DCOrange

Thinking about it some more, if Cordon got home from her flight around 3ish, maybe the son was staying with a friend and just wasn't there at all the day/night of the attack and her statement simply means that she isn't sure where he is at the moment. I don't know.

This is probably a stretch, but the son missing and the bedsheet being tied out the son's window almost makes me wonder if her own son threw on a mask, robbed her, and then fled out the window. Those two details are new and are pretty weird.

Cordon’s statement specified that it was one male assailant.

This doesn’t sound remotely similar. this case: two attackers, attacked at night, hit one person and tied the others up, didn’t speak to the victims or request anything, simply searched the house for what they could find McCoy case: 1 attacker, attacked in the morning, beat the **** out of Cordon and also hit the cousin, requested specific items from the victims the only similarity is location and that some valuables were taken.

It's not, but even then, it's just her and her cousin's word (assuming that's the witness you're referring to). There doesn't appear to be any physical evidence yet (unless something came out in the past couple hours while I was gone).

They aren't ignoring her system. Their statement is that after Cordon used their security feed to stop McCoy's crew from taking all of her stuff, McCoy had the security cameras removed and installed his own private cameras.

The issue is that people don't always commit crimes because it logically makes sense for them to do so. In fact, it almost never makes logical sense. Just because McCoy doesn't have anything to gain from our perspective doesn't mean he didn't have anything to gain from his. Hell, just because a crime was committed doesn't mean that the perpetrator had anything to gain at all. But assuming that the attacker required having something to gain, the simple answers: 1. McCoy gets what he views as his possessions back. 2. McCoy gets the power/control of the situation/her. 3. McCoy scares her out of going to court/out of the house. And most of all, since McCoy isn't personally carrying out the act, he thinks he can slip by since he technically has an alibi. I am not saying that McCoy is guilty. Obviously Cordon's statement makes it look pretty bad but that's also obviously just her side of the story and the major red flag in it (the attacker requesting the specific items that McCoy wanted) is strictly based on her word and nothing else. We should clearly sit back and see how things develop. My point is simply that crimes aren't always committed because the criminal has something to gain, and even if it doesn't seem like it to us, McCoy may have thought that he had something to gain anyways.

Not sure if this post was addressed but someone on that Lipstick website where this popped up this morning was saying that McCoy specifically wanted a watch that he had given her back.

It's real in the sense that she was apparently attacked and the police were called/it sounds like she went to the hospital. No clue if McCoy is actually involved beyond it occurring at his house (that he apparently has not been in for quite some time). He's accused of hiring the people that beat her (supposedly pistol-whipped her in the head and locked her in the bathroom based on piecing stories together) and he has come out and said the allegations are false and that he has had no direct contact with her in months. The bolded doesn't really relate to the accusations at all, but it seems that he either didn't know the details of the accusations at the time and thought saying this would prove his innocence or he's simply trying to make it sound like he's innocent even though it's not really related.

Do you think it's inaccurate to refer to someone that pays someone else to beat a woman as a woman-beater? I guess that's a matter of opinion but I would guess that her friends feel that he is a woman-beater due to the (from their point of view) fact that he paid someone else to beat her.

Not really. The Instagram post said (I think, just working off my memory now): "I can't believe you (McCoy) did this". The Facebook post said that someone was hired to rob/pistol whip her and then referred to the Instagram post for more details, obviously implying that McCoy was the one that hired people to do it. I suppose you could read the Instagram post and think that saying "I can't believe McCoy did this" means that he personally was the one that beat her, but I think it can pretty easily be brushed off as "did this" meaning that he hired someone.

Obviously there's a lot of other questions that need to be answered, but De Cordon had supposedly returned from London like the night before this incident occurred.

It literally says "...sending dudes to her house" to rob and beat her and then says to go read the instagram post for more details, in which it specifically says it's McCoy. It's not really a difficult puzzle to put together. I would also note that McCoy is saying he hasn't had "any direct contact" with the ex while the actual accusation is that he hired someone to beat her, in which case McCoy could be telling the truth while still being guilty. If McCoy did in fact hire someone as the accusers say, then him not having direct contact with her is a half-truth on McCoy's part.

TMZ seems to be kinda corroborating this angle too, reporting that McCoy had been trying to take her to court to get back certain valuables/"significant gifts".

The Facebook page is saying that McCoy sent people to her house to beat and rob her (which for whatever it's worth, is also what a commenter on that lipstick site mentioned that they had heard through the grapevine) and that you can go to the Instagram post that's been posted in here for more details on the accusations. The Facebook post is literally linking to the Instagram post; they aren't contradicting each other at all. Edit: For those that care about the comment on that Lipstick site, the exact words are:

What? It's literally telling you to go look at the Instagram post that accuses McCoy for more details. This might be a false accusation, but the Facebook page and the Instagram post are saying the same thing.

That was my favorite part.

I'm guessing this has already been mentioned by now, but just based on the psych courses I took in college (it was only a minor for me and I'm not at all a psych professional), Richie's behavior sounds eerily similar to cases of schizophrenia.

Phillips stats really aren't as close to Suh as you think. They each started their last two years in college and in those two seasons, Suh had roughly 35% more production than Phillips. It's a pretty big difference.

Tampa had probably the worst pass rush in the NFL last season and Russell was a backup for them. Suffice to say, if Buffalo is trying to find a pass rusher, he probably isn't the guy.

I think Buffalo wins 5-7 games and Cleveland 6-8. So with that said, I voted Cleveland, but it's definitely possible that they tie or Buffalo wins too; I expect it to be pretty close between these two teams.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bu7VCs3ld5efCR3fDjj_vM09KjYbY_SBDkdJHRJPOew/edit#gid=0

I know that. It’s lower because they count the uncatchable targets in its calculation. I’m removing those because he had no chance to catch or drop them. 7/47 catchable targets (according to their site) equals 14.9%

Yeah, definitely. Even further into the preseason and Sammy was still around wasn't he? It's definitely a tough comparison to make.

I'm really just looking at it from a talent perspective, not from a "Was Benjamin healthy/will Benjamin be healthy this year?" perspective. Regarding Streater vs. McCloud, I don't think it really matters.