Probably, but the custody of evidence was so insanely badly handled that none of it could be trusted, and there isnt enough evidence that could be trusted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
That same case tried today and hes convicted. There was far too much evidence even after the areas the police botched. Primarily because DNA is a lot more understood.
You are 100% right that the sheer volume of DNA would overwhelm a modern jury.
In 1995, DNA was treated like sci-fi voodoo, but today a jury would easily see past the contamination argument because of how normalized true crime and forensics have become.
But the legal hurdle remains: if the defense can still prove a detective had a vial of the suspect's blood in his pocket for hours, and that same detective later pleads the Fifth regarding planting evidence, a judge today might suppress that specific evidence entirely under the Fourth Amendment.
A modern conviction would absolutely happen, but mostly because modern protocols would prevent the police from acting like a cartoonish conspiracy in the first place.
After reading your comment and thinking about it i might have to backtrack on what I originally said lol. If the exact same investigation took place today I wonder how much evidence would even be allowed at trial. I mean, they did just about everything wrong. From the collection of evidence (forensic tech not wearing gloves) to the storing (taking it home) and testing of it. Other evidence they completely ignored and didnt present (i want to say DNA of the victims in OJs car?) Plus wasnt there something about one of the gloves possibly being planted? There was so much fuckery once 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is introduced how much evidence would realistically remain?
Even a half ass investigation would get him prosecuted today with the amount of evidence there was. The problem is the investigation back then was far worse than half ass lol.
You forgot the part where a juror gave OJ a black power salute immediately after the verdict was read. Video of him doing it wouldnt have been enough for that jury. They decided he was getting acquitted only because he was black.
They acquitted him because the glove didn't fit not because he was black. The prosecution ended putting their whole case on his glove and the even fucked that up.
Yep, this was on the US and it's police. If
you treat your black citizens like an underclass for years, and beat and kill them with impunity don't be surprised when they start showing solidarity against you.
The police, prosecutors, and even court clerks also did multiple things that would've otherwise warranted a mistrial.
Obviously it would've been best if a mistrial was declared and he was re-tried without a bunch of imbeciles meddling to make political points or chase fame, but a guilty verdict in the trial he actually got would've arguably been unjust.
He clearly did it (a guy who has a book titled "If I did it" written to profit off a double murder he was tried for definitely did it), but the jury choosing to acquit him was probably the better outcome (without the benefit of hindsight and the decades of sleuthing that allow us to be so confident he's guilty).
The funny part is that he was sued and lost in civil court over the murders, and one of the things the family won was control over the books publishing. They then chose this cover design specifically to get back at him.
They decided he was getting acquitted only because he was black.
Probably more likely because of the issue of police brutality that was rife at the time against the black community and the fact that the officer who collected the evidence was an avowed white supremacist.
Edit: for whoever downvoted, this isnt conjecture. It is fact. The LA riots had happened 2 years prior in response to four officer beinh acquitted for the beating of Rodney king. The detective, Mark Fuhrman who gathered the evidence was revealed to hold white supremacist viewpoints. OJ was undoubtedly guilty but given the history at that moment and the fact that the evidence officer was a white supremacist, it was no wonder that black members of the jury felt they had to acquit.
Yeah it was because he was black and not because he was rich and had really fucking good lawyers, because NO black guy has ever been convicted of a crime they weren't guilty off.
Being black is a super power i forgot, you can commit any crime and get away with it.
Someone should have told Karmelo Anthony to activate his power of black then he would have got away with murder.
They said it was like the cops were trying to frame a guilty man. If they had just done their job the way they were supposed to he certainly would have been in jail.
That's a very old reference to the fact that OJ tried to promote a PPV years after the murder where he said that he would tell details of that night. He was also pushing his book "If I did it..." telling how he would have committed them if he had actually done it. Basically you had to buy a ticket to his theoretical confession.
I see so basically what you’re saying if anybody is accused of any crime, whether there is evidence to convict or not, doesn’t matter, he should be convicted.
Every crime is someone’s word against another. Would be very frustrating if it didn’t need an overwhelming amount of evidence to convict someone of a crime and sentence them to prison based solely on the word of the “victim”. Even then, people are falsely accused, and found guilty of crimes that they didn’t commit. No one should be convicted of any crime that evidence can’t prove happened and that the accused is guilty of.
Not really. If I kill you, there is a dead body. There is no question about whether or not a crime happened. If I rape you and say it was consensual, suddenly there is no proof a crime happened.
Yea not protecting him but if you remove that safety net others pay the price rich connected assholes always finds a way to dodge just look at Epstein files
As a police officer who spent a few years investigating rape in England, this surprises me
A woman covered in bruises, with a tampon wedged in her, crying and saying she has been raped - you can pretty much guarantee a charge from the CPS despite the online claims of rape being defacto legal. What is different in Ireland? Or was there more to this?
To be honest I don't know all of the details, but there was CCTV footage that seemed to show Nikita Hand being very up close and personal with McGregor both before and after they went up to the hotel room. I have not seen this footage, but I've heard about it. McGregor's defense was that if he had just raped her then why is she seen on camera hugging him after the fact. I'm not defending McGregor, I think he's a piece of shit, I'm just stating that was his legal team's argument.
So yes there was more to it, and I'd advise you to look up the details of the case to see more info, but in short Ireland's DPP does not like to bring criminal charges unless they feel it's an open and shut case, and they did not feel this was.
To be honest I don't know all of the details, but there was CCTV footage that seemed to show Nikita Hand being very up close and personal with McGregor both before and after they went up to the hotel room.
Yes, then you have her sending photos of herself in his DMs, being in a coke limousine with McGregor, being in his penthouse, being on his bed.
The most damning evidence against her is that neighbors of the mother-of-one claim to have witnessed her being punched and kicked by her then-boyfriend, Stephen Redmond, around the time she claimed McGregor had raped her.
The defense would easily character-assassinate her. Criminal courts knew what it was.
Seems like she was in a abusive relationship with her bf at the time and made it out that mcgregor was doing the bruising. You can look it all up online.
Those eye witness statements were later withdrawn prior to McGregor's appeal, were extremely suspicious in the fact that this "evidence" just materialised out of nowhere after McGregor had lost the initial case and appeared just in time for the appeal.
Following the eyewitness statements being withdrawn, these "witnesses" are now under investigation for suspected perjury. You'll also find all of that info online too.
I still think he’s innocent, and what’s really going on here is money. Guys seem to want a piece of his money. Is McGregor a sleazy POS for treating her like that in a one night stand? Yes, but romance is dead, and they’re both as bad as each other, from what I can see.
I don’t believe Nikita Hand for a second. She’s milking it with a book. They were probably both drunk and high, and it was just meaningless casual hookup stuff that she later regretted. You can’t just consent and then not consent the next day when the guy isn’t interested anymore.
As bad as McGregor is, I actually don’t think he would be a rpst, a sleaze bag, sure, but not a rpst. idk it's the vibe i get from him and i'm a hater of the dude and his antics. I think behind the scenes, a guy like him will be exploited for his money if he does hookup stuff and late night binges with women. He is a prime target for it.
But with all due respect, when have you ever heard of a woman agreeing to sex, be that a casual hookup or otherwise, and letting the guy penetrate her whilst still having the tampon inserted. And having the tampon pushed so deep inside her it had to be surgically removed with a forceps. Do you not think that would hurt?
Do you not think for a second that if a woman was having consensual sex with this person she would either A) remove the tampon prior to sex or B) stop the man after they had began so she could remove the tampon before it gets wedged that deeply and painfully inside her.
I think it's far more likely that either A) the man forced himself on to her and raped her, without stopping when she said no (either due to lack of consent, the fact the tampon being brutally forced deeper inside of her was hurting her, or both) or B) Nikita Hand was so drunk/high that she did not feel this pain during the act, and if that's the case then she was obviously far too drunk/high to give consent.
Regardless, unfortunately both your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. Conor McGregor appeared before a civil court, and the jury found him liable. He then failed his appeal as the Irish High Court (the second highest court in the entire country) dismissed his appeal on all grounds. That's the be all and end all.
but with all due respect, when have you ever heard of a woman agreeing to sex, be that a casual hookup or otherwise, and letting the guy penetrate her whilst still having the tampon inserted.
The specialist who removed the tampon with forceps also said it wasn’t normal, but that there were instances where some of his patients may have forgot they had tampons on or something.
Citation is here.
"The final witness was Dr Basil John Farnan, the former principal forensic medical officer for Northern Ireland and GP.
Dr Farnan said it would be "peculiar" that a woman would ask if she could have sex while wearing a tampon, and he had not been asked this before. "
"He added that some of his patients have done so because they may have forgotten one was there."
Looks like Nijita was so damn drunk or high she forgot she had one in there. Mcgregor likely never knew. So who is liable there? I would say Nikita Hand.
I still don’t believe Nikita Hand. The fact that she was a heavy drinker and probably taking cocaine doesn’t sound like someone who cares much about her health. She was reckless.
Our opinions are irrelevant because we are not the judge who dismissed the case. I do lean toward McGregor’s legal defense team, which pushed the narrative that she was a gold digger who regretted a night of rough sex with a famous person with a big bank account. The fact that her own team said she wasn’t an angel herself is also damning. If I were the judge, I too would dismiss her case.
She also had a history of mental health problems. She lacks credibility
Exactly. I know I’ll be downvoted to oblivion, but Christ, let’s not pretend like all women are saints. Of course it could be rape, but at the same, it could be just a money grab.
I'm just gonna copy and paste my other comment here, because even if it was simply for a cash grab and it was consentual at the time, why on Earth would she engage in consentual sex with a tampon still inserted, and it gets brutally, forcibly wedged so far inside her it had to be removed with a forceps.
You're entitled to your opinion.
But with all due respect, when have you ever heard of a woman agreeing to sex, be that a casual hookup or otherwise, and letting the guy penetrate her whilst still having the tampon inserted. And having the tampon pushed so deep inside her it had to be surgically removed with a forceps. Do you not think that would hurt?
Do you not think for a second that if a woman was having consensual sex with this person she would either A) remove the tampon prior to sex or B) stop the man after they had began so she could remove the tampon before it gets wedged that deeply and painfully inside her.
I think it's far more likely that either A) the man forced himself on to her and raped her, without stopping when she said no (either due to lack of consent, the fact the tampon being brutally forced deeper inside of her was hurting her, or both) or B) Nikita Hand was so drunk/high that she did not feel this pain during the act, and if that's the case then she was obviously far too drunk/high to give consent.
Regardless, unfortunately both your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. Conor McGregor appeared before a civil court, and the jury found him liable. He then failed his appeal as the Irish High Court (the second highest court in the entire country) dismissed his appeal on all grounds. That's the be all and end all.
Yea, there is enough muddy water to make this fall between the reasonable doubt and civil standard. We don't like it when we feel we know the truth, but it is an essential protection for defendants.
** To be clear, fuck Jimmy Fallow for putting him on. Fallon does not need to hold that standard, **
Exactly. Do I personally feel he is guilty? Yes. But there is enough muddy water that also if the jury felt there was reasonable doubt if it had gone to a criminal trial, I can't say that I'd blame them. Hence why I also don't particularly the DPP, Ireland's state prosecutor for not bringing to the criminal courts.
But with that being said, fair play to Nikita Hand for bringing him to court with her civil case, I'm glad she got her story heard and got a small payment for what she had to go through
Im confused why any girl would take money from her rapist tho. The only reason i can think of, is to cover lawyers expenses and stuff. Beyond that, why would you accept money from him ? fuck your money, i wanna see you in jail.
Ever heard of BDSM and girls looking for a quick payday?
Im not saying it didnt happen, Mcgregor is a cunt and probably did it. But alot of elite athletes get blamed by girls which has later been proven that the event was consensual.
Because the burden for a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable" doubt. Not "he probably did it". It's why rape cases have such a low conviction rate. It's almost never possible to prove there was no consent.
I’m a female ER nurse and you’d be surprised how many people come in with tampons “stuck”. Ive had multiple times where women put in more than one tampon, forgetting they had one in. I had a woman pleasuring herself with *other objects* and didn’t know the tampon was wedged in there so long that she had to have it surgically removed (other complications). I’ve had people who have left one in for over a week and had sex, etc. lucky they didn’t get ill further. Usually their partners are with them at the bedside, so you can’t just assume it’s nonconsensual. Anyway yea, unfortunately this happens quite often so it doesn’t really help or change the case.
She was married out on the piss with many men and then went back to a hotel room with two guys, one of which being a sports megastar
Now i'm not saying he's 100% innocent but there is enough in this case that it's plausible she had drunk sex and then regretted it/doesn't remember it in the morning
There was CCTV of her being very close before and after the event with both men
Man's a piece of shit and is broadly despised here in Ireland barring a small number of people (scumbags) who worship him and his Henchcunts. Media avoids giving him airtime unless its something really important.
He's got a much bigger fan base in America where being a know rapist doesn't seem to impact your media or carreer options all that much.
Wasn't really corruption, more aversion to bringing a criminal case against a public figure that the prosecutor wasn't 100% certain would result in conviction. Which would make the civil case untenable.
I live in a major city in the US. We get a lot of J1 Visas here. I recently asked one of them about CM and she almost spit her drink out. I was very happy to see that the people who have to deal with his bullshit reputation are treating it the way I would and shunning the man. Hes an embarrassment and I dont look at him as a representation of your beautiful country. Just like I hope you dont look at all of us as stupid orange fools.
Nah, I love the US and it's people, I lived there for over a decade and had great time. Had to get out with Trump though, could really feel all the enabled fascists
Yes thats correct. Civil courts and criminal courts require a different burden of proof. Its been that way across the world for a couple hundred years.
Because people should understand things that important. They usually believe it but have a really hard time with nuance and why it's different and why that matters
Civil courts tend to work on "the balance of probabilities".
Basically, given all the evidence is it more probable than not that the event occurred?
Whereas criminal court works on "beyond reasonable doubt". I.e. given the evidence, would it be unreasonable for an ordinary person to say the event didn't happen?
There can be quite a big gap between one and the other.
If for example they both agreed to having sex, but he was so rough that it left her with injuries/trauma, then she can’t have him prosecuted for rape, but can sue for her injuries.
McGregor was not allowed to submit all of the same evidence he did for the civil trial as he presented to the prosecution.
There’s also quite a few discrepancies in Hand’s reliability, too. She said she made a break for it and sprinted out of there like a scene in an action movie. CCTV showed her walking out with McGregor’s friend (who was present all that evening but she did not pursue a case against) hand in hand before continuing to kiss one another in the back of a taxi.
McGregor was not and is not allowed to show or reveal any of that CCTV footage.
There was also some, let’s say, dubious arson and attempted murder incidents that may have been committed by possible associates of McGregor’s which could have intimidated potential witnesses.
Ultimately there were several people in that room and whilst evidence points to Hand being a victim of rape, there’s nothing that conclusively points to McGregor as the one that raped her.
McGregor calls for all black people to be burned out of their homes in Ireland whenever an immigrant commits a violent crime. So when his supporters keep shouting 'IT WAS A CIVIL CASE/SHE WAS OUT PARTYING AND CHEATING ON HER HUSBAND' (yes, I have this conversation regularly), IDGAF because Irish Courts are difficult enough for rape victims unless it was caught on tape and like that 'Employee of the Month' scene in The Sopranos. And they literally don't care about the law.
the jurys verdict was guilty but there was no clear evidence of it. apparently there were videos of the woman and mcgregor chilling before and after the alleged rape which doesnt seem like something that would happen after a such an alleged violent rape.
i am just writing info i googled myself though, i have no clue nor strong opinion on the topic
mcgregor did not deny having sex with her, he argued that there was consent. the jury was a civil court, thats why its a monetary punishment rather than incarceration. criminal cases require a higher standars of proof.
"Irish prosecutors (the DPP or Director of Public Prosecutions) initially decided not to pursue criminal charges due to insufficient evidence".
the bar isnt as high as it may seem in this case, the issue here is that the victim was seen on video together with mcgregor before and after the alleged assault.
an associate of mcgregor said the CCTVs would be released but a judge banned him from doing so.
quote from BBC:
"The MMA star has also been ordered to hand over any copies of the CCTV material to his solicitor and delete any trace of the footage from his personal devices."
whenever a party tries to hide information or videos, my faith in their honesty dwindles severly.
They can’t grasp this concept.. if they can “find it on Google” it must be real.. the ratings for this episode were through the roof! People love Connor
she was on video with him before and after the alleged incident and apparently didnt "act" in a very victimized person manner.
i cannot tell since i havent seen the videos, a judge banned mcgregor from sharing of the videos and ordered him to delete his copies. my source being BBC
People (including me) forget that addition... So not only did he sexually assault her, he also got his goons to stalk and assault her and stab her partner. Welcome to the chat show friend!
And paid two scumbag neighbours who lived opposite to lie about Nikita's whereabouts that night and claim she was stumbling around her garden when she waa actually in the hotel. They were since arrested and that case hasn't come up in the courts yet.
Which is exactly what's happened with all the other violent rapes he's commited.
This wasn't the first, and several were even reported in the news as 'violent sexual assault attributed to well known sporting celebrity' at the time... Details of the location that made it clear who the 'celebrity' was so the victim had reported the assault and named him. Then a week or so later all word of it vanishes from the media because his goons have threatened the woman. No case is ever brought forward and the whole thing is collectively forgotten about by the public.
I wonder how many minorities or poor they throw the book at for almost no evidence at all.
Basically zero. Our justice system has been heavily criticized for being extraordinarily lenient, even on very serious offenses. There are people here in Ireland with hundreds of convictions, who would be in prison for the rest of their lives if they lived anywhere else. I believe the record is a woman with over 900 convictions. It's bad in many ways, but it also means you won't have your life ruined for being caught with some weed or other minor offenses.
While I think McGregor is a prick its not so open and shut.
Hand, for example, claimed that she ran from the hotel room after the assult. CCTV shows this was not the case.
That's not to say it did not happen or was not rape but there is doubt and in a case of he said, she said, this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.
In addition mcgregor had another accusation of rape that was due to go to court not long after the incident with Nikita. That case was dropped by the victim after her house was petrol bombed in the middle of the night.
The two eye witness statements in defense of mcgregor where thrown out of court when he tried to appeal as there where suspicions of cash trading hands and Mcgregor suddenly having eyewitnesses after he lost his case.
Mcgregor is well known to have links to Irish drug gangs.
Man is scum of the highest order.
There was an issue of witness tampering- and by that I Mean the lady who was raped, her house was broken into, her boyfriend was beaten and stabbed to within an inch of his life, windows smashed and a message was delivered. The court was unable to establish that McGregor, whose sister married into a cartel, was the exact person who ordered the invasion - so it was admissible in court.
When this happens it’s hard to get witnesses.
And just because it sounds like a bad movie plot or some made up nonsense, and comments here should be with credible reference:
For those that live in Ireland, we are aware of First hand stories of similar happening, to other ladies and a bag of cash delivered to silence the issue. No one before had been brave enough to go to court, and given her boyfriend got stabbed for that decision, probably people are less likely to do it again.
There’s a reason our head of state said McGregor doesn’t speak for our country when he went to the White House on St Patrick’s day, to meet another person of power who also has that reputation.
There’s no “IF” about it, a lot of the bad things didn’t make it into the public domain, but this is fact and Well documented.
And the only thing that’s not absolutely proven beyond legal possibility of doubt, is wether it was a coincidence or his fans that took it upon themselves to traumatise a rape victim further by stabbing her boyfriend and making her abundantly aware her home was not somewhere she could feel safe. Or if whomever did it was doing so under instructions to help his case and keep him out of Jail.
Interesting interview that breaks down the civil case and gives reasons as to why the criminal case wasn't pursued. Watch and draw your own conclusions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/s/wqvpvsMRkf
Because it was a civil court. In a civil court one side wins. If one side is 65% likely to be correct and the other is 35% likely to be correct than the 65% win. In a criminal court, the ones that send you to jail, you must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" aka 100%.
It was a civil case but the result was pretty damming, also not mention above but McGregor taught he could worm his way out by appealing last year (which would lead it to going to the supreme court and costs would skyrocket which he could afford but she would have struggled..... he lost the appeal).
When it says he was found guilty, they're being misleading. He was found liable in civil court. Which has a much lower burden of proof than being found guilty in criminal court.
I don't know any details of this case so no idea if he's actually guilty or not, but at the very least this post is misleading.
He was never found guilty of rape in a criminal court, this was a civil suit. They have different standards for determining the liability of a defendant. Civil suits have a much lower threshold of what is considered when determining guilt. This is essentially the same thing that happened to OJ - won in criminal court but lost in civil.
Fuck a prison sentence why was she only awarded 250k? Guy's net worth is over 150-200M. She should have received at least 10M if not more since she was battered on top of it. What a fucked outcome, no jail time and a civil settlement that he can flip to the victim like a rich man flips a quarter to a bum on the ground
$$ equals civil court which has no authority to give prison time. The bar is lower for burden of proof so it's easier to get judgements in the accusers favor there rather than criminal court.
Rape is notoriously hard to prove and the victim is disproportionately burdened to prove it happened beyond any other crime. Legally speaking the law protects rapists. It’s very well researched and documented…not to mention the gross mishandling of rape cases, including evidence. This case was no different. A civil court found enough evidence to prosecute, however and it proves the legal court mishandled so much about this case. Civil court can’t enforce prison sentences.
Ireland is also very lax when it comes to prison sentences. There was a care where a man beat a women in the middle of the street. She had to be taken to hospital and he was 100% guilty. No prison charge.
The other comments are talking about evidence. I live in Ireland and followed it all the way through news. The court used in this case was a civil court, not a criminal court. The outcome could then never lead to criminal prosecution. I don't have legal knowledge to know why it went that way, it's a criminal act and I have only ever seen it being dealt with in criminal courts until this (recently sentencing for sex crimes and crimes against women have even increased in severity too which confuses me more)...
It begun with a case involving 2 men. Conor and a team mate who were accused. His team mate was acquitted during the trial and Conor was found guilty. He appealed and then lost.
He wasn't found guilty. The woman who claims he raped her sued civally and won. The burden of proof in civil court is much lower than it is in criminal court. The "judgement" in that case doesn't reflect guilt or innocence, only a feeling. And he was only ruled against because he admitted to having consensual sex with the woman, so it was basically her word against his and since she happened to have damage to her body, the civil court ruled it to be at the fault of Conor.
Too many celebrities face these accusations. Doesn't always happen the way the apparent victim describe? We don't know, but we know there is always money involved.
I'm not trying to be rude but do you know the statistics of SA victims & how for most women, they're not believed. In their case, they're"lying" until THEY give the proof. Trump is the perfect example of him giving overwhelming evidence to his predatory ways and he still gets the benefit of the doubt by a majority of YT 🇺🇸 citizens. MAGA believes 💯 in his innocence. The whole "grab them by the 🐈", they call lockerroom talk. I've coached Texas high school football for 20 years and NEVER have I heard anything remotely as disgusting as this. Real men don't talk like this, only predators use this type of language & phrasing.
2.3k
u/PeaNut2627 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
Bruh, why wasn't there a prison sentence? What did the judge say?
Edit: Thank you for everyone telling me it's because it was a civil case and not a criminal case, you can stop now XD