Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Reuben Foster Arrested On Domestic Violence Charges

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • The real crime is Foster's hairstyle :pukeface:
    SF49r
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 486
    Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:30 pm


  • Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • 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.

    It could be both. I believe she is definitely bat shit crazy, but I also could see him beating her up, or her making this whole thing up, and him being not guilty.

    I’ll wait for more evidence.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23132
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Marvin49 wrote:

    Just think, you used to hate the guy. 8)
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23132
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Funny how a 30 year old man is still that petty on social media.
    User avatar
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1728
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:37 am
    Location: Wenatchee


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:

    Just think, you used to hate the guy. 8)


    I'm not even going to try and pretend that isn't true. :D

    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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.


    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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • 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?
    "It's Ground Hawks Day" Chris Berman
    User avatar
    seahawkfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4634
    Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:36 pm
    Location: Aiken , SC


  • 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.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9275
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote: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.


    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:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4782
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:To be honest on all of this, while I can't say 100% that he didn't do it...


    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.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4782
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • SoulfishHawk wrote: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.


    I think that quote had a lot to do with many fans giving him flack for attending one of Foster hearings for support.

    At the time many said he was backing the wrong person.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    SoulfishHawk wrote: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.


    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:


    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. :D

    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.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Fri May 18, 2018 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.


    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.



    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).
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.


    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.



    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).


    ...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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote: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.


    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.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    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.


    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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    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.


    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.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 23930
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • seahawkfreak wrote: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?


    That is exactly what the want. Yes you got it.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • 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.

    There's also PRISON waiting for her based on her testimony, where she got up there and confessed to several CRIMES.

    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.
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1191
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • A bit more from the hearing....















    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:A bit more from the hearing....
















    If this is true she needs to go to prison for a long time.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23132
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.

    If it's 50/50 then there is not only reasonable doubt, there isn't even probable cause.
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1191
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:So, my question here is....was the video introduced at this hearing? Has it been verified at all?


    All I've seen mention of is that is was 22 seconds long. I don't think it was shown in court. To be honest though, regardless of what is on the video (unless it can be proven to be falsified), what I'm seeing of what the Defense presented vs what the prosecution presented....you really gotta want him to be guilty to come away thinking he's guilty. Just my opinion.

    What I'm reading now is pretty damning for her:

    1) The person she flagged down said she had no visible injuries and she wasn't panicked at all.

    2) 2 Cops were on scene. One of them said that her injuries didn't seem consistent with her description of him punching her 8-10 times. Keep in mind this was a PROSECUTION witness. The second cop when pressed on if the injuries were consistent with being punched by Foster 8-10 times said "Its not my job to have an opinion" and when pressed said "some people punch in different ways".

    Huh?

    She also said he seemed agitated when they arrived but I'd imagine just about anyone would be agitated if the cops were called and your girlfriend was telling them you hit her 8-10 times.

    3) All accounts I've read from people in the room said this hearing overwhelmingly went Fosters way and seemed to exonerate him. Reporters who were in the room afterward asked the Lawyer when he was leaving "How does it feel to exonerate your client" and "Are you going to sue Ms. Ennis".


    There are always going to be inconsistencies that a good lawyer can punch holes in, and he may well be innocent, the problem is that we can't believe her recant anymore than we can believe her original story. Right now, he (in my mind) is equally guilty and innocent. In other words, I wouldn't be able to say without a doubt either way. With her testimony so fatally flawed, for anyone looking at the situation without an agenda, it's hard to say he's innocent. There are just too many cases of battered women recanting for any number of reasons. The video, if it's out there and verifiable would be the proof that he'd need to say he's absolutely and 100% not guilty of this crime. That doesn't mean there's enough evidence to prosecute, and even if it gets dismissed at this point, that doesn't mean he's innocent, only that the prosecution didn't bring forth enough evidence.

    Honestly, I can't say whether he's guilty or innocent, because too many times recanting is done for any number of reasons.

    For selfish reasons, I would like the tape to be entered as evidence so it can be verified as authentic (or found to be fraudulent). Either way that would give me enough to have no doubt either way.

    If it's 50/50 then there is not only reasonable doubt, there isn't even probable cause.


    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.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote: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.


    If you remove her testimony (which I have to do, because if you can't believe her original story, you can't believe her recant either.) As an unreliable witness, I just have to remove her testimony completely. Without her recant or her original claim, you have a woman who was visibly injured and a man who may or may not have injured her.

    With that said, the video becomes a key piece of evidence in the abuse case. Assuming that what was shown in court proves that she sustained injuries in a fight earlier, then you just can't charge him for the original abuse claim (IMO of course).

    Now, that leaves the charges stemming from interfering in a 911 call, and the gun charges. Even on their own, they are an issue that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. I don't believe those charges on their own should be enough to get him expelled from his team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of deal involving probation being how this portion plays out.

    Whether he gets any suspension or not really depends alot on what Goodell considers the 911 interference to be. If he considers that DV under the NFL policy, then he may get suspended. If he ends up just getting the misdemeanor gun charge, then I can see him actually ready to practice come training camp.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Clearly Foster should get the benefit of the doubt.

    Hopefully he learns that sometimes the hot crazy chick is single for a reason. I learned that one myself years ago.

    Glad to hear Sherman supported him though. Sherm has a pretty good eye for seeing through the BS.

    He is innocent. She is guilty.

    So hopefully the NFL has a chat with him about the stupidity of letting people access your guns and then lets him play.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2895
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • Just look at the things that come out about Reuben Foster and his girlfriend. She is crazy beyond compare.

    He CHOSE THAT GF! That's the level of his decision making and brain power. At this pace he will be in trouble next week, next month or in 3 months. But it's not going to hold up too long for Foster. That's what he is attracted to. It shows his decision making ability and powers of discernment.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    If you remove her testimony (which I have to do, because if you can't believe her original story, you can't believe her recant either.) As an unreliable witness, I just have to remove her testimony completely. Without her recant or her original claim, you have a woman who was visibly injured and a man who may or may not have injured her.

    With that said, the video becomes a key piece of evidence in the abuse case. Assuming that what was shown in court proves that she sustained injuries in a fight earlier, then you just can't charge him for the original abuse claim (IMO of course).

    Now, that leaves the charges stemming from interfering in a 911 call, and the gun charges. Even on their own, they are an issue that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. I don't believe those charges on their own should be enough to get him expelled from his team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of deal involving probation being how this portion plays out.

    Whether he gets any suspension or not really depends alot on what Goodell considers the 911 interference to be. If he considers that DV under the NFL policy, then he may get suspended. If he ends up just getting the misdemeanor gun charge, then I can see him actually ready to practice come training camp.



    If you remove both accusations (and I think its debatable that you do...but for this conversation lets assume you can't trust either), then what you have a a woman with scratches and busted eardrum and a video of her fighting another woman.

    There is no reason to assume guilt on his part.

    Moreover you have the fact that she stole $8000, his Rolex and his Designer clothes.

    As for a suspension, I really don't know. I know some of the history of DV suspensions, but has the NFL ever suspended someone for owning a gun that is illegal in some states that the NFL plays in but legal in other states that the NFL plays in? Does the NFL suspend based on local law? I don't think it works that way.

    The Phone? As I've said before...I don't have any idea.

    Pot? Dunno. Never tested positive. Again, will NFL suspend for simply having possession of a substance illegal in some states and legal in others?

    To be honest though, I haven't progressed yet to the "does he get suspended" phase of this really as the charges against him are still pending.
    Last edited by Marvin49 on Mon May 21, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • SanDiego49er wrote:Just look at the things that come out about Reuben Foster and his girlfriend. She is crazy beyond compare.

    He CHOSE THAT GF! That's the level of his decision making and brain power. At this pace he will be in trouble next week, next month or in 3 months. But it's not going to hold up too long for Foster. That's what he is attracted to. It shows his decision making ability and powers of discernment.


    He chose what was available to him. Remember what this dude is coming from. She's been his girlfriend for several years and is actually sitting next to him in the videos on draft day. The best thing that ever happened to him was him NOT getting drafted close to home.

    One can only hope he makes better decisions from here on out, but the only "trouble" he's gotten himself into so far has been Marijuana and get into verbal dispute with a doctor after an 8 hour wait at the hospital.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    SanDiego49er wrote:Just look at the things that come out about Reuben Foster and his girlfriend. She is crazy beyond compare.

    He CHOSE THAT GF! That's the level of his decision making and brain power. At this pace he will be in trouble next week, next month or in 3 months. But it's not going to hold up too long for Foster. That's what he is attracted to. It shows his decision making ability and powers of discernment.


    He chose what was available to him. Remember what this dude is coming from. She's been his girlfriend for several years and is actually sitting next to him in the videos on draft day. The best thing that ever happened to him was him NOT getting drafted close to home.

    One can only hope he makes better decisions from here on out, but the only "trouble" he's gotten himself into so far has been Marijuana and get into verbal dispute with a doctor after an 8 hour wait at the hospital.


    This guy doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. His decision making is at the maturity level of a 2 year old. And yes you can tell a crazy lady IMO. I avoid them like the plague. Date a woman with her HEAD ON STRAIGHT. It's not rocket science. It's basic common sense.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • SanDiego49er wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    SanDiego49er wrote:Just look at the things that come out about Reuben Foster and his girlfriend. She is crazy beyond compare.

    He CHOSE THAT GF! That's the level of his decision making and brain power. At this pace he will be in trouble next week, next month or in 3 months. But it's not going to hold up too long for Foster. That's what he is attracted to. It shows his decision making ability and powers of discernment.


    He chose what was available to him. Remember what this dude is coming from. She's been his girlfriend for several years and is actually sitting next to him in the videos on draft day. The best thing that ever happened to him was him NOT getting drafted close to home.

    One can only hope he makes better decisions from here on out, but the only "trouble" he's gotten himself into so far has been Marijuana and get into verbal dispute with a doctor after an 8 hour wait at the hospital.


    This guy doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. His decision making is at the maturity level of a 2 year old. And yes you can tell a crazy lady IMO. I avoid them like the plague. Date a woman with her HEAD ON STRAIGHT. It's not rocket science. It's basic common sense.


    I'm not saying he's a rocket scientist, but it just seems silly to basically write a guy off as stupid and unable to ever stay out of trouble because his GF of the last several years might be a nutjob.

    Call me crazy.

    Obviously he needs to make better decisions, but assuming he's innocent he hasn't done anything that would preclude him from growing up a bit in a new area and with a good support system.

    Moreover, he's got 2 kids to take care of and he just nearly lost his dream over this.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • I had it happen to me.

    It is pretty easy to mistake crazy for 'carefree and fun' when the girl is smolderingly hot and dirtier than most porn stars.

    Many of these girls have a system they have honed over years.

    The one I was with, I later found out, had falsely accused several guys of rape and had several false accusations of DV under her belt. I know this because a lawyer for another guy later sought me out as proof this was her MO.

    But they are very good at hiding aspects of themselves, blaming others for their earlier problems and painting themselves as a victim. It is in fact, this victim character, they play so well that encourages others to 'rescue' them and makes it hard for guys that were accused of it to fight and prove they are innocent.

    I got lucky. I lost a job and she ended up robbing the house to sell everything off while I was dealing with the legal stuff. But I cut bait quickly, and never bothered looking back. So all I lost were a few things.

    The other guys lost houses, cars, freedom, etc.

    The idea that an accusation is evidence is offset by those that make a living manipulating the system to profit from their victimhood. But they are polished, smart and very good at what they do...or they would not be able to essentially do this as a profession.

    It probably isn't fair at all to blame him when a lot of very smart, very capable people have fallen into those webs. In may case, the girl's past victims included a doctor, a lawyer and a software entrepreneur. I am sure there is likely a similar list of victims in his ex-gf's past as well.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2895
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:I had it happen to me.

    It is pretty easy to mistake crazy for 'carefree and fun' when the girl is smolderingly hot and dirtier than most porn stars.

    Many of these girls have a system they have honed over years.

    The one I was with, I later found out, had falsely accused several guys of rape and had several false accusations of DV under her belt. I know this because a lawyer for another guy later sought me out as proof this was her MO.

    But they are very good at hiding aspects of themselves, blaming others for their earlier problems and painting themselves as a victim. It is in fact, this victim character, they play so well that encourages others to 'rescue' them and makes it hard for guys that were accused of it to fight and prove they are innocent.

    I got lucky. I lost a job and she ended up robbing the house to sell everything off while I was dealing with the legal stuff. But I cut bait quickly, and never bothered looking back. So all I lost were a few things.

    The other guys lost houses, cars, freedom, etc.

    The idea that an accusation is evidence is offset by those that make a living manipulating the system to profit from their victimhood. But they are polished, smart and very good at what they do...or they would not be able to essentially do this as a profession.

    It probably isn't fair at all to blame him when a lot of very smart, very capable people have fallen into those webs. In may case, the girl's past victims included a doctor, a lawyer and a software entrepreneur. I am sure there is likely a similar list of victims in his ex-gf's past as well.


    When you are in it maybe you can't see it as well. But with some time and perspective and distance from that situation you can probably see it more completely.

    What are the warning signs? What would you look for? What can you see now that you couldn't see then? Because perhaps it's good for people to know the warning signs.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • First they appear to need help and are vulnerable, prey on the man thing to help the weak and hurt female, then submissive and wanting to help you, then they become temperamental, then you start seeing the anger, then they start working the edges and your friends and acquaintances with complaints about you, painting a picture, again starting the victim card. Then comes the possessive jealous aspect. This will justify what she does latter. That's when I am pregnant happens even when she said she was on birth control, or the if you loved me you would have proposed is there someone else. Anger becomes normal at the drop of a hat and depending on her style violence throwing things, damaging your property it goes on.

    Its Gold Digging and securing finances from someone, rinse and repeat and she can make a tidy some and get State Benefits and never have to work for herself.

    That's a good start.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 23930
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:First they appear to need help and are vulnerable, prey on the man thing to help the weak and hurt female, then submissive and wanting to help you, then they become temperamental, then you start seeing the anger, then they start working the edges and your friends and acquaintances with complaints about you, painting a picture, again starting the victim card. Then comes the possessive jealous aspect. This will justify what she does latter. That's when I am pregnant happens even when she said she was on birth control, or the if you loved me you would have proposed is there someone else. Anger becomes normal at the drop of a hat and depending on her style violence throwing things, damaging your property it goes on.

    Its Gold Digging and securing finances from someone, rinse and repeat and she can make a tidy some and get State Benefits and never have to work for herself.

    That's a good start.


    That's interesting. So they are looking for somebody to "rescue" them and have lots of "bad boyfriends" who supposedly did hurtful things to them in the past? Those I think would be big warning signs. Along with anger, manipulation and unstable personality. I think one of the biggest is she had lots of EX BF's she has restraining orders on or some criminal or civil case. Man if you don't see that coming I don't know what to say. You are NEXT (the new guy). It just amazes me that guy after guy can't see this coming. I don't know how they can be so blind. I guess they feel like they are having fun with the sex or whatever. They overlook it or are blind to it. But from the outside looking in you can see it a mile away. There is more perspective from afar. Right in the mix sometimes you are blinded by other things. I've seen so many guys like that it's unbelievable.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • SanDiego49er wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:First they appear to need help and are vulnerable, prey on the man thing to help the weak and hurt female, then submissive and wanting to help you, then they become temperamental, then you start seeing the anger, then they start working the edges and your friends and acquaintances with complaints about you, painting a picture, again starting the victim card. Then comes the possessive jealous aspect. This will justify what she does latter. That's when I am pregnant happens even when she said she was on birth control, or the if you loved me you would have proposed is there someone else. Anger becomes normal at the drop of a hat and depending on her style violence throwing things, damaging your property it goes on.

    Its Gold Digging and securing finances from someone, rinse and repeat and she can make a tidy some and get State Benefits and never have to work for herself.

    That's a good start.


    That's interesting. So they are looking for somebody to "rescue" them and have lots of "bad boyfriends" who supposedly did hurtful things to them in the past? Those I think would be big warning signs. Along with anger, manipulation and unstable personality. I think one of the biggest is she had lots of EX BF's she has restraining orders on or some criminal or civil case. Man if you don't see that coming I don't know what to say. You are NEXT (the new guy). It just amazes me that guy after guy can't see this coming. I don't know how they can be so blind. I guess they feel like they are having fun with the sex or whatever. They overlook it or are blind to it. But from the outside looking in you can see it a mile away. There is more perspective from afar. Right in the mix sometimes you are blinded by other things. I've seen so many guys like that it's unbelievable.



    They don't tell you they are screwing the whole neighborhood, they don't tell you more then they have been abandoned or something along that line, especially if they have a child. They know how to work it.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 23930
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    SanDiego49er wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:First they appear to need help and are vulnerable, prey on the man thing to help the weak and hurt female, then submissive and wanting to help you, then they become temperamental, then you start seeing the anger, then they start working the edges and your friends and acquaintances with complaints about you, painting a picture, again starting the victim card. Then comes the possessive jealous aspect. This will justify what she does latter. That's when I am pregnant happens even when she said she was on birth control, or the if you loved me you would have proposed is there someone else. Anger becomes normal at the drop of a hat and depending on her style violence throwing things, damaging your property it goes on.

    Its Gold Digging and securing finances from someone, rinse and repeat and she can make a tidy some and get State Benefits and never have to work for herself.

    That's a good start.


    That's interesting. So they are looking for somebody to "rescue" them and have lots of "bad boyfriends" who supposedly did hurtful things to them in the past? Those I think would be big warning signs. Along with anger, manipulation and unstable personality. I think one of the biggest is she had lots of EX BF's she has restraining orders on or some criminal or civil case. Man if you don't see that coming I don't know what to say. You are NEXT (the new guy). It just amazes me that guy after guy can't see this coming. I don't know how they can be so blind. I guess they feel like they are having fun with the sex or whatever. They overlook it or are blind to it. But from the outside looking in you can see it a mile away. There is more perspective from afar. Right in the mix sometimes you are blinded by other things. I've seen so many guys like that it's unbelievable.



    They don't tell you they are screwing the whole neighborhood, they don't tell you more then they have been abandoned or something along that line, especially if they have a child. They know how to work it.


    Abandonment from a previous relationship and some gripe about some previous guy and a child that they need taken care of by a different guy certainly can indicate some dysfunction in that person and previous relationships. I don't want to judge everybody. Obviously it's a case by case basis. But it's not something to entirely overlook upon entering a new relationship.

    I mean just don't look at that with ROSE COLORED GLASSES. Look honestly at it.
    SanDiego49er
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 225
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:21 am


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    If you remove her testimony (which I have to do, because if you can't believe her original story, you can't believe her recant either.) As an unreliable witness, I just have to remove her testimony completely. Without her recant or her original claim, you have a woman who was visibly injured and a man who may or may not have injured her.

    With that said, the video becomes a key piece of evidence in the abuse case. Assuming that what was shown in court proves that she sustained injuries in a fight earlier, then you just can't charge him for the original abuse claim (IMO of course).

    Now, that leaves the charges stemming from interfering in a 911 call, and the gun charges. Even on their own, they are an issue that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. I don't believe those charges on their own should be enough to get him expelled from his team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of deal involving probation being how this portion plays out.

    Whether he gets any suspension or not really depends alot on what Goodell considers the 911 interference to be. If he considers that DV under the NFL policy, then he may get suspended. If he ends up just getting the misdemeanor gun charge, then I can see him actually ready to practice come training camp.



    If you remove both accusations (and I think its debatable that you do...but for this conversation lets assume you can't trust either), then what you have a a woman with scratches and busted eardrum and a video of her fighting another woman.

    There is no reason to assume guilt on his part.

    Moreover you have the fact that she stole $8000, his Rolex and his Designer clothes.

    As for a suspension, I really don't know. I know some of the history of DV suspensions, but has the NFL ever suspended someone for owning a gun that is illegal in some states that the NFL plays in but legal in other states that the NFL plays in? Does the NFL suspend based on local law? I don't think it works that way.

    The Phone? As I've said before...I don't have any idea.

    Pot? Dunno. Never tested positive. Again, will NFL suspend for simply having possession of a substance illegal in some states and legal in others?

    To be honest though, I haven't progressed yet to the "does he get suspended" phase of this really as the charges against him are still pending.



    For the Green Highlighted portion of your text...what makes you say this? Do you believe I'm showing some bias towards Foster, or is that a generic "you" as in "nobody can remove both of her statements from the equation". Either way, I think that bit of the statement is incorrect.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Not Marvin, but by my read he’s using the generic “you” — probably cuing off of your use of the generic “you” in the first paragraph of your post he’s responding to. :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4782
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: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.


    If you remove her testimony (which I have to do, because if you can't believe her original story, you can't believe her recant either.) As an unreliable witness, I just have to remove her testimony completely. Without her recant or her original claim, you have a woman who was visibly injured and a man who may or may not have injured her.

    With that said, the video becomes a key piece of evidence in the abuse case. Assuming that what was shown in court proves that she sustained injuries in a fight earlier, then you just can't charge him for the original abuse claim (IMO of course).

    Now, that leaves the charges stemming from interfering in a 911 call, and the gun charges. Even on their own, they are an issue that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. I don't believe those charges on their own should be enough to get him expelled from his team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of deal involving probation being how this portion plays out.

    Whether he gets any suspension or not really depends alot on what Goodell considers the 911 interference to be. If he considers that DV under the NFL policy, then he may get suspended. If he ends up just getting the misdemeanor gun charge, then I can see him actually ready to practice come training camp.



    If you remove both accusations (and I think its debatable that you do...but for this conversation lets assume you can't trust either), then what you have a a woman with scratches and busted eardrum and a video of her fighting another woman.

    There is no reason to assume guilt on his part.

    Moreover you have the fact that she stole $8000, his Rolex and his Designer clothes.

    As for a suspension, I really don't know. I know some of the history of DV suspensions, but has the NFL ever suspended someone for owning a gun that is illegal in some states that the NFL plays in but legal in other states that the NFL plays in? Does the NFL suspend based on local law? I don't think it works that way.

    The Phone? As I've said before...I don't have any idea.

    Pot? Dunno. Never tested positive. Again, will NFL suspend for simply having possession of a substance illegal in some states and legal in others?

    To be honest though, I haven't progressed yet to the "does he get suspended" phase of this really as the charges against him are still pending.



    For the Green Highlighted portion of your text...what makes you say this? Do you believe I'm showing some bias towards Foster, or is that a generic "you" as in "nobody can remove both of her statements from the equation". Either way, I think that bit of the statement is incorrect.


    It was a generic "you".

    My point in that regard was that all statements aren't equal. One was in the heat of anger very soon after whatever happened happened and the other was in court under penalty of perjury where she confessed to several Felonies and the physical evidence and witnesses would lend credence to her second statement. She also admitted to having done this before.

    I don't think anyone can simply make it a wash by saying you can't believe anything she says when the circumstances around those two statements are drastically different and the evidence points to one of those statements being more likely.

    However, if anyone does make it a wash and ignores both statements, there is nothing there to charge him with in terms of the DV charge. If the the initial statement is ignored, then you have a woman with injuries, video evidence of an altercation she had with someone else, and an after the fact witness who said she had no visible injures and was very calm when borrowing his phone to calling 911.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Popeyejones wrote:Not Marvin, but by my read he’s using the generic “you” — probably cuing off of your use of the generic “you” in the first paragraph of your post he’s responding to. :2thumbs:


    Correct. :D
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


  • Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    If you remove her testimony (which I have to do, because if you can't believe her original story, you can't believe her recant either.) As an unreliable witness, I just have to remove her testimony completely. Without her recant or her original claim, you have a woman who was visibly injured and a man who may or may not have injured her.

    With that said, the video becomes a key piece of evidence in the abuse case. Assuming that what was shown in court proves that she sustained injuries in a fight earlier, then you just can't charge him for the original abuse claim (IMO of course).

    Now, that leaves the charges stemming from interfering in a 911 call, and the gun charges. Even on their own, they are an issue that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. I don't believe those charges on their own should be enough to get him expelled from his team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of deal involving probation being how this portion plays out.

    Whether he gets any suspension or not really depends alot on what Goodell considers the 911 interference to be. If he considers that DV under the NFL policy, then he may get suspended. If he ends up just getting the misdemeanor gun charge, then I can see him actually ready to practice come training camp.



    If you remove both accusations (and I think its debatable that you do...but for this conversation lets assume you can't trust either), then what you have a a woman with scratches and busted eardrum and a video of her fighting another woman.

    There is no reason to assume guilt on his part.

    Moreover you have the fact that she stole $8000, his Rolex and his Designer clothes.

    As for a suspension, I really don't know. I know some of the history of DV suspensions, but has the NFL ever suspended someone for owning a gun that is illegal in some states that the NFL plays in but legal in other states that the NFL plays in? Does the NFL suspend based on local law? I don't think it works that way.

    The Phone? As I've said before...I don't have any idea.

    Pot? Dunno. Never tested positive. Again, will NFL suspend for simply having possession of a substance illegal in some states and legal in others?

    To be honest though, I haven't progressed yet to the "does he get suspended" phase of this really as the charges against him are still pending.



    For the Green Highlighted portion of your text...what makes you say this? Do you believe I'm showing some bias towards Foster, or is that a generic "you" as in "nobody can remove both of her statements from the equation". Either way, I think that bit of the statement is incorrect.


    It was a generic "you".

    My point in that regard was that all statements aren't equal. One was in the heat of anger very soon after whatever happened happened and the other was in court under penalty of perjury where she confessed to several Felonies and the physical evidence and witnesses would lend credence to her second statement. She also admitted to having done this before.

    I don't think anyone can simply make it a wash by saying you can't believe anything she says when the circumstances around those two statements are drastically different and the evidence points to one of those statements being more likely.

    However, if anyone does make it a wash and ignores both statements, there is nothing there to charge him with in terms of the DV charge. If the the initial statement is ignored, then you have a woman with injuries, video evidence of an altercation she had with someone else, and an after the fact witness who said she had no visible injures and was very calm when borrowing his phone to calling 911.


    Actually one can and should make a wash of both statements, otherwise you are saying that you choose to believe one statement over the other.

    With that said, as I said before, you can and should take other evidence into account, and that is the case here. You have mentioned several other key pieces of evidence/testimony that (at the very least) serve as a cause for reasonable doubt.

    Finally, I said it earlier, and continue to believe that with the evidence as it stands, I cannot see how he'd be convicted of Assault for her injuries, as they just can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That just leaves the 911 interference and the weapons charges left to play out.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19296
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:

    If you remove both accusations (and I think its debatable that you do...but for this conversation lets assume you can't trust either), then what you have a a woman with scratches and busted eardrum and a video of her fighting another woman.

    There is no reason to assume guilt on his part.

    Moreover you have the fact that she stole $8000, his Rolex and his Designer clothes.

    As for a suspension, I really don't know. I know some of the history of DV suspensions, but has the NFL ever suspended someone for owning a gun that is illegal in some states that the NFL plays in but legal in other states that the NFL plays in? Does the NFL suspend based on local law? I don't think it works that way.

    The Phone? As I've said before...I don't have any idea.

    Pot? Dunno. Never tested positive. Again, will NFL suspend for simply having possession of a substance illegal in some states and legal in others?

    To be honest though, I haven't progressed yet to the "does he get suspended" phase of this really as the charges against him are still pending.



    For the Green Highlighted portion of your text...what makes you say this? Do you believe I'm showing some bias towards Foster, or is that a generic "you" as in "nobody can remove both of her statements from the equation". Either way, I think that bit of the statement is incorrect.


    It was a generic "you".

    My point in that regard was that all statements aren't equal. One was in the heat of anger very soon after whatever happened happened and the other was in court under penalty of perjury where she confessed to several Felonies and the physical evidence and witnesses would lend credence to her second statement. She also admitted to having done this before.

    I don't think anyone can simply make it a wash by saying you can't believe anything she says when the circumstances around those two statements are drastically different and the evidence points to one of those statements being more likely.

    However, if anyone does make it a wash and ignores both statements, there is nothing there to charge him with in terms of the DV charge. If the the initial statement is ignored, then you have a woman with injuries, video evidence of an altercation she had with someone else, and an after the fact witness who said she had no visible injures and was very calm when borrowing his phone to calling 911.


    Actually one can and should make a wash of both statements, otherwise you are saying that you choose to believe one statement over the other.

    With that said, as I said before, you can and should take other evidence into account, and that is the case here. You have mentioned several other key pieces of evidence/testimony that (at the very least) serve as a cause for reasonable doubt.

    Finally, I said it earlier, and continue to believe that with the evidence as it stands, I cannot see how he'd be convicted of Assault for her injuries, as they just can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That just leaves the 911 interference and the weapons charges left to play out.


    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that first point.

    I think the fact that she was under threat of perjury in one statement and not on the other makes a big difference and that the other facts seem to corroborate one statement over the other.

    If that were not the case and all things were equal, I'd agree with you. This isn't a "normal" case of a person recanting. Nothing about this is "normal".

    Other than that tho, yeah likely just now about the phone and weapon charges.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6038
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:44 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests