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

So pretty much these two people can lie about what they saw, and very difficult to prove it a lie.. but.. at same time they are very unlikely to be able to prove what they’re alleging they witnessed; and Ms. Hand can deny what they’re alleging they saw, and it also being very difficult to prove Ms Hand wrong! Kind of a stalemate. Pointless?

I didn't think new evidence could be introduced at an appeal.

I wonder if this is the same Steven Cummins. Seems like a stand up guy if it is.

Apparently their bedroom doesn’t face the house- it’s their child’s bedroom that faces their house according to Hand.

Ms Hand is admitting now that she did have an argument with her partner(not sure this was mentioned at the trial?) - it’s an important point in fairness and the partner did leave the house that night in his car - was any of this covered in the trial? I don’t recall that it was. I remember the phone recording of the conversation by the partner , which in itself, now becomes a much more significant piece of evidence for different reasons if a new trial happened

- the argument Hand says was downstairs not upstairs and no violence took place - so has the argument been made out to be something more than it was by the eyewitness? 2+2=5?

Or is this new account an accurate reflection of what happened?

The fact that this new “eyewitness” admits that she didn’t actually see Ms Hand hit as “she was on the ground” and hence has interpreted her partners actions from across the street is certainly not a definitive account of what may have occurred

The timing of it is also absurd - if they feel so compelled to speak out now, why didn’t they come forward earlier?

Will be interesting to see if these witnesses are allowed to be cross examined in terms of reaching a decision on the appeal

“In her affidavit, Ms Hand said she and Mr Redmond had “a verbal argument” downstairs when she returned home that night, a recording of which was heard by the jury.“We never went upstairs while the argument was going on, as our daughter was sleeping upstairs and we didn’t want to wake her,” she said.“The volume of the argument was not so loud that it could conceivably be heard in Samantha and Steven’s house across the road.”Ms Hand said she went upstairs to check on her daughter only after Mr Redmond left the house.She denied a claim by Ms O’Reilly that she came out of her house in a distraught state or that she spoke to Ms O’Reilly on the street.“I did not come out of the house screaming after Ste left, and I did not see or interact with Samantha on the night. I had no conversation with Sam­antha or Steven about the night at any stage,” she said.”

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/i-dont-know-why-they-are-making-up-these-lies-nikita-hand-hits-back-at-suggestion-she-was-assaulted-by-former-partner/a1436016791.html

It'd be all cash unless they're all incredibly thick.

Ah so the “recording” is the “argument”?

That changes things - this new “evidence” needs serious scrutiny - it should be easy to determine truth and validity

“In her affidavit, Ms Hand said she and Mr Redmond had “a verbal argument” downstairs when she returned home that night, a recording of which was heard by the jury.“We never went upstairs while the argument was going on, as our daughter was sleeping upstairs and we didn’t want to wake her,” she said.“

'Motive and opportunity' I cant see what McGregor's motive was in beating up Hand but I can certainly see that her ex partner could be in a jealous rage at her. I think this tips the balance of probabilities and McGregor is innocent in this case.

Follow the motives (and money). Everyone is a winner by blaming McGregor, except of course McGregor.

the Venn diagram between incels and McGregor simps is almost a circle

not near as eazy to disguise and use cash these days compared to years ago. All eyes on them as well. CAB!!!!

Nobody, including Ms. Hand said that McGregor beat her up. He was accused of rape, and during this alleged rape, she was bruised. That can happen without the man “beating” her up, which strongly implies punching, hitting etc.

the reason we have Trump is the Democrats first put up a dementia patient as their candidate then replaced him with a pitiful substitute who among other things changed her accent depending on where she was canvassing. The Labour government in power led by Starmer are actually making the Tories seem like a better proposition each day. Brexit was a straight yes or no vote so bears no relevance to the discussion

it’s certainly more democratic than the sort of shenanigans that we have seen in various elections. Cyprian Brady being a prime example. Elected with fewer that 950 first preference votes due to his running mate Bertie favouring him over a female candidate , also FF who received more first preference votes

It's not representative of the voting public.

For example, a candidate with a minority of the vote can win the seat. This also means a party can have a large amount of votes and return few seats.

The single transferable vote is much fairer and represents the voting public much better.

Personally I'm glad that a rapist isn't gonna be allowed to run. What a weird hill to die on.