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

On average about 2% of prosecutions result in convictions. Majority don't make it to trial due to a number of factors, too stressful/traumatic for the victim, intimidation from abuser etc.

We don't know why the DPP didn't bring this to trial but the victim was not satisfied with their decision and bravely pursued a civil trial against a very successful and influential scumbag. She did this knowing full well her name and the entire scenario would be out in the public domain and it would be a long and extremely stressful drawn out process.

Apologies Mr President-Elect. I meant no disrespect.

The DPP bringing/not bringing cases isn't an exact science.

Sometimes the DPP may not get it right, whatever "right" is, at times: The law (for all its details and rules etc) is still very much a human thing/condition. Humans make decisions in law that not everybody always agrees on, including those professionals that are involved in decisions.

If I hear another "why didn't the DPP prosecute" from idiots trying to claim that because no criminal trial was brought MUST mean no rape occurred….it does not at all mean that….same way a person being found not guilty dosn't always mean he/she is then innocent. Or a person found guilty doesn't always mean he/she is actually guilty. Nothing is precise/exact in all cases.

Relating to this civil verdict: Many people from what they read on it do believe that a rape occurred, and the jury also believe this. Are we correct here? I would be very sure that we are, but nobody can know for absolute certainty, which happens in many trials/cases

Very easy to google. "Boxing promoter Eddie Hearn has handed Conor McGregor a huge blow as the Irishman's Forged Stout is no longer the sponsor of Matchroom Boxing events."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/conor-mcgregor-ufc-boxing-news-34494706

It hasn't been explicably said but heavily implied by those questioning why charges weren't brought by the DPP.

She brought a civil suit, trial was had and he was found liable for sexual assault by a jury.

Many thanks, didn't show up when I googled just got when they teamed up! Cheers again.

Certainly challenging times ahead for the woman taking the US civil case - her name being leaked was pretty horrendous (not mentioned in article below I hasten to add) - but the reasons for the criminal prosecution being dropped are interesting - she may have an uphill battle.

https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/world-crime/leaked-memo-claims-conor-mcgregors-alleged-us-victim-asked-if-he-would-pay-her-off/a467546341.html

Millions do - there’s nowt so queer as folk as the saying goes.

you make a valid point but we can on speculate on what we are given

justice however should be public . I can only assume we got the full course of evidence in the press.

I don't want anybody's life ruined tbh.

but as a citizen I do expect fair justice in public.

Its easy to say McGregor is a scumbag and clearly some people are only delighted he was found liable because he is Conor - but could be me or you down the road in a similar predicament.

on a side note: Having been in court - I'd argue the jury isn't representative of the people be virtue of who gets excuses and the rest of the selection process. We can argue that another day. The same people lauding this jury will get pissy at another who rule the way they didn't want.

What has her having a good time got to do with the veracity of her story?

Unless you're saying that her being "all over" him gives him permission to have sex with her after she denies consent?

there are folks who think that if a woman is in any way intimate with a man that anything that happens after is fine, is his right and no issues. That’s what the world deals with related to the mindsets of some people.

You and a handful of others are desperate to undermine her based on a single piece of evidence. Meanwhile a jury saw that and a wealth of other evidence, you're not desperate to see medical reports which include the fact a tampon had to be surgically removed. You seem to only want to see what suits your view and that has nothing to do with the full picture that the jury saw.

You also don't seem to give a **** about the fact she was targeted by either associates of McGregor or his fans in the form of violent attacks.

It’s a good question. As another poster said, I think it comes down to the consequences of the verdict. If it’s a neighbourly dispute, probably no big deal, someone comes across as a bit of a loon or whatever. It doesn’t get much more serious than being found guilty of rape though and the consequences are pretty severe so in that case, should there not be a high burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt rather than the balance of probabilities?

In theory, could someone be found guilty of murder, on the balance of probabilities, in a civil court despite not being prosecuted? Do we want that or, given the consequences of being known as a murderer, should it always be beyond reasonable doubt ie criminal court only?

The absolute aggression towards people speculating is over the top here including the mods posts.
People are simply curious about Hand because of how she acted on the night before and after the events. It's not victim blaming to note that people are curious and should be allowed speculate as there is no camera evidence in the room where the events took place. People are leaning on character judgement and actions leading up to the event and mainly after the rape took place. Hence why people would like to see the cctv footage. I would also be very interested in seeing the medical records for the lads screaming over and over again that nobody cares about the medical records which are just as important.
The outcome was decided by a jury which could have gotten it wrong like plenty of Jury's have since the beginning of time. There’s also the possibility of bias in the jury which I don’t need to explain.

And for people saying you should have gone to the trial it was open to the public- Give your head a wobble. People including myself didn't really pay attention to the trial until certain evidence came out. I don’t think this trial was expected to blow up as much as it did at the time. Heres how it played out when I spoke to people in work when I wasn't following it.

Early in trial - People were saying she seems like a spoofer they have evidence of her laughing etc after the rape and deleted messages with lying and inconsistencies etc.
Later in trial - Medical evidence showed the damage caused and surgical removal of a tampon. He's a scumbag he's guilty and his mate is spoofing as well.

So at this point it grabbed my attention and decided to read up on everything only it was coming to a close at this stage. If I could go back in time I would consider attending. The whole thing caught my attention late on in the trial and I can guarantee it was the same for a lot of people.

Telling people to ask the DPP why they threw out the case or why didn’t you attend court that day is absolutely pointless and it’s a very weak counter to the points some posters are making about wanting to see the cctv footage or medical records.

Now back to the case another thing I find interesting is the low damages awarded for Hand.

If we take into account everything hand would have went through her damages should have amounted to far more than what was awarded

Assault/rape/mental trauma/loss of earnings/future relationship issue/future loss of earnings.

She should have been given over 2 million.

She won the reputation battle but got no payout basically.
McGregor suffered little financial impact but had his rep destroyed. The crowd has been pleased but neither mcg or hand won in court that day. Hand lost the most in my opinion.

People were also quick to jump at me that McGregor and his legal rep weren’t appealing the case as he only had 28 days or some other nonsense and this was another admission of guilt or that his legal team won’t challenge it but clearly his intentions seem to be the opposite according to the judges commentary the other day about the footage.

Mod - warned for ignoring moderator instruction