ulnycp said:
Yeah, this is fair.
Also fair though is that to get to 100% we're basically talking about video evidence of the entire night, which simply doesn't exist.
My question would be (not for you, just generally), beyond what we already have what in the world could make us more certain that he didn't do this?
The DA's office has already said in the preliminary hearing that the only evidence they have that he did this was her initial statement; the two arresting officers have said her injuries didn't line up with that initial statement; the motorist who she flagged down said nothing lined up with her statement, she is putting herself at substantial legal jeopardy and going into great details about the lies and motivations of that statement; and there's video evidence of how she sustained her injuries that the DAs office didn't even try to challenge in the preliminary hearing.
Does that mean we can be 100% certain that this didn't happen? No, it does not. But back out here in the real world what else do people want?
The real tell here is that the prosecutor's closing argument is that her statements have been inconsistent. Remember, the prosecutor admitte that her initial statement is the only evidence they have (which even the arresting officers have drawn into question under oath). Think about that. The prosecution's closing argument is that the only evidence they have is not reliable :lol: This is an absolute dog of a case. It still very well may go to trial -- those standards are low -- but I really don't know what else (that could actually exist) people are looking for.
Popeyejones":egvj7dm6 said:
LOL.
Truer words never spoken.
I can't stand Kawakami. He's one of the triumvirate of guys I can't stand when it comes to the Niners...Kawakami and the Cohns. You know...those guys are where the whole "approved writers" thing comes from.
His article yesterday was more of a backtrack than I've ever seen. Ann Killions as well (tho I don't hate Ann...I just think she gets ahead of her skis). I'm curious what Grant Cohn has said but I know whatever he says will just annoy me with its innate Cohn-ness.
The one thing I will say about the Kawakami and Killion articles...while they did say they were wrong (Kawakami in particular), they went to great effort to explain why their wrong position was still the fault of past 49er management.
LOL.
kidhawk
Well-known member
Marvin49":2h7wku03 said:
That bit about the video being played at trial tells me more than anything that she could have said on the stand. Right now, her testimony is weak and I couldn't find her to be a reliable witness for the prosecution or the defense. The fact that the video was played without objection, tells me that it's more than likely valid. It's still not a 100% either way, but as things stand today, I wouldn't convict him (if I were a jurist). Of course there is still the outstanding gun charge, and I haven't heard much about that. Doesn't really make sense to go after such a weak DV case and not the gun charge. That's likely where there may be a conviction out of all this (or a plea).
kidhawk":kkwwck42 said:
...a bit more on the bolded...
1) The Ammunition (large Magazine) charge has already been dropped.
2) While the weapon is illegal in CA, it was purchased legally in Alabama. Likely that charge is reduced to misdemeanor.
Another interesting note...one of the charges was in regards to him destroying her Cell phone when she tried to call 911.
1) I dunno how the law would treat someone destroying property to prevent another person from falsely accusing you.
2) She said during her testimony that it wasn't her phone. It was his. It was in his name and he paid the bill.
No clue whatsoever how that would be handled legally.
kidhawk
Well-known member
Marvin49":1gt277ee said:
I would have expected it to be a misdemeanor from what I'd read, but the evidence of his possessing the weapon illegally is irrefutable. The only way I could see this not reaching a conviction is if they screwed up the process of finding the gun in the first place and it got tossed out that way. Otherwise I can easily see that becoming a plea deal with a fine and suspended sentence (max)
As for the information about the phone. That makes for an interesting topic of thought really. I am not sure how I feel about it. I am torn, because no matter the phone, if someone is dialing 911, nobody should forcibly stop that. IMO, the ownership of the phone shouldn't really matter in that case. The fact that she was calling to file a false report, also shouldn't matter, as that is for the police to deal with and not for an individual to decide on the spot. With that said, I'd want to know exactly what transpired. Did he assault her to get the phone away from her? If he did, then just in that, he's committed a crime. No doubt, it's a tough scenario to think through all the possibilities.
kidhawk":nayc2y2q said:
RE: Gun...
Yeah, that's what I'm expecting.
RE: Phone...
I think the charge is more classified as holding her against her will...but according to her statement in court he was LITERALLY running away from her and she was chasing him.
This whole situation isn't funny but I can't deny that I didn't get a chuckle envisioning a 240 lbs Linebacker running away from a 100 lb woman screaming at him "I'm gonna F*** yo' sh** up!!".
There are still some things that I have questions about.
1) According to police statement on day of his arrest, he admitted to destroying a phone. Yesterday she said SHE destroyed it and it was his phone. I dunno what to make of that. Confusion on initial report? Her lying on the stand? More than one phone in question? I honestly don't know.
2) There was a live in guest that witnessed at least the beginning of the argument when Foster broke up with her, but beyond his brief mention, he wasn't a witness for either side. Curious what he would have to say.
3) She was the one who told officers there was a weapon in the home and when it was found it was found loaded on the bathroom floor. Fosters attorney made the point in court that the charge should be made a misdemeanor because it was purchased legally in Alabama. The Prosecutor argued that it was improperly stored because it was found loaded in the bathroom...but how can that be held against Foster if its clear that she knew about the weapon? IE, how do we know who loaded it and had it in the bathroom? She all but pointed the police to it being in the home.
4) Right after his arrest, she admitted to going back into the house, stealing his Rolex, stealing designer clothes, and stealing his bank routing numbers to take his money. She admitted to following him and taking pictures of him returning a corvette to the dealer so that she could sell the pictures to TMZ. Why on earth would she admit to all that? None of that was necessary to help his cause. Why did she so thoroughly incriminate herself to crimes which had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence? She was also crying profusely on the stand and they had to take at least one break for her to compose herself.
5) 2 days after the incident, she attempted to recant. She spoke to one of the officers who was on scene the day of his arrest and that officer admitted on the stand he never even attempted to look into her story that she'd been in a fight. The video didn't come into light until several weeks later when someone had posted it on Instagram. We now know that the video is likely legit because it was never challenged in court, but the really damning thing to me is why the officer never once even investigated her story. I understand that he may not have believed her, but you have to at LEAST give some preliminary investigation into whether she in fact was in another fight that would explain the injuries. In addition, that same officer said under cross that her injuries didn't appear consistent with the 8-10 punches she claimed to have been victim to.
chris98251
Well-known member
kidhawk":2hbpr56w said:
I don't know, be a Black man with a women calling saying she was being beaten, cops show up and shoot you for holding a phone. Those are the types of things that I am sure go thru many peoples heads. The Police Forces in many areas now have that shade on them right or wrong putting your life in their hands in this situation especially when it is false would be a risk I wouldn't want to take, especially as a very young person and if it was my phone she was calling on.
SanDiego49er
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 1
seahawkfreak":bv615n30 said:
That is exactly what the want. Yes you got it.
5_Golden_Rings
New member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reaction score
- 0
There's also PRISON waiting for her based on her testimony, where she got up there and confessed to several CRIMES.JGfromtheNW":29ol5nyk said:
They usually do recant, yes. They don't usually INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES on the stand for felony theft (over $8000 + two watches possibly more expensive than that). Among other crimes.
They also don't usually have a record for a previous false DV accusation, like she does, or threaten to send pictures of the "abuser's" car to TMZ.
Nor do they usually have video evidence of a physical altercation with someone else that could have given her the injuries.
The girl basically set her self up to be criminally prosecuted. And the DA's strongest argument? "Well, Reuben Foster had long nails, so it's possible those scratches, or at least some of them, came from him."
I mean, the evidence strongly implies there isn't close to beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, based on her testimony and the video evidence, and the testimony of the officer (who didn't follow up on several important facts), it seems clear that he's not going to lose the case if it goes to trial, and it will be a blowout victory.
Lastly, based on all of this together, I find it likely that she is the liar, not him. Call it a preponderance of evidence.
A bit more from the hearing....
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997573461999472640[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997578605398917120[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997904364923572224[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997904658432577536[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997906387777736705[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997906979338137601[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997907201829191680[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997908183342460928[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997573461999472640[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997578605398917120[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997904364923572224[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997904658432577536[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997906387777736705[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997906979338137601[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997907201829191680[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LombardiHimself/status/997908183342460928[/tweet]
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
If this is true she needs to go to prison for a long time.Marvin49":oou0igy8 said:
5_Golden_Rings
New member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reaction score
- 0
If it's 50/50 then there is not only reasonable doubt, there isn't even probable cause.kidhawk":3kz60efu said:
5_Golden_Rings":2epr0utd said:
To be honest, after reading everything I've read, I find it really hard to see it as a lawyer finding inconsistencies to provide reasonable doubt.
The accuser admitted to SEVERAL felonies on the stand, none of the witnesses saw any injuries consistent with her first description of the event, the DA never argued the video showing her in a fight with another woman was fake or falsified, AND the person whom she flagged down said she was perfectly calm, not upset, and didn't even realize she was calling 911.
Its true that we can never be 100% sure, but at this point, IMO, you really have to want it to be true to believe he beat her.
