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 RollChiefsRoll:
Actually, it may be this Colleen Nelson person:
While some Tyreek Hill fans have been quick to proclaim his innocence, the recording released this week doesn't change the disturbing facts in this case. And the NFL shouldn't let the Chiefs wide receiver off with a slap on the wrist. from @KCStarOpinionhttps://t.co/BFlKXse2xk
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
So the full recording does make him look worse?
Gonna need an explanation on that one.
As they stated, he admitted in a courtroom that he was guilty of abusing her. The fact that he's going back on that testimony now that he's past the legal consequences and claiming that he never did anything wrong is a typical pattern of an abuser.
You may not like the Star pointing this out, and maybe Hill really has reformed since 2014, but it's still true that this is typical of an unreformed abuser. [Reply]
The most sure way of telling if someone is guilty of something is to accuse them of it. If they deny it, then they're certainly guilty. It worked in Salem and it can work today. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
As they stated, he admitted in a courtroom that he was guilty of abusing her. The fact that he's going back on that testimony now that he's past the legal consequences and claiming that he never did anything wrong is a typical pattern of an abuser.
You may not like the Star pointing this out, and maybe Hill really has reformed since 2014, but it's still true that this is typical of an unreformed abuser.
But what does saying that this is "a typical pattern of an abuser" without pointing out that people actually do plead guilty to things they did not do every single day in this country (take it from a criminal defense lawyer who has negotiated dozens of plea agreements with federal and state prosecutors) actually accomplish other than skewing the narrative in a potentially unfair direction? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
The most sure way of telling if someone is guilty of something is to accuse them of it. If they deny it, then they're certainly guilty. It worked in Salem and it can work today.
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
As they stated, he admitted in a courtroom that he was guilty of abusing her. The fact that he's going back on that testimony now that he's past the legal consequences and claiming that he never did anything wrong is a typical pattern of an abuser.
You may not like the Star pointing this out, and maybe Hill really has reformed since 2014, but it's still true that this is typical of an unreformed abuser.
As if it’s that cut and dry.
The plea deal may be the only reason he got a chance in the NFL in the first place. Timing of everything was huge, no prison time, etc.
All I know is that when you’re sitting there and swearing on “everything you love” about something including your kid, and the other person has no response, I listen up. Maybe that’s not that big of a deal to Tyreek, but for me personally, I’m not saying that before a lie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
As if it’s that cut and dry.
The plea deal may be the only reason he got a chance in the NFL in the first place. Timing of everything was huge, no prison time, etc.
All I know is that when you’re sitting there and swearing on “everything you love” about something including your kid, and the other person has no response, I listen up. Maybe that’s not that big of a deal to Tyreek, but for me personally, I’m not saying that before a lie.
And he's saying this 5 years after the fact, without knowledge he's being recorded. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RollChiefsRoll:
But what does saying that this is "a typical pattern of an abuser" without pointing out that people actually do plead guilty to things they did not do every single day in this country (take it from a criminal defense lawyer who has negotiated dozens of plea agreements with federal and state prosecutors) actually accomplish other than skewing the narrative in a potentially unfair direction?
He admitted in a court of law that he was guilty of the accusations. He didn't enter an alford plea, he didn't plead no contest, he plead guilty. Any attempt you make to say that he wasn't guilty opposes his own statements in a court of law to the contrary. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco:
The Star has planted itself in a far more honorable position than the bleating goats of Chiefs Planet. Their editorial board has my respect.
Stunning that you feel the way you do on this issue being a Broncos fan and all. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He admitted in a court of law that he was guilty of the accusations. He didn't enter an alford plea, he didn't plead no contest, he plead guilty. Any attempt you make to say that he wasn't guilty opposes his own statements in a court of law to the contrary.
I never said he didn't. I merely pointed out--correctly--that folks often plead guilty to charges in court when they didn't do what prosecutors allege they did. There are myriad reasons for that, as I'm sure you're aware. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
He admitted in a court of law that he was guilty of the accusations. He didn't enter an alford plea, he didn't plead no contest, he plead guilty. Any attempt you make to say that he wasn't guilty opposes his own statements in a court of law to the contrary.
I don't see many people saying he's 100% innocent. I think people truly don't know anymore.
However, it does appear that he did what he had to do to not only stay out of prison, but to continue his football career.
Take your chances with a white jury in Oklahoma, or accept a plea offer that lets you continue your life's dream?
I mean, it's a pretty obvious choice. I think people are just asking the Star to consider the possibility, instead of furthering the narrative that he's a monster just because he denies it 5 years later.
Make your voice heard. You are the consumer. Newspapers exist to serve the public. When they begin to serve an agenda, it can, should and is affecting their business.
Second, you will want to contact Dan Schaub, the Corporate Director of Audience Development at McClatchy. He is easily reachable at dschaub@mcclatchy.com.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Anybody notice how they changed the supposed quote? They added "Dumb" in the bolded quote where it's never appeared before.
