A case can be opened when there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant was responsible. A prosecutor evaluates a criminal case to determine if it can be won by assessing the strength of the evidence available, including whether it is sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors look to see if the case can be won on those criterias.
I did not say that Conor did not do it, I said that the conviction in civil court is not the same as
You are making things up because you want things to adapt to your biases.
No, a criminal case is not based on probability of evidential truth. That would be stupid, since proof and evidence is provided at trial. The criterion in every modern court is sufficiency of evidence, not probability. Sufficiency is unfortunately hazily defined.
There are multiple reasons other than objective ones that cases get turned down. Money and corruption is one of the biggest ones, and it's usually more pervasive at the bottom. If you follow, as I did, the Irish reporting, this has been absolutely baffling to everyone that it didn't even go to criminal court, and has raised serious corruption question marks. Ireland has a pretty dire problem with this, and Conor has pretty deep pockets and connections with the Irish cartel. This woman refused a civil court complaint and went first directly to criminal and refused a payout.
Now that the evidence has been on display, you have to be an absolute bigot to ignore it. She was battered, injured, traumatized, and had to have a tampon removed with a forcep. Conor's DNA was in her, not anyone else's. This is doctors, trauma specialists, and cops. I'm not overthinking this, you are under thinking things to match your biases. There is a reason the ruling went against Conor.