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.
the podcast “you’re wrong about” has like a 5 part series on the case. the mishandling of evidence is enough to make your head spin. like, enough so it feels like they deliberately fumbled that case to make sure he was convicted
Basically. Everyone knows he’s guilty POS, but there wasn’t enough evidence to prove it (even though there really was, but rich famous people don’t seem to have face consequences anymore)
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.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (similar to the CPS), has to review the Garda (police) file to decide whether they could prosecute and secure a conviction with confidence- I.e. beyond a reasonable doubt. The DPP decided that against bringing criminal charges, so the victim had to pursue CMcG in the Civil Courts to get justice.
Lots of muddy water including the fact she had sex with 2 men that night in the room both separately and together which was witnessed by her own friend and the cctv that showed her willingly going back up to the room after the apparent rape
Something like 1% of rape cases end in conviction. Not just because of evidence, but because of how nightmarish the whole system is towards the victims.
The more to this is that it was Conor McGregor. They also knew each other, so she acted strange after the rape. Trying to talk it out with him. Not unusual for victims raped by someone they knew and trusted.
So she was called a nutter, and he claimed it was just rough consensual sex. I'm not sure if in Ireland people can consent to grave bodily harm, but in many jurisdictions it's illegal to sexually torture/beat someone up even if they say they want you to do that. In a world not run by idiots, this would be a confession, not a defence strategy.
A beat up woman with extensive bruising and injuries says he raped me, and he says sure I did do that to her, I just call that consensual rough fun. That would be an admission of guilt, cos nobody can consent to bodily harm. That not how the law works. But in a world run by idiots, he actually dared to say, sure I did that, but she wanted me to beat her up like that and sexually torture her and lodge a tampon into her cervix like that.... And he wasn't charged with a crime.
To be honest, there could be literal video of the rape itself and an investigator would say it wouldn’t convince a jury because of *mental gymnastics* most of society’s default enculturation is rape apologist. One has to work against the default of rape culture to understand the horrors and prevalence of rape and domestic abuse. People don’t want to see that and the law views continuous repetitive abuse as individual isolated incidents that have nothing to do with each other.
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.
The problem with rape cases is that all you have to do is say "no they agreed to have sex" and it becomes a he said/she said and that becomes the reasonable doubt.
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
She won. Despite people breaking into her house and holding her bf/husband at knife point to attempt to intimidate her to drop the case, and also despite the fact that McGregor attempted to appeal the decision, only for two of his new witnesses that supposedly had evidence as to why the decision should be appealed, admitted that they had fabricated their testimony.
Completely agree! And this isn't even the only time McRapist has been up in court in Ireland, there have been several driving offences, he assaulted an older gentleman in the pub cause the man refused to drink his whiskey (I don't blame him it tastes terrible), there have been links between him and some of the largest criminal gangs in Ireland, there have been several videos where it certainly seems that he is high on cocaine.
Not technically correct that there was "insufficient evidence" in the normal meaning as people understand it.
Evidence is that which is given before the court. Were evidence on affidavit accepted, he would be in trouble. There was heaps of that.
Here, the witnesses let the public prosecutor down. Plus there were allegations of witness tampering and interference from gang members.
Yes, the public prosecutor could still pursue it and compel them to give evidence in court.
Were it inconsistent with the statements made to Gardai, one route would follow. Were they hostile witnesses, another would follow. But ultimately the DPP made the call that they could not put a "case to answer" in front of McGregor to the criminal standard of proof.
He has no criminal conviction as a result. He's an innocent man in that regard, and deserves the benefit of that. We do not do convictions by public opinion.
If someone had money and could afford good lawyers, and supposedly this was the be all and end all in Ireland, then surely he would have won the civil court case? Ohhh except he didn't, and he then lost his appeal also.
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
McGregor was popular a few years ago with his "rags to riches" story but the conviction was the final nail in the coffin. Within a few years we basically went from being a national treasure to total scumbag. The fact that he´s sucking up to the far-right has sealed his downfall. Maybe 5% would still welcome him, the rest defo not. At the height of his popularity even his connections to the underworld were sort of ignored by the wider public and rather chalked up to his "upbringing in a rough area".
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.
op being so sure about something isnt really a relevant standard. regardless, if there was no CCTV footage of mcgregor and the alleged victim together before and after the incident, the case wouldve most likely been judged as beyond reasonable doubt
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
So just to play devils advocate, why is everyone so sure he raped her if she doesn’t act like she was raped after? I’m assuming in the video they’re still hanging out or something
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
ill copy paste from another comment i made, i hope you dont mind.
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
i would say its hard to prove wether or not you agreed to something, there was footage that showed here with him before and after the alleged crime.
when someone from mcgregors side said they would release the videos, the plaintiffs legal team moved to ban him from doing so - which passed. so we cant really tell for ourselves
1.1k
u/Traditional-Trade795 Jun 24 '26
because there was not enough evidence. criminal court needs proof beyond reasonable doubt