Tyreek Hill Investigation

[KNUSNGH]

Alrite bro, I listened to the tape a 3rd time now because I'm biased against sub human pieces of ****.

Now, it don't matter if Hill didn't know he was being recorded. You tell us, and you use the word all, that we clearly didn't listen to the full audio. But did you even listen to the full audio? Do you not hear other people in the audio at different times? Do you not understand they're in a public place?

Listen here at around 9:22 from the youtube clip at the bottom I posted.

"You got it, there you go getting loud want everybody see us in the world"

Do you see? He's not going to be honest! He's fully aware of where he is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand where she is deflecting.

Around 2:23
Tyreek Hill: "And then when you get in the court room you wanna sit up there and ****ing cry on the stand, 'He hit me, he hit me', man come on bro"

Crystal Espinal: "then where did the bruises come from, Tyreek?"

(I'm paraphrasing the following since they kinda talk over each other and repeat the same **** over and over and I don't feel like transcribing it word for word)
TH: "Did I hit you?" CE: "where did the bruises come from" TH: "Did I hit you?" CE: "where did the bruises come from"

Where's the deflection? That's not deflection. You mean when Tyreek keeps repeating Did I hit you? Did I hit you? Did I hit you? Did I hit you? after she already responded with where did the bruises come from a few times? That's not deflection, listen at the way he's speaking to her, his tone, the way he keeps repeating it. Then she tries to get back to the topic she wanted to talk about. That's not deflection. That's her trying to get back on topic even though she did respond to his question with "where did the bruises come from"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of what those two pieces of **** said on the audio. They're both not going to spill the beans on how they both abuse their child. She knows it's recording, and he knows he's in public and he's a publicly recognizable person.

Just a few transcribed **** that is from the audio:

(around the 5 minute mark of youtube video below)
CE: "think about why a freaking three year old would tell everyone and everybody that you broke his arm, why would he do that?"

TH: "Because I'm the one that plays with him maybe that's why. You don't do **** with him. I'm the one that gets physical with it"

Gets physical with it? What is this? Sounds like abuse, but let's keep going...

(Around the 8:55 mark)
CE: "when he starts crying what do you do? You make him open up his arms and you punch him in the chest. and then if he gets in trouble you get the belt out."
TH: "Ok so what about you? What you gonna do, so...(gibberish)"
CE: "No I told him he gets whooped."
CE: "But I don't use a belt"
TH: "You do use a belt. That's sad. Even my momma says you use a belt."
CE: ""When have I used a belt?" "when have you seen me use a belt?" "When have I used a belt?"

(Around the 9:55 mark)
TH: "I would never ever hurt my son."

(Around the 10:50 mark)
TH: "If he's terrified of me, we was in that gym with all those kids then what, what about that?"

TH: "everywhere we go my son loves on me. Everywhere we go"
CE: "then we get home what is it"
TH: "When we get home it's for real, it's serious time, it's time to lock in cause he know I don't play. I want my son to learn respect something that you did not teach our son."

Yeah because that doesn't scream abuse.

Can't prove who abused the kid that time even though it seems to be clear they're both abusive towards the child. Innocent my ass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently the entire audio tells a different story...

Ian Rapoport on D&K explains why he wasn't surprised with NFL not suspending Tyreek Hill

Oh, look at that… of course the homers here will twist it any way they can.
Also, she said “where did the bruises come from?” once, then deflected to his response. She didn’t deny him saying he “picked her up and put her out of the door” and never hit her.
Since you are hard of hearing, the deflection is clear:
“We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about our son.”

Also, nothing you quoted about what he said was child abuse, he talked about discipline and respect. You can not conclude child abuse from him saying he wants to teach his son respect (unless you are a “guilty until proven innocent” type, of course).

What you can conclude is that he said he never hit her or did anything she said he did. “Where did the bruises come from?” was her only response to him. A question in answer to a question — that is called deflection. He asked her multiple times “did I hit you?” She never said “yes.” She responded with:
1. A question.
2. “We aren’t talking about that right now.”

That isn’t deflection?

If he was a patriots player, you would be up in arms defending him right now. It’s people like you who make politics what they are: blind support of one side, blind hatred of the other. No logic or reason or objectivity.

You can be a fan of the Patriots and also not hate every person who wasn’t drafted by the Patriots. Shocking, I know.

Her refusing to answer whether he hit her or not, responding with a question, saying “we aren’t talking about that right now” — that doesn’t scream deflection?

If someone claims you raped them, then you ask “did I rape you?” and they answer, “where did the marks on my body come from?” And then, again, you ask, “did I rape you?” And they answer, “we aren’t talking about that right now.” That wouldn’t imply there’s some truth to what you are saying? Or any doubt to whether you actually raped her or not? She couldn’t even say “yes, you did choke me, you did punch me” — that isn’t odd to you? Not at all?

Now, if she lied about him hitting her and he pleaded guilty for PR, then why should she be believed for this child abuse case?



From the shared article:

Rapoport joined Dale & Keefe to explain why he wasn't baffled.

“Honestly, I am not [baffled]," he said. "This is something that we have been working on for a long time and I would say over the course of the last 48 hours trying to nail down that he was not going to be suspended or fined was probably what I did the most. I was expecting no suspension. I was expecting no fine. It basically read how I thought, honestly. There’s a couple things that went into it. Obviously, we know the audio that was released around the time of the draft was not good, and nothing good about that at all.

"Someone called me two days ago and said make sure you listen to the entire 11-minute audio. I said, ‘OK.’ So, I listened to the entire 11-minute audio that Crystal Espinal secretly recorded her and Tyreek Hill going through an airport and his comments come off very differently in that. She doesn’t deny when Hill said she basically made up the 2014 incident and she also admits that she knows Hill did not break the arm of her son.

There’s a lot in there. The NFL talked to Hill, they talked to people on both sides. They did not talk to Crystal Espinal, who did not make herself available for comment. The end result of all this was he wasn’t suspended."

 

[maust]

She couldn’t even say “yes, you did choke me, you did punch me” — that isn’t odd to you? Not at all?

It isn't odd at all if you understand she is dealing with a sociopathic personality who reorders reality to suit him.

The doctors who treated the child concluded the broken arm was an accidental childhood mishap. What should not be lost on anyone, including dimwit Hill jock sniffers and apologists, is even with that determination there was enough evidence of other abuse that the child was removed from the home.

 

[PittPatriot]

It isn't odd at all if you understand she is dealing with a sociopathic personality who reorders reality to suit him.

The doctors who treated the child concluded the broken arm was an accidental childhood mishap. What should not be lost on anyone, including dimwit Hill jock sniffers and apologists, is even with that determination there was enough evidence of other abuse that the child was removed from the home.

It doesn’t take much for Child protective services to remove a child. Children have been removed for lesser reasons.

 

[Kontradiction]

What did Doug Pederson, coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, do?

 

[1960Pats]

League punishment? zero games because he's a KC chief. If he were found guilty in a a court of law, it would be up to 6 months jail time under Kansas law.

I was talking about the DA's punishment.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I was talking about the DA's punishment.

Why would the DA get punished? Short of withholding evidence or knowingly failing to prosecute a crime when the evidence was there, nothing. The DA in this case can say he didn’t have the proof at the time.

 

[1960Pats]

Why would the DA get punished? Short of withholding evidence or knowingly failing to prosecute a crime when the evidence was there, nothing. The DA in this case can say he didn’t have the proof at the time.

You said that the DA would have been at fault and I asked what kind of punishment he could receive.

 

[aluminum seats]

Also, she said “where did the bruises come from?” once

I’ve listened to the first 2 1/2 minutes of the tape, and she’s already said that three times.

So yeah, you don’t seem like the most credible guy.

 

[Wheelman]

Also, she said “where did the bruises come from?” once, then deflected to his response. She didn’t deny him saying he “picked her up and put her out of the door” and never hit her.
Since you are hard of hearing, the deflection is clear:
“We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about our son.”

What you can conclude is that he said he never hit her or did anything she said he did. “Where did the bruises come from?” was her only response to him. A question in answer to a question — that is called deflection. He asked her multiple times “did I hit you?” She never said “yes.” She responded with:
1. A question.
2. “We aren’t talking about that right now.”

That isn’t deflection?

Her refusing to answer whether he hit her or not, responding with a question, saying “we aren’t talking about that right now” — that doesn’t scream deflection?

Where did the bruises come from? = you hit me. That's really not hard to understand. She has a goal. She's trying to incriminate Tyreek Hill. So she tries to move the conversation back to what happened to their child after briefly acknowledging his question. That's not deflection. If anything Tyreek Hill is attempting to derail the conversation and go to the 2014 incident instead of talking about the incident with their child.

By the way she never says "We aren't talking about that right now." Tyreek and his GF talking over each other at this point, She says "No, you're not thinking about what had happened", "We're not thinking about that", "right now the issue is"

More or less what you're saying, but there's a point for me bringing this up. Keep reading.

Now, if she lied about him hitting her and he pleaded guilty for PR, then why should she be believed for this child abuse case?

As I said above, she never admits to lying about that.

Also, nothing you quoted about what he said was child abuse, he talked about discipline and respect. You can not conclude child abuse from him saying he wants to teach his son respect (unless you are a “guilty until proven innocent” type, of course).

Unlike you, I did not quote anything. I transcribed everything from audio. Such as below:
CE:"No I told him he gets whooped."
TH:"I'm the one that gets physical."
TH:"When we get home it's for real, it's serious time, it's time to lock in cause he know I don't play."

with proof of a child being physically hurt = likely abuse. Can't prove who broke his arm, but the child is experiencing abuse at the hands of both of them. The evidence is there.

From the shared article:

Rapoport joined Dale & Keefe to explain why he wasn't baffled.

“Honestly, I am not [baffled]," he said. "This is something that we have been working on for a long time and I would say over the course of the last 48 hours trying to nail down that he was not going to be suspended or fined was probably what I did the most. I was expecting no suspension. I was expecting no fine. It basically read how I thought, honestly. There’s a couple things that went into it. Obviously, we know the audio that was released around the time of the draft was not good, and nothing good about that at all.

"Someone called me two days ago and said make sure you listen to the entire 11-minute audio. I said, ‘OK.’ So, I listened to the entire 11-minute audio that Crystal Espinal secretly recorded her and Tyreek Hill going through an airport and his comments come off very differently in that. She doesn’t deny when Hill said she basically made up the 2014 incident and she also admits that she knows Hill did not break the arm of her son.

There’s a lot in there. The NFL talked to Hill, they talked to people on both sides. They did not talk to Crystal Espinal, who did not make herself available for comment. The end result of all this was he wasn’t suspended."

Ian Rapoport is lying. She never admits to that.

But here's your chance to prove me a dimwit. Why don't you provide a link to the full audio and provide us with timestamps of the audio with a transcript of the part where she admits Tyreek Hill didn't break their arm's son? I mean if your goal is to help us dimwits to see the light, you can do that? Can't you? Why else would you be posting on here then? Enlighten us. I mean if a dimwit like me can do it. Surely you can?

Oh, look at that… of course the homers here will twist it any way they can.

If he was a patriots player, you would be up in arms defending him right now. It’s people like you who make politics what they are: blind support of one side, blind hatred of the other. No logic or reason or objectivity.

You can be a fan of the Patriots and also not hate every person who wasn’t drafted by the Patriots. Shocking, I know.

And here's your mistake. If you truly were a lurker of these forums for many years you would have known I crucify every player/coach/owner who commit immoral acts. It's hard to miss considering I attack them every chance I get on every type of thread on here. Their names are mentioned, I attack them. Bob Kraft is not immune from my attacks. Any member who frequents this forum regularly can attest to this fact.

So I conclude that you're a liar. You're not a lurker. So I'd like to know. Did some woman press charges against you or something? Or is it as others suspect, you're a fan of a rival team? Why don't you be honest with us? Why don't you be honest with yourself?

Oh and this little bit here:

If someone claims you raped them, then you ask “did I rape you?” and they answer, “where did the marks on my body come from?” And then, again, you ask, “did I rape you?” And they answer, “we aren’t talking about that right now.” That wouldn’t imply there’s some truth to what you are saying? Or any doubt to whether you actually raped her or not? She couldn’t even say “yes, you did choke me, you did punch me” — that isn’t odd to you? Not at all?

I wasn't going to quote this part but in case you claimed I'm avoiding it. This example is so erroneous I don't even know where to start. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I highly doubt you even listened to any of the recording. Just look back to me correcting you on what she actually said above.

 

[Wheelman]

What did Doug Pederson, coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, do?

The word on the street is he was cheating on his wife while in KC. Now Reid's wife and Pederson's wife were good friends. So Reid wasn't happy about it But then after Pederson is hired the eagles find out and they're on phone with Reid pissed off he never told them about it. Reid was maybe trying to get rid of Pederson so he would stop cheating on his wife with that other woman. I don't know if Pederson found a new girl yet. But all is forgiven when you win a Super Bowl.

 

[Bruins29]

Oh, look at that… of course the homers here will twist it any way they can.
"

Says the guy who has 9 posts here in 15 months and 8 of them are defending a POS.

Birds of a feather...

 

[SHOWTIME15]

You said that the DA would have been at fault and I asked what kind of punishment he could receive.

As in the public would blame him...

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The word on the street is he was cheating on his wife while in KC. Now Reid's wife and Pederson's wife were good friends. So Reid wasn't happy about it But then after Pederson is hired the eagles find out and they're on phone with Reid pissed off he never told them about it. Reid was maybe trying to get rid of Pederson so he would stop cheating on his wife with that other woman. I don't know if Pederson found a new girl yet. But all is forgiven when you win a Super Bowl.

Pederson looks like the biggest moron

 

[Patstastic]

I don't see the problem with not suspending him. His girlfriend is clearly not credible whatsoever. They had no evidence either. Not saying he's totally innocent. But it is what it is. Chiefs are loaded offensively (Nobody can match them offensively). And their defense is much improved. They are the Patriots biggest roadblock to a repeat.

 

[Bourne Again Christian]

 

[KNUSNGH]

Where did the bruises come from? = you hit me. That's really not hard to understand. She has a goal. She's trying to incriminate Tyreek Hill. So she tries to move the conversation back to what happened to their child after briefly acknowledging his question. That's not deflection. If anything Tyreek Hill is attempting to derail the conversation and go to the 2014 incident instead of talking about the incident with their child.

By the way she never says "We aren't talking about that right now." Tyreek and his GF talking over each other at this point, She says "No, you're not thinking about what had happened", "We're not thinking about that", "right now the issue is"

More or less what you're saying, but there's a point for me bringing this up. Keep reading.


As I said above, she never admits to lying about that.


Unlike you, I did not quote anything. I transcribed everything from audio. Such as below:
CE:"No I told him he gets whooped."
TH:"I'm the one that gets physical."
TH:"When we get home it's for real, it's serious time, it's time to lock in cause he know I don't play."

with proof of a child being physically hurt = likely abuse. Can't prove who broke his arm, but the child is experiencing abuse at the hands of both of them. The evidence is there.


Ian Rapoport is lying. She never admits to that.

But here's your chance to prove me a dimwit. Why don't you provide a link to the full audio and provide us with timestamps of the audio with a transcript of the part where she admits Tyreek Hill didn't break their arm's son? I mean if your goal is to help us dimwits to see the light, you can do that? Can't you? Why else would you be posting on here then? Enlighten us. I mean if a dimwit like me can do it. Surely you can?



And here's your mistake. If you truly were a lurker of these forums for many years you would have known I crucify every player/coach/owner who commit immoral acts. It's hard to miss considering I attack them every chance I get on every type of thread on here. Their names are mentioned, I attack them. Bob Kraft is not immune from my attacks. Any member who frequents this forum regularly can attest to this fact.

So I conclude that you're a liar. You're not a lurker. So I'd like to know. Did some woman press charges against you or something? Or is it as others suspect, you're a fan of a rival team? Why don't you be honest with us? Why don't you be honest with yourself?

Oh and this little bit here:

I wasn't going to quote this part but in case you claimed I'm avoiding it. This example is so erroneous I don't even know where to start. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I highly doubt you even listened to any of the recording. Just look back to me correcting you on what she actually said above.

I’m not going back and forth with you anymore. You can google these things, but I just want to say:

You are very arrogant for assuming I haven’t lurked here because I don’t know your posting habits. You’re not that relevant, and sorry to break it to you, but lurking here is not proven by knowing what “wheelman” thinks or says.

It’s laughable, really, to think that not knowing your posting habits means I couldn’t possibly have been lurking for years.

Kontra, Joker, maybe even mosslost. You? No.

Hell, I even remember Kontradiction’s last avatar of the late great rapper. But you? Have no recollection of anything you’ve posted, in fact.

But you do fit the profile of some homers on this board. Like the same ones who crucified that guy back in 2015 for saying the Broncos would beat the Patriots in the AFCCG, saying they couldn’t wait to come back and laugh at that post when it was over, then pretending it didn’t exist when they ended up being wrong.

Hard to find rational and logical people these days. It’s just like far right/left politics. If Tyreek was a patriots, you’d be up in arms defending him.

Absurd for you to think you are that important on PatsFans. Hope you’re not like that in real life.

 

[Wheelman]

I’m not going back and forth with you anymore. You can google these things, but I just want to say:

You are very arrogant for assuming I haven’t lurked here because I don’t know your posting habits. You’re not that relevant, and sorry to break it to you, but lurking here is not proven by knowing what “wheelman” thinks or says.

It’s laughable, really, to think that not knowing your posting habits means I couldn’t possibly have been lurking for years.

Kontra, Joker, maybe even mosslost. You? No.

Hell, I even remember Kontradiction’s last avatar of the late great rapper. But you? Have no recollection of anything you’ve posted, in fact.

But you do fit the profile of some homers on this board. Like the same ones who crucified that guy back in 2015 for saying the Broncos would beat the Patriots in the AFCCG, saying they couldn’t wait to come back and laugh at that post when it was over, then pretending it didn’t exist when they ended up being wrong.

Hard to find rational and logical people these days. It’s just like far right/left politics. If Tyreek was a patriots, you’d be up in arms defending him.

Absurd for you to think you are that important on PatsFans. Hope you’re not like that in real life.

Lol! As soon as your brain couldn't fill the holes I poked in your posts it resorted into insults and "I'm not looking up proof to prove my opinion." Any rational person would see that I already googled everything.

I didn't assume anything. I used abductive reasoning. When others were calling you out, I said nothing. You however have made several assumptions:
- assumed we didn't listen to the full audio
- assumes I would be up in arms defending Tyreek Hill
- assumed I crucified some guy for picking the broncos
- assumed I don't eat crow if I am wrong

Where is your proof backing those assumptions? Isn't it very arrogant to make assumptions like that?

I don't encounter trolls in real life since they tend to be keyboard warriors so no you wouldn't find me debating with your type in real life.

It must be devastating to your self esteem to be outwitted by a "dimwit".

 

[supafly]

Pederson looks like the biggest moron

View attachment 23732

We heard all about his terrible coaching from Mike Lombardi during the 2017 season, and then he proceeded to win the Super Bowl.

I agree with you that he doesn’t come off as a football guru, but he went out and proved himself so I feel like he deserves more credit than most fans give him.

 

[TomPatriot]

Goody is not policing a player's life outside of work. He is punishing players who's off-the -field behavior is damaging the brand of the league and player.

When Joe Namath was hanging out with mafia bosses and Rozelle told him to stop, that was policing.

The two are interchangeable. An employee’s freedom to live his or her life outside of work should be much more important than branding.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The two are interchangeable. An employee’s freedom to live his or her life outside of work should be much more important than branding.

When I was an exec at a large company I needed to sign a morals clause. It's not just sports teams which expect their employees to adhere to a clean lifestyle and stay out of trouble