Tyreek Hill Investigation

SBLIII said:

Is this the clown show?

Click to expand...

PatsWSB47 said:

Stop it. He threatened her and and has a history of hurting her. He pretty much acknowledged his kid was terrified of him by saying she needed to be terrified of him too. Yeah she's a scumbag enabler and just as complicit as he is but please stop the apologies for Tyreek.

Click to expand...

XLIX said:

You KC fans need to be terrified of the Patriots too

Click to expand...

Here is transcription of parts of the full 11-minute audio recording that hadn’t been previously heard:

“…You [expletive] ruined my life and you lied on me in 2014. I’m still not over that. Because I didn’t touch you in 2014, and I can put that on everything I love, bro. That’s the real truth.” Hill said to Espinal about the domestic abuse allegations dating back to his days at Oklahoma State University.

“And if you want to rewind that night we can rewind that night too, [expletive]. You was in my house. And did I pick you up and slam you? Hell no, I picked you up and put you out my door and after that you left. And on my son you did that, bro. And then you get in the courtroom you want to sit up there and cry on the stand. ‘He hit me, he hit me.’ Man, come on bro.”

“Then where did the bruises come from Tyreek,” Espinal said.

“Did I hit you, did I hit you though?” Hill responded.

“I’m asking you where did the bruises come from?” Espinal said.

“Did I hit you? Tell me the truth in my eyes right now. Look at me.” Hill said.

“We’re not thinking about that,” Espinal said. “Right now the issue is [our son].”

“No, no we’re going to handle both of these issues right now, while this is on my chest” Hill said.

“And you don’t think that this [expletive] hurts me?” Espinal said.

“Did I ever punch you, though?” Hill said. “In your face, in your lip. No I did not.”

“You had your hand around my neck,” Espinal said.

“No I did not,” Hill said. “Bro, and that’s the sad part. I want you to sit on this flight and think about that night. How about that? Since you want to break something up.”

Tyreek did not know he was being recorded. She knew. Here, she doesn’t deny his claim he never hit her as she said. We all know how courts are biased against men in cases where women do lie about these things, especially in a toxic replacement. Such as that CB a few years back who had a false rape accusation right before the draft. So if he actually hit her, why would he say that in a private conversation (or so he thought), and why would she not deny his claim immediately? Don’t be like other fans who ignored deflategate facts.

It sure looks like Goodell is going easy on the punishments in an attempt to convince the NFLPA to let him keep all of his power in the new CBA. Once his ability to suspend anybody for anything is locked in for another 10 years, then he can go back to the Brady and Ezekiel Elliott suspension standards.

JMC00 said:

Join date: 2018
4 posts, 3 of them about this

Sure you're not a chiefs fan...........

Click to expand...

I’ve been lurking around this board since 2010. Also, me defending a *person* on a sketchy court trial makes me not be a fan of the patriots? Nice deflection — “I’ll ignore all of your points about this debate and just deny that you’re a patriots fan - HA! I win!”

Sciz said:

It sure looks like Goodell is going easy on the punishments in an attempt to convince the NFLPA to let him keep all of his power in the new CBA. Once his ability to suspend anybody for anything is locked in for another 10 years, then he can go back to the Brady and Ezekiel Elliott suspension standards.

Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree. I didn't even think of this angle...

Jimmy Smith got what 4 for threatening his GF? Hill should have at least gotten this. Unreal how the league favorites certain teams.

KNUSNGH said:

Here is transcription of parts of the full 11-minute audio recording that hadn’t been previously heard:

Click to expand...

Really.

KNUSNGH said:

So if he actually hit her, why would he say that in a private conversation...

Click to expand...

Because that's the way it is with sociopaths

Sad Brady would have been better of breaking his kids arm....

maust1013 said:

'Realistically' she obviously isn't wrapped all that tight. If things were to unravel down the line spousal privilege could keep her off the stand. Do you really think this is the end of their ongoing dumpster fire?

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa... all I was doing was addressing the point about whether or not she can be forced to testify. The reason why I say you realistically can’t do that is because what do you do to a victim of domestic violence who refuses to testify? Fine her? Throw her in jail?

There isn’t a single DA in the country who would want to deal with the national outrage of throwing the *victim* in jail in a high profile case such as this.

(Now, the issue of parental neglect is an entirely different one)

KNUSNGH said:

Here is transcription of parts of the full 11-minute audio recording that hadn’t been previously heard:

“…You [expletive] ruined my life and you lied on me in 2014. I’m still not over that. Because I didn’t touch you in 2014, and I can put that on everything I love, bro. That’s the real truth.” Hill said to Espinal about the domestic abuse allegations dating back to his days at Oklahoma State University.

“And if you want to rewind that night we can rewind that night too, [expletive]. You was in my house. And did I pick you up and slam you? Hell no, I picked you up and put you out my door and after that you left. And on my son you did that, bro. And then you get in the courtroom you want to sit up there and cry on the stand. ‘He hit me, he hit me.’ Man, come on bro.”

“Then where did the bruises come from Tyreek,” Espinal said.

“Did I hit you, did I hit you though?” Hill responded.

“I’m asking you where did the bruises come from?” Espinal said.

“Did I hit you? Tell me the truth in my eyes right now. Look at me.” Hill said.

“We’re not thinking about that,” Espinal said. “Right now the issue is [our son].”

“No, no we’re going to handle both of these issues right now, while this is on my chest” Hill said.

“And you don’t think that this [expletive] hurts me?” Espinal said.

“Did I ever punch you, though?” Hill said. “In your face, in your lip. No I did not.”

“You had your hand around my neck,” Espinal said.

“No I did not,” Hill said. “Bro, and that’s the sad part. I want you to sit on this flight and think about that night. How about that? Since you want to break something up.”

Tyreek did not know he was being recorded. She knew. Here, she doesn’t deny his claim he never hit her as she said. We all know how courts are biased against men in cases where women do lie about these things, especially in a toxic replacement. Such as that CB a few years back who had a false rape accusation right before the draft. So if he actually hit her, why would he say that in a private conversation (or so he thought), and why would she not deny his claim immediately? Don’t be like other fans who ignored deflategate facts.

Click to expand...

Because he is a psychotic personality who has a warped view of reality and probably believes in his own innocence. OJ Simpson behaves the same way.

See? I can type in bold too..!!

dreighver said:

I have a hard time saying she's a "scumbag enabler and just as complicit" because I don't know her. She may be a toxic, manipulative, emotionally abusive person -- but I don't know that to be true. I don't know she's a scumbag.

And I certainly know she is not complicit in her own, or her child's abuse. No one chooses to get abused, and she hasn't abused her child (unless I've missed parts of this story, in which case I'm speaking out of line).

Hill owns his actions and she should not bear responsibility for Hill abusing her and their child. Hill, the physically gifted athlete who chose to abuse them, should bear that responsibility.

Click to expand...

If she stayed with Hill after Hill abused her, and Hill abused the child, she’s complicit in the child’s abuse. If you stick your hand on a hot stove top and get burned and then do it again with the same result, you have some fault to share for your injury.

dreighver said:

I have a hard time saying she's a "scumbag enabler and just as complicit" because I don't know her. She may be a toxic, manipulative, emotionally abusive person -- but I don't know that to be true. I don't know she's a scumbag.

And I certainly know she is not complicit in her own, or her child's abuse. No one chooses to get abused, and she hasn't abused her child (unless I've missed parts of this story, in which case I'm speaking out of line).

Hill owns his actions and she should not bear responsibility for Hill abusing her and their child. Hill, the physically gifted athlete who chose to abuse them, should bear that responsibility.

Click to expand...

They're still together and she continues to allow her child to be in a dangerous situation. Either he abused him, she abused him or they both abused him.....and to borrow a phrase each had to be generally aware of what was going on. There is one innocent person here and that's the kid

KontradictioN said:

If she stayed with Hill after Hill abused her, and Hill abused the child, she’s complicit in the child’s abuse. If you stick your hand on a hot stove top and get burned and then do it again with the same result, you have some fault to share for your injury.

Click to expand...

Obviously she's withstanding the abuse because of his money. She is putting her and her child's life in danger.

TommyBrady12 said:

Obviously she's withstanding the abuse because of his money. She is putting her and her child's life in danger.

Click to expand...

IF he abused her or the child.

KNUSNGH said:

I’ve been lurking around this board since 2010. Also, me defending a *person* on a sketchy court trial makes me not be a fan of the patriots? Nice deflection — “I’ll ignore all of your points about this debate and just deny that you’re a patriots fan - HA! I win!”

Click to expand...

Lurking for 9 years and you pick this, THIS guy to come riding in on your white horse to defend?

KontradictioN said:

IF he abused her or the child.

Click to expand...

But there's all kinds of child abuse, unfortunately. Breaking a child's arm may just be the most visible at this time.

At least that Pats fan gave him some justice with the beer spill. The lone consequence Hill has faced is a piss beer bath.

No, she's not complicit. Complicit communicates active participation and intention. She has not actively participated in, nor intended for her own abuse, nor her child's abuse, to occur. Only Hill has done that (assuming the allegations are true).

Staying in a relationship with a known abuser and hoping he changes, only to be abused again, is not being complicit. Perhaps naive, some might argue stupid, but not complicit.

Should she have removed that child from the Hill situation entirely? Probably, but that's easy for us to say from afar. Can I blame her for hoping Hill would change? No. We've all been in toxic relationships before (hopefully not many that were physically abusive). It's easy to remember the good times and hope someone can change. If you're reliant on that person for emotional and financial support, it's extremely hard to leave.

The notion that she's a gold-digger, or intentionally endangered the child just to maintain financial security is quite a harsh judgment to pass. Perhaps she felt Hill could change and that the financial support he could provide would give the child a better chance to thrive than to walk away, and raise the kid without a financially lucrative/secure situation, and without a dad.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to reach clear, lucid conclusions about the best course of action to take when you're removed from a situation in terms of proximity. It's much less clear how to proceed when you're the person experiencing a given situation and you haven't had the time to reflect.

And just to be clear, after the second round of abuse that involved the broken arm, it's my understanding that she removed the kid from the household and he has not been around Hill since. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding of the situation.

what a joke..Brady's suspension for being "generally aware"(or however the NFL worded it) is so absurd
it's laughable considering with have a kid with a broken arm..

dreighver said:

No, she's not complicit. Complicit communicates active participation and intention. She has not actively participated in, nor intended for her own abuse, nor her child's abuse, to occur. Only Hill has done that (assuming the allegations are true).

Click to expand...

Complicit: involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
Neither Social Services or the police can determine which of them committed the abuse because the other one isn't talking. She is by definition complicit in covering up the abuse of the child