Sabertooth

Lesean McCoy? How concerned are we?

2,219 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

Agreed, but the question is how much more.  The Policy gives the Commish to suspend a player on the "Commissioner Exempt List" if "a violation relating to violence is suspected but further investigation is required."  

As I read the policy, I think the Commish has enough now to take action.  The evidence that there was no forced entry and that the specific items that were asked for were specific items that McCoy had previously requested combined with the uncontroverted fact that the victim was physically assaulted rise to the level where an ordinary reasonable person would "suspect" McCoy's involvement.  

So I think he could take action, but in his shoes I would want a little more.

This is great information

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Not if she appears in court.

Not sure this is correct.  If she makes a new claim, allegation, or statement in court it might not be hearsay but only if she is limiting herself to activities where she is a the first hand witness.  The original tweet was not clear, but the way I read it was that some of the allegations were things the friend had been told rather than witnessed first hand.  Those would all probably stay as hearsay even if she attempted to state them in court.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

I think there is no dispute that the victim was hit and that Elliott did the hitting... the only issue was if it was in defense or not. 

 

With respect to the Zeke case, how do you reach the conclusion that “there is no dispute that the victim was hit and Elliot did the hitting?”  Elliot denied it.  Witnesses at the scene disputed the victim’s version of events.  And the victim was later caught red handed trying to blackmail Elliot and instructing other witnesses to lie to police. It’s certainly possible that he hit the victim but how can you say that he did with so much certainty?  This is part of the problem with the NFL's version of justice, they have almost no burden of proof yet their "conclusions" can ruin reputations and shape public opinion.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

Not sure this is correct.  If she makes a new claim, allegation, or statement in court it might not be hearsay but only if she is limiting herself to activities where she is a the first hand witness.  The original tweet was not clear, but the way I read it was that some of the allegations were things the friend had been told rather than witnessed first hand.  Those would all probably stay as hearsay even if she attempted to state them in court.

The victim (her friend) would be in court as well so statements as to what she was told by the victim would be fine. Her other statements may not have any credibility (if she has no first hand knowledge) or relevance and may be stricken for other reasons - but not for hearsay.

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, electric Ape said:

With respect to the Zeke case, how do you reach the conclusion that “there is no dispute that the victim was hit and Elliot did the hitting?”  Elliot denied it.  Witnesses at the scene disputed the victim’s version of events.  And the victim was later caught red handed trying to blackmail Elliot and instructing other witnesses to lie to police. It’s certainly possible that he hit the victim but how can you say that he did with so much certainty?  This is part of the problem with the NFL's version of justice, they have almost no burden of proof yet their "conclusions" can ruin reputations and shape public opinion.  

I need to stop cutting corners.  I did not mean to imply that every allegation was unopposed and I should not have used the very "hit" but I was trying to be brief and not keep using the word violence.

You are right that the July wrist incident does appear to be challenged, but I cannot find any denial or challenge to the February wall incident.  There the issue was severity... she did not require medical treatment and was merely pushed against a wall.  

The league brought in four experts for a hearing on the case and those four disinterested experts found that there was "substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the finding" that Elliot used violence against women on three separate occasions.  

That seems to be much more to hang his hat on than the Commish currently has on McCoy."

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The victim (her friend) would be in court as well so statements as to what she was told by the victim would be fine. 

What leads you to conclude that?  I believe that in the definition of hearsay, the "out of court statement" refers to when the original statement was made that is being quoted.  

I am not a Georgia Lawyer, so I can't speak with any expertise to how that jurisdiction might define hearsay, but the relatively ubiquitous Federal Rules of Evidence do not care if the victim is in court or not unless you are getting into 803 exceptions or proving that she has made prior consistent/inconsistent statements.

In fact, the FRE even prevents one from "hearsaying" themselves even though they are in court.  For example, a Defendant in a criminal trial cannot introduce a written statement they made to police where they detailed there self-defense claim.  (Thought the Prosecution could admit the statement as an admission by a party opponent, which is specifically excluded from the definition of hearsay).

Looking at the Georgia rules (though not spending the time to see how the courts have interpreted them) 24-8-801 to 24-8-807 I cannot find any significant relevant difference between the Federal and Georgia rules.  

I believe that if the friend were to testify in court, she could not quote the victim unless:

1.  The statement is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  (e.g. In response to the question "How did you know John was home?' because you are trying to prove that John was present at the crime scene and the witness responds "Because I heard him say he was hungry."... it relevance of the statement does not depend on whether John was actually hungry, so it is not hearsay).

2.  As a prior consistent/inconsistent statement in order to evaluate a witness' credibility.

3.  She was called by McCoy to testify against the victim.

4.  One of the 803 or 804 exceptions apply.  Under the facts we have currently, none yet apply.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Brisco54
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

What leads you to conclude that?  

I am not a Georgia Lawyer, so I can't speak with any expertise to how that jurisdiction might define hearsay, but the relatively ubiquitous Federal Rules of Evidence do not care if the victim is in court or not unless you are getting into 803 exceptions or proving that she has made prior consistent/inconsistent statements.

In fact, the FRE even prevents one from "hearsaying" themselves even though they are in court.  For example, a Defendant in a criminal trial cannot introduce a written statement they made to police where they detailed there self-defense claim.  (Thought the Prosecution could admit the statement as an admission by a party opponent, which is specifically excluded from the definition of hearsay).

Looking at the Georgia rules (though not spending the time to see how the courts have interpreted them) 24-8-801 to 24-8-807 I cannot find any significant relevant difference between the Federal and Georgia rules.  

I believe that if the friend were to testify in court, she could not quote the victim unless:

1.  The statement is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  (e.g. In response to the question "How did you know John was home?' because you are trying to prove that John was present at the crime scene and the witness responds "Because I heard him say he was hungry."... it relevance of the statement does not depend on whether John was actually hungry, so it is not hearsay).

2.  As a prior consistent/inconsistent statement in order to evaluate a witness' credibility.

3.  She was called by McCoy to testify against the victim.

4.  One of the 803 or 804 exceptions apply.  Under the facts we have currently, none yet apply.

 

 

 

 

I’ll tap out - you put more thought into it than I did. Haven’t studied the rules of evidence in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, electric Ape said:

With respect to the Zeke case, how do you reach the conclusion that “there is no dispute that the victim was hit and Elliot did the hitting?”  Elliot denied it.  Witnesses at the scene disputed the victim’s version of events.  And the victim was later caught red handed trying to blackmail Elliot and instructing other witnesses to lie to police. It’s certainly possible that he hit the victim but how can you say that he did with so much certainty?  This is part of the problem with the NFL's version of justice, they have almost no burden of proof yet their "conclusions" can ruin reputations and shape public opinion.  

 

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/11/09/everything-need-know-nfls-investigation-cowboys-rb-ezekiel-elliott-assault-allegations

 

Read the whole thing, because the interview at the end is especially enlightening.  It will take some doing because it fully details both sides as well as the NFL’s findings and the police reports.  I’d like to think your opinion may change when in possession of a full accounting of the issue.

 

Or don’t and just take the version that Elliott’s attorney put forth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh....yeah....so as of today best guess.  Do we think he gets some sort of suspension or is this a FF buying opportunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the “experts” on my “fade McCoy” train...a bit late, of course.

Edited by TripItUp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

All of the “experts” on my “fade McCoy” train...a bit late, of course.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/11/09/everything-need-know-nfls-investigation-cowboys-rb-ezekiel-elliott-assault-allegations

 

Read the whole thing, because the interview at the end is especially enlightening.  It will take some doing because it fully details both sides as well as the NFL’s findings and the police reports.  I’d like to think your opinion may change when in possession of a full accounting of the issue.

 

Or don’t and just take the version that Elliott’s attorney put forth.

 

Thanks BB!  That article is by far the best collection of the actual evidence I’ve seen. And it absolutely contains some info that I hadn’t seen before that weakens Elliot’s case.

We don’t know if Zeke is guilty and we’re probably never going to know. It mostly comes down to a he said / she said and there are times where she lies and connives and angles and there are times (like in her interview) where she seems more credible. In this kind of murky case you have to assign a likelihood of guilt.  The likelihood of guilt did not meet the threshold of our legal system to even try Elliot but at the same time it met the threshold for the NFL to not only try but convict.

When there’s a disconnect like that you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask questions.  Does the NFL have a history of handling players punishments with fairness and integrity?  No actually it doesn’t. Would the NFL benefit by convicting Elliot even if he were innocent? From a PR standpoint, yes the NFL would probably benefit. 

It’s a really f*cked up situation. Given the evidence I’ve seen I still don’t think I could suspend Elliot. The NFL sent only one investigator to interview the victim and that investigator concluded that the victim was not credible and came to the same conclusion, not to suspend.  The NFL suspended anyway.  This is a troubling reality for LeSean McCoy. We’re all pouring over the evidence like a bunch of amateur detectives but the evidence may not even matter.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, electric Ape said:

 

Thanks BB!  That article is by far the best collection of the actual evidence I’ve seen. And it absolutely contains some info that I hadn’t seen before that weakens Elliot’s case.

We don’t know if Zeke is guilty and we’re probably never going to know. It mostly comes down to a he said / she said and there are times where she lies and connives and angles and there are times (like in her interview) where she seems more credible. In this kind of murky case you have to assign a likelihood of guilt.  The likelihood of guilt did not meet the threshold of our legal system to even try Elliot but at the same time it met the threshold for the NFL to not only try but convict.

When there’s a disconnect like that you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask questions.  Does the NFL have a history of handling players punishments with fairness and integrity?  No actually it doesn’t. Would the NFL benefit by convicting Elliot even if he were innocent? From a PR standpoint, yes the NFL would probably benefit. 

It’s a really f*cked up situation. Given the evidence I’ve seen I still don’t think I could suspend Elliot. The NFL sent only one investigator to interview the victim and that investigator concluded that the victim was not credible and came to the same conclusion, not to suspend.  The NFL suspended anyway.  This is a troubling reality for LeSean McCoy. We’re all pouring over the evidence like a bunch of amateur detectives but the evidence may not even matter.

 

:goodpost:

 

I may disagree with your conclusion, but regardless really high quality stuff

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GF's attorney interviewed. Not a ton of new info, but she says for now there is only circumstantial evidence. Broadcaster mentions at the end that McCoy's attorney briefly spoke with authorities, and he says McCoy does not have the ability to access the security footage from the house.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

GF's attorney interviewed. Not a ton of new info, but she says for now there is only circumstantial evidence. Broadcaster mentions at the end that McCoy's attorney briefly spoke with authorities, and he says McCoy does not have the ability to access the security footage from the house.

LINK

This is what the case is made and broken on IMO.  McCoy specifically changed the security cameras so that he and only he would have access to the system.  Now he says he doesn't have access....  hmm....  Shady indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, encaitar said:

This is what the case is made and broken on IMO.  McCoy specifically changed the security cameras so that he and only he would have access to the system.  Now he says he doesn't have access....  hmm....  Shady indeed.

Not sure what the lawyer meant but one would guess we will find out eventually. It could or could not be a lot of things. Maybe that means the system wasn't on and there is no recorded video to review at all. Maybe it means the video was recorded by the provider off site, so McCoy doesn't have the video but someone else does. Maybe the video is only stored temporarily and was not programmed to be stored permanently. The fact of the matter is, we the general public don't know much of anything . . . although I am guessing the police have collected information and potential evidence and have a working theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Not sure what the lawyer meant but one would guess we will find out eventually. It could or could not be a lot of things. Maybe that means the system wasn't on and there is no recorded video to review at all. Maybe it means the video was recorded by the provider off site, so McCoy doesn't have the video but someone else does. Maybe the video is only stored temporarily and was not programmed to be stored permanently. The fact of the matter is, we the general public don't know much of anything . . . although I am guessing the police have collected information and potential evidence and have a working theory.

Also could mean that he only has live view on the camera's.  Depends on what subscription he has.  The only reason he switched companies was to prevent her from having access to it in HIS house. She caught McCoy's mother on camera live trying to move the furniture.  I assume the company can find the results or the neighborhood.  They can ask a million questions about McCoy's house but the simple fact remains is you have to find who did it and prove that McCoy sent them to injure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, encaitar said:

This is what the case is made and broken on IMO.  McCoy specifically changed the security cameras so that he and only he would have access to the system.  Now he says he doesn't have access....  hmm....  Shady indeed.

How do you know this? That is what the gf claimed. However, McCoy claims the gf took out the old cameras and replaced them with new ones. So why do you choose to believe one side as fact? Glad you’re not a judge. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rhythmdoctor said:

How do you know this? That is what the gf claimed. However, McCoy claims the gf took out the old cameras and replaced them with new ones. So why do you choose to believe one side as fact? Glad you’re not a judge. 

Stuff like this is what makes it really hard to get a read of what actually happened. The media is reporting information in different ways. Information is getting out there that is inconsistent. Case in point is the story line of the intruder demanding specific pieces of jewelry. I have read some articles that mentioned the assailant asked for all the jewelry and money in the house, saw the bracelet on the woman's arm, and tried to yank it off her wrist. That to me sounds like it could be a regular break in, as that's what a generic burglar would ask for.

In the interview I linked from this morning, the GF's lawyer says the assailant demanded specific jewelry items that the GF said McCoy gave to here as birthday presents. We still don't know what they really means. Did the guy ask for a Cartier necklace, Tiffany earrings, a Rolex watch, and a Van Cleef ring? That paints a totally different picture than if the guy asked if there was any expensive jewelry in the house like diamond rings or pearl necklaces.

The video with the GF's lawyer mentioned that the woman both described or posted pics of the jewelry in the past on social media. Maybe that means McCoy might be involved, maybe that means someone else knew that those items would be in the house and that guy had nothing at all to do with McCoy.

The other thing that doesn't add up as far as the jewelry goes is that McCoy in prior police visits mentioned that the GF still had jewelry in her possession that she borrowed or signed out from jewelry stores for special events. That's a piece of the puzzle that is missing in all of this. Were those items ever returned? Are those the items that were stolen or asked for in the robbery? Is the jewelry in the break in completely different?

What will be interesting is what the NFL turns up and what the authorities turn up and if either side will share information with the other. I would guess law enforcement probably won't give out too many details in an active investigation . . . they might once the investigation was concluded and charges filed. And I am not sure the league will want to hand over information that they come up with if the police don't share what they have. Another thing is, if the league acts before the police make any arrests or change anyone with a crime, it could a) tip the people involved off and they disappear, b) could influence potential jurors in a trial if it got to that point, and c) get people involved in a defamation of character lawsuit.

IMO, I think the league waits to see if McCoy is charged with anything and won't take any action until then. Unlike the Elliott case, McCoy wasn't there to inflict any of the abuse (even the GF's lawyer admits that there was no other abuse prior to that night in their relationship). While Zeke said he didn't do anything, he wasn't out of state at the time of the DV incident. And since the GF's lawyer mentioned there was no abuse, it pours a lot of cold water on the friend's claim that McCoy was a woman beater and child abuser.

If people watch the interview with the lawyer, she dances around the question if she thinks McCoy was involved. She says she's not certain and what she sees is a lot of circumstantial evidence. She adds that the GF absolutely believes that Shady had something to do with it. That's a pretty mild answer. She could have said that they firmly believe McCoy was involved, or we suspect that he was involved, or the investigation will bear out that he was involved. But instead she says all there is is circumstantial evidence and the GF thinks he was involved. It's almost like she is saying that she is not so sure and the GF has drawn her own conclusions.

And as always, what we like to think we know probably is about 1% of what the investigation has uncovered or explored so far. Maybe he was involved. Maybe he wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.