My view of this: There is no smoke without fire, out of one of his many, many accusations they aren't all gold-diggers, his past history suggests the narcissism.. do I believe her? yes, im sure she was offered a pay off and more than enough to open the salon the defense brings up, 6 years later to go through with it is commendable… But I knew when you pay for the best you get the best, the defense is tearing through her. Saying she can't remember half the stuff is correct, anyone being in a horrific incident (be it rape or a car crash) you won't remember every detail, only the stuff that sticks. Others then commenting "she did this after" etc.. you are in flight or fight mode, not everyone screams and runs to reception. The damning evidence is the tampon lodged, nobody can be that kinky… 100% she text for a reason, she knew it's what he does, gets the girls and has a sesh, her intention was yes probably "I was out with conor on a mad one" 1) doesn't mean she wants the ride. now if conor takes the stand, the prosecution is going to ask him his intentions: This is a lad, who at 10am, dropped what he was doing, arranged a car and security, picked up drunk girls at 10am, knowing they were drugged up and drinking the past 16 hours…. stopped off for cocaine (that he didn't touch) collected a mate at 11am filled them with more drink, made one change clothes (I could be wrong) Now when an aul lad got a smack for saying no, how do you think this fella reacts when he is feeding and watering 2 girls with €100's worth of drink drugs and food…. what is his end goal? to show the high life? if this was at 2am and they were partying together, there is some case for it. For this, defo not, 100% took advantage of a situation… Was she a dope for texting at that time? Yes. but that doesn't give you a pass for a ride I 100% believe her, but can see how she can lose also
Changes nothing about what I said.
..
That's a very naive "perhaps". And it's along the same lines are think the amount of rapes that happen are aligned to the amount that are prosecuted. Not the case for either, obviously
I'm sure many people have additional information on yet reported. Obviously some info can't be shared. Most will only have the court info, or the fraction that is reported to go on. The jury will hopefully have the most complete picture.
Put 2 and 2 together man, jesus 😂
You can't successfully defend yourself in this case though.
Nope. I don't care what you think. I'm merely defending myself against accusations that I just believe her based in nothing. Everyone can believe what they want to.
But it is appropriate. You are debating based on having knowledge about this case that the rest of us are not privy to because "trust me bro".
The DPP does not take cases on the basis that it's confident it can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
It takes cases where there is sufficient evidence to make a plausible case.
You are somewhat implying that the evidence is there but a jury would just automatically blame the woman anyway regardless of what the actual objective quality of the evidence is.
I do think that is an important distinction and it is no comment whatsoever on McGregor or this case specifically nor am I saying anything other than sexual violence is horrific.
It's not appropriate here. But I'm not basing my belief in nothing, that's all I'm saying.
What is the knowledge that you have?
Perhaps very few are prosecuted because very few false accusations actually happen that's straightforward too.
Anyway, I'm saying I believe her based on the knowledge I have, not on nothing.That's not to say I think he will be found guilty,, I have no idea how it will go.
Would you prefer a special criminal court for accusations of sexual assault or rape? You are great at emoting from your soapbox (looking at your posts it also looks like you have serious issues with men but we won't go there). I
I think it's really important that people understand something here. The fact that the DPP didn't pursue a criminal case doesn't mean that they don't believe Nikita or that this didn't happen. It simply means that they weren't confident that the evidence they had would convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that it did. The DPP and her team are far from stupid and they are singular experts in how juries think. They know full well that any potential jury would have a number of people on it displaying the exact same "logic" that's being used here - that because Nikita didn't behave "correctly" in the immediate aftermath, that she's clearly lying about the whole thing.
The attitudes on show here are the exact reason so many women don't even bother reporting sexual assaults in the first place. All I can say is that I hope it never happens to someone you know and love. Although it may well already have.
I know you implied nothing. All you say in this post I agree with, your take, and how it looks, or could look in a court
evidence to back up that false accusations are rarely prosecuted?
Yes. The number of people prosecuted for false accusations. It’s kinda straightforward.
Lots of people will know some of the story. Very few people all of the evidence.
I don’t disagree with any of that. Nor was I implying that intentions at 2am, implies consent hours later.
I was speaking about how the defence will play it out and ask why she was texting him, back in a hotel, lying to her partner etc. It doesn’t look good in court. Nor does the cctv footage mentioned above
Why is it stupid?
It's a stupid question. That's why no one answered it.
False accusations are rarely prosecuted. Most are withdrawn, only a fraction a proven false in court.
You have anything to back that up? Yes it's hard to prosecute, but where is the.proof for the rest?
And some people may know the.evidence before it's given in court
Hell of an idiotic leap there. Still didn't answer my question.
"I like watching him fight therefore he is innocent" confirmed.
There is also cctv of her hugging and kissing mcgregor in the lift after the alleged rape
https://news.sky.com/story/conor-mcgregor-woman-allegedly-raped-by-mma-star-denies-cctv-contradicts-account-13248292
have you seen any interview / video of him lately? The one where he was playing blackjack online is a car crash, he is so high he doesn't know what he is saying.
well, when drink, drugs, partying are involved, some details/versions will be confusing/odd/strange. These areas latched onto by the defence, of course.
But other details on this case appear clear, damning and truthful.. the injuries, interviews, her state of mind during interviews, examinations etc…
6 years in and still she is fighting for justice.. that can’t be easy. Very tough.
I haven't heard or read nearly enough to form an solid opinion on it tbh. (most probably haven't either tbh). As I said, it's not a topic I enjoy reading about, so I'm not going through all the details. But it's not totally avoidable obviously, and some of the details I have heard are, to me, odd. She reach out to him on the night, went back to the hotel romantically, lied to her partner, spending the night after the alleged rape, sleeping with the friend. A clear timeline would be key. Especially around any CCTV footage.
Not odd for McGregor
She herself added that it was a weird thing to say
Medical evidence seems compelling and so far there has been nothing from the defence to rebut or explain this.
However complainant is a poor witness from a legal perspective. She can’t remember most things that happened on the day, can’t remember being affectionate with McGregor beforehand and with the other lad afterwards, even when being shown it on cctv.
There was no chance the DPP would win this case on a ‘reasonable doubt’ basis, but at this stage I would lean towards her winning on the ‘balance of probability’ basis due to the medical evidence. A big caveat though is the defence still has to present its case, so there’ll be more to see and hear before reaching a conclusion.
what’s your actual take, “so far” from what you have read?
The fact you believe it without hearing all the evidence, is precisely what was referred to as “believe her no matter what”
