Did you see all the cctv footage because if not, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Well you obviously are on mcgregors payroll so.
All those other instances where there were suspicions of abuse I presume that you believe McGregor was innocent in those cases too?
What you think about the jury amounts to absolutely zero! You're entitled to your opinion, just as you're entitled to sign up in Jan 2025 and mysteriously spend your time rehashing the evidence of the trial and skewing it towards McGregor's story. Doesn't mean anyone should give a toss
As an aside, the current case going on between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is a really interesting one with regard to how celebrities will use lawyers to supress negative stories about them coming out, but how they will also use PR firms to push their narrative also in the press but through sock-puppet accounts online, on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc. Next time you're arguing with someone online about something clear as day, but their push back flies in the face of all evidence……… consider there's a chance they're not arguing in good faith at all https://web.archive.org/web/20250128015752/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html
People are allowed to hold a different opinion to you. Seriously, what's with the anger?
He may or may not have committed other crimes he's been accused of. He certainly has a track record of losing his temper and assaulting people. However, each accusation needs to be judged on its own merits.
At the start of the civil assault case against McGregor I believed he was probably guilty based upon his track record of openly being a general scumbag since 2018. However, upon reviewing the evidence of the case I don't think he sexually assaulted Nikita Hand.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Papagei joined boards on January 16th, suspicious.
Since you're clearly an expert on the case after studying all the evidence, how do you explain all the physical evidence? Statements from medical professionals, paramedics etc etc? I'm guessing everyone on the stand was lying apart from McGregor and his mate.
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out that your opinion means absolutely zero. If it IS an actual opinion, which i'm not convinced by.
Eh ok, good luck then.
There are many ways people can be injured, just because she had injuries doesn't mean Conor McGregor caused them. Nikita Hand was jovial and flirtatious with Conor's friend after she claims that the severe injuries were inflicted by Conor McGregor. The CCTV footage suggests she hadn't been severely injured shortly before that footage took was recorded.
I think anyone who claims they know for certain whether he did or didn't commit the crime is biased. This was a complex case with inconclusive evidence. I personally don't believe he raped her, but not with 100% certainty. I'd be about 80% certain that he didn't rape her.
Dude, this argument was had. In court. Conor was found liable.
You're defending a rapist. Get over it.
What do people think about him having his McMansion planning permission denied.
In fairness, even if he is a rapist *rsehole who should be in jail, it doesn't mean government agencies can refuse applications (as long as, of course, they comply with legislation and guidance). I don't like government agencies refusing to deal with him just because they don't like him. That sets a dangerous precedent.
You're projecting, it seems you can't get over someone having a different opinion to you. You're letting your hatred of Conor McGregor cloud your judgement affect you emotionally.
It was a civil court, he is innocent of rape.
This is the same Lawrence who stayed up till 7am at Krystal but doesn't drink or do drugs and just had a "couple vodka lucozades", then was able to have sex on 5 different occasions? The chap must be some go-er. This is the same Lawrence who respects woman cause he has a family full of them but yet is a grown adult who takes €50 from his ma and runs out the house in his socks cause he knew a ride may be on the table (some respect) The same Lawrence who slated Nikitta straight away with a vile post he can't even spell in which was backed up by his mate McGregor,, but remember he respects woman. I have heard strong claims the chap is a dealer around the area also, i've no doubt he came out with the bag. Who would Conor knock for a fella who doesnt drink for a 3 day bender and not one of his other "session mates"
That's all well and good, the CCTV footage supports his account of events, it doesn't support Nikita Hand's account of events. Just because everything you have written, doesn't mean he didn't have sex with her. The CCTV footage and the fact they went back and booked into the room suggests they did indeed have sex.
You don't have to be convicted under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 in order to be called a rapist. A civil court has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, he raped Nikita Hand. That is sufficient.
Yeah, we should all let the facts that Conor McGregor is a rapist and abuser not cloud our judgements on what kind of person he is.
Unless there is a sextape of the event actually happening its all well and good seeing a video an hour or so before. Just because there is a video in the lift it doesn't mean they had sex up in the room
See its pretty easy, but the chap equally has holes all over his story that suggests he is the fall guy, I expect they were hoping Nikitta to say "she was with him" but she was clear in that scenario she wasn't. How does CCTV footage suggest they had it, unless you can see them have it its hearsay between 2 people. This is where opinion comes in and the jury that was picked for that trial that DID see the video, say this plus other things DOESNT exactly mean they had it. Lawrence has painted himself to be the clown he is. He potentially could have handled it alot better and came out decent from this but when Conor says jump he says how high
So why was he convicted if it supported her story
Well he wasn't convicted, the DPP rejected the case as there was insufficient evidence. He was found civilly liable. You would have to ask the jury. By the sounds of it he ranted like a thug in the courtroom, I'm sure that didn't help his case.
10 words in brackets kets you reveal you have no idea why it was denied yet for the whole rest of the post you are certain it's because they don't like him
Sorry you are right not convicted held liable more likely then not he sexually assaulted her
He was denied because it was not fitting in with the county plan i.e. the house is too large. Now, from what I can see from his submission, the house cannot be seen from the road. It is set far enough back in from a main road, with high gates, walls and trees obscuring the house from view. Where is the actual detriment here? They're not saying that the larger house will have a detrimental effect on the environment - they are happy for him to demolish the current house and build a slightly smaller one. That seems like nonsense to me. The land is his, he's not building his (probably a bit garish) McMansion on the main road. I assume the house is normal looking, just large. It's not like he's building a gold plated windmill or anything.
I have some sympathy with their inclination not to make it easy for him, but it's not within their power to deny him permission just because they don't want his new money McMansion in their area.
Of course it's within there power. They will use any planning regulation that fits and it is used every month to deny people building there house on there land from just a bit to big, not live here long enough to Mr Ms have made a compelling argument
You're not convincing anyone mate.
It's borderline impossible to get planning for any sort of one off house. I don't think this issue is unique to McGregor.
Nobody has to be convinced, everyone is free to their views on the matter.
