gr8billsfan Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Also, police recovered the jewelry. It was lent to her by jewelry companies. https://twitter.com/mpetchenikwsb/status/1017474089563377664?s=21
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Peter said: The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. That's not what "tenant-at-will" means. Turns out, you do need to read 129 pages to make that determination. Edited July 12, 2018 by DC Tom 1 1
JoPar_v2 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Peter said: The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. It was a rhetorical question. Get it? Hard to tell just by reading text Petey. you have no idea why the eviction, which was initiated last year, has taken this long. The most recent delay was due to an emergency with her attorney, but we have zero information about any previous delays. They could have reconciled and McCoy put proceedings off, etc. In other words you’re assuming this woman is a deadbeat and in the wrong, when it’s equally possible McCoy stringed her along and kept her around, for any number of reasons.
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Peter said: In which case, the same analysis regarding scenario 1 applies. Why the hell would anyone pistol whip a woman to return jewelry to someone else to avoid paying for it (whether it was lent to him or he guarantied its return). It would be beyond stupid and easily determined whether he or one of his friends returned the jewelry. I do not see that Shady is stupid enough to hatch such an idiotic plan especially given that he has gone to the lengths to undertake the legal proceeds to evict her. Why would he all of a sudden engage in self help like this . . . not just self help but complete idiocy. Because idiots gotta idiot. Look at your posts... 1
Lurker Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, The Wiz said: Sorry. What I mean is that shady was the one that rented the jewelry and then he lent it to her. Not the jewelry store lent it to her directly. So the jewelry is on loan under his name but she refuses to give it back. That's why I think he would care about it. Not saying he would hire someone to pistol whip and Rob her for it. Just that he has a stake in it. It's possible, but McCoy would be able to file a legal action against her for it's return, which would freeze up anything the jewelry store could do to him. Once it's in the legal system, it's essentially cast in amber like a bug and will remain inert for many years...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: Did anyone see the “wild” news that Ben Allbright posted yesterday about this? Apparently you had to pay to get it which I refuse because he’s Ben Allbright. Shady's best friend was UNOFFICIALLY named a "person of interest". Has not been said anywhere else, and I'm assuming the only reason he may be a "person of interest" at all is because the victims named him as a friend of McCoy. Thank you for not giving money to Ben Allbright... 1
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: At my age, I'm likely to die in the process! ? At this point in the discussion, it would be a blessing. 2
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: At this point in the discussion, it would be a blessing. ?
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said: Shady's best friend was UNOFFICIALLY named a "person of interest". Has not been said anywhere else, and I'm assuming the only reason he may be a "person of interest" at all is because the victims named him as a friend of McCoy. Thank you for not giving money to Ben Allbright... I bet Albright leaves shopping carts in the parking space. Edited July 12, 2018 by Royale with Cheese 1 1
jimmy10 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, gr8billsfan said: Also, police recovered the jewelry. It was lent to her by jewelry companies. https://twitter.com/mpetchenikwsb/status/1017474089563377664?s=21 WTF? This story keeps getting weirder and weirder.
chuckfromcanada Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 doesn't make a lot of sense, what would his end game be , rob her or have someone else rob her and then return the jewellery..lol. The sheet out the window is too freaking odd..hope they don't suspend him until this is clearer. 1
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: This woman sounds so crazy I wouldn’t be surprised if she just fell down. She is crazy. But let's be clear: crazy women still don't deserve to have the **** beaten out of them.
LikeIGiveADarn Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: I bey Albright leaves shopping carts in the parking space. I bet he throws cigarette butts out of the window driving down the highway...
stevewin Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Peter said: That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me. I imagine it was lent to "them" - one of the reports mentioned Shady saying people loaned them jewelry for events. I'm sure regardless of if it was for her specifically to wear, Shady felt (or was) responsible for getting the jewelry back to whoever loaned it. Edit: I'm referring to why Shady would generally care about the jewelry getting back to the owner - and agree that it would not be a reason for him to hire someone to retrieve it - if anything it supports the theory that someone else knew about it and decided to take it for themselves Edited July 12, 2018 by stevewin
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: She is crazy. But let's be clear: crazy women still don't deserve to have the **** beaten out of them. Not clear enough
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy?
YoloinOhio Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, dave mcbride said: Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy? I think it’s the 2nd one but not sure
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, dave mcbride said: Just trying to get some clarity: what's the general consensus about the shiny items in question -- were they McCoy's, was it a lending by a jeweler that McCoy facilitated, or were they the property of a jeweler who lent them to her without any intercession by McCoy? They belong to the family home, but not the shared home. 1
Royale with Cheese Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said: Whens Spike Lee going to direct this movie? 1
Recommended Posts