I know you weren’t questioning guilt
I wasn't questioning guilt. Just reinforcing your point that there can be convictions.
yes. He was guilty alright.
You regularly see cases in the court where the incident happened years ago and there isn't a lot of physical evidence included in the article at least. (There was the case of a certain President of a Sporting organisation that you will be aware of which did appear to have some text messages etc. But other cases don't even seem to have that)
This claim of 0 chance conviction seems way off to me. Plenty rape trials have seen convictions with what some folks would deem to be very “suspect” evidence, and conversely, plenty rape trials see acquittal based off some solid evidence for a guilty verdict. It’s an extremely delicate and complicated area at times.
Sometimes certainty is just not possible. This case, not certain, but seems fairly solid evidence to say it happened
Not sure I would agree with your outlook -pretty much all of these cases come down to just two things:
Then the evidence that backs up their account let’s see how it goes
They’re certainly “drawing a picture” with CmcG in the hot seat this week - what impact it might have is up for debate
Deleted.
Watching this breakdown, the £64M question is:
When she got home to her partner, did he have rough or violent and vengeful sex with her, after which photos were taken and a tampon used. Was the tampon forensically examined?
I hate Mcgregor and his ilk, but his initial reaction to the allegation of preserving all evidence is not that of a guilty man. As a juror, these are questions I'd be asking.
Guilty as charged. Lock him up officer!
For all you know her ex is a nice guy. But mcgregor on the other hand is anything but a nice guy.
And she had a lump on her neck.
She was bruised all over her body though which is quite unusual : bruises on her neck, her torso, her legs, her buttocks, you name it.
I wonder did she get the bruises from her BF when she got home and he found out she'd be cheating. Might explain some of the deleted messages.
Boyfriend maybe? Knocked her about after hearing about her escapades? Bruises then used to advance a story...
plausible theory around this.
That was widely criticised and rightly so but there was definitive proof she was wearing one on the night. As far as I'm aware that was never put to her but was mentioned by defense counsel in her closing.
For me a huge contrast in the nature type and delivery of testimony between last week and this week between the two parties in question. I’ve heard nothing so far this week that would change my view on the powerful and detailed testimony I heard last week
What about if they were wearing a thong? Is that relevant? Cos that was brought up at a trial.
He would have to pay her money.
To be President of the United States of America you had to have been born there so that would rule him out.
It's not a criminal trial so what's he actually facing here if found guilty?
Did I read correctly that Trump has just passed some rule to say that Presidents can't be charged for any crime while they are in office?
So he can now basically murder someone and get away with it ?
If he's found guilty he should just move to the States, where a convicted rapist can become President.
Unless they have definitive information that's relevant to the case it's never brought up. I've been there for a lot of cases and there's never been any random questions about the alleged victims sexual history.
.....
None of this will matter anyway I'd say he has at this stage managed to get a few of the jury onto the payroll to ensure it goes his way.
exactly. That’s pretty much what defenders do in rape trials. They try to rip the victim to shreds to cast doubt. Defenders have next to no scruples, and will do whatever it takes to get an acquittal. It is why many rape victims don’t come forward. The trial can be so harrowing.
I've definitely read about lots of rape cases that were tried in criminal courts.
The defense teams in those cases brought up things like the alleged victims past sexual history, to try to make her look like a slut
Maybe in a civil case but it's very rare in criminal court. You can ask her questions but you cannot try and destroy her because she's a potential victim.
it explains it for the defence, maybe….
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
