LeSean McCoy allegations

[That's No Moon]

This is getting crazy.  The woman, her friends and the lawyer are trying to get this case tried in the court of public opinion and are doing it poorly.  Hence the multiple statements some of which now contradict each other, etc.  The only benefit to doing this for the client is if you are hoping for a settlement.  I would expect a decent lawyer with a case to advise their client to keep their mouths shut in order to prevent what is happening now.  You have the lawyer making statements that now contradict what her client actually said on the 911 call.  Presumably the lawyer's statement was made to address the Instagram post made by the friend who has now posted again saying that the lawyer forced her to take the post down but that she stands by what she originally said.  Well, dummy, that defeats the purpose of taking down the other post and is undercutting what the lawyer is trying to do.  You also have the contradiction of the original claim of bruises on the woman's wrist where the assailant couldn't get the bracelet off which I call BS because if someone just pistol whipped you and told you to take a bracelet off you are taking it off.  No person is that much of a hard ass staring down the barrel of a gun at 3am.  The bracelet was apparently one of the borrowed items that Shady had asked for previously so of course you'd want to include that in your statement right?  Except it doesn't make sense for someone to steal that from you because, as it was loaned to them in the first place, they still have to pay for it if it's not returned.  It would be a little odd for the bracelet suddenly to show up back at the jeweler's.  So now the story changes again to say it was only a ring that McCoy gave her as a gift, nothing else.  

 

My thoughts.

1. It makes no sense for this to have been set up by McCoy.  The assailant left without getting all the items in question.  There is no reason for them to do that.  They presumably had control of the situation, they then had the time and ability to go get whatever they needed to get before leaving.  Also, McCoy had already previously stated to police his apprehension regarding getting jammed up by this particular person over false claims.  He recognized the problem a year ago.  Did he suddenly forget when he supposedly set this crime up?  If he chose to ignore that knowledge he then set it up for the people to do a half-assed job?  The woman was just out of the country.  He knew she wasn't home based on security footage he controlled.  He could have had the house cleaned out while she was gone and claimed it was a burglary.  He didn't do that.  The security cameras were installed to make sure the woman didn't clean out the house or destroy the house.  The lawyer says there is no text or phone record or documentation form Shady telling her to leave.  Well, that's the lawyer telling you in her own words that McCoy hadn't contacted the woman in a very long time because in terms of phone records, anything could have been said in a phone call.  To say there is no record means there was no call. 

 

2.  It makes no sense for this to have been a targeted crime.  Again, they would not have left valuables in the house once they gained control of the house.  Nothing.  All the jewelry, cell phones, etc. would have been gone.  The woman certainly wouldn't have been left to call 911 as soon as the assailant left.  She'd have been found on the floor in zip cuffs by her son who heard the commotion, snuck out his window, and returned later.

 

3. It makes a TON of sense to have this set up by the victim herself.  It explains why that single specific piece of jewelry was taken and not anything else.  It explains why she was able to make a 911 call so soon afterward.  Let's get back to the 16 year old for a minute.  Why exactly had he climbed out of his window that night?  To avoid the crime?  Let's start with that.  He was smart enough to sneak out of the house and knew his mother was being robbed and assaulted.  He didn't go to the neighbor's house?  He didn't call the cops himself?  What 16 year old in his situation doesn't have a cell phone?  He was far enough away that his mother later said he was taking an Uber home.  Where the hell did he go that he was a cab ride away?  How did he learn that it was safe to come home if not for, again, the cell phone?  So, to me, all of that doesn't make a ton of sense so let's explore the sneaking out.  Maybe he snuck out to go do things 16 year olds do and picked a really bad night to do it.  OK that makes sense.  I want to know what time he left and where he went.  I also want to know what his plan was to get back in the house - climb back up?  That's not as easy as it sounds.  Did he leave the front door unlocked or bring his own key?  That seems more likely.  That also explains how another person could have entered the home without forced entry.  Why sneak out the window though?  Going out the window avoids the security cameras in the house which, again if you are a smart 16 year old is something you want to do, but Mom doesn't have control of the new cameras and can't see what you've been doing anyway.  Why the effort to avoid the camera then?

 

None of this means Shady DIDN'T set it up.  It's entirely possible.  I'm just not seeing the logic of it from a person who had clearly gone to great lengths to insulate himself from this person (not having any direct contact, sending his mother to get his stuff, etc.) and her ability to make false claims about him and who was already following the legal process to get her removed from the house.  Sabotaging all of that over 1 ring seems pretty stupid when he was a month away from completing the eviction process and being done with it.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

54 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Pretty sure there are court papers asking her to leave, and I'm pretty sure the MULTIPLE previous evictions indicates that, yes, she is in fact, a squatter...

 

Legally, I think a "squatter" is someone who occupies property without the permission of the owner....usually abandoned or unoccupied property.

 

Apparently at the beginning of her occupancy of the house, McCoy purchased it and invited her to live there with him.  Since she had the permission of the property owner to occupy the property and lived there for a period of time (in Georgia, apparently >6 months), then as I understand it, no, she's not a squatter, she has tenant rights and thus must be evicted.

 

 

[TC in St. Louis]

I don't get why she was wearing the bracelet at 3 a.m.  Don't most people take off their big rattly jewelry and put it on the bed stand?  Also, who was going out of the bedroom, tying sheets together?  Her son would tie sheets together to take off and not call the cops?  Sounds rigged.  Where did he go that he needed an Uber?  

 

She said that she was locked in the bathroom.  I've never heard of bathrooms being locked from the outside.  

 

Her friend accused Shady of everything that's been made famous by NFL players.  Dog abuse (Vick), child abuse (Peterson), steroid abuse (he'd have tested positive by now), and beating up a woman (Rice).  

 

Shady stayed away from her and had lawyers do the work.  Why would he suddenly do something so stupid?  If he values jewelry so much, why would he risk an $8 million a year job?  

 

I don't get it.  

[Billsfanatic8989]

21 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Not necessarily.

They would have to prove he intended for force/injuries to be in the equation, he doesn't have to prove that he said they weren't.

If McCoy sent a dude to " Just" take the Jewelry back, but then said dude beat her up, Shady would still be responsible. I read it somewhere. Doesn't matter if Shady didn't want her beat up.

 

 

I see no charges coming his way. This girl just doesn't seem very credible.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/07/13/ex-girlfriend-is-no-longer-certain-lesean-mccoy-was-involved-in-attack-buffalo-bills-allegations/

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Billsfanatic8989

[iccrewman112]

One thing that seems to be overlooked is the security/alarm company. They can see if a code was entered to get into the house, or see where the alarm was turned off from or if it was never on at all.

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, Billsfanatic8989 said:

If McCoy sent a dude to " Just" take the Jewelry back, but then said dude beat her up, Shady would still be responsible. I read it somewhere. 

 

It must be true then?

 

The onus is on the defense to prove intent if he told somebody to "take" the jewelry back.

[dezertbill]

46 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Pretty sure there are court papers asking her to leave, and I'm pretty sure the MULTIPLE previous evictions indicates that, yes, she is in fact, a squatter...

Exactly.  In fact, the day of the incident they were supposed to have a court hearing about the eviction.  Like June 1st Shady is trying to move her stuff out without ever asking her to leave?  Like the public is that stupid?

 

This attorney for Delicia is a train wreck.  She is acting like this is her first rodeo.  She is trying so hard to put information out there that benefits her client that she is losing track of that information.  Meanwhile Shady's attorney's are just sitting back saying nothing like a smart counsel should, that is until they have to.

 

And her statement to Mike Rodak was just borderline stupidity.  There has been pending litigation since last year about Shady asking her to vacate.  On June 1st your ex boyfriend attempts to move your stuff out and  you expect us to believe that before June 1st your client knew nothing about being asked to leave?

 

You expect us to believe that your client has been actively trying to find a place?  Meanwhile 40 days after the June 1st incident instead of looking at rentals or calling moving companies she's in London with her girlfriend posting photos on Instagram acting all world traveler?

 

And for the attorney to use her 2 kids as an excuse as to why she hasn't moved yet is pathetic.  She's had 40 frickin' days to find a place.  It has everything to do with the lifestyle, not her kids.  We've seen her past rental history from past landlords on Ripoff report talk about how she bounces checks, doesn't pay rent (because she is broke), Doesn't vacate and when she does she leaves the place destroyed.  She knows that without shady in her life she'll go back to living in apartments, or worse yet....she might actually have to get a job and support her kids (shutter the thought). 

 

Shady is her golden parachute to get out of this with enough money to last her so she can continue to at least make it look like on social media that she has money and she' has this wealthy life, when in reality she is just a gold digger.  Her whole plan this entire time is to wait Shady out so he'll either hand over the jewels or pay her off.  Why leave a house when you don't have to?

 

With that being said, if the allegations are true, someone like Shady cannot stoop to her level...and sending someone over to assault her is wrong.  You have to be mentally stronger and the bigger person in this case.  

 

But right now with the statement her attorney put out there, any credibility she did have has evaporated.  She sounds like an attorney for a woman who is positioning herself for a negotiation, which is probably all she wanted in the first place.  "I'm not saying he is involved, but I'm not saying he isn't until we get more facts" means "depends on how the negotiations go I can change my mind and cry victim again,  so pull out your checkbook and let's talk $$$"

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, dezertbill said:

 

This attorney for Delicia is a train wreck. 

 

As it looks more and more like Shady is being set up by all of this, this is definitely an indicator. If he were guilty there would be a lot of high powered lawyers lining up to get a piece of the pie. Not so easy to find a lawyer who is willing to help railroad a famous millionaire. 

 

Just a thought...

[Bing Bong]

25 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Legally, I think a "squatter" is someone who occupies property without the permission of the owner....usually abandoned or unoccupied property.

A squatter is a very strong term basically to categorize homeless people living in a vacant house

 

She's not a squatter in any sense. She's legally being evicted and can legally stay until said eviction goes through court.

Edited July 13, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[SouthNYfan]

Just now, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

A squatter is a very strong term basically to categorize homeless people living in a vacant house

 

Or somebody taking a dump.

[unbillievable]

31 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

This is getting crazy.  The woman, her friends and the lawyer are trying to get this case tried in the court of public opinion and are doing it poorly.  Hence the multiple statements some of which now contradict each other, etc.  The only benefit to doing this for the client is if you are hoping for a settlement.  I would expect a decent lawyer with a case to advise their client to keep their mouths shut in order to prevent what is happening now.  You have the lawyer making statements that now contradict what her client actually said on the 911 call.  Presumably the lawyer's statement was made to address the Instagram post made by the friend who has now posted again saying that the lawyer forced her to take the post down but that she stands by what she originally said.  Well, dummy, that defeats the purpose of taking down the other post and is undercutting what the lawyer is trying to do.  You also have the contradiction of the original claim of bruises on the woman's wrist where the assailant couldn't get the bracelet off which I call BS because if someone just pistol whipped you and told you to take a bracelet off you are taking it off.  No person is that much of a hard ass staring down the barrel of a gun at 3am.  The bracelet was apparently one of the borrowed items that Shady had asked for previously so of course you'd want to include that in your statement right?  Except it doesn't make sense for someone to steal that from you because, as it was loaned to them in the first place, they still have to pay for it if it's not returned.  It would be a little odd for the bracelet suddenly to show up back at the jeweler's.  So now the story changes again to say it was only a ring that McCoy gave her as a gift, nothing else.  

 

My thoughts.

1. It makes no sense for this to have been set up by McCoy.  The assailant left without getting all the items in question.  There is no reason for them to do that.  They presumably had control of the situation, they then had the time and ability to go get whatever they needed to get before leaving.  Also, McCoy had already previously stated to police his apprehension regarding getting jammed up by this particular person over false claims.  He recognized the problem a year ago.  Did he suddenly forget when he supposedly set this crime up?  If he chose to ignore that knowledge he then set it up for the people to do a half-assed job?  The woman was just out of the country.  He knew she wasn't home based on security footage he controlled.  He could have had the house cleaned out while she was gone and claimed it was a burglary.  He didn't do that.  The security cameras were installed to make sure the woman didn't clean out the house or destroy the house.  The lawyer says there is no text or phone record or documentation form Shady telling her to leave.  Well, that's the lawyer telling you in her own words that McCoy hadn't contacted the woman in a very long time because in terms of phone records, anything could have been said in a phone call.  To say there is no record means there was no call. 

 

2.  It makes no sense for this to have been a targeted crime.  Again, they would not have left valuables in the house once they gained control of the house.  Nothing.  All the jewelry, cell phones, etc. would have been gone.  The woman certainly wouldn't have been left to call 911 as soon as the assailant left.  She'd have been found on the floor in zip cuffs by her son who heard the commotion, snuck out his window, and returned later.

 

3. It makes a TON of sense to have this set up by the victim herself.  It explains why that single specific piece of jewelry was taken and not anything else.  It explains why she was able to make a 911 call so soon afterward.  Let's get back to the 16 year old for a minute.  Why exactly had he climbed out of his window that night?  To avoid the crime?  Let's start with that.  He was smart enough to sneak out of the house and knew his mother was being robbed and assaulted.  He didn't go to the neighbor's house?  He didn't call the cops himself?  What 16 year old in his situation doesn't have a cell phone?  He was far enough away that his mother later said he was taking an Uber home.  Where the hell did he go that he was a cab ride away?  How did he learn that it was safe to come home if not for, again, the cell phone?  So, to me, all of that doesn't make a ton of sense so let's explore the sneaking out.  Maybe he snuck out to go do things 16 year olds do and picked a really bad night to do it.  OK that makes sense.  I want to know what time he left and where he went.  I also want to know what his plan was to get back in the house - climb back up?  That's not as easy as it sounds.  Did he leave the front door unlocked or bring his own key?  That seems more likely.  That also explains how another person could have entered the home without forced entry.  Why sneak out the window though?  Going out the window avoids the security cameras in the house which, again if you are a smart 16 year old is something you want to do, but Mom doesn't have control of the new cameras and can't see what you've been doing anyway.  Why the effort to avoid the camera then?

 

None of this means Shady DIDN'T set it up.  It's entirely possible.  I'm just not seeing the logic of it from a person who had clearly gone to great lengths to insulate himself from this person (not having any direct contact, sending his mother to get his stuff, etc.) and her ability to make false claims about him and who was already following the legal process to get her removed from the house.  Sabotaging all of that over 1 ring seems pretty stupid when he was a month away from completing the eviction process and being done with it.

 

 

This is well thought out, and makes a lot of sense.

 

...but it is negated by one simple fact: We're dealing with idiots.

[Bing Bong]

Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! 

 

Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD.

[The Wiz]

13 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

As it looks more and more like Shady is being set up by all of this, this is definitely an indicator. If he were guilty there would be a lot of high powered lawyers lining up to get a piece of the pie. Not so easy to find a lawyer who is willing to help railroad a famous millionaire. 

 

Just a thought...

Not for nothing but I'm pretty sure that's all most prosecution lawyers do is line up to help railroad people to get a piece of the pie regardless if they are innocent or not. 

 

Ambulance chasers if you will. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by The Wiz

[Starr Almighty]

16 minutes ago, dezertbill said:

This attorney for Delicia is a train wreck. 

Show some respect her name is Pitbull in a skirt

Edited July 13, 2018 by Starr Almighty

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Not for nothing but I'm pretty sure that's all most prosecution lawyers do is line up to help railroad people to get a piece of the pie regardless if they are innocent or not. 

 

Ambulance chasers if you will. 

 

Yeah but the good ones get to be rich, powerful, and successful by knowing which cases to stay away from. 

[Bing Bong]

9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Or somebody taking a dump.

She MAY be a squatter according to the urban dictionary definition. I hope for her sake the judge isn't from the Simpsons and got his law degree from urbandictionary online law school.

6 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Not for nothing but I'm pretty sure that's all most prosecution lawyers do is line up to help railroad people to get a piece of the pie regardless if they are innocent or not. 

 

Ambulance chasers if you will. 

Lol of course the lawyer is foaming at the mouth to go after Shady. He's got a case and is hoping Shady settles to make him go away. And he come home with a wad of cash and sleeps at night the way only prosecution lawyers know how to do.. soundly and happily.

[Alphadawg7]

McCoy:  Made simple statement denying allegations.

 

Alleged Victim:  Waffling stories between multiple friends, herself and her legal team.

 

As far as I sit, McCoy and his team are playing this perfectly and letting the accusers talk their credibility away.  The more they say, the less convincing their accusations and story get.  In the beginning, something about this stunk.  Then for a moment, things looked like they could be getting bad for Shady.  Then their side continued to speak and its back to this really looks like a lot of BS and Shady isn't going to come out of this with any charges or even being named as a person of interest.  I mean their are multiple versions of the story, a history of the alleged victim being a scammy and awful tenant, and now they are saying they no longer are certain it had anything to do with shady.  Not to mention all the details that dont make sense.

 

As I sit here now, unless something groundbreaking comes up, I think that McCoy is going to be fine and may even have a slander lawsuit he can file against the other side when its all said and done.

[Luxy312]

2 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

She MAY be a squatter according to the urban dictionary definition. I hope for her sake the judge isn't from the Simpsons and got his law degree from urbandictionary online law school.

Lol of course the lawyer is foaming at the mouth to go after Shady. He's got a case and is hoping Shady settles to make him go away. And he come home with a wad of cash and sleeps at night the way only prosecution lawyers know how to do.. soundly and happily.

 

I don't think Tanya is a "he", but what do I know?  With the nickname "Pitbull in a skirt" (trademarked), maybe it's a he with a different gender identify?

[That's No Moon]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! 

 

Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD.

Because if the motive was just robbery it was a pretty half-assed robbery.  Go to all that trouble and commit multiple felonies just to take 1 ring and some cash when there is tons of other, small, portable stuff around?  If it's a robbery of a person you wait for the person to be home where there are security cameras and possibly/probably weapons?  If it was a robbery of the house she was just out of the country and the house was empty you wait for her to come home and then don't take anything from the house?  If it was drug addicts needing money they would have taken all the small stuff, particularly the cell phones.  If they were professional people they would have taken all the jewelry, cash, cell phones, etc.

[Bing Bong]

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Yeah but the good ones get to be rich, powerful, and successful by knowing which cases to stay away from. 

Eh it's easy money when you have a he said she said case prosecuting a rich man who wants nothing more than to settle and stop you from dragging him in court proceedings when he's got football to do. It's a lawyer's dream really.

 

Is this lawyer going to be rich, powerful, and successful from this case? No but he sees any money. 90% of prosecution lawyers would take this case in a hot minute

[Billsfanatic8989]

31 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

It must be true then?

 

The onus is on the defense to prove intent if he told somebody to "take" the jewelry back.

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/conspiracy

 

Second last scenario from article:

 

"Fred is a security guard who works at the First National Bank of Bedrock. Fred suggests to his friend Barney that the bank has some cracks in its security and might be a good target for a robbery. Fred and Barney then conspire to rob the bank. The plan calls for Barney to enter the bank through the front door, hold up one of the bank tellers and then quietly slip out the back door that Fred would open for him. Upon leaving the bank, Fred’s car is to be waiting for Barney and Barney will take the car and drive to a hideout. Unfortunately, things do not go according to the plan. As Barney is entering the bank, he is confronted by a different security guard. Rather than turn around and leave the bank, Barney kills the guard and proceeds with the robbery. He then proceeds to rape one of the bank’s customers at gunpoint while the teller is placing money into the duffle bag that Barney has given her to fill up. Finally, after Barney runs out of the bank, Fred's car will not start and so he steals a car and drives to his hideout. In this situation, because Fred has conspired with Barney to rob the bank, he can be convicted of any crime Barney committed that was in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable result of the conspiracy. Looking at the 3 "additional" crimes committed by Barney, Fred can be convicted for the murder of the security guard and the car theft because those were in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable. However, Fred will most likely not be convicted for the rape because it was neither in furtherance of the conspiracy, nor was it a foreseeable result of the conspiracy to rob the bank".

 

I should've said Shady Could, not Would, be responsible if the perpetrator committed more crimes then Shady intended.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Billsfanatic8989

[Bing Bong]

2 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

 

I don't think Tanya is a "he", but what do I know?  With the nickname "Pitbull in a skirt" (trademarked), maybe it's a he with a different gender identify?

Crap the lawyer's a woman? I'm not a sexist I just assumed the lawyer wasa money grubbing MAN

[greenyellowred]

53 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Not necessarily.

They would have to prove he intended for force/injuries to be in the equation, he doesn't have to prove that he said they weren't.

 

The legal doctrine is anyone who participates in a felony is equally as responsible. So if the perp accidentally killed her, it would be murder and both the perp and the person who authorized the burglary would be charged equally with all crimes.

[flaz]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Why waste any more of the internet on this whole caper.....let's go straight to Jerry Springer and get it all worked out in less than an hour!

That would be coo to watch, but it was announced 2 weeks ago that Springer has stopped taping shows. Everything you see, moving forward, is a rerun. I'd like to see on Dr. Phil though

[Bing Bong]

4 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

Because if the motive was just robbery it was a pretty half-assed robbery.  Go to all that trouble and commit multiple felonies just to take 1 ring and some cash when there is tons of other, small, portable stuff around?  If it's a robbery of a person you wait for the person to be home where there are security cameras and possibly/probably weapons?  If it was a robbery of the house she was just out of the country and the house was empty you wait for her to come home and then don't take anything from the house?  If it was drug addicts needing money they would have taken all the small stuff, particularly the cell phones.  If they were professional people they would have taken all the jewelry, cash, cell phones, etc.

Well like I said 3rd party that knew the details of what was going on.. knowing what he did would be interpreted as being Shady.

 

So that is a set up certainly, just doubt either Shady or the woman were a part of it. 

 

I also don't know the circumstances of the robbery, does sound stupid. Somebody knew about the civil going on and went ahead and did all this, I believe. I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose.

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Well like I said 3rd party that knew the details of what was going on.. knowing what he did would be interpreted as being Shady.

 

So that is a set up certainly, just doubt either Shady or the woman were a part of it. 

 

I also don't know the circumstances of the robbery, does sound stupid. Somebody knew about the civil going on and went ahead and did all this, I believe. I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose.

 

I'm sure other people knew what she had whether Shady directly told some friends who may have told some friends or whether someone overheard a conversation he was having, etc...

 

In the hood when there is that much guap on the line,  that type of info travels like wildfire

Edited July 13, 2018 by matter2003

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

I don't think the woman was a part of this and had herself pistol whipped on purpose.

 

I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! 

 

Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD.

 

I'm not sure I understand this post, but the woman knew it wasn't Shady who robbed her.  She said in the 911 call that her boyfriend (Shady) set her up.  She has various reasons why she believes that, as stated by her lawyer.   As I understand her reasons include:

1) The statement there is no sign of forced entry (and presumably no alarm called in) - I believe that was a police statement

2) Shady reportedly had a new security system installed after the existing one caught his movers trying to recover furniture he paid for, and did not give Cordon access to the system - but could have provided access to someone (or, she could have left the door unlocked, who knows)

3) Victim stated that Shady repeatedly asked her to return the jewelry and told her she could be robbed if she kept it, which she apparently took as a threat

 

[Bing Bong]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not sure I understand this post, but the woman knew it wasn't Shady who robbed her.  She said in the 911 call that her boyfriend (Shady) set her up.  She has various reasons why she believes that, as stated by her lawyer. 

I'm saying a 3rd party, knew this situation, how the woman would perceive the events, and did this. I'm saying that is more likely than her setting Shady up, or Shady setting her up In a sense they were both set up. There were a lot of people knowledgeable of the situation.

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. 

It's possible sure. I don't think it's likely. Always wanted to be a detective. My first gut would be what I said above ^. More probable. If that is ruled out than yeah, we have a case against the gf.

9 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

I'm sure other people knew what she had whether Shady directly told some friends who may have told some friends or whether someone overheard a conversation he was having, etc...

 

In the hood when there is that much guap on the line,  that type of info travels like wildfire

yep, and someone came up with a dumb robbery idea on their own.

Edited July 13, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[JoeF]

32 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said:

Show some respect her name is Pitbull in a skirt (c) TM

Protecting you from Pitbull on a stick or whatever she is...

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, Starr Almighty said:

Show some respect her name is Pitbull in a skirt

 

I have a guy on retainer, they call him

 

“The Schnauzer in Trousers”

Edited July 13, 2018 by Teddy KGB

[Fadingpain]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Legally, I think a "squatter" is someone who occupies property without the permission of the owner....usually abandoned or unoccupied property.

 

Apparently at the beginning of her occupancy of the house, McCoy purchased it and invited her to live there with him.  Since she had the permission of the property owner to occupy the property and lived there for a period of time (in Georgia, apparently >6 months), then as I understand it, no, she's not a squatter, she has tenant rights and thus must be evicted.

 

 

Yes, the term "Squatting" has been used throughout this thread, incorrectly.

 

The term refers to occupying unoccupied (or abandoned) land, which is not relevant to the facts of this case.

 

If I went through every incorrect assertion of law/legality in this thread, I'd be here for a week.

 

So, just enjoy the discussion and keep going!  Maybe we can get to 200!

 

 

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Correct me if I'm wrong (literally, I admit I might be completely incorrect), but isn't a squatter someone who was never allowed to live in the residence to begin with. Like they just found an abandoned home one day, and just made themselves at home.

[#34fan]

18 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I am shocked at the number of people on here that don't believe there are women out there crazy enough to have this happen to them for the sheer sake of getting revenge/money. 

 

If that's the case, then she's a complete idiot... She's got nothing to gain from making allegations that can't be proved, and everything to lose, if the cops find that

 

she set this whole thing up...  Ms. Cordon is going to get her big butt cordoned-off for about 18 months in a Georgia prison.

[HOUSE]

I now understand the popularly of the Judge Judy show

 

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by THE SLAMMER

[SouthNYfan]

36 minutes ago, Billsfanatic8989 said:

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/conspiracy

 

Second last scenario from article:

 

"Fred is a security guard who works at the First National Bank of Bedrock. Fred suggests to his friend Barney that the bank has some cracks in its security and might be a good target for a robbery. Fred and Barney then conspire to rob the bank. The plan calls for Barney to enter the bank through the front door, hold up one of the bank tellers and then quietly slip out the back door that Fred would open for him. Upon leaving the bank, Fred’s car is to be waiting for Barney and Barney will take the car and drive to a hideout. Unfortunately, things do not go according to the plan. As Barney is entering the bank, he is confronted by a different security guard. Rather than turn around and leave the bank, Barney kills the guard and proceeds with the robbery. He then proceeds to rape one of the bank’s customers at gunpoint while the teller is placing money into the duffle bag that Barney has given her to fill up. Finally, after Barney runs out of the bank, Fred's car will not start and so he steals a car and drives to his hideout. In this situation, because Fred has conspired with Barney to rob the bank, he can be convicted of any crime Barney committed that was in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable result of the conspiracy. Looking at the 3 "additional" crimes committed by Barney, Fred can be convicted for the murder of the security guard and the car theft because those were in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable. However, Fred will most likely not be convicted for the rape because it was neither in furtherance of the conspiracy, nor was it a foreseeable result of the conspiracy to rob the bank".

 

I should've said Shady Could, not Would, be responsible if the perpetrator committed more crimes then Shady intended.

 

Which was what I was stating.

It's on the onus of the defendant to prove that there was a crime intended to be committed.

If Shady was just having them get his own possessions, then he might be completely in the clear.

Also, that bank situation, Barney escalated that shi* really quickly.

He went off the rails really fast.

 

[LikeIGiveADarn]

51 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Also is it so hard to believe a 3rd party knew of this situation, knew she would (incorrectly) assume Shady and took advantage of all this nonsense? Shady was incorrectly implicated, not necessarily purposefully implicated and is innocent. And his girlfriend made a wild assumption as to who perpetrated the crime, but is nonetheless a victim of a crime! 

 

Nobody is being set up. Someone robbed a woman, beat her, and the woman thought is was Shady. Why are we creating wild scenarios when that is 99% the likely situation. We got some wack detectives working the case at TBD.

 

You're off the case Mahoney! Turn in your badge!

[SouthNYfan]

35 minutes ago, greenyellowred said:

 

The legal doctrine is anyone who participates in a felony is equally as responsible. So if the perp accidentally killed her, it would be murder and both the perp and the person who authorized the burglary would be charged equally with all crimes.

 

The point is, was Shady conspiring to participate in a felony?

Did he tell his friend "yo, you gonna dress up in black, rob my house"?

or

Did he tell his friend "go get XYZ from the house, I don't feel like dealing with that b*tch and I'm thinking she's gonna try and pawn my stuff once she gets evicted"

If his intent was to commit a hardcore robbery/felony then yeah, but again, that's a big leap in either direction.

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

You're off the case Mahoney! Turn in your badge!

[That's No Moon]

7 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

Also, that bank situation, Barney escalated that shi* really quickly.

So you're saying the bedrock solid plan quickly turned to Rubble?