Frank Clark's Police Report (For Off Field Discussion)

[TwilightError]

It's ruined his life.

I see that I am a lot more steep than you on this matter, but "it" did not ruin his life. He ruined his life.

 

[kearly]

And Janay's. Janay wants to move on and start healing. For the rest of her life her husband is gonna be one of the most disgraced people in America. Some of that disgrace and feelings of guilt fall on her as well.

Anyway, my point is that she'd want her husband to have a second chance. She's said so, and passionately.

 

[TwilightError]

And Janay's. Janay wants to move on and start healing. For the rest of her life her husband is gonna be one of the most disgraced people in America. Some of that disgrace falls on her as well.

Anyway, my point is that she'd want her husband to have a second chance. She's said so, and passionately.

Yes, she is the victim to feel sorry for. But not punishing the perpetrator is not an act of compassion, as you paint it.

 

[kearly]

Rice was punished. Cut from a lucrative contract, his life ruined in the media. If he does come back (unlikely), he'll probably get a suspension too. Getting a chance to repair his life and Janay's life does not mean he wasn't punished.

Sometimes these people need help. When Warren Moon had his incident, it was probably just as bad as Rice's, sans the camera. But he got back in the NFL, he got counseling, and he's been a model citizen since. We can't just be judge, jury, and executioner. There has to be some compassion too. A way to make sure these people get fixed, repair their lives, and never do it again. Being a part of a team and having that kind of support and structure helps a lot.

It's the same reason Pete often reaches out to these kinds of players with criminal pasts. He's a compassionate guy who's not just looking for good football players, there's definitely a compassionate side to Pete as evidenced by his work on things like A better LA. He knows these players will be better off in a structured environment than they would be out of the league.

There are times I wonder, if our society has forgotten how to forgive. Pete hasn't.

 

[TwilightError]

The way you talk makes it sound like a man who beats his wife unconscious is a victim. Where do you draw the line? Is Aaron Hernandez too a victim who just needs counseling, or does that just go for those who commit acts of violence towards women? Because to me a wife beater deserves jail time, during which the counseling should take place.

And I'm not talking about Clark here, but the likes of Rice.

 

[Popeyejones]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

 

[aawolf]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

As with any case, the facts are the most important part of this story, and we really don't know what happened.

If you believe the police report, if the 15 year old brother is to be believed, Clark was "hitting" Diamond when he came in. This first-person, eye-witness account would carry much weight in a courtroom. Of course, he would be cross-examined in court and we don't have that luxury when we take statements from a police report. There is a possibility that his statement was taken out of context and he did not actually "witness" the beating.

HOWEVER, it is clear that, if the Seahawks were serious about wanting to know the truth about what happened, they should have questioned the 15 year old brother to get to the truth, which we know they did not.

I have serious reservations about Frank Clark and I would have been more reluctant to draft him in the second round based on the information in the police report and if I did not interview any of the witnesses. That being said, I do believe that he should have a chance to prove himself on and off the field before we rush to judgment on what kind of a person he is now that he is on the team. He has a second chance in my book, and while he doesn't have a "clean slate", if he can show that he has learned from his mistakes and that he can treat women right from here on out, I'm fine. But, the next screw up should send him packing or I will have trouble rooting for the Seahawks.

 

[jlwaters1]

I personally feel that JS mismanaged his explanation to the media. He should have taken as much time as neccessary to explain to them why he thought it was the right thing to do, instead of giving vague answers and copping out to the media's witch hunt philosophy by saying Clark never hit her instead of doing the more proper thing and playing the 2nd chances angle. JS is only setting himself up to be an easy target of scrutiny.

But I don't think it will matter much. This will likely be a forgotten topic by October, unless Clark has another incident, of course.

I hope so. Reports are coming out that the team didn't interview any witnesses about the incident, which makes it sound like we took his word for it and ignored the police report/photos.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/05/05/seattl ... estigation


http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... raft-pick/

Hold on, not talking to witnesses doesn't imply they ignored police reports.
And why should they talk to the witnesses? Do you suppose that they would tell the seahawks something that wasn't already told to the police? Yeah right. Furthermore, those witnesses probably didn't want to waste their time talking to a dozen or so team reps. Lastly the seahawks aren't qualified investigators, they aren't equipped to carry out their own investigation. Therefore it makes sense that they would rely on the the police reports and such. Finally these supposed "witnesses, unless there's something I'm missing (quite possible) there were no eye witnesses on the incident, no one was actually present, so there's not a whole lot to be gleaned Imo. This whole think is ridiculous. Clearly JS /PC felt comfortable after their research, I'm going to trust their judgment as their knowledge of the situation and person far exceeds what we the general public knows.

 

[drcool]

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/ Good article with info from the prosecutor in the case. The more I see the more I believe this was not a case of abuse or domestic violence. There was some sort of physical confrontation but there is nothing I have seen to make me think he is an abuser or "batterer" as the article states.

 

[Popeyejones]

there were no eye witnesses on the incident, no one was actually present, so there's not a whole lot to be gleaned Imo.

There were MANY eyewitnesses to the incident. While it's true that none of them witnessed the ENTIRE incident, all of their statements create a timeline and line up with each other, corroborating each other, and also corroborated by the photographic evidence.

*The five year old saying he was hitting her is corroborated by his 15 year old brother who said he came out of the bathroom and Clark was punching her, and her testimony that Clark punched her, and the physical evidence of the broken lamp which he said she fell into when Clark punched her.

*The 15 year old brother's statement that he was pushing her up against the wall before lifting her up by her neck and bodyslamming her is corroborated by the women next door who called the front desk because it sounded like somene's head was being banged against the wall and also by the broken light fixture on the wall.

*The women next door saying they saw her lying on the floor seemingly unconcious is corroborated by a five year old running out of the room crying that he "killed her," by the hotel manager who said she witnessed the same thing, and by her statement about where she ended up on the floor.

Basically you're left to contrast all this with Frank Clark's statement to the police that he "didn't do s**t to her,"didn't touch that woman," and him lying to the police about only being there with her (several of whom witnessed what happened). To top it all of he told them that she might be pregnant.


To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

 

[bjornanderson21]

Here's my take:
if it is the woman's fault, then he has horrible taste in women and this can easily happen again.

If it is his fault, then he is violent towards women and can easily happen again.

These crimes are not random. It doesn't just happen to perfectly fine citizens behaving responsibly.

I understand that the team wanted to add someone they thought could be good, but it is really hard to root for people like this, and if he gets into trouble again then Pete and John have no way to defend the pick.

 

[Scottemojo]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

Of course it reminds you of those things. Tribalism is a poor mix with objectivity.

I read the reports prior to the draft. I'm on record here as saying I would love for the Hawks to pick this guy well before the draft. So I think I can safely say I'm not defending him out of tribalism. I am fine with it for these reasons:

1. He has already been suspended and effectively fined, the incident cost him millions in potential earnings in his draft slide, and he wasn't in the NFL when it happened. Did he learn from the incident? I have no idea. I do know his contract will be very team friendly should he have another DV issue. If I am the Hawks, there is specific language in it about both DV AND alcohol abuse. The Hawks are in the business of winning football games.

2. The Hawks spoke to the prosecutor. Who has all the evidence, all the eye witness accounts, has actually spoken to the arresting officers, and unlike both the Seattle media and yourself, has actually spoken to the two involved. By all logic, the prosecutor and Frank himself are the sources of the Schneider statement about him not hitting a woman. Speculating further about what Frank and Diamond said to the DA is pointless for me, suffice it to say that Ms Hart has apparently told the DA that the police report you keep referencing is not accurate in it's details. Yes, I am speculating just a bit. But those conclusions are logical, not born of my fandom, and as I said, conclusions I reached before Frank was a Hawk.
People want to hold Schneider's feet to the fire for saying Frank never hit Ms. Hart. Schneider was at the school within days, he spoke to the one person who actually has spoken to Clark and Hart, has a full report, and no doubt the verbal accounts from those same officers we will never be privy to. The same DA who reduced DV charges to something far, far smaller in magnitude. What else is there? I think it is ignorant hubris to think I know more about this whole incident than the Seahawks staff, the Michigan coaches, and the DA's office because I read a police report.

3. There is one other thing. The Hawks have a good track record with these 2nd chances. Browner got a 2nd chance, they knew his status in the drug policy, when he did it again, they did not renew him. They had a backup QB who got a DUI, after he got treatment they brought him back, he got another DUI, instant cut.
Bruce Irvin had a minor issue days before the draft. Compared to some of his former endeavors, it was minor anyway. But they had vetted his support staff, and made sure that if they took him that guy would be here in Seattle with him. He has stayed out of legal trouble since he got here.
Tharold Simon had a police incident just before the draft. They checked it out, drafted him anyway, and he has stayed out of trouble so far.

I don't really have a reason to think Schneider is full of shit or that he and Pete tacitly approve of domestic abuse. Yes, the police report is sensational stuff. But to take it as gospel is not something people with direct knowledge of the case are doing.

 

[PGunning101]

Everyone might want to read what the female prosecutor on the case had to say about this:

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/

Gast-King also spoke with Hurt, who was 20 at the time of the incident, and her mother. But the prosecutor declined to disclose details of their conversation, saying it was confidential. “The facts were not as they initially appeared,” she said.

But after interviewing Clark and Hurt later on, she decided: “The police did everything exactly right, but I’m trying to be delicate because I don’t want to involve Diamond (Hurt) too much in this. Let’s just say she can take care of herself.’’

Trust me when I say that female prosecutors typically don't speak on the record in the papers as DV apologists.

 

[aawolf]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

Of course it reminds you of those things. Tribalism is a poor mix with objectivity.

I read the reports prior to the draft. I'm on record here as saying I would love for the Hawks to pick this guy well before the draft. So I think I can safely say I'm not defending him out of tribalism. I am fine with it for these reasons:

1. He has already been suspended and effectively fined, the incident cost him millions in potential earnings in his draft slide, and he wasn't in the NFL when it happened. Did he learn from the incident? I have no idea. I do know his contract will be very team friendly should he have another DV issue. If I am the Hawks, there is specific language in it about both DV AND alcohol abuse. The Hawks are in the business of winning football games.

2. The Hawks spoke to the prosecutor. Who has all the evidence, all the eye witness accounts, has actually spoken to the arresting officers, and unlike both the Seattle media and yourself, has actually spoken to the two involved. By all logic, the prosecutor and Frank himself are the sources of the Schneider statement about him not hitting a woman. Speculating further about what Frank and Diamond said to the DA is pointless for me, suffice it to say that Ms Hart has apparently told the DA that the police report you keep referencing is not accurate in it's details. Yes, I am speculating just a bit. But those conclusions are logical, not born of my fandom, and as I said, conclusions I reached before Frank was a Hawk.
People want to hold Schneider's feet to the fire for saying Frank never hit Ms. Hart. Schneider was at the school within days, he spoke to the one person who actually has spoken to Clark and Hart, has a full report, and no doubt the verbal accounts from those same officers we will never be privy to. The same DA who reduced DV charges to something far, far smaller in magnitude. What else is there? I think it is ignorant hubris to think I know more about this whole incident than the Seahawks staff, the Michigan coaches, and the DA's office because I read a police report.

3. There is one other thing. The Hawks have a good track record with these 2nd chances. Browner got a 2nd chance, they knew his status in the drug policy, when he did it again, they did not renew him. They had a backup QB who got a DUI, after he got treatment they brought him back, he got another DUI, instant cut.
Bruce Irvin had a minor issue days before the draft. Compared to some of his former endeavors, it was minor anyway. But they had vetted his support staff, and made sure that if they took him that guy would be here in Seattle with him. He has stayed out of legal trouble since he got here.
Tharold Simon had a police incident just before the draft. They checked it out, drafted him anyway, and he has stayed out of trouble so far.

I don't really have a reason to think Schneider is full of shit or that he and Pete tacitly approve of domestic abuse. Yes, the police report is sensational stuff. But to take it as gospel is not something people with direct knowledge of the case are doing.

The article posted by DrCool said that the Seahawks did no speak to the prosecutor. They admitted to not speaking to the victims or the witnesses. They did speak with the officers. Poor "investigation" on their part IMO.
Here it is again: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/

The rest of your post seems reasonable. Yes, cut him if it happens again. I do not think this was a simple case of a big man attacking a woman to shut her up or to show dominance over her. There was a scuffle on both sides. She may have escalated it and may have caught the worst of it in the end (by all accounts, she was lying on the ground visibly shaken and possibly unconscious).

 

[Russ Willstrong]

JS really comes out of this whole thing looking like a horse's ass

Not quite yet... but close. Depends on what comes next.
I'm torn between his public explanation versus him just laying low. Depends on the background of what JS saw/heard. I believe that Allen was in on this decision based on what I've read. It'd be the ultimate lame move to throw Schneider under the bus when it probably wasn't his call alone.

I agree with your perspective.... By the way thanks for the link Rocket.
Those who criticize how JS didn't interview such and such witness is forgetting that those accounts of this event and their opinions should be investigated as well. More irrelevant testimony clouds a case. You need accurate accounts of the event and a good understanding of behavioral patterns that is why only a few collateral reports are necessary. Trying to interview children who were frightened and running from the scene or neighbors who heard "a head pounded against the wall" are not very credible eyewitnesses.
IMO (which doesn't really matter) Frank's relationship with this woman is troubling if it were to continue because it appears they both have anger concerns. Frank on his part had been seeking counseling. It's unclear if his GF is seeking therapy but it appears by both party's reports that she was the aggressor throwing things and she clearly bit him drawing blood which elicited his response. The case was not followed up thoroughly as she got off clean probably due to all the witnesses being her family or sympathizers. It is also unclear why Hurt is described as white and why photos were described the way they were by police.

 

[Scottemojo]

The article posted by DrCool said that the Seahawks did no speak to the prosecutor. They admitted to not speaking to the victims or the witnesses. They did speak with the officers. Poor "investigation" on their part IMO.
Here it is again: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/

The rest of your post seems reasonable. Yes, cut him if it happens again. I do not think this was a simple case of a big man attacking a woman to shut her up or to show dominance over her. There was a scuffle on both sides. She may have escalated it and may have caught the worst of it in the end (by all accounts, she was lying on the ground visibly shaken and possibly unconscious).

My mistake. Schneider spoke with NFL security, not the DA. Still, the statements from the DA seem to back up that the police report is not to be taken as a gospel account of what happened.

 

[jlwaters1]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

Interesting, everything I've read states the kid was in the shower, but your saying he saw the whole thing, I'm not sure what to believe.
But in any case eye witness testimony isn't as golden as one would think. It's notoriously inaccurate at times. I'm not saying the 15 year old is making stuff up. But we just saw with the Ferguson case, the eye witness claiming "hands up don't shoot " turned out to be a lie months later.
My opinion is that these cases are too complicated, yet the media wants to believe that even the implication makes you guilty. It the evidence was so cut and dry we wouldn't be having this discussion, he would have been tried for battery, but that's not what happened. The fact they went with disorderly conduct tells me they thought it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of domestic violence.
I'm confident js did an adequate job vetting this player, he said on Brock and Salk that this was the most research of any player they've ever done.

there were no eye witnesses on the incident, no one was actually present, so there's not a whole lot to be gleaned Imo.

There were MANY eyewitnesses to the incident. While it's true that none of them witnessed the ENTIRE incident, all of their statements create a timeline and line up with each other, corroborating each other, and also corroborated by the photographic evidence.

*The five year old saying he was hitting her is corroborated by his 15 year old brother who said he came out of the bathroom and Clark was punching her, and her testimony that Clark punched her, and the physical evidence of the broken lamp which he said she fell into when Clark punched her.

*The 15 year old brother's statement that he was pushing her up against the wall before lifting her up by her neck and bodyslamming her is corroborated by the women next door who called the front desk because it sounded like somene's head was being banged against the wall and also by the broken light fixture on the wall.

*The women next door saying they saw her lying on the floor seemingly unconcious is corroborated by a five year old running out of the room crying that he "killed her," by the hotel manager who said she witnessed the same thing, and by her statement about where she ended up on the floor.

Basically you're left to contrast all this with Frank Clark's statement to the police that he "didn't do s**t to her,"didn't touch that woman," and him lying to the police about only being there with her (several of whom witnessed what happened). To top it all of he told them that she might be pregnant.


To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

 

[Popeyejones]

Of course it reminds you of those things...

Not quoting your whole post just to not make people scroll, but trust that I read it word for word. :th2thumbs:

Yeah, as I said upthread, I'm not objecting to the "second chance" thing. It's not personally my cup of tea for stuff like this, but I get that people feel differently. I'm just objecting to the argument that this isn't a "second chance" because nothing actually happened in the first place. We're on the same page about it being a "second chance" of sorts.

Re: Schneider, at the least he's only almost definitely full of it in saying that Clark didn't hit her. She didn't want to press charges because Clark, according to her, had "too much going on" and even SHE said he punched her. Two of her brothers said they saw him hit her. There's pictures of the welt on her face from where he hit her. Even the prosecutor refused to answer if he hit her or not. I think we can be very confident that the hit her. It's why I said on the first page that I think Schneider would have been MUCH better off taking a "second chance" or "not his true character" tact in explaining the pick rather than denying that he hit her at all and double downing on his stance that they would never draft someone who did something like that.



(re: the prosecutor, this is ABSOLUTELY just a matter of opinion, but I think she's covering her @$$ a little bit. If she actually believed what she was saying and that this was simply a misunderstanding or equivalent argument she would havey dismissed the charges rather than offering him a plea deal with court mandated counseling a la Ray Rice to avoid a trial . Pleas are totally common, particularly in DV cases with uncooperative victims who don't want to press charges and witnesses who won't return phone calls. In covering her @$$ she also wouldn't have refused to answer the question of if he punched her or not, unless he had. Just my 2 cents of course, and to be clear, this is absolutely conjecture on my part).

 

[Popeyejones]

Interesting, everything I've read states the kid was in the shower, but your saying he saw the whole thing, I'm not sure what to believe.

Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it the five year old was in the room and went to get the 15 year old who was in the shower. When the 15 year old came out of the shower he said he saw Clark punching her (as the five year old had told him), had her up against the wall, and picked her up by her neck and body slammed her, landing on top of her.

When she was on the floor the five year old ran out to his parents in the next hotel room saying that he had killed her or was killing her, which the women in the next hotel room overheard, which prompted them to go over and see her seemingly unconcious on the floor, which the hotel manager also saw, before Frank Clark slammed the door on them (the women had called the hotel manager because they heard screaming and said it sounded like someone's head was being knocked agaisnt the wall).

Again though, I'm sure AT MINIMUM two or three people will correct me, probably even if I've got this right.

 

[pmedic920]

I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud all of you.
This is a very "hot" topic with extremely polarizing side issues.
So far, everybody has been able to voice their opinions and debate their view point, without this thread turning into a manure fest.
Good work and THNAK YOU.
Carry on.