Conor McGregor Megathread *Mod Warning in OP Updated 20th April*

It makes a fair bit of sense given the fact there's strong evidence that Lawrence made the claim in the first place to cover for McGregor. She always made it clear that she hadn't slept with him. You're trying to introduce culture wars nonsense into this which I'd find far stranger TBH.

So they could have called him as a witness... You've got no evidence that they were certain to lose. In fact, going into the case it was always looking bad for McGregor. Her injuries including the tampon painted a pretty horrible picture. On top of that, McGregor's own story had actively changed.

Remind me where this finding of innocence was?

The jury believed Nikita hand.

She said she had no memory of having sex with Lawrence. Lawrence said they had consensual sex. If she couldn't remember she was not in a fit state to consent therefore it was rape. Therefore the jury appear to not believe him when he says they had sex so therefore he was not liable for rape. Sadly he wasn't up for being a lying scumbag.

I think you've misread what happened here.

James Lawrence presented himself in the Garda station after Conor McGregor was questioned by appointment, and stated that he had consensual relations with Nikita Hand. His legal advice was paid for by McGregor from day one. She maintained at all times that she never had sex with James Lawrence.

So it followed that either she never had relations and potentially he was the 'fall guy' for Conor McGregor, OR, she did have sex with James Lawrence but could not remember and therefore it was not consented to.

The jury had 2 options here.

1. He did have sex with her and it was without her consent - he would have been found liable.
2. He did not have sex with her - he was not liable

The jury found that he did not have sex with her and was not liable. The jury believed Nikita Hand who maintained at all times that she did not have sex with James Lawrence.

In the professional opinion of the judge, the jury found Lawrence not liable, not because they disbelieved Ms. Hand, but because they disbelieved Lawrence’s claim that any sexual intercourse occurred. Did you not read the judge’s summation?

The jury do NOT have to explain why they reached their verdicts/results

Hand made clear that she didn't sleep with him. He claims he had consensual sex with her.

Makes sense, he's claiming consensual sex and she's made clear it couldn't have been consensual particularly since she has no memory of such an event. You can carry on with your effort to vilify her. But Lawrence is the guy who concocted the story to cover for a rapist.

Question for you, do you agree with the jury's verdict on McGregor? Lawrence is not a victim in this story, he was happy to cover for a rapist and to interfere with a criminal case by claiming he had slept with her.

I understand where you are coming from, and I too would like a more clear and definitive ruling…..as in the actual jury detailing why exactly they found Lawrence not liable.

It's very likely they found him not liable because they disbelieved his claim. If this is the jury's reason, then this absolutely vindicates Ms. Hand, and sullies Lawrence

Now, if they found him not liable because they believed he had consensual sex with Ms. Hand, I would find this extraordinary. I think it's very unlikely this to be the case. If it was the case, it really begs the question (not sure exactly the right phrase here), how could they then find McGregor liable. She hardly was raped by McGregor and then hours later is having consensual sex with Lawrence. This narrative just doesn't add up.

The judge opines that Lawrence and McGregor concocted a lie here to try win….the judge I think is right

Just pointing out that it's quite clear what happened in this case, it's quite clear what the judge said yesterday, it's extremely clear who the victim is in this case and it's extremely clear that there's one absolute scumbag and another who decided to lie to back up his mate.

So once you have a couple of posters popping in being contrary, it's obvious what kinds of posters these are by analysing their language. Once they start talking about "agendas" and "narratives" it gives them away.

It's best not to feed them in my opinion.