News Judge orders Mcgregor to destroy cctv footage in Nikita hand case; US company reviews evidence refuses to terminated sponsorship of Mcgregor

[HNIC215]

I get some of your sentiment but this part is kinda backwards. I'm not defending the guy, just laying some facts.

Conor is/was a professional fighter. No matter what the Sherdog purists want to believe about it, the whole point of that is to make money.

Conor has made tens of millions compared to others, held multiple titles. As far as the point of the whole thing he's arguably, maybe factually, the most financially successful MMA fighter ever. Then he made tens of millions more on the whiskey brand and other outside ventures.

He may be trying to remain relevant in the public eye, but I wouldn't call it struggling to make a living due to career failure.

He made a ton of money, spent a ton of money on lawyers, a boat and cocaine.

I think he lost or sold his whiskey business.

He owns that old man's bar - that's about it.

Not sure what else he has going but just look at his behavior.

Clear signs of a failed career. Someone who is focused sticks to a lane and excels.

Someone who is established can go into multiple arenas and juggle the stress.

Look at Conor these days, he's coked out of his mind. Looks stressed, rage tweeting and hasn't had a fight or lucrative contract thrown his way in many years.

I don't know his financial details but he shows signs of desperation.

President of Ireland? LOL

I'm just saying... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[HNIC215]

He wants to be Dana. To be calling the shots, and he’s settled for a lesser org

He thinks he's a mogul in his coked out mind.

 

[AmonTobin]

There are slander laws for that, it’s not for a judge to erase negative evidence that can make the plaintiff look bad.

The fact that you’ve already decided the cctv footage is “negative evidence” and “makes the plaintiff look bad” is cause for concern. Maybe the judge is trying to protect the victim from being further and repeatedly traumatized by footage of a horrible night being circulated for no other reason than to spite her.

 

[koa pomaikai]

He's not ordering McGregor to destroy evidence. The court has that footage as part of the official record. The hotel has it as part of their records.

Conor only had access to that footage because it was evidence in his trial. Otherwise, he wouldn't even be able to get a copy or view it. It's not his to use to engage in a PR-smear campaign. He had access for his trial. The only legitimate use of the video was for his team to view, analyze and use to present and argue, in court. Outside of that, he has no right to keep or use it.

This IS the court "sealing" the evidence. They're making sure Conor or his team doesn't abuse a copy of evidence they were allowed access to for trial purposes.

Evidence he subpoenaed for most likely. The CCTV footage was used as defendant’s primary evidence to show consensual sex.

You make it sound like it belonged to Plaintiff and Plaintiff was using it as part of their case. I recall the footage being tried to be explained by Plaintiff, not used.

Also, are you saying that if Conor somehow got another copy from the hotel, he can use it however he wants and not violate the order?

 

[joy2day]

AI is, completely, a not-ready technology, at least in terms of people relying on it to be accurate, especially in situations where you're dealing with complexity or nuance.

It actually has a lot to do with user input and the subject also. It would have been correct if I had used the reasoning model and given it a more detailed prompt. It was basically correct about the laws, it just missed that there was a copy other than Conor's.

I've seen it be flawed, but I've seen it do amazingly also. The problem is, we don't really understand how it works, and at the speed it's moving, we may not until it is too late.

 

[koa pomaikai]

Yeah, clearly that woman wanted to be beat so bad that it was amongst the worst cases that trauma nurses have ever seen in their life. I can't believe there are still people so confidently and quickly running to the defense of a rapist just because "everything is a conspiracy and corruption, blah blah!!! Women evil gold diggers! blahblah"

The "she was in it for the money" angle has been debunked numerous times and makes no sense if you have basic thinking abilities. So much angry incel energy on sherdog that it is ridiculous.

This is not at all meant to suggest the victim beat herself up, but fyi, a lot of people cause horrorific injuries to themselves for purposes of insurance fraud.

FYI see the recent case of William Mize, the guy had family members that went to the brink of death to trick insurance companies for fraud. (Fell of staircases, self stabbing and bleeding to death almost ). Insurance companies investigate self harm all the time for people who injure themselves to defraud insurance for money.

Fraud Ringleader and Former Fugitive William Mize Sentenced to 12 Years in Federal Prison, Ordered to Pay $7.1 Million in Restitution

www.justice.gov

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

Fact is that criminal courts didnt and the case was dismissed. I think Conor is a complete piece of shit degenerate but its more than likely that this womans side of the story is grossly exaggerated, civil courts are a joke as well...might as well have a court case on the View for an equal amount of justice.

While I agree that Conor is a degenerate, this is true. Ordering destruction of evidence in a case is an incredibly odd decision for a judge, however, I have not passed the UK BAR so it could be some technicality in their system.

 

[koa pomaikai]

The fact that you’ve already decided the cctv footage is “negative evidence” and “makes the plaintiff look bad” is cause for concern. Maybe the judge is trying to protect the victim from being further and repeatedly traumatized by footage of a horrible night being circulated for no other reason than to spite her.

The cctv footage was explicitly banned because the judge said Mcgregor was guilty and he will use the footage to try to spin it as he is innocent.

So the footage is definitely negative, and also it was clearly the main evidence the defense was relying on to show consensual sex.

It also wasn’t even Mcgregor who said he was going to use the footage, it was a third party, ( who is his friend ) who said the footage makes Mcgregor look innocent and he was going to release it, which caused the ban.

Also, the aside from being a gross use of judicial power is likely to be ineffective and stupid. The cctv footage isn’t some confidential protected information.

Any hotel staff, any one who had access to that footage during trial, and anyone who Mcgregor might have already given the footage to, can access and release it. The whole case is public, the public was allowed to attend these hearings.

 

[AmonTobin]

The cctv footage was explicitly banned because the judge said Mcgregor was guilty and he will use the footage to try to spin it as he is innocent.

So the footage is definitely negative, and also it was clearly the main evidence the defense was relying on to show consensual sex.

It also wasn’t even Mcgregor who said he was going to use the footage, it was a third party, ( who is his friend ) who said the footage makes Mcgregor look innocent and he was going to release it, which caused the ban.

Also, the aside from being a gross use of judicial power is likely to be ineffective and stupid. The cctv footage isn’t some confidential protected information.

Any hotel staff, any one who had access to that footage during trial, and anyone who Mcgregor might have already given the footage to, can access and release it. The whole case is public, the public was allowed to attend these hearings.

So then what exactly about the judge's request are you concerned about if "anyone will have access to the footage"? He's directing McGregor specifically is he not? Dissemination of the video doesn't change the ruling or exonerate the defendant. It only does more potential damage to the victim.
1. Footage isn't of the event in question so it won't "show consensual sex". 2.Video doesn't have audio does it? 3. McGregor and associates certainly wouldn't be posting raw video without edits or caveats.

 

[koa pomaikai]

So then what exactly about the judge's request are you concerned about if "anyone will have access to the footage"? He's directing McGregor specifically is he not?
1. Footage isn't of the event in question. 2.Video doesn't have audio does it?

It’s judicial overreach in the grossest sense, if Conor wants to release footage that shows Nikita hand in a negative light, he actually has a right to do that.

He can’t tell lies and commit slander, but he can certainly release footage that he believes shows his innocence.

Conor can and should have the right to protest his innocence to the public even if he was found guilty, and he has the right to do that with evidence he finds favorable.

 

[koa pomaikai]

So then what exactly about the judge's request are you concerned about if "anyone will have access to the footage"? He's directing McGregor specifically is he not? Dissemination of the video doesn't change the ruling or exonerate the defendant. It only does more potential damage to the victim.
1. Footage isn't of the event in question so it won't "show consensual sex". 2.Video doesn't have audio does it? 3. McGregor and associates certainly wouldn't be posting raw video without edits or caveats.

If Conor is going to post fake edited footage, then you hit him with slander if it happens, a judge doesn’t assume someone will commit a crime and then take actions to keep it from happening in a civil suit, it’s stupid and violates so many rights.

 

[Marko Polo]

He thinks he's a mogul in his coked out mind.

I heard he’s going to be on Dragon’s Den

 

[AmonTobin]

If Conor is going to post fake edited footage, then you hit him with slander if it happens, a judge doesn’t assume someone will commit a crime and then take actions to keep it from happening in a civil suit, it’s stupid and violates so many rights.

Judge is telling McGregor to "stay out of it" because he has millions of social media followers. Once the damage is done it's already too late. Judge doesn't know if McGregor is going to assault her again either but he can still impose a protection order. Is a protection order overstepping too?

 

[Siver!]

It’s judicial overreach in the grossest sense, if Conor wants to release footage that shows Nikita hand in a negative light, he actually has a right to do that.

He can’t tell lies and commit slander, but he can certainly release footage that he believes shows his innocence.

Conor can and should have the right to protest his innocence to the public even if he was found guilty, and he has the right to do that with evidence he finds favorable.

CCTV and data protection is an interesting (boring) topic.

Conor doesn't have a right to CCTV footage of other people.

I can't realistically think of a good, legal basis for him holding CCTV footage of other people regardless of his opinion, which ultimately doesn't matter outside of the courts/appeals processes.

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

Judge is telling McGregor to "stay out of it" because he has millions of social media followers. Once the damage is done it's already too late. Judge doesn't know if McGregor is going to assault her again either but he can still impose a protection order.

That
1. Doesn't make sense
2. Has no legal precedent

Koa is right, it's judicial overreach plain and simple, the intentions behind it are irrelevant.

A Judge has no roght to use legal power to stop someone's feelings being hurt. If it were libel that he posted, he could be sued for it.

 

[Hymen Crusher]

Even if people think he didn't do it how does he still have fans. He is a terrible father husband and fighter. He isn't good anymore and hasn't been for a while. Also he is just a dick all the time. Why do people stand up for him. It's really confusing.

 

[Siver!]

That
1. Doesn't make sense
2. Has no legal precedent

Koa is right, it's judicial overreach plain and simple, the intentions behind it are irrelevant.

A Judge has no roght to use legal power to stop someone's feelings being hurt. If it were libel that he posted, he could be sued for it.

Don't think you're right there.

He would have to prove he has a valid and legal reason for retaining CCTV footage of other people against their will.

Assuming he doesn't have her consent to withhold that footage, I can't think of a single realistic or lawful argument as to why he has to have it.

It exists. It can be revisited in court. Listen, I'm no expert, I'm very happy to be corrected, but I think he has no right to hold it much less show it to anyone he feels like because he's upset about it.

 

[AmonTobin]

Don't think you're right there.

He would have to prove he has a valid and legal reason for retaining CCTV footage of other people against their will.

Assuming he doesn't have her consent to withhold that footage, I can't think of a single realistic or lawful argument as to why he has to have it.

It exists. It can be revisited in court. Listen, I'm no expert, I'm very happy to be corrected, but I think he has no right to hold it much less show it to anyone he feels like because he's upset about it.

I'm no expert either but I'm not sure how restricting McGregor's influence as a celebrity is gross judicial overreach if the footage can be obtained via other avenues and if the case is possibly retried in the future.

 

[Siver!]

I'm no expert either but I'm not sure how restricting McGregor's influence as a celebrity is gross judicial overreach if the footage can be obtained via other avenues and if the case is possibly retried in the future.

If I understand you right, I also don't think it's gross judicial overreach.

I don't think it will stop all speculation, but I don't think Conor needs to be afforded the chance to effectively monetize doubts of his guilt.

 

[HNIC215]

I heard he’s going to be on Dragon’s Den

I had to google that but it sounds like the British version of Shark Tank.