As they continue to do what created this problem in the first place, use the information they want to use to shape the narrative to fit a news story they want to tell.

Guys, editorials are unsigned because they represent the institutional opinion of the newspaper, through the collective efforts of the editorial board: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/a...127478714.html. One member of the board (NOT any reporter, let alone Brooke Pryor) wrote the piece but with the input of the other members. That also likely included the publisher. The board might consult reporters on facts or background, but reporters otherwise have no say in writing the editorials.

Need DJ or one of the other resident Legal Eagles to respond:

Are there other possible reasons for a prosecutor to offer a plea bargain OTHER than because they don't have a terribly strong case?

I mean, if his guilt is so obvious, why are they offering him anything?

Sincerely,

Legal Dummy

Agreed.

Every post you make on the topic makes you look worse. Just stop digging.

That's great, buddy.

Heads need to roll.

You know what he's doing.....Duncan was smart enough to admit he ****ed up apologize and tip the **** out...this one not so much.

This entire thing with the audio started to make him look more guilty regarding the more recent allegations. This is important because the full audio doesn’t make him look as bad with regards to that situation as they initially tried to make him look.

So now, they are going back to the 2014 incident as a last effort but that has already been gone over and resolved. It’s no longer relevant and certainly has nothing to do with any need to punish him. The majority of people, including the media, assumed the worst about that 2014 situation yet he still was able to move past it and be cheered for and supported as a player without contempt. Bringing it back up now is nothing but people pushing an agenda and grasping for something else since the recent allegations appear to have fallen through.

The paper isn't making much money. They want you to be outraged and click on their links.

I got a QUICK response from Berg.

A quick snippet of my email:
The response:

Taking a case to trial is expensive and time-consuming. Most every person who is truly guilty pleads out. The state doesn't have the resources to go through the motions of a full trial for everything, and when the guilty party is willing to make a deal to resolve the matter, it's unnecessary.

Lets not mention how many people who aren't guilty plead out for a good deal because of the sad fact that many innocent people go to jail everyday.

He could have decided not to contest the charges while maintaining his innocence. He didn't do that. He admitted guilt.

Hill is not going to be punished for the 2014 incident. It’s over and done with and won’t come into play despite the continued assault on Hill from the media. So we are back to just the recent stuff, which really isn’t much, hence the reason they are bringing up the 2014 stuff again. They are trying to justify their overall bad reporting.

It could also be very simply that in a he said vs she said scenario he didn't want to take the risk of a trial and it go against him when a pregnant woman is on the stand crying.

It could also be that the DA put a deal in place that allows things to work out in the long run by clearing Hill's record if there are no other issues because they didn't feel like what happened was so egregious.