He wasn't found guilty. The DPP rejected the case. He was found civilly liable. I believe the jury got that wrong.
Did you sit in the court every day hearing all the evidence?
I followed reporting of the evidence. I disagree with the jury's decision, I think they got it wrong.
If only the law of the land worked like that.
well you didn’t sit through days of evidence, so nobody cares what you think. What matters are the 12 jurors’ verdict. Found liable for sexual assault (rape).
This is a discussion forum where people share their views. Not sure why you have such a hostile tone.
fair point. I didn’t intend to come across hostile. Apologies.
Mod Edit
Warning issued.
Are you in a good position to question the verdict if you didn’t sit through all the same evidence?
liable for sexual assault (rape) in a civil trial is all I said: 12 people on a jury believed he raped her..after they sat through both sides of the argument
And here’s one: if he was really innocent, then far more likely he’d found not liable. But he was unanimously found liable.. tells a story.. and kind of fits your labeling him a scumbag of the highest order
Yes. The plaintiff's story was full of holes as proven by cctv and phone records. Conor McGregor's story was consistent with CCTV and the accounts of the colleague of the plaintiff, who was within 12 feet of the encounter between Conor McGregor and the plaintiff. Furthermore the behaviour of the plaintiff following the alleged encounter was not consistent with someone who had been severely injured shortly before.
To add to this, we know that the plaintiff is willing to falsely accuse someone of rape, as she accused Conor's friend of rape despite not actually believing that they had sex.
yes, so consistent that his patsy, Lawrence was found not liable for sexual assault because the jury did not believe he had sex with the woman. A concocted story by the two that nobody believed.
And nobody claimed Ms. Hand was severely injured.
I don’t think you have interpreted the facts correctly. She didn’t accuse Lawrence of rape.
He claimed they had consensual sex. She said this did not happen, and if they had sex, it had to be because it was not consensual on her part. He instigated this. And guess what? The jury did not believe his claim, and there was 0 DNA evidence that they had sex..
I’m finding it hard to understand how you don’t need to sit through the same evidence as the jury to be in a position to challenge their decision.
The evidence was explained and detailed during live reporting of the trial.
The friend claimed he wore a condom, so there wouldn't be DNA evidence of sex.
the friend’s claims were absolute nonsense. And the jury did not believe him.
I believe the friend's story and do believe they had sex. His account of evidents is validated by the CCTV footage, whereas the plaintiff's was invalidated by the CCTV footage. The CCTV footage indicated she had romantic intentions towards him, judging by her groping and flirting with him in the lift. Furthermore, they both decided to go back to the hotel after Conor and Danielle had left. That is behaviour that supports Conor's friends account of events that they had sex. Why did they go back to the hotel and book back into the room if they didn't intend to have sex?
On what basis are they absolute nonsense? The CCTV footage supports his account of events. What evidence is there that would make you think his account is nonsense?
Why do a jury have to attend the court room for a trial?
In what way? He comes across as a far more decent person than Mr. McG. There was even a video doing the rounds there a while back of him getting kicked off a plane (basically for looking a bit too muslimy while sitting beside the emergency door… although they didn't say that…..they said one of the staff was uncomfortable with whether he would be able to open it in the event an emergency……) and he was just calm and stood his ground and then got off when they told him to.
He fair battered Mcgregor though too.
..
.....
Absolute nonsense. His side of the story involved his mate having sex with her afterwards, which was determined by the jury AND the judge to have been completely fabricated. Most likely he wasinserted into the triall by McGregor to throw shade and doubt on Nikita Hand's case. Why would he feel the need to do this if he was so sure of being an innocent party? You can disagree with the verdict all you want, but it makes about as much difference as it does if you disagreed with the the scorecards for Bisping v Hamill, or disagreed that Superman would beat Batman in a fight. Absolutely none!
Why are you comparing him to McGregor and quoting me? I despise McGregor, I assumed you'd get that from the first few words of my post.
I didn't say otherwise. I compared him to the other fella as the thread is about him and posts are supposed to relate to MMA only. So I included the fact that he battered him
What are you talking about?? You on mcgregors payroll!!!!
I despise McGregor and I'm delighted he lost but it could have went either way. I honestly thought he'd get away with it because of the amount of question marks there were surrounding her behaviour before and after the incident.
I truly believe he did it but it wasn't an open and shut case by any stretch.
I think the jury were wrong, I don't think it was fabricated. Why would they return to the hotel together and check back into the hotel room if they weren't going back for sex? We already know the plaintiff was romantically interested in McGregor's friend by the way she was flirting with him and groping him in the lift. There is no evidence to suggest McGregor's friend was lying about having sex. The CCTV footage supports his account of events and invalidates the plaintiff's account of events.
My comment you quoted explains what I'm talking about.
