While on the same pages people have admitted Civil Trials are about likelihood. 51%> . Thus you can not claim he is a rapist for sure. Your whole point is null. Yet you are admitting you're shaming me and that I should be ashamed. There isn't any real life logic to it. Just cultish behavior. Where you think you have to act a certain way to be morally right.
I should be ashamed because I point out that some of the evidence is shoddy? I back that up with sources yet you try to shame me for using sources.
And sexual assault accusations are about 97% true. But of course that statistic is irrelevant, somehow, while the global figure of civil trial convictions, irrespective of topic, is relevant.
Certainty is a function of degree of belief, infallibility is a function of evidence and process of justification. One can be certain and wrong, thus fallible: I am certain that I ate chicken yesterday, but cannot rule out I am living in a simulation, that I am hallucinating, or misremembering, or that it was fake chicken meat.
Infallibility is generally non attainable in domains other than purely deductive ones, like mathematics and theoretical physics, or logic, or computer science, where proof entails deduction from definitions. Empirical, inductive proof is not like that, and is subject always to skeptical issues (Hume's problem). Which is why not even in criminal cases conviction follows from infallibility, but only from a higher standard of evidence. Not infallibility.
Thus, the argument "but you can't be certain that Conor did it!" or "It is possible that he didn't rape her!" is a moot point: of course it is possible, because possibility comes cheap, and anyone can play skeptic more or less arbitrarily. The question is whether the evidence presented sufficed to make Hand's story more plausible, and sufficiently to warrant conviction in a civil trial, which it was.
The problem with your argument is that, for whatever reason, you think you know something that the rest don't, including the legal teams, witnesses, jury, media. But you don't. You simply have these anecdotal extrapolations, and hypothetical scenarios of what might have happened that no one has claimed happened, neither Conor nor Hand, nor anyone who was involved in the case.
You cannot answer a simple question: if it is indeed
plausible that the injuries that Hand sustained were the result of consensual but rough sex under the influence, why wasn't this argued or even suggested by Conor's defense team, why did Conor deny this overtly, and why did all the experts agree in that this wasn't a credible possibility?
You need to stop making an ass of yourself. You are doing this to yourself by arguing a point you cannot defend well. You lost the argument a long time ago, but you cannot let go.
