McGregor is giving evidence now
everybody and their dog knows he did this , he's an absolute scumbag and well know coke head , but with his money he will get off again , only first time he has been named , we all know other times " irish sports star " has been labelled and not named him but we all know who it was
He is giving evidence now.
Can't see him giving evidence. Cross-examination would have a field day
She's giving evidence today and there is no 'prosecution ' in civil cases
This is the clincher. We have heard nothing from her friend that was also in the penthouse suite. Will she say that she didn’t hear any struggle from the bedroom? Will she say that Ms Hand was definitely going to sleep with Conor? Will she say that Ms Hand seemed fine and happy the next morning? If her evidence was favourable to the prosecution they would have called her already.
Ok, that makes sense..but why on latest update they mention McGregor’s face..
She was asked if anyone seemed upset and she said no. She said she didn't notice any bite mark on Mr McGregor's face.
When the jury returned, she said: 'The only thing I could move was my head, so my only defence was to try and bite.'
Asked if she did bite him, she replied: 'I did, yeah. I don't know exactly where, but I know he didn't like it so he flipped me around and had me by the neck and tried to choke me.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14051327/Conor-McGregor-rape-allegedly-victim-struggled-die-hotel.html
I was sure, but maybe not. Could have sworn I read this on the updates
You sure she said she bit him on the face? I thought she said she wasn't sure where she bit him?
Imagine if this was in the US and he loses, it could be worth 10's of millions and clean him out; all the talk of his earnings omits taxes (to his credit the only noble thing he has done is paid Irish taxes and didn't become non tax resident like plenty of others) and what he has blown.
Any one know historic / likely payout if he found guilty?
The allegation about Ms. Hand biting McGregor on the face I found a bit odd.
Something like that would be very painful, and very likely to illicit it a strong physical reaction. And Ms. Hand implied the bite was in a defence type mode, which likely was forceful, and not in a gentle/playful type way.
Danielle Kealy says she didn’t see any bite mark on McGregor’s face.
Defence case begins-
Danielle Kealy is now giving evidence.
From what I have read it doesn’t appear that McGregor’s defender is trying to imply the rough sex was more related to Lawrence.
I haven’t read any details yet from McGregor’s defence to try explain the bruisings and markings and medical details relating to the woman.
The evidence presented from a medical side and a psychiatric side, etc is fairly compelling.
You need nine to vote the same way in a civil trial to get a win.
Sorry I misunderstood your other post. It's mad that Dee puts up with all the cheating but then again it happens in a lot of relationships and break ups don't happen especially if there's kids involved.
But back to the case so as you say there's no dispute over the sex just whether it was consensual. And I'm guessing McGregors defence will try and suggest any rough play didn't occur during his encounter and assume it was his friend.
No, McGregor’s defence have argued that the first sexual encounter, between Conor and the woman was consensual and that she was enthusiastic and willing.
Charlotte Murphy, forensic scientist: “She said DNA obtained from the vaginal area were a "thousand million times more likely" to have originated from Conor McGregor than another unrelated person.”
The defence are NOT in anyway trying to say/imply that it was Lawrence and the woman who only had sex.
Remy Farrell is Mcgregor’s defender. He has only defended McGregor here, and Farrell specifically said that the sex between McGregor and the woman was consensual.
There is no dispute/ambiguity here relating to McGregor and the woman having had sex. Lawrence ‘s defender is arguing that his client had consensual sex with the woman, and Farrell has also argued this. Farrell saying it to dilute and discredit the woman’s claim that she was earlier raped by McGregor
Thanks for the reply.
So his defence doesn't specify who had sex. I'm assuming they'll be using the friend as evidence that it was Indeed him who did it and as you say they claim any sex was consensual.
I wouldn't be too confident her winning this case based off some of the details.
As far as I know, McGregor hasn’t publicly commented on this trial.
There is pretty much no disputing from either side that they had sex. The defence has not ever said that Conor denied having sex.. The defence not specifically uttering sentences like “we agree you and Conor had sexual intercourse” doesn’t change this. It’s probably better from a defence side they don’t specifically say this. the defence case is pretty much that the sex was consensual and that the woman was enthusiastic and willing.
As for the incriminating point I made: It’s how they think/feel about it. I don’t think it odd that a juror would be “thinking” to themselves “if he’s innocent why does he not take the stand and tell the truth.” Just how they may view it and how it might sway how they judge this. And this is NOT a criminal trial, anyway
I read all the evidence from day 1 and won't be reading through another day's because I find these descriptions too distressing. That's why I'm asking.
What I'm asking is there solid evidence ie. DNA or an admission from McGregor that he had sex with her? Because if not and his side claims it was the friend who did then it's his word against hers right?
Just on your post above can the jury deem something incriminating based off their opinion or is it strictly based off law? I can't see how legally not giving evidence personally can incriminate you. If you were to stand depending how it went it could help or go against you but legally letting your representatives handle the defence should be ok.
There is no conviction in a civil trial. A majority verdict is enough for him to be found liable.
Someone mentioned that he would give evidence. I don’t think he will; and if I was on a jury I’d see that as incriminating. If he believes he did nothing wrong, simply tell your story. Tell the truth
Is McGregor expected to give evidence do we know?
Also, with a jury of 12, will the verdict need to be majority or unanimous to convict?
Thanks
just on how this may or may not hurt his standing with fans and media etc.. our own Katie Taylor is all over Tyson… an idol of hers. A man unanimously found guilty of raping a woman in 1991.. as well as many anti woman/mysogonistic utterings
Well, yes. If you read the evidence presented…
The friend alleges he too had intercourse, a claim the woman has “denied,” as she says she cannot remember this. She says it’s a made up story
Have they specifically acknowledged this?
I think it’s fairly clear from McGregor’s own defence that they are not disputing that McGregor and the woman had intercourse
Is there evidence which proves he at least had sex with her? DNA or an admission from McGregor?
Or is it his word against hers? Are they claiming it was the friend who did it.
Has there been evidence submitted in court that she decline a settlement? I didn't think that was allowed.
Reminder, I'm referred to the "actions" as presented in court, that the jury are asked to decide upon. Not the settlement deals pre-court
Well the second one was still on the end of Covid, so there wasn't a crowd for it, the third was seen to be if he still had it in him, and he didn't.
I can't see him fighting ever again, what would be the need anyway at this point. He has the money.
And that's fair enough but only time can tell that. People said similar about his fights with Porier and they were global PPV gold.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/be7dfef52c39568e3031c82dac40deab.svg)
