The woman at the center of the domestic-violence case involving Baltimore Ravens receiver Rashod Bateman recanted one of her original allegations days after the June incident, according to an email provided to TMZ by Bateman’s attorneys.
TMZ published the email Monday evening. In it, Marissa Crumley said Bateman did not shove her into a wall or put his hands on her, contradicting the account attributed to her in the initial police report.
What the email says
Crumley sent the message to a prosecutor on June 8, five days after the reported incident. She wrote that police pressured her to identify Bateman, that the marks on her face were self-inflicted during an emotional moment, and that she initially made false statements because she wanted to get him in trouble.
She also wrote that she and Bateman were not violent toward each other and hoped to move forward more healthily for their daughter.
What the recantation does not erase
The original police account contained separate allegations involving Crumley’s vehicle. Authorities alleged Bateman tried to puncture a tire with a screwdriver and damaged the windshield and driver-side window while Crumley and their infant daughter were inside.
Police said shattered glass caused small cuts to Crumley’s face and entered the child’s hair. Emergency personnel reportedly found no apparent injuries to the baby, although mother and child were taken to a hospital.
Bateman’s attorney previously said the case had been taken out of context and that the legal process would establish the facts. The Ravens and the NFL have said the matter is under review.
A significant update, not a verdict
A recantation is important evidence, but it does not automatically terminate a prosecution or establish what occurred. Prosecutors can consider statements, physical evidence, witness accounts and the circumstances under which any version was given.
Bateman has not been convicted. The careful summary is that Crumley withdrew the allegation that he physically shoved her; other vehicle-damage allegations remain unresolved, and the court—not the internet—will determine what survives scrutiny.
Facts first. Side-eye included.
DJF separates what is confirmed from what is claimed—and tells you why this particular mess is worth your time.