Originally Posted by :
Now that the full 11-minute recording of Chiefs wide receiver Tyreek Hill and his now former fiancee, Crystal Espinal, talking about violence in their relationship has been aired, many fans are saying wow, this changes everything.
It does? That Hill, who didn’t know Espinal was taping him, denies ever hitting her or their son in what he thought was a private conversation is neither surprising nor exculpatory.
Abusers typically tell not only the police but friends, family, therapists, priests and even themselves they’ve never done anything wrong.
And if anything, the fact that Hill now says he didn’t hit punch or choke Espinal in 2014 makes him look worse rather than better. He pleaded guilty to those charges, publicly apologized, went through extensive therapy and declared himself reformed after probation. If he’s now back to saying that none of this ever happened, that’s not just a lie but a worrying one.
“I didn’t touch you in 2014,” he says on the tape. “And put that on everything I love, bro. That’s the real truth.”
That Espinal isn’t screaming at him that no, it’s not the truth, real or otherwise, is taken by some supporters as proof that he is innocent.
But why a woman who has been injured by him before and he’s threatening to hurt again might not do that should be obvious.
When she instead repeatedly asks him where her bruises came from if he never hit her, he doesn’t answer because there isn’t an answer that he likes well enough to repeat.
On Thursday, Espinal filed a petition in Johnson County seeking a paternity test for their newborn twins. She has full custody of them — they live with her — and she is asking for child support and only supervised visits for Hill. Her lawyer in the matter is legal counsel for SAFEHOME, a Johnson County group that supports survivors of domestic violence.
The NFL, meanwhile, seems ready to let Hill off with a brief suspension because the legal case against him isn’t going anywhere, but these things are still true:
Hill’s son was removed from his home after a child abuse investigation was launched. The Johnson County district attorney said the 3-year-old child had been hurt, but he didn’t have enough proof to prosecute.
On the tape, we heard Hill threaten the mother of his children with physical violence: “You need to be scared of me, too, dumb bitch.” He berates and belittles, calls her “bro” and “bitch” and of course, claims she ruined his life.
Denial of all wrongdoing is so standard in abuse cases that just a look at Thursday’s Star provides other examples, including that of Scott Hacker, the now former Parkville police officer charged with domestic violence after allegedly shooting his gun inside his home, throwing the woman who called 911 onto the couch, grabbing her by the throat and blaming her for “ending his career” by calling for help. Both before and after the cops arrived, he said he hadn’t shot the gun or touched her. But oops: A security camera in the living room apparently recorded the assault.
What Espinal was trying to get was the audio equivalent of that video.
If the NFL lets Hill back on the field this season, it will send the message that making threats and showing you’ve learned nothing from probation is no real problem, as long as you can run fast enough. The help he needs is not more denial, but just the opposite.
To the rest of you who are intent on seeing Hill as the victim, KCTV as a villain for not immediately releasing the full tape, and Espinal as a “manipulator” for wanting evidence to back her up in court, we could suggest some reading on the well-researched subject of abuse. But why, when you seem to prefer not to know?
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
Doesn't fit the overall tone to my ear. But like I said, minor issue. Would be nice to get 4 or 5 more entries from others. Strength in numbers. And for anyone that didn't read Clay's piece, you can submit your outrage :-) here:
Tony Berg, the President and Publisher of the KC Star. tberg@kcstar.com tonyberg1566@hotmail.com
Dan Schaub, Corporate Director of Audience Development at McClatchy. dschaub@mcclatchy.com.
Kevin McClatchy, Chairman of McClatchy. kmcclatchy@mcclatchy.com kmcclatchy@mac.com.
To voice your concern about what media are allowed access to the Chiefs: fanexperience@chiefs.com
@Ted_Crews
As a consumer, and perhaps a disgruntled one, you have a voice. Perhaps just one, but a babbling brook can easily become a destructive tidal wave if enough streams converge.
Newspapers exist to serve the public, and the truth. When they instead try to serve an agenda, and break the public’s trust, it can, should and is affecting their business.
Tyreek Hill
Kansas City Star
Mcclatchy
Espinal
Lies
Clay W. (name withheld)
WRITTEN BY
Clay W. (name withheld)
But it was Espinal who weaponized a son against his father. Imagine what might have been published if the reverse had been true
You’re right about the screenshot, but I’ve never figured out how to post images from my phone other than as an attachment, and those are annoying.
Last 2:
More interested in defending TV Stations other journalists are categorizing as unethical.
Stations should be lowercase.
If you don’t trust a paper, when they publish anonymous, baseless character assassinations rather than provide a balance, when they attack their readers, when they are incompetent enough in the digital realm to make paywalls flimsier than the border at the American southwest, changes are necessary.
That is one long sentence, but I’ll allow it with a couple modifications. I’d get rid of the first comma after paper, and I’d get rid of the comma after readers and say “when they themselves aren’t competent enough...”. It makes it more clear what your clauses are. [Reply]
Note to Clay: I'm a terrible editor and rarely read for grammar/punctuation unless it jumps out at me. Worse still, nobody really writes like I do so I have a tendency to criticize for stylistic changes rather than substantive ones. I welcome anyone to ignore all of those - my voice is mine, your voice is yours.
So take any of my PM suggestions with a grain of salt. Otherwise, good work - hope you get plenty of eyes on it because there's a lot there that needs to be said outside of this forum. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
You’re right about the screenshot, but I’ve never figured out how to post images from my phone other than as an attachment, and those are annoying.
Last 2:
More interested in defending TV Stations other journalists are categorizing as unethical.
Stations should be lowercase.
If you don’t trust a paper, when they publish anonymous, baseless character assassinations rather than provide a balance, when they attack their readers, when they are incompetent enough in the digital realm to make paywalls flimsier than the border at the American southwest, changes are necessary.
That is one long sentence, but I’ll allow it with a couple modifications. I’d get rid of the first comma after paper, and I’d get rid of the comma after readers and say “when they themselves aren’t competent enough...”. It makes it more clear what your clauses are.
Actually, a proper rewrite of that clause would be “when they themselves aren’t competent enough... to make paywalls less flimsy than...” [Reply]
Sounds to me like the Star wants to suck up to the national liberal media, which is their prerogative (wow, I always thought that was spelled perogative -- fuckin' hick).
I would cancel my subscription, but I did that in the 1980s. I can delete Red Zone Extra app and just rely on The Athletic for my Chiefs news. That'll work. [Reply]
The star has never had this problem with politicizing social stuff on the Chiefs. That's a new thing. Seems more of a combo of a bad writer, an editorial board too stubborn to admit they're wrong, and a lack of good enough writers to balance the bad with good solid journalism. Seems like the main problem is they went all in backing the wrong horse. [Reply]
How hard is it for the Star to do this? This could have been quick and painless.
I rarely do this, but feel it's important to share this from my @TheAthleticKC chat today. Forgive me for the few typos, as I write pretty fast during the hour to answer every question.
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
actually i need to say "if" not "when" in all those
got it
I would still be careful there. The structure of the sentence is:
If you don’t trust a paper when they A, B, or C, then changes are necessary.
I added the “then” to make it a more proper if/then. Looking at it in that structure, you see why you don’t need the first comma. In my previous edit, I combined B and C into a new clause essentially saying “they attack us yet can’t even get their own shit straight”. It’s stylistic for sure. I hate a lot of commas. [Reply]
