Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sabertooth

Lesean McCoy? How concerned are we?

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

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.  

  • Like 3

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."

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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
  • Like 2

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.

  • Like 2

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
  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 2

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. 

  • Like 1

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

Not sure if it has any impact on this case, but the GF apparently accused a prior boyfriend of assaulting her three times. He denied it and said he feared for his life and safety. That case did not get prosecuted. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.democratandchronicle.com/amp/778088002

GF’s lawyer says there is not enough probable cause so far to arrest McCoy. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/football/afc-east/buffalo-bills/lesean-mccoy-delicia-cordon-assault-lawyer/amp

Share this post


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

Not sure if it has any impact on this case, but the GF apparently accused a prior boyfriend of assaulting her three times. He denied it and said he feared for his life and safety. That case did not get prosecuted. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.democratandchronicle.com/amp/778088002

GF’s lawyer says there is not enough probable cause so far to arrest McCoy. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/football/afc-east/buffalo-bills/lesean-mccoy-delicia-cordon-assault-lawyer/amp

Looking good for Shady so far...

Edited by spider321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monitoring this thread and story, I personally don't understand why he would attempt to recover gifts he gave this woman through any means. They were in a relationship and now they're not and she's dug in like a tick in a property belonging to him. If he "doesn't want any drama" don't you just consider the jewelry an expensive lesson and focus on the legal eviction?

Share this post


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

Monitoring this thread and story, I personally don't understand why he would attempt to recover gifts he gave this woman through any means. They were in a relationship and now they're not and she's dug in like a tick in a property belonging to him. If he "doesn't want any drama" don't you just consider the jewelry an expensive lesson and focus on the legal eviction?

Depends would be my answer. 

It sounds like what she did was very possibly wrong (squatting, conversion, trespass to chattel, etc).  I read that he had turned in receipts for the property into evidence and some of the jewelry was actually on loan (which was also claimed in legal proceedings).

Isn't that the correct way to proceed? 

And if he was about to recover the property in court (real and personal), why go try to do something illegal like that outside the court authority?  If he did nothing outside the proceeding, he was going to get the apartment and personal property back soon. 

I am a buyer on McCoy unless more comes out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL said Monday the matter involving LeSean McCoy “remains under review” and there has been no change to his status. Unclear if his status could change before Bills hit the practice field Thursday evening.

LINK

LeSean McCoy will report to Buffalo Bills training camp Wednesday as police continue to investigate an alleged home invasion robbery at a suburban Atlanta home he owns that left his former girlfriend hospitalized, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport and NFL Network's Mike Garafolo.

Police have not named McCoy a suspect in the incident and, according to Rapoport and Garafolo, his status with the league hasn't changed.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The girl’s own lawyer told her to stop blaming McCoy publicly because they have zero evidence that he was involved.

It’s time to put this one to bed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 1:24 PM, Hairy Snowman said:

Depends would be my answer. 

It sounds like what she did was very possibly wrong (squatting, conversion, trespass to chattel, etc).  I read that he had turned in receipts for the property into evidence and some of the jewelry was actually on loan (which was also claimed in legal proceedings).

Isn't that the correct way to proceed? 

And if he was about to recover the property in court (real and personal), why go try to do something illegal like that outside the court authority?  If he did nothing outside the proceeding, he was going to get the apartment and personal property back soon. 

I am a buyer on McCoy unless more comes out. 

I don't know if it is or isn't but it sounds like it's descending into an episode of People's Court where one person stands there and says it was a loan and the other says it was a gift. I don't know if he spent $1000, $10,000 or $100,000 on this stuff (which would matter) but if I'm him, to a pretty significant threshold, I don't even want to get into it if I don't have to.

He can have all the receipts in the world but if it's woman's jewellery and it was bought while they were in a relationship and she has it, he's going to have a challenge ahead of him to prove this was on loan.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, habsfan said:

I don't know if it is or isn't but it sounds like it's descending into an episode of People's Court where one person stands there and says it was a loan and the other says it was a gift. I don't know if he spent $1000, $10,000 or $100,000 on this stuff (which would matter) but if I'm him, to a pretty significant threshold, I don't even want to get into it if I don't have to.

He can have all the receipts in the world but if it's woman's jewellery and it was bought while they were in a relationship and she has it, he's going to have a challenge ahead of him to prove this was on loan.... 

McCoy has earned $52.5 million over his career and if he is on the opening day roster in a little over a month, he will stand to earn another $6.3 million. Even at $100,000, it is such a small amount of money (relatively speaking, at least for him) that it amounts to little more than pocket change or petty cash. Even if she were to glam the jewelry as a parting gift, McCoy sending someone to try to strong arm her into giving it back makes very little financial sense. Him losing $100,000 in jewelry would be on par with us losing like $1,000. Annoying and aggravating, yes. But willing to risk your entire career, potential jail time, and a major civil suit?

Share this post


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

McCoy has earned $52.5 million over his career and if he is on the opening day roster in a little over a month, he will stand to earn another $6.3 million. Even at $100,000, it is such a small amount of money (relatively speaking, at least for him) that it amounts to little more than pocket change or petty cash. Even if she were to glam the jewelry as a parting gift, McCoy sending someone to try to strong arm her into giving it back makes very little financial sense. Him losing $100,000 in jewelry would be on par with us losing like $1,000. Annoying and aggravating, yes. But willing to risk your entire career, potential jail time, and a major civil suit?

Not to mention he'd re-coop 8x that amount because he's selling the Georgia house anyways.  If he did send someone there, I'm sure it wasn't to hurt her.  I bet it got out of hand.  Then again it could be someone she knows or the someone the jewelry company sent.  This may be a cold case for awhile.  A lot of people to talk to.

Share this post


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

Not to mention he'd re-coop 8x that amount because he's selling the Georgia house anyways.  If he did send someone there, I'm sure it wasn't to hurt her.  I bet it got out of hand.  Then again it could be someone she knows or the someone the jewelry company sent.  This may be a cold case for awhile.  A lot of people to talk to.

That's the kicker.  If he sent someone he's screwed whether he instructed them to hurt her or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't know why people keep assuming a professional football player would make logical decisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 3:52 PM, Chaka said:

Still don't know why people keep assuming a professional football player would make logical decisions.

The police records and phone recordings, specifically and exactly regarding this woman going back more than a year document a record of just this.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The police records and phone recordings, specifically and exactly regarding this woman going back more than a year document a record of just this.

They document that people assume football players make logical decisions?

Wow Big Brother really is watching us all day, every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chaka said:

They document that people assume football players make logical decisions?

Wow Big Brother really is watching us all day, every day.

Assuming you weren't trolling we can assume you were remarking about this player.  All the facts seem to point to this player indeed having a remarkably logical track record here.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, matuski said:

Assuming you weren't trolling we can assume you were remarking about this player.  All the facts seem to point to this player indeed having a remarkably logical track record here.

Meh. Don't see how that precludes him from having some people go collect his ####. He may not have intended it to go sideways but that wouldn't matter.

I honestly have no opinion about whether he set the plot in motion but anything that follows is on the person who did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, Anarchy99 said:

Not sure if it has any impact on this case, but the GF apparently accused a prior boyfriend of assaulting her three times. He denied it and said he feared for his life and safety. That case did not get prosecuted. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.democratandchronicle.com/amp/778088002

GF’s lawyer says there is not enough probable cause so far to arrest McCoy. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/football/afc-east/buffalo-bills/lesean-mccoy-delicia-cordon-assault-lawyer/amp

At first glance, it seems superfluous for Graham to mention that the civil standard is lower than the criminal standard in her statement.  Currently there is only a criminal case.

Reading between the lines, I see it as a comparably overt offer to McCoy's folks that this (criminal case) will all go away if they can make a financial (civil case) arrangement and/or a threat that the case will go to civil court even if the police do not feel they can establish probable cause.

Graham knows that McCoy has much more to lose than her client at this point and it appears she is trying to leverage that fact.

I would not be surprised if we see some sort of financial settlement based upon McCoy's removal of the prior surveillance system.  (I realize that this is a very weak theory of liability, but if McCoy agrees to the settlement the strength of the case is irrelevant).  This gives both sides what they want... the Plaintiff wants cash, pure and simple, McCoy wants the whole thing to go away without threatening his job.  Taking out the surveillance system would never rise to the level of misconduct since he owned the house.  The settlement could include a nondisclosure agreement. The plaintiff can lawfully refuse to answer any questions by NFL investigators, so if the criminal case dies, the NFL has only the same info the police had (unlike in Elliott where they interviewed the victim) and McCoy walks.

Even if he is completely innocent of the attack, this is the type of deal McCoy's attorneys would probably recommend.

 

Share this post


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

At first glance, it seems superfluous for Graham to mention that the civil standard is lower than the criminal standard in her statement.  Currently there is only a criminal case.

Reading between the lines, I see it as a comparably overt offer to McCoy's folks that this (criminal case) will all go away if they can make a financial (civil case) arrangement and/or a threat that the case will go to civil court even if the police do not feel they can establish probable cause.

Graham knows that McCoy has much more to lose than her client at this point and it appears she is trying to leverage that fact.

I would not be surprised if we see some sort of financial settlement based upon McCoy's removal of the prior surveillance system.  (I realize that this is a very weak theory of liability, but if McCoy agrees to the settlement the strength of the case is irrelevant).  This gives both sides what they want... the Plaintiff wants cash, pure and simple, McCoy wants the whole thing to go away without threatening his job.  Taking out the surveillance system would never rise to the level of misconduct since he owned the house.  The settlement could include a nondisclosure agreement. The plaintiff can lawfully refuse to answer any questions by NFL investigators, so if the criminal case dies, the NFL has only the same info the police had (unlike in Elliott where they interviewed the victim) and McCoy walks.

Even if he is completely innocent of the attack, this is the type of deal McCoy's attorneys would probably recommend.

If this scenario were to play out (or something similar), what would happen if the assailant was caught and charged? A settlement might seemingly make things resolved with the ex-GF, but the police and NFL probably won't stop their investigations just because McCoy reached a settlement. Then what? McCoy could still end up in a precarious spot and would have shelled out money to the ex-GF.

One would think the ex- already has possession of items that are worth a fair amount that he would want back. She may have some leverage in this situation, but she also has a lot to gain and/or a lot to lose. For example, although unlikely, the investigation could eventually show that she was involved and set him up (or the incident had nothing to do with him). In either of those outcomes, she would potentially face criminal or financial repercussions.

I interpreted the lawyer's comments a little differently. I read it as a shot across his bow that while they may not be able to get him charged, they will file a civil case and have his dirty laundry aired out in public (which the NFL would love to hear). They might not win a judgment but at that point they would have torpedoed him. So the end game would likely still be a money grab for an out of court settlement with a non-disclosure agreement, but I don't really think that would be based on how much liability or culpability McCoy had in the incident. Basically, he would be buying her silence no matter what the truth was that night or for anything else that occurred in the past.

Share this post


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

If this scenario were to play out (or something similar), what would happen if the assailant was caught and charged? A settlement might seemingly make things resolved with the ex-GF, but the police and NFL probably won't stop their investigations just because McCoy reached a settlement. Then what? McCoy could still end up in a precarious spot and would have shelled out money to the ex-GF.

One would think the ex- already has possession of items that are worth a fair amount that he would want back. She may have some leverage in this situation, but she also has a lot to gain and/or a lot to lose. For example, although unlikely, the investigation could eventually show that she was involved and set him up (or the incident had nothing to do with him). In either of those outcomes, she would potentially face criminal or financial repercussions.

I interpreted the lawyer's comments a little differently. I read it as a shot across his bow that while they may not be able to get him charged, they will file a civil case and have his dirty laundry aired out in public (which the NFL would love to hear). They might not win a judgment but at that point they would have torpedoed him. So the end game would likely still be a money grab for an out of court settlement with a non-disclosure agreement, but I don't really think that would be based on how much liability or culpability McCoy had in the incident. Basically, he would be buying her silence no matter what the truth was that night or for anything else that occurred in the past.

I am not sure we are disagreeing with each other on much (see the part of my post after the "and/or")

On the assailant getting caught, while its possible that this might happen at some future date, if the police close the investigation without bringing charges (a prerequisite to the settlement) this becomes a comparatively minimal risk.  

Although the potential involvement of LeSean McCoy makes this case high profile, it is still 'only' a burglary and assault case with a victim that appears to have no permanent injuries.  Normally I would say that a smaller town would want to conserve most of its resources for the big dogs like rape and murder, but in looking at the Milton GA crime stats, they are incredibly low, with only 26 violent crimes per 100,000 so maybe this place will be like Stockbridge, Massachusetts of Arlo Guthrie fame and ...

when we got to the
Scene of the Crime there was five police officers and three police cars,
Being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to
Get in the newspaper story about it. And they was using up all kinds of
Cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station.
They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
They took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
One was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach,
The getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to
Mention the aerial photography.

Edited by Brisco54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GF filed a civil suit. You can read her court filing and allegations HERE.

Her claims include McCoy regularly beat his dog and his son, that the assailant admitted during the attack that he knew McCoy, and that $133,000 of jewelry was stolen.

She also claims the home was purchased with the intent of her being on the title but she was left off at the last second. She also claims the jewelry was rented from a jewelry store but McCoy promised he would buy it for her. And McCoy should be liable for not providing a safe and secure home for her and her child. Plus she should be entitled to damages above and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any legal minds on here that can take a stab at what kind of timeline we're looking at here?  At this point is this something that will definitely drag into next year or could action be swift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

GF filed a civil suit. You can read her court filing and allegations HERE.

Her claims include McCoy regularly beat his dog and his son, that the assailant admitted during the attack that he knew McCoy, and that $133,000 of jewelry was stolen.

She also claims the home was purchased with the intent of her being on the title but she was left off at the last second. She also claims the jewelry was rented from a jewelry store but McCoy promised he would buy it for her. And McCoy should be liable for not providing a safe and secure home for her and her child. Plus she should be entitled to damages above and beyond.

He is going to get suspended 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ace08 said:

Any legal minds on here that can take a stab at what kind of timeline we're looking at here?  At this point is this something that will definitely drag into next year or could action be swift?

I am not a lawyer, but the thought process was she extends palm for money, McCoy pays her off for her silence, they reach an out of court settlement, and this all goes away. Notice she does not directly say McCoy had any involvement . . . she basically says he is financially liable for not protecting her (she doesn't claim he beat her up or had someone beat her up). If she gets made whole with a pay out, she signs a non-disclosure agreement, and the police are encouraged to let the investigation be completed as unsolved, what could the NFL really do to McCoy at that point? If the case ends up being closed and no real evidence released, they would not have anything to go on other than claims that McCoy beat his kid (which the mother has said has never happened).

Share this post


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

I am not a lawyer, but the thought process was she extends palm for money, McCoy pays her off for her silence, they reach an out of court settlement, and this all goes away. Notice she does not directly say McCoy had any involvement . . . she basically says he is financially liable for not protecting her (she doesn't claim he beat her up or had someone beat her up). If she gets made whole with a pay out, she signs a non-disclosure agreement, and the police are encouraged to let the investigation be completed as unsolved, what could the NFL really do to McCoy at that point? If the case ends up being closed and no real evidence released, they would not have anything to go on other than claims that McCoy beat his kid (which the mother has said has never happened).

The NFL will still do their own investigation.   Plus your scenario is pretty absurd.

 

Drafting him now anywhere remotely early is a recipe for disaster.  He is going to sit just a question of how many games if not the season depending on what the cops find.

Edited by pantherclub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. I've always thought his name was spelled Lesean McCoy but the name on the lawsuit says Leshawn McCoy. Does his girlfriend not know how to spell his name? Or have we all been wrong this whole time?

:lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The NFL will do their own investigation.   Plus your scenario is pretty absurd.

No its not. It's already been discussed multiple times in this thread with some variations. At this point she is clearly in money grab mode. Most civil cases are filed and heard AFTER criminal ones. If someone is found guilty in a criminal case, it makes the civil case a slam dunk. If not, enough usually comes out that it can be used in a civil case.

By filing a civil case now, it's clearly intended to force McCoy to cough up money before the criminal case proceeds and before the season starts as an enticement for McCoy to make things go away by writing her a big check. McCoy would certainly point to the fact that he has not been charged with anything, and as far as we know, there hasn't even been any probable cause to indicate he was involved.

Just because the woman makes allegations doesn't mean they are true, and it also doesn't mean the league will believe her claims.The only thing in her complaint that directly involves McCoy is her assertion that he regularly beat up his kid. However, if that were true, there would be signs of abuse and the mother of the child has already said those claims are completely false.

Just because she filed a civil suit doesn't make McCoy guilty of a crime or a co-collaborator in a crime.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

No its not. It's already been discussed multiple times in this thread with some variations. At this point she is clearly in money grab mode. Most civil cases are filed and heard AFTER criminal ones. If someone is found guilty in a criminal case, it makes the civil case a slam dunk. If not, enough usually comes out that it can be used in a civil case.

By filing a civil case now, it's clearly intended to force McCoy to cough up money before the criminal case proceeds and before the season starts as an enticement for McCoy to make things go away by writing her a big check. McCoy would certainly point to the fact that he has not been charged with anything, and as far as we know, there hasn't even been any probable cause to indicate he was involved.

Just because the woman makes allegations doesn't mean they are true, and it also doesn't mean the league will believe her claims.The only thing in her complaint that directly involves McCoy is her assertion that he regularly beat up his kid. However, if that were true, there would be signs of abuse and the mother of the child has already said those claims are completely false.

Just because she filed a civil suit doesn't make McCoy guilty of a crime or a co-collaborator in a crime.

clearly?  Nah man you dont come off as biased at all.

You are basically saying she faked all of this for the money.  That seems a bit extreme man.   I may eat my words but I would bet anything he is going to sit until this is sorted out. 

 

You seem really emotional about this player and IMO you are not seeing this objectively.    You are basically throwing out a hail mary that this woman is only in it for the money.  You "clearly" have no idea what is going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

clearly?  Nah man you dont come off as biased at all.

You are basically saying she faked all of this for the money.  That seems a bit extreme man.   I may eat my words but I would bet anything he is going to sit until this is sorted out. 

You seem really emotional about this player and IMO you are not seeing this objectively.    You are basically throwing out a hail mary that this woman is only in it for the money.  You "clearly" have no idea what is going on.

None of us knows what happened, but look at the timing. The investigation is basically a month old, they have not charged McCoy with anything, and if what has been reported is accurate, the police had only a brief talk to McCoy's attorney because so far they don't have probable cause to link him to anything to compel him to talk further. The GF's attorney has already said the same thing, that the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high and she has sat her client down and explained the legal situation.

Then they file a civil suit well before the police have conducted or finished their investigations, before McCoy is charged, IF he ever gets charged with a crime. And that conveniently comes right before the start of the season? That doesn't strike you as odd or convenient?

I'm not saying she faked getting attacked. It seems far fetched that she would have this done to herself to set McCoy up. But it's been a month and between the police, the media, and the NFL you would think there would be something they could find to tie this to McCoy, as the majority of people (and the league) seem to want him to be involved and to fry for it. If they had anything, McCoy would already be sitting out.

As you said, the police and the league are conducting their own investigations. What the women claims in a court that determines financial awards pretty much means, yeah, the woman at this point wants money.

Again, you don't find it odd that the woman demands money before anything has been reported, with no investigative reports or findings released by either the police or the league, no charges filed, any without even a court date set to try McCoy for a crime?

By comparison, civil cases are just starting to be filed in Las Vegas against the hotel where the mass shooting took place . . . a year ago. Maybe I am way off base, but everything that has gone on so far appears to be with at least some intent to smear McCoy. The initial Instagram post. Her 9-1-1 call insisting that McCoy was behind it. Her reiteration to the officers that responded. Her initial statement through her attorney. Her court filing today.

If you read her filing, she is playing the jilted lover card. He promised to but me a house. He promised to buy me jewelry. He bought me furniture (for his house) but took it away. Her back story certainly fits the narrative to get McCoy in trouble with the league. However, she could just as easily filed with her legal argument that McCoy is financially responsible for protecting her and keeping her safe and he didn't. All the other stuff will likely have no bearing on what she claims is his duty as a homeowner to keep her safe..

So to summarize, I feel sorry that she got attacked. But just because she says that the attacker said he knows McCoy doesn't make it true. And she has gone out of her way to bring that out over and over and over again. She has made a huge effort to say McCoy did it or was behind it every chance she gets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kobe Bean Bryant.  Accused of rape.  Kobe is criminally charged in Colorado, and the criminal legal process begins.  Woman accepts payoff.  Criminal charges are dropped (and the prosecutors basically said they dropped the charges BECAUSE she accepted money from Bryant).  This case could easily follow a similar path.  This is good news for McCoy.

ETA:  Correction--Kobe's accuser didn't accept a payoff before the case was dropped.  She filed a civil suit.  THAT was seen a hugely damning to any effort to convict Bryant criminally.  LINK

From the link: "The dissolution of the criminal trial, which veered from melodrama to farce and back during preliminary hearings, was not entirely unexpected. Legal scholars who have closely followed it say the prosecutor's case had been steadily weakening in the last month after rulings by Judge W. Terry Ruckriegle, the accidental release of sealed information about Mr. Bryant's accuser and, not least, the woman's own decision in early August to sue Mr. Bryant in civil court.  The civil suit was a particularly devastating blow to the prosecution because it would have allowed Mr. Bryant's lawyers to portray the woman, whose name has not been officially released, as driven by greed, not a quest for justice."

Edited by pinequick
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am not a lawyer, but the thought process was she extends palm for money, McCoy pays her off for her silence, they reach an out of court settlement, and this all goes away. Notice she does not directly say McCoy had any involvement . . . she basically says he is financially liable for not protecting her (she doesn't claim he beat her up or had someone beat her up). If she gets made whole with a pay out, she signs a non-disclosure agreement, and the police are encouraged to let the investigation be completed as unsolved, what could the NFL really do to McCoy at that point? If the case ends up being closed and no real evidence released, they would not have anything to go on other than claims that McCoy beat his kid (which the mother has said has never happened).

Same thing they did to Zeke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.