In case anyone hadn't decided on the KC Star yet

[DJ's left nut]

They're doubling down and hiding behind an 'editorial board' byline so nobody has to put their name on this shit.

https://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/e...mpression=true

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?

[Mecca]

If you gauge this story anywhere but here basically it's about an 85-15 mark that he shouldn't ever play again and deserves a prison sentence.

He's never going to change those peoples perceptions either but the NFL wants them to buy tickets, it's why I made that comment the other day that we should be ready to embrace being the bad guy because that's what we're about to be.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Mecca

If you gauge this story anywhere but here basically it's about an 85-15 mark that he shouldn't ever play again and deserves a prison sentence.

He's never going to change those peoples perceptions either but the NFL wants them to buy tickets, it's why I made that comment the other day that we should be ready to embrace being the bad guy because that's what we're about to be.

**** 'em.

**** 'em all...

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

**** 'em.

**** 'em all...

That's how I feel about it, I know people who don't though. That think "the view of our team is sad and I don't want to win if it means people think this of us"

Kinda sad really.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

Jeff Rosen needs to be fired, and the Star has to employ a person who has the situational awareness concerning the demographics they are writing for

Is too much to ask that the Chiefs beat reporter care more about the NFL than social justice issues? Oh, and also would be helpful if the beat reporter knew a little about football. The current situation is absurd. The idea that people would pay money to get Brooke Pryor's insights on the Chiefs is a joke.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Is too much to ask that the Chiefs beat reporter care more about the NFL than social justice issues? Oh, and also would be helpful if the beat reporter knew a little about football. The current situation is absurd. The idea that people would pay money to get Brooke Pryor's insights on the Chiefs is a joke.

Right?

I think she should be fired for violating basic rules on vetting, etc...

But even if you don't fire her, this is akin to having Ray Charles as your movie critic. What the **** is Brooke Pryor doing on the Chiefs beat? She doesn't want to be there. Chiefs fans don't want her to be there. She's not a good source for football insight and doesn't particularly care if she is or not.

Why are we continuing to try to ram a square peg into a round hole here? If Rosen's too much of a feckless twat to fire her, fine - reassign her ass. Put someone on the Chiefs beat that loves football and wants to talk about the Chiefs, for ****s sake.

[TEX]

That's exactly how I thought any follow up from the Star, regarding the release of full 11-minute tape, would read. Small-time agenda driven "journalism" at its best.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Eleazar

Yeah, it reminds you of how Belichick and the Pats started handling the media years ago, only doing the bare minimum. The media is not their friend. The media usually benefit more from saying and reporting on things that hurt the team or sow division in the locker room. The media can't help your team win a Super Bowl, but they can definitely hurt you. Since their interests are not aligned with yours, avoid them.

Of course if you go and create real legal trouble for yourself, you've only yourself to blame. But why run your social media personally when you are a public figure? Let your agent and their PR people post banal updates about your charity work and such, and leave it at that.

That approach didn't work for us. Kc is a community team. The fans want to know about the players who then become part of a community. The Star used to be about chiefs news, some opinion, but they also played a huge role in connecting fans to players. We used to joke about puff pieces but they really humanized players. Ivan Carter and eventually terez were great at putting thoughtful analysis. Poz and Merrill were great at the puff pieces. With all that Whitlock was fine being the contrarian. The star has lost their way. They are more interested in getting clicks than they are writing for the fans.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Right?

I think she should be fired for violating basic rules on vetting, etc...

But even if you don't fire her, this is akin to having Ray Charles as your movie critic. What the **** is Brooke Pryor doing on the Chiefs beat? She doesn't want to be there. Chiefs fans don't want her to be there. She's not a good source for football insight and doesn't particularly care if she is or not.

Why are we continuing to try to ram a square peg into a round hole here? If Rosen's too much of a feckless twat to fire her, fine - reassign her ass. Put someone on the Chiefs beat that loves football and wants to talk about the Chiefs, for ****s sake.

Credentialism is a big problem in this country. So many guys on this board could do a really well as the Chiefs beat reporter, but they don't have a journalism degree. What does Brooke's journalism degree do for us? How is it adding value to what we read? Certainly doesn't seem to be a quality assurance device.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Is too much to ask that the Chiefs beat reporter care more about the NFL than social justice issues? Oh, and also would be helpful if the beat reporter knew a little about football. The current situation is absurd. The idea that people would pay money to get Brooke Pryor's insights on the Chiefs is a joke.

Elizabeth Merrill was hardly a football expert. There's a role for journalists who want to tell stories about our team. So it ain't about that. What Pryor is doing isn't even journalism. It's clickbait. There's no depth to her writing and there's no nuance to it.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Right?

I think she should be fired for violating basic rules on vetting, etc...

But even if you don't fire her, this is akin to having Ray Charles as your movie critic. What the **** is Brooke Pryor doing on the Chiefs beat? She doesn't want to be there. Chiefs fans don't want her to be there. She's not a good source for football insight and doesn't particularly care if she is or not.

Why are we continuing to try to ram a square peg into a round hole here? If Rosen's too much of a feckless twat to fire her, fine - reassign her ass. Put someone on the Chiefs beat that loves football and wants to talk about the Chiefs, for ****s sake.

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Is too much to ask that the Chiefs beat reporter care more about the NFL than social justice issues? Oh, and also would be helpful if the beat reporter knew a little about football. The current situation is absurd. The idea that people would pay money to get Brooke Pryor's insights on the Chiefs is a joke.

This is my big question mark. I recall hearing people grumble about her even before all of this. It seems like being a writer assigned to the Chiefs would be a plum job that would draw qualified candidates who love football. Missouri even has a well-regarded journalism school in Columbia that (I presume) pumps out a lot of Missouri-oriented graduates.

I recognize that newspapers are struggling financially and this job likely doesn't pay well, so they're probably hiring inexperienced people. I get that. But it still seems like a great job for an entry-level person, and I haven't seen anyone post anything from her that's really football specific.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, too. What is her job supposed to be? If she was hired to write puff pieces about the celebrities playing football, then I withdraw my complaints. But I get the impression that she's supposed to be reporting football news. What's the bottom line?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

This is my big question mark. I recall hearing people grumble about here even before all of this. It seems like being a writer assigned to the Chiefs would be a plum job that would draw qualified candidates who love football. Missouri even has a well-regarded journalism school in Columbia that (I presume) pumps out a lot of Missouri-oriented graduates.

I recognize that newspapers are struggling financially and this job likely doesn't pay well, so they're probably hiring inexperience people. I get that.
But it still seems like a great job for an entry-level person, and I haven't seen anyone post anything from her that's really football specific.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, too. What is her job supposed to be? If she was hired to write puff pieces about the celebrities playing football, then I withdraw my complaints. But I get the impression that she's supposed to be reporting football news. What's the bottom line?

I got that impression as well when teicher was our news guy with totally uninformed opinions who somehow made it to the national stage. He was replaced by some guy who's delivering the same kind of news. In the age of Twitter, totally irrelevant. A far cry from someone like terez or Babb who could deliver that same story with actual substance behind it.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I recognize that newspapers are struggling financially and this job likely doesn't pay well, so they're probably hiring inexperience people. I get that.
But it still seems like a great job for an entry-level person, and I haven't seen anyone post anything from her that's really football specific.

No. The career arc of a sports journalist is why I felt no guilt in giving up on the path six years ago.

If you're not at a premier journo program like Mizzou or Syracuse, you're going to slog your way through writing for your school paper and freelancing or unpaid interning with a local paper. Post graduation you'll be lucky to get a staff role anywhere and you'll probably get stuck in a very small town covering middle school sports as your starting point to maybe monkey bar swing gradually into increasingly bigger markets.

It took the guy I personally know (and who was gracious enough to throw me work and advice) 15 years to make it to the point where he's covering professional sports wherein he spent the better part of a decade in two small to mid-size metro areas in the capacity of an editor/reporter focusing solely on high school prep sports.

[T-post Tom]

Truly an "opinion" piece. A one-sided opinion that completely disregards known facts that contradict that opinion.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Truly an "opinion" piece. A one-sided opinion that completely disregards known facts that contradict that opinion.

That's my biggest issue and why this is a Rosen issue. It's fine to have a negative opinion on tyreek. But there has been enough seeds planted for real journalists to investigate tyreeks side of both stories.

Not even a hint of that. Nobody talking to tyreeks roommate (Carrington Harrison did). His anger management counselors. No one looking into the credibility of the accusers family. The papers job is to present both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusion. If the editorial board still wanted to say they think tyreek is guilty after a fair presentation of both sides, fine. But the way this is handled is a complete hit job from the top down.

[Mecca]

Hey........lets do it again...

It’s complicated: Latest turns in Tyreek Hill saga leave more questions than answers
BY VAHE GREGORIAN
JULY 12, 2019 11:59 AM, UPDATED 1 HOUR 32 MINUTES AGO


Unless the murmurs are yet another illusion, any minute now the NFL will rule on the status of Chiefs’ star Tyreek Hill.

Congratulations if you think you know what to think about him and what to expect now. But brace yourself for a trap door ahead falling open into another hall of mirrors.

Because the only thing clear about this whole distressing affair is that it has become defined by its twists and the force-field around it beyond the only two people who really know anything.

And woe be to those like me, who embraced a false flash of clarity in the fog — in my case, in the form of a sensationalized audio snippet.

Probably to a fault, I pride myself on restraint and nuance and taking a step back in this job. If your Mama says she loves you, check it out, I was taught. Don’t go past your own headlights.

But I submitted to a snap judgment on fragmentary information when I heard Hill say “you need to be terrified of me, too, dumb bitch” and then wrote a column with the headline, “If the Chiefs care about honor and decency, Tyreek Hill can’t be part of this team.”

Particularly because they were stated to the woman (Crystal Espinal) Hill has pleaded guilty to abusing in the past, those appalling words still resonate. They make Hill’s presence here loaded and problematic to me.

They still feel like a red line crossed … even if I now can’t quite reconcile what I think the consequence should be when it comes to the player who has essentially been suspended by the Chiefs since the April night that part of the audio was released.

Because of everything else it included, those words just stand out in a different sort of way in the full audio released Tuesday by 610 AM — full audio that reframed the misleading abridged version(s) originally played by KCTV-5. The edited clips muted the reality of Espinal’s repeated goading during the complete audio.

That, though, was just the latest bafflement in this miserable saga made all the more unsavory by misdirection and leaked scraps of truth.

No one in positions of knowledge is speaking publicly with so much at stake for so many and confidentiality at a premium among law enforcement, attorneys and especially the Kansas Department For Children and Families.

Those who do speak might come to regret it, like Chiefs coach Andy Reid did when he mistakenly said in April that Johnson County district attorney Steve Howe had reopened an investigation involving Hill and Espinal and the treatment of their 3-year-old son.

Just the same, Howe inexplicably declined to clarify if the investigation had been reopened when asked by The Star that day in April and at times in between. He finally corrected the record on June 7 … some seven weeks after Reid spoke.

All of this is evoking Orwellian stuff to me, like “how do we know that two and two make four?” and the notion of “doublethink” as “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Because I don’t know of anything I’ve thought about more in the last few months even as I no longer know what to think as multiple plausible scenarios ricochet around my head.

Confusion reigned from the start when the then-engaged couple in March became involved in investigations of child abuse and neglect by law enforcement and the Kansas Department of Children and Families, leading to the loss of custody of their 3-year-old son.

It’s still not publicly known who has custody of the boy, and Hill and Espinal have an ongoing case with the DCF.

Meanwhile, the latest surprising turn emerged Thursday with the revelation that Espinal had filed a petition in Johnson County seeking to prove Hill is the father of her newborn twins, who are residing with her. The filing also states that Espinal and Hill “are not married, never have been married, and do not intend to be married.”

That would seem a good thing. This is a toxic relationship, going back to a month before the night in December 2014 that led to Hill pleading guilty to domestic assault and battery by strangulation of Espinal. On Nov. 3, Hill called 911 in Stillwater, Oklahoma, because he wanted Espinal out of his apartment amid an argument — a circumstance that was similarly cited by Espinal as the start of the incident on the night that changed both their lives forever.

It was a worrisome thing on many levels when they got back together last year. At the time, Hill appeared on a redemptive track, having completed his three-year deferred sentence from the only notable trouble he’s known to have been in despite growing up in tough circumstances.

Now, in this Bizarro World framework, a #freetyreek crowd has seized on part of the new audio it perceives as Hill proclaiming his innocence in the 2014 incident: He denies picking her up and slamming her, stressing that he “put (Espinal) out my door.” When he asks her repeatedly if he hit her, she doesn’t say yes, but says, “Where did the bruises come from?”

Some in the online courtroom have used that as a springboard to point out that Hill’s then-attorney, Cheryl Ramsey, asked Espinal in the preliminary hearing if she had a history of self-mutilation, cutting herself or bruising herself. Espinal said no to all three before the objection of Espinal’s attorney was sustained by Judge Katherine E. Thomas.

While it’s not remotely an established fact, that sort of unsubstantiated insinuation might make the mind wander.

As might what Hill’s birth father, Derrick Shaw, said in an interview three years ago. The night before the trial was scheduled in August 2015 in Stillwater, Shaw said he believed Hill would fight the charge.


He was stunned to see on SportsCenter the next night that Hill, who grew up with his paternal grandparents, had pleaded guilty.

Shaw said Hill told him that he was advised, either by his then-agent and/or attorney Jay Husbands (who replaced Ramsey when Hill failed to meet “monetary obligations,” The Oklahoman reported) that pleading guilty and accepting the three-year deferred sentence was the best way to make sure he avoided jail.

The family, Shaw said, didn’t want him to do that because they believed in his innocence and anticipated what the plea would mean going forward.

“It’s always going to follow him,” Shaw said in 2016, “and that’s what I don’t want.”

But hold on before you assume all this means, presto, Hill was innocent in 2014.


Even based on his own words on the tape.

Hill didn’t answer Espinal when she asked where the bruises came from, for instance, and the police report from that night observed injuries to her left eye, upper lip, neck and right cheek. To assume Hill didn’t do that it is to assume that Espinal did that all to herself — an ultimate blame-the-victim notion that is unconscionable without serious proof.

Moreover, a domestic violence expert noted that it’s common for abusers to parse their words. For example, Hill doesn’t say how he picked her up and moved her out of the room in a case that later included him confessing to choking her.

But the real point here is that this merely was on a tape made by Espinal, not under oath in a court. And while it’s not unreasonable to consider that Hill could have pleaded guilty even if he weren’t, you also can’t just throw this out:

Four years ago next month, Hill was sworn in at the Payne County Courthouse and asked how he pleaded to the charge of domestic assault and battery by strangulation. After pleading guilty, he was then asked to explain in his own words what he had done to his then-pregnant girlfriend, Espinal.

“I did something that I shouldn’t have done that night, which was I just let my feelings take control of me,” Hill responded. “I wasn’t thinking. I just reacted and hit her, choked her. I’m real sorry for that.”

Whatever else we know and don’t know about what’s happened, and regardless of the legal point that the conviction last year was ordered expunged from his court record, that original plea can’t be unheard and ignored in the context of the menacing words he says on the tape.

In a four-page letter to the NFL defending Hill, Trey Pettlon, Hill’s attorney, called those words “inexcusable” even as he called them inconsistent with Hill’s other recent conversations with Espinal.

For all the other sound and fury, that still hovers over this to me.

As for what should be done about it, pardon me if I’m still thinking about that.



It's apparently super hard to just say, hey I ****ed up.