I have to agree. Solicitors and barristers will advise taking a lower offer than what they'd expect to get in court for safety. You don't know you'll win and you don't know what the judge will decide it's worth.
It had to be really low for them to recommend rejecting it.
Gardai are trained to take statements from rape victims. They can in fact take days to do properly. There is nothing odd about a long detailed statement, particularly if taken by a competent member.
If she is a victim of rape, I can't say that she has been badly advised to not take a big pay offer,.or that she is a moron for not taking the offer. Why? Because - if she is a victim - I think money is unlikely to be her motivation. Road traffic accident? Take the money. Got punched on a night out? Take the money. Unfair dismissal? Take the money.
But where someone is a high profile figure has raped you, has had form for this sort of behaviour in the past, is offering you money to keep quiet and where you believe he will continue to behave in this way, then having your day in court is highly motivating. Especially where you may have been suffering from low mental health since the incident and might be looking for some sort of resolution, some sort of outlet for your anger.
yep. It really is a different type of “assault-injury” to a person.
you don't have to prove anything though, people often make that mistake
you just have to convince the jury its the most likely case
who is lying basically
the key here is surely the bruising, be hard for the defense to explain these away
was she actually offered a pay off?
Sorry I didn't realise that was an attempt at a joke.
Definitely don't give up the day job if you think that was funny.
The world needs ditch diggers too you know.
On another site they linked an article from a newspaper think it was 2019 implying she'd been offered 1 million, I'll see can I find it, don't know if its true of course.
I've had athletic, prolonged and enthusiastic sex, and I have never once been bruised.
The paramedic said that she was bruised all over her body. That she had extremely bad bruising and marks on her neck as well.
unfortunately, newpapers will knowingly print lies
Is he still playing sport?
If he is found liable for this, he won't care about paying her money.
But it will potentially stop him playing sport again. And it will also affect his businesses.
How many times have you heard of a 150 page statement?
Thats what i initislly thought. Unless hes absolutely certain he will he get off, He might have been more sensible paying her money out of court. As if he is found liable here, he will not only have to pay money, it will also damage his businesses and his career.
But then i thought: that doesnt really work. If you pay somoeone off (settle outside of court) people always find out sooner or later. And it would damage his career anyway.
Remember when michael jackson paid off that kid, and everyone found out. Remember when Trump paid off stormy daniels and everyone found out
Maybe prove was the wrong choice of word. I didn't mean it in that sense. It doesn't matter though, some jury members won't accept something unless they are completely convinced even though that's not the standard that has to be met.
he has more money than he know what to do with, has businesses, was in a film
these allegations have been around ages, hasn't made a dent
hes 36/37 now, sporting days behind him, ufc fans lap this stuff up anyway
that's why you don't need it to be unanimous
there have always been eejits
There's also the process of removing jurors at the start, most take the instructions pretty seriously
What's the split, male to female? I asked because believe it or not it's well known that it's harder to convince women.
no idea
any research in that area would be fraught with issues and assumptions
How long is the trial going on for?
We don't know. If she was, it would have been through his solicitor and would have been without prejudice to the civil hearing. Which means neither he nor she would be allowed to mention it during the course of the hearing.
She may not even be allowed to mention it after the hearing. Sometimes an approach is made where they say X person is willing to make an offer but you have to sign an NDA beforehand so that you are never allowed to mention the amount of the offer, whatever the outcome of the hearing. If she didn't sign that NDA, she might not even know how much the offer would have been.
Now, maybe Conor didn't make an offer. But I find that unbelievable. Even if he didn't do it, there's lots about this particular case you wouldn't want aired in public court, added to the risk that the jury would find against you. He makes his money off his public persona - even a civil action would make a dent in that. Maybe some companies might not want to buy your whiskey company or might not want sell you a particular property. It's not as good as getting a criminal conviction would it would certainly put a dent in his career.
Plenty. Particularly in sexual assault cases.
8 Women to 4 Men. If they apply some of George Hook's common sense she is in trouble.
It's weird. Because in my opinion a lot of what she says doesn't really add up. And of course there's clearly a motive for someone to sue a millionaire. Which would all add up to her lying.
However the bruising all over her body suggests that she is telling the truth.
I wonder what they'll decide.
Yes to the civil hearing, but could easily be reported on, as many of these settlements are reported on, even when accepted
McGregor's target market clearly have no problem with his behaviour, if anything they lap it up
And when you have over 100m it doesn't matter what you do
I do see a bit of disconnect between how some men and women think online on some of the online forums.
I see some male posters saying on a different forum "sure she went back to the hotel room she obviously wanted sex".
Whereas a woman going back to a hotel room wouldn't necessarily think -that is saying that she wants sex.
She could go back to the hotel, and just be thinking that she wants to continue the party somewhere.
I actually remember something similiar happening to myself. I was in my early twenties and I was out partying with a big gang of people. One of the guys rented a hotel room after the nightclub and a lot of us went there after the party.
It was a big hotel room and at one stage he followed me into the bathroom and started trying to get me on the floor to lie down. He did push me down on the floor. And i was lying on the floor and he was lying over me. And I said "no stop I don't want this".
And luckily he did stop.
But he did say to me "what did you think I got a hotel room for". And he was really angry at me.
He had thought getting a hotel room equalled sex, whereas I had thought going to the hotel room with a group was just continuing the party.
I was definitely more wary after that. But that's not in a good way really. I get nervous about even going into men's houses or flats (i have male friends) in case they get the wrong idea
She can go there maybe thinking sex is on the cards and change her mind
I presume when on a jury at least most will take it somewhat seriously
I think it's a really difficult concept for some people to understand that you might change your mind.
Yes or that even if the woman goes to a hotel room - that the man is not entitled to sex.
And vice versa
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/761dc761e98b4e4a2ae41c6abf8a928b.svg)