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

The jury didn't make any conclusion on if Lawrence had made up having sex with Hand to cover for McGregor.

You realise relationships collapsing after a rape is not uncommon? Partners can and do frequently disbelieve there was a rape. This doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. If anything, it highlights how difficult it is for a rape victim to come forward.

Point out the errors in the case.

As I see it Lawrence introudced himself into the whole matters by making a claim which unduobtedly had some bearing on the DPP's decision not to take criminal proceedings against McGregor.

It would have been inconsistent for Ms Hand to have taken a civil case against McGregor and not take a smilar case against Lawrence, an inconsistency which could have been used against her in both cases.

Lawrence's claims raised the bar for both criminal and civil proceedings and, it would appear, partially successful in their effect.

From reporting on the case it seems medical evidence did not support Lawrence's claims.

I'm sure many have strong suspicions about Lawrence's motivation for his claims but there is a difference between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. Proving those suspicions would be difficult.

all well and good. But this was tried in a civil court and the jury of peers returned a verdict holding McGregor liable for rape. In some rape cases the truth can be clouded, obscure etc. We know this.

After the jury heard all the evidence presented they returned their verdict on McGregor, a verdict that appears sound and a verdict bolstered by the very fact that Lawrence was found not liable.

Not liable because in the judge’s professional opinion, the jury did not believe Lawrence; it’s very likely Lawrence and McGregor concocted this lie to try get off.

I have no real argument with anyone thinking that this case was challenging and tough to decide on, but some of the commentary reels of clutching and victim blaming.

For many it’s as grotesque as them simply thinking that if she was in any way intimate, then McGregor was free to do as he pleased..

That may be a fair point but your posting content also leaves open a reasonable interpretation that you seem to be a much bigger fan of whataboutery, victim banning and general shitehousery

’On balance, is it likely or unlikely that a man would make up a story to say he slept with a woman, who has accused another extremely high profile man of rape. Just look at the damage that has been done to his reputation.’

on balance I’d say it’s extremely likely a ‘patsy’ will make up a story on request of his millionaire mate as it’s a key feature of his role as a patsy and the defence . I’m sure he was compensated and as for his reputation, not sure he was running for Mayor or Batchelor of the year anytime soon.

I don’t disagree with anything here. But the absence of any DNA linking them to having had intercourse would point to no intercourse more being likely

Then you’re wondering well if they were not having sex, what were they doing in the room?

Bearing in mind that Ms. Hand did say she was drunk throughout and could not remember parts of the day.

One thing is very true: the judge saying it was a peculiar case

Sorry, I'm confused with the case with James Lawrence, can Nikita sue him for his lies? I know he was introduced on McGregor side but he lied, she should want to go after him

I won't comment any more on the specifics because I just don't know what happened and it makes me feel a bit disturbed questioning someone's account but I think it is important to rationally analyse these cases in order have a fair and just society. I didn't see all of the evidence and I'm not sure how I would have voted on the jury on this one if I had.

I was on a jury before and I was of the opinion that we should convict in what was a she said / he said case. In that case, there was no reason for the victim to be making false allegations. But I was constantly asking myself, could she be making this up… why?

I just don't know how posters can be categoric on this one and I'm wary of a herd mentality developing in such cases.

There has been an allegation posted a few times that the judge mad a decision on costs which went against the rules on such matters.

Generally speaking costs follow the judgement. If you win the other side pays, if you lose you pay.

Judges do have discretion on when they can vary their ruling in relation to costs as I quoted previously in post #1142

"the terms of s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the default position is that the party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs against the party who is unsuccessful, unless the court orders otherwise, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the proceedings by the parties, including a non-exhaustive list of factors to which the court may have regard."

So the judge was open to do what he did as per the above quote from a recent Court of Appeal decision.

In my 25 years in an around courts, judges do that all the time for any amount of reasons such as

*the case was important in terms of an important legal principle/individual right

*losing party was decent person who presented well

*winning party was a complete (unt on paper and during course of the trial.

Some judges very frequently do it other rarely do it. I'm no idea of the "form" of the judge in this matter.

Ignoring court rules, technical points of law, high minded idea of justice etc how people present in court is everything. If you present in an arrogant manner, dislikeable etc etc you are on the back foot with the judge and in this case the jury also.

In other words you are getting fcuked.

In saying that whether they were unsure of award level, given their verdict 250k is a sh1t amount of damages considering the nature of the assault and its obvious impact.

I'm not sure you're the right person to be talking about distinctions.

Earlier in the thread you were describing the adverse reactions and consequences that McGregor is suffering as "Woke" and "Cancel Culture"

You're incorrect.

Lawrence said he had sex with Hand.

Hand said they never had sex.

The jury found that Hand was telling the truth, that they never had sex and therefore Lawrence can't have assaulted her.

she “falsely” accused nobody.. him being found not liable for rape does not then mean she falsely accused him of rape. Wake up