I'm know that police depts in small college towns aren't in the habit of pursuing baseless cases against local athletes...least of all when it's a star player for a P5 program. I know that Mike Gundy asked the Stillwater PD to let him see their photos of the victim, after which he kicked Hill off the team. I know that Hill told the judge at the time "“I did something I shouldn’t have done..."I let my feelings take control of me.”
Now Hill claims the 2014 incident didn't happen. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt?
Willful ignorance on display here.
You have to look at the entire picture and not place value on stupid asinine things like, "he yold yhe judge he did something he shouldn't do." That's what people do when pleading guilty, even when innocent. It carries zero value.
You have to also factor his original not-guilty stance and why he changed it.
You have to factor the realities of the legal system and in particular these cases.
You factor in the new audio and her behavior in making it in the first place (pattern of trying to set him up?).
You factor in her admitting to bruising the child.
You factor the Munchausen by proxy.
You factor in him having to call the police from the hotel because she was passed out with nobody else to watch the kid.
And now factor in she has asked for a paternity test for the twins (may not mean anything except she isn't a good person).
Factor in the comments from his friend/teammate from college (take it for what it's worth).
And factor in anything else avaialable.
When you do all that a picture begins to form, and while it doesn't completely exonerate him, it does make alternatives to him just being a bad dude and an abuser seem more likely.
