• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

News *** Conor McGregor Found Civilly Liable for 2018 Sexual Assault MEGA THREAD ***

OJ wasn't found guilty either, lol, he was found liable in his civil case though.
In OJ case there was enough evidence and probable cause to charge him and prosecute him. What occurred in the jury room is enough to get a mistrial. In Connor case there is no evidence, there is no probable cause for arrest, charges or prosecution. The civil case is a travesty that literally
boils down to who the jury likes more. Yah yah you can cheer if you hate McGregor but in reality can you imagine facing a trial like that as a defendant? You’re accused and face a huge monetary loss as well as reputation damage without any evidence???
 
In OJ case there was enough evidence and probable cause to charge him and prosecute him. What occurred in the jury room is enough to get a mistrial. In Connor case there is no evidence, there is no probable cause for arrest, charges or prosecution. The civil case is a travesty that literally
boils down to who the jury likes more. Yah yah you can cheer if you hate McGregor but in reality can you imagine facing a trial like that as a defendant? You’re accused and face a huge monetary loss as well as reputation damage without any evidence???
How many times has Conor been accused of sexual assault again? You actually think all these women are lying? Come on man, if you had read you'd notice they had evidence. What a joke, go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand.
 
Last edited:
How many times has Conor been accused of sexual assault again? You actually think all these women are lying? Come on man. And if you read you'd notice they had evidence. What a joke, go defend Conor to someone else.

I guess the DNA, the tampon, the injuries, the EMT the doctor, the therapist does not count as evidence.
Imagine simping so hard for another man....
A man there is a piece of shit and has done tons of shit.
 
This reads like someone who has never actually had sex.

Was it the breaking things down to their logical foundations or was it the requiring evidence?
The whole trope of not having a predisposition to simp and cuck makes you an incel is preposterously ignorant and only espoused men who are domesticated and walked on a leash.
 
Was it the breaking things down to their logical foundations or was it the requiring evidence?
The whole trope of not having a predisposition to simp and cuck makes you an incel is preposterously ignorant and only espoused men who are domesticated and walked on a leash.
Ok, it's time I take a nap.
 
Was it the breaking things down to their logical foundations or was it the requiring evidence?
It was the complete ignorance about female anatomy.
The whole trope of not having a predisposition to simp and cuck makes you an incel is preposterously ignorant and only espoused men who are domesticated and walked on a leash.
You sound triggered.
 
I just can’t imagine Conor ever being so self deprecating to even mention he ever lost a fight let alone go into fine detail of how many times he tapped out
Stop pretending like know him and what he's like in private, it's delusional. You only know his public persona.

Invalidating her claims because you think you know somebody you've never even met (more importantly know) is pretty low.
 
Stop pretending like know him and what he's like in private, it's delusional. You only know his public persona.

Invalidating her claims because you think you know somebody you've never even met (let alone know) is pretty low.
Is That pretty low? Or is falsely accusing someone of rape lower? I’d say falsely accusing someone of rape is much lower and if these things aren’t adding up, apparently they disregarded an eye witness testimony, that said the rape most likely didn’t happen. I mean she goes to his hotel room late at night, what did she think they were going to do? Play monopoly? At the end of the day only god, that woman and Conor know what really happened. Falsely accusing someone of rape or sexual assault seems to be the go to flavor of the century when it comes to trying to smear your political rivals and that’s fucking dirty as shit. I’m tired of it. It takes away from real victims.
 
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.
We are arguing about Civil and Criminal prodeedings. I have no opinion on whether conor is guilty or not, and I never said the girl was lying or that conor was not guilty. We are just arguing criminal and civil court cases. You are whining and moaning to me for nothing.

Yes, "sufficient evidence" generally means there is enough evidence to proceed to court, but the exact definition of "sufficient" depends on the legal context and the standard of proof required. If the evidence does not meet the required standard, a case may not go to court

There is a threshold that prosecutors look to see if they can actually get a conviction. Prosecutors usually determine whether to file a case based on whether they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense. There is a standard of evidence that is needed for a criminal case and prosecutors look to see if they can meet it.
 
Last edited:
It was already dismissed, there is no criminal trial. So the question is why they dismissed it. Does anyone actually know the details of the case? Google was no help for the minute I spent trying to find information. Is this the same woman who was hanging out with Conor after the alleged rape or was that someone else? Because that will influence my opinion.
It would cost her in a criminal trial I would assume. It would be hard to combat Conor and his high priced lawyers imo, idk.
 
Back
Top