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

He is definitely trying to break Nikita and warn anyone going against him that he'll make their lives hell. I'm sure Nikita just wants her life back

He had to appeal if he was going to continue to protest his innocence.

If you are going around saying you’re innocent and you don’t appeal the verdict then it’s a bit of a contradiction.
I think he had to appeal to keep up the facade.

His bid to overturn a civil case finding that he sexually assaulted a woman in a Dublin hotel seven years ago is due to be heard on 21 March at the Court of Appeal.

Well that would be absolutely fantastic!

It's ok though cause he got the love from the White House/Oval Office orange buffoon.

I saw that on reddit. The whole crowd booing him.

There's one comment I saw which was along the lines of, if i was there I'd have booed but i would have looked over my shoulder first to make sure the fecker wasn't standing behind me :D

You can say 'end of story' but it's a valid point though.

He was found guilty in a civil case, not a criminal case. Different standards of proof, with the criminal case needing a higher level of proof. The DPP reckoned there wasn't enough proof for a reasonable chance of a criminal conviction so it's fair to bring up that point.

It's not a muck throwing exercise, it's stating a fact. I'm certainly not arguing that he didn't rape Nikita Hand. I agree with the jury finding him guilty in the civil case. Whether or not it was my mother or sister that was raped doesn't change the fact that the DPP didn't press charges because they weren't confident of a conviction.

I'm not defending McGregor here in case you think I am. I think he is a scumbag of the highest order but the fact is that the DPP didn't press charges.

I also think Nikita Hand is very brave for doing what she did.

There is a difference though between the difficulty in bringing cases to a successful outcome versus taking a case at all.

The DPP looked at this case and found there wasn't enough credible evidence to take it to trial, the burden of proof in a civil case is nowhere near what it is in a criminal case.

Criminal case, you have to convince beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something. A civil case is simply on the balance of probability and there is a good reason criminal cases don't work that way.

I have no problem either with the civil case going against him, and I certainly don't think McGregor is anything other than a complete scumbag for that matter, nor does the civil case evidence show him to be anything else.

But it's not as simple as claiming that McGregor definitely did it, and that the evidence irrefutably proves it, and the DPP somehow got it completely wrong.

As for McGregor himself, sooner or later his behavior will catch up to him one way or another. I don't like the phrase "no smoke without fire" generally but in his case he's lighting bonfires in recent years.

"If he actually raped her, I don't think he'd appeal…"

Yes, because Conor McGregor has always been a gracious loser and accepting when he's had his arse handed to him.

The evidence, such as that from the paramedic and the doctor who had to ply her tampon out of her, suggests he absolutely raped her and the jury and the judge agree.