26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Gonna be hard to prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msw2112 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) When this story first broke, I thought that McCoy could have been responsible The more this unfolds, and the way it is unfolding, the more I think it is a crock and an attempted money grab. Edited August 13, 2018 by msw2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 25 minutes ago, Doc said: Gold must have dried up. Restaurants are a money pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Ok so he told her that he loved her and he was going to buy her a house.... so tell me about one guy out there who has not professed love and gifts when in hot pursuit of pleasure.... good grief this woman seems like a real gold digger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Those "aggressively, physically discipline and beat his young son" allegations are a direct attempt to get Shady in trouble with the NFL (Adrian Peterson, anyone?). She better have EVIDENCE of these beatings or she's gonna face her own lawsuit. Wonder what Shady's baby momma has to say about this? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEN-CAL17 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Wonder if a counter law suit is worth it. His house, His property, record of trying to get her to leave peacefully, wasn’t anywhere near the crime scene, no evidence he was involved. Now squatters are entitled to security systems? I’d think he’s have the right to do what he wanted as long as it didn’t cause harm to her.... What a joke, sue people cause you can. Proof or no proof, just sue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 57 minutes ago, eball said: Come on, everyone knew this was coming. Money grab. You are such a cynic! This was once true love. Or more likely it was lust. When your loins are on fire the thinking mechanism can get screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 McCoy's ex sues RB over home invasion, attack Delicia Cordon, the ex-girlfriend of Buffalo Bills running back LeSean McCoy, filed a personal injury lawsuit Friday against McCoy and his former University of Pittsburgh teammate Tamarcus Porter in connection to a July 10 home invasion in which Cordon was beaten and robbed of jewelry. No suspects have been named in the criminal investigation of the attack, which took place at an Atlanta-area home owned by McCoy where Cordon was living at the time. A spokesperson for the Fulton County (Ga.) district attorney's office did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment. The civil lawsuit, filed in a Fulton County court, alleges that McCoy should be held financially responsible for Cordon's injuries because he had previously changed the security codes to the home and refused to provide them to her. As such, Cordon's suit argues that McCoy "breached his duty to use ordinary care to protect Plaintiff from dangerous activities being conducted at the Residence." The lawsuit does not directly accuse McCoy or Porter of conducting or ordering the attack against Cordon but argues that McCoy had "actual and constructive knowledge of criminal activity existing on the property on July 10, 2018" because Porter had previously told police he could watch a live feed of security cameras in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McClappy Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Damn, now we lost our 183 page thread for a civil suit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Yep all about the money. Here comes the civil suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Why doesn't McCoy go with the police to his own house and retrieve the jewelry and then sell the house? That will get her out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-BillzeBubba Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, pop gun said: Why doesn't McCoy go with the police to his own house and retrieve the jewelry and then sell the house? That will get her out. she's already out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) Did she have a career or job or was she a professional girlfriend? Shady is an idiot, spent over $133,000 in jewelry on her???? Idiot. Edited August 13, 2018 by wppete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Levy Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmart128 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Bitches be crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 I'm sure she is hoping for a settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRush Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Hmmmm.... think about it. Why would you start a civil trial BEFORE the criminal investigation is complete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Gonna be hard to prove this. It's a civil suit. It doesn't have to be proven. Honestly, I think there is a large amount of denial on this thread. The only way this could be "all about the money," as seems to be the mantra here, is if she had set up the assault herself. That's a stretch. Sure, she's looking for a pay day. But, that's clearly not all that's at play here. This could very well be extremely damaging to Shady, regardless of his guilt, or innocence. I'm sure everyone knows this, but a civil lawsuit is based on a preponderance of evidence. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: It's a civil suit. It doesn't have to be proven. Honestly, I think there is a large amount of denial on this thread. The only way this could be "all about the money," as seems to be the mantra here, is if she had set up the assault herself. That's a stretch. Sure, she's looking for a pay day. But, that's clearly not all that's at play here. This could very well be extremely damaging to Shady, regardless of his guilt, or innocence. I'm sure everyone knows this, but a civil lawsuit is based on a preponderance of evidence. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. The standard is a preponderance of evidence in civil matters. With no suspect apprehended, good luck proving or showing that the attacker knew McCoy that will satisfy any burden whether civil or criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: It's a civil suit. It doesn't have to be proven. Honestly, I think there is a large amount of denial on this thread. The only way this could be "all about the money," as seems to be the mantra here, is if she had set up the assault herself. That's a stretch. Sure, she's looking for a pay day. But, that's clearly not all that's at play here. This could very well be extremely damaging to Shady, regardless of his guilt, or innocence. I'm sure everyone knows this, but a civil lawsuit is based on a preponderance of evidence. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. So you contradicted your self. It doesnt have to be proven like you said. Or it does have to be proven like you later say?? If I am shady I am immediately filing a counter slander suit. Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: So you contradicted your self. It doesnt have to be proven like you said. Or it does have to be proven like you later say?? I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. So how does that happen with no suspect identified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. They have to be proven. Preponderance of Evidence is still a very legal standard of proof. But ABSOLUTELY still has to be proven the standard of proof in most civil cases in which the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible and convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not; the evidence meeting this standardplaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's negligence proximately caused the injuries Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Lfod said: She's not giving up. Why should she. She's got nothing to loose and everything to gain. A dollar and a dream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-BillzeBubba Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 29 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Gonna be hard to prove this. I really doubt this little bombshell would have stayed unknown up til now...I call BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: So how does that happen with no suspect identified? Cry during testimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: They have to be proven. Preponderance of Evidence is still a very legal standard of proof. But ABSOLUTELY still has to be proven A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence. She has no evidence. That is the point. Merely stating that the attacker said he knew McCoy is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence. So again HAS To prove it right??? Just a lower standard of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: So how does that happen with no suspect identified? I think that there is probably enough here (all hearsay, and circumstantial, of course) for a good legal team to put together a decent case. I suppose it would hinge on the testimony of the witnesses. She wasn't home alone, right? If Shady is smart, he'll settle out of court, if he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob&Doug Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: Damn, now we lost our 183 page thread for a civil suit. Closed because ????..... oh yeah....cut and paste Edited August 13, 2018 by Bob&Doug 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Her “ the attacker knew McCoy” McCoys defense “How do you know. Where is the attacker, why were you squating at My Clients House so again where is the attacker to show he knew my Client.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said: So again HAS To prove it right??? Just a lower standard of proof. We're just into semantics here, at this point. But, I wouldn't say that if something is 51% likely to be true that it has been "proven." Would you? Edited August 13, 2018 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said: We're just into semantics here, at this point. But, I wouldn't say that if something is 51% likely to be true that it has been "proven." Would you? By this specific burden of proof. Yep it has been proven. Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: I think that there is probably enough here (all hearsay, and circumstantial, of course) for a good legal team to put together a decent case. I suppose it would hinge on the testimony of the witnesses. She wasn't home alone, right? If Shady is smart, he'll settle out of court, if he can. Nope! So she and her cousin corroborate the "story" of what the attacker said? Not evidentiary enough to pass the preponderance burden of proof. Won't fly in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: She has no evidence. That is the point. Merely stating that the attacker said he knew McCoy is not evidence. Well, her testimony would certainly be admissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 She overplayed her hand here. That really is the reality of the situation. She must have ran out of cash flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Share Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: Well, her testimony would certainly be admissible. Testimony is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts