MMA media needs to ask Conor McGregor about sexual assault investigations

[TheLinguist]

For what it's worth the reported victim in one of the cases had injuries / trauma consistent with rape, so the question is not if she was assaulted, it's a question of assaulted by who. Other than making it sound like the unfortunate lady is lying / exaggerating, I agree with your point. I'd love to see him squirm under the questioning, but it would be grossly unprofessional and redundant for an individual who barely has enough knowledge to be an MMA journalist to be discussing legal matters of this nature.

Yeah and the details we know of are fucking disgusting

 

[MIKOM]

Sherdoggers and American media that are accessible via the internet are one sure way for a lawyer/barrister to push the claim for a compromised jury/judiciary though and a subsequent mistrial......... so keep up your posting........

Going to have to call bullshit on that

Call bullshit all you like.



Belfast rape trial review: ‘hammer of the law’ to hit social media misconduct
Review begins after calls for reform following Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding trial


A retired judge reviewing how sexual violence court cases are dealt with by the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland has warned “the hammer of the law will have to come down on misconduct in terms of social media”.

The review was initiated after widespread calls for reform following the rape trial involving two former Ireland and Ulster rugby players, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

In March both men were acquitted of raping the same woman in June 2016. Mr Jackson was also cleared of sexual assault. Two of their friends, on related charges, were also found not guilty.

Sir John Gillen made the comments in an interview on Friday with legal expert Joshua Rozenberg on BBC Radio Four’s Law in Action.

Over the last six weeks Sir John said he had interviewed a number of complainants and those who have been accused and acquitted.

He said in several instances they spoke of their “lives being ruined” by social media and of rumours and untruths being spread.

Sir John, who retired last year from the North’s court of appeal, is expected to report back to the Criminal Justice Board, which includes the Lord Chief Justice, the PSNI’s chief constable, and the director of public prosecutions, by January 2019.

Sir John told Mr Rozenberg while he had only begun the review process and was keeping an open mind, he was already certain of three points.

These were; the “pathway from complaint to trial is too long,” that the trial process is “unacceptably daunting” and that, as a society we “need to reassess our whole approach to the trauma of serious sexual offences”.

Sir John said social media was a vital factor in all three.
‘Unacceptable’

He said typically it can take up to two years for a case to come to trial and that over 40 per cent of complainants can drop out of the legal process.

This was “unacceptable”, he said.

He warned, that with the presence of social media, the “anonymity of the complainant is now a figment of our imagination”.

He also said he was exploring the possibility of anonymity for the accused as comments on social media “renders the possibility of a fair trial, worrying”.

Commenting on societal attitudes to sexual offences he said it embraced myths about trauma and serious sexual offences in particular, which in turn influenced juries; and he spoke of the issue of juror misconduct in terms of social media.

“The need to dispel mythology of jurors is a vital factor and one that is gripping my attention,” he said.

“In the Republic of Ireland there is legislation now dealing specifically with juror misconduct in terms of social media, and Scotland are looking at the same thing.

“Maybe it is time we did that [in Northern Ireland] too. “The hammer of the law will have to come down on misconduct in terms of social media.”

Sir John said the crucial protection of complainant anonymity being under threat, as evidenced “in a number of high profile trials”.
Social media

He said in small places like Belfast, Derry, Newry or Strabane the “law becomes a farce” when names are “bandied about on social media” and that this was detrimental to the administration of justice.

Sir John said he was considering anonymity for defendants, like in the Republic of Ireland, as the “accused deserve a fair trial”.

Sir John is considering recommending excluding the public - not the media or relatives of the parties - from trials to tackle a number of issues including making some effort to control social media in small jurisdictions.

He also said it was difficult for jurors to avoid social media. “Maybe the answer is we need better and stronger education of jurors,” he said.

“But the concept of a fair trial is fundamental to our legal system and all possibilities have to be looked at to ensure that both sides, complainants and accused, are getting a fair trial.”

The Office of the Attorney General of Northern Ireland is investigating possible contempt of court by a juror in the trial of the rugby players who made comments about the case online. A deadline for its conclusion has not been set.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...-law-to-hit-social-media-misconduct-1.3540158

 

[Paynebringer]

MMA media needs to ask Conor McGregor about sexual assault investigations


Why bother and get the standard lawyer response that shuts all avenues down to anything dealing with that question "Those matters are before the courts and I can't comment at this time" But I'm confident my innocence will be proven in the end.

 

[BeastEightyEight]

The obvious question was how could the UFC book Hardy, who a judge found guilty of assault and communicating threats to his former partner (charges were later dropped when the victim failed to appear in court, charges were later expunged) on the same card as Ostovich, who is a domestic abuse survivor.

Most UFC fighters are abuse survivors. Boohoo, Hardy pushed some bitch around.

Can we talk about Matt Hughes? The guy who beat the shit out of his kids and was praised for it?

 

[TheLinguist]

Most UFC fighters are abuse survivors. Boohoo, Hardy pushed some bitch around.

Can we talk about Matt Hughes? The guy who beat the shit out of his kids and was praised for it?

You know not to shoot the messenger right?

 

[BeastEightyEight]

You know not to shoot the messenger right?

I'm not shooting anybody. I just think it's funny.

 

[jpak]

Not reading most of this thread because it’s likely full of nonsense, but I did see a poster say “we all know she just wants money” one woman who went to hospital beaten and bruised, and tests confirmed she was raped, was offered a significant amount of money from the Irish Sports Superstar, but turned it down and refused to take money to make it go away

 

[agibmxmma]

As per bloody elbow:


The UFC has scheduled a pre-fight press conference for UFC 246. At that event – which takes place on Thursday, January 15th – the headlining fighters on the card, Conor McGregor and Donald Cerrone will sit in front of what can only be assumed will be a plethora of MMA and mainstream reporters. And while the UFC can be criticized for many things, one thing the promotion has always been very good at during these pre-fight events is controlling the access media.

The UFC sometimes uses threats to control the people covering their events live. Those threats can be implied or stated outright. I’ll use myself as an example of the latter. In 2019 I wrote a story that a UFC employee did not appreciate. I did agree that I should have added context to that story. So I did. When the update was not sufficient for this PR person, he threatened me via email. Below is the final email that was sent to me before I stopped replying:

“You barely updated this post. The headline is still misleading. WTF? I know you were credentialed for one of our events this year. If this is going to be your approach to coverage, don’t even bother asking next time.”

True to its word, the UFC denied my two most recent requests for credentials. Let me rephrase that. I was told – less than 24 hours before the event – that my first request was denied due to space constraints. My second request sat in “submitted” status until the day after the fight card when it magically disappeared. I have not requested credentials since. (You can read a more detailed story here)

The MMA media that craves access knows this happens. They know if they refuse to play nice, they might join Josh Gross, Loretta Hunt, Jonathan Snowden and myself on the list of folks who can’t get credentialed to a UFC event for whatever silly reason.

The UFC has also reportedly told media members not to ask certain questions. This situation most notably occurred at the UFC 231 press conference in 2018, when the UFC announced the booking of Greg Hardy on the same upcoming card (UFC on ESPN+ 1) as domestic abuse survivor Rachael Ostovich. The obvious question was how could the UFC book Hardy, who a judge found guilty of assault and communicating threats to his former partner (charges were later dropped when the victim failed to appear in court, charges were later expunged) on the same card as Ostovich, who is a domestic abuse survivor. No questions were asked about Hardy at the press conference, however. Later it was revealed that a UFC employee gave the media the impression that they were to ask only questions about UFC 231. A media member who was in attendance said this request was made very close to the event and that timing prevented them from reaching out to their editors or the Mixed Martial Arts Journalists Association.

The MMAJA asked the UFC about the incident. The UFC claimed it was a miscommunication.

After reports from media on site today at the UFC 231 press conference, the MMAJA is looking into a situation in which reporters felt they were unable to freely ask questions.

MMAJA has been in touch with UFC PR, which said their intention was for reporters to focus their questions on Saturday’s card and away from other topics.

UFC said they did not direct the media to avoid specific subjects, but that was the impression felt by several MMAJA members credentialed for the event.

Given the miscommunication MMAJA is seeking to secure a remedy with the UFC.

Any journalist covering a mixed martial arts event, whether they are a member of MMAJA or not, should be able to ask relevant questions during public media events, particularly regarding newsworthy items.

Though the media on-site followed UFC’s message, which was issued moments before the start of the press conference, MMAJA wants to make it clear that any media member would have been well within their rights to do otherwise.

This organization exists to help working journalists in the MMA space. Fundamental to that is ensuring access to the subjects they have been assigned to cover.

We trust the UFC understands that facilitating the work of reporters is a much better option than restricting the work of reporters, and will take care to express its intentions to the MMA media with this in mind.

UFC president Dana White and some UFC fighters have also berated media members when asked questions they did not like. A not so subtle form of media intimidation.

Which brings us back to the UFC 246 pre-fight press conference and McGregor.

McGregor has not spoken about the two sexual assault investigations that are focused on him in Ireland. The UFC knows that question could be the first one to arise at Thursday’s event. But there’s an excellent chance the UFC will get in front of that issue. One way the UFC could do that is by giving ESPN access to McGregor before the event so he can answer the question. Seeing as that interview, if it does happen, would take place in a controlled environment with McGregor knowing the question is coming, any response there would have to be considered a calculated PR move involving McGrgeor, the UFC and ESPN—the UFC’s broadcast partner.

If McGregor answers the question in that environment, the UFC could shut down anyone asking that same question at the UFC 246 pre-fight press conference. The promotion and McGregor could claim he already gave an answer and that his response is not going to change.

And while that may be the case, if such a situation does arise, someone from the MMA media still needs to ask that question. A more or less scripted question asked in a safe and friendly environment might not get the same response in an arena full of media and fans, some of who might not be fans of McGregor.

I want to see McGregor answer the question in that environment because I believe we all, fans and media alike, deserve to hear his words and see his reaction in a high-pressure ‘real’ situation. It’s also important to see and hear how he handles any follow up questions.

The MMA access media needs to be more than transcriptionists for what the fighters and the UFC say. The media need to do the hard work and ask the hard questions, especially those who call themselves journalists. On Thursday, those hard questions need to focus on Conor McGregor.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2020/1/...estigations-ufc-246-dana-white-donald-cerrone

What do you think guys

If the cases are currently open still, then he can't speak on them publicly anyway, so it's a mute point if the cases are not closed.

 

[Dave Poodle]

As per bloody elbow:


The UFC has scheduled a pre-fight press conference for UFC 246. At that event – which takes place on Thursday, January 15th – the headlining fighters on the card, Conor McGregor and Donald Cerrone will sit in front of what can only be assumed will be a plethora of MMA and mainstream reporters. And while the UFC can be criticized for many things, one thing the promotion has always been very good at during these pre-fight events is controlling the access media.

The UFC sometimes uses threats to control the people covering their events live. Those threats can be implied or stated outright. I’ll use myself as an example of the latter. In 2019 I wrote a story that a UFC employee did not appreciate. I did agree that I should have added context to that story. So I did. When the update was not sufficient for this PR person, he threatened me via email. Below is the final email that was sent to me before I stopped replying:

“You barely updated this post. The headline is still misleading. WTF? I know you were credentialed for one of our events this year. If this is going to be your approach to coverage, don’t even bother asking next time.”

True to its word, the UFC denied my two most recent requests for credentials. Let me rephrase that. I was told – less than 24 hours before the event – that my first request was denied due to space constraints. My second request sat in “submitted” status until the day after the fight card when it magically disappeared. I have not requested credentials since. (You can read a more detailed story here)

The MMA media that craves access knows this happens. They know if they refuse to play nice, they might join Josh Gross, Loretta Hunt, Jonathan Snowden and myself on the list of folks who can’t get credentialed to a UFC event for whatever silly reason.

The UFC has also reportedly told media members not to ask certain questions. This situation most notably occurred at the UFC 231 press conference in 2018, when the UFC announced the booking of Greg Hardy on the same upcoming card (UFC on ESPN+ 1) as domestic abuse survivor Rachael Ostovich. The obvious question was how could the UFC book Hardy, who a judge found guilty of assault and communicating threats to his former partner (charges were later dropped when the victim failed to appear in court, charges were later expunged) on the same card as Ostovich, who is a domestic abuse survivor. No questions were asked about Hardy at the press conference, however. Later it was revealed that a UFC employee gave the media the impression that they were to ask only questions about UFC 231. A media member who was in attendance said this request was made very close to the event and that timing prevented them from reaching out to their editors or the Mixed Martial Arts Journalists Association.

The MMAJA asked the UFC about the incident. The UFC claimed it was a miscommunication.

After reports from media on site today at the UFC 231 press conference, the MMAJA is looking into a situation in which reporters felt they were unable to freely ask questions.

MMAJA has been in touch with UFC PR, which said their intention was for reporters to focus their questions on Saturday’s card and away from other topics.

UFC said they did not direct the media to avoid specific subjects, but that was the impression felt by several MMAJA members credentialed for the event.

Given the miscommunication MMAJA is seeking to secure a remedy with the UFC.

Any journalist covering a mixed martial arts event, whether they are a member of MMAJA or not, should be able to ask relevant questions during public media events, particularly regarding newsworthy items.

Though the media on-site followed UFC’s message, which was issued moments before the start of the press conference, MMAJA wants to make it clear that any media member would have been well within their rights to do otherwise.

This organization exists to help working journalists in the MMA space. Fundamental to that is ensuring access to the subjects they have been assigned to cover.

We trust the UFC understands that facilitating the work of reporters is a much better option than restricting the work of reporters, and will take care to express its intentions to the MMA media with this in mind.

UFC president Dana White and some UFC fighters have also berated media members when asked questions they did not like. A not so subtle form of media intimidation.

Which brings us back to the UFC 246 pre-fight press conference and McGregor.

McGregor has not spoken about the two sexual assault investigations that are focused on him in Ireland. The UFC knows that question could be the first one to arise at Thursday’s event. But there’s an excellent chance the UFC will get in front of that issue. One way the UFC could do that is by giving ESPN access to McGregor before the event so he can answer the question. Seeing as that interview, if it does happen, would take place in a controlled environment with McGregor knowing the question is coming, any response there would have to be considered a calculated PR move involving McGrgeor, the UFC and ESPN—the UFC’s broadcast partner.

If McGregor answers the question in that environment, the UFC could shut down anyone asking that same question at the UFC 246 pre-fight press conference. The promotion and McGregor could claim he already gave an answer and that his response is not going to change.

And while that may be the case, if such a situation does arise, someone from the MMA media still needs to ask that question. A more or less scripted question asked in a safe and friendly environment might not get the same response in an arena full of media and fans, some of who might not be fans of McGregor.

I want to see McGregor answer the question in that environment because I believe we all, fans and media alike, deserve to hear his words and see his reaction in a high-pressure ‘real’ situation. It’s also important to see and hear how he handles any follow up questions.

The MMA access media needs to be more than transcriptionists for what the fighters and the UFC say. The media need to do the hard work and ask the hard questions, especially those who call themselves journalists. On Thursday, those hard questions need to focus on Conor McGregor.

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2020/1/...estigations-ufc-246-dana-white-donald-cerrone

What do you think guys

Public trial by MMA media of all people is not how this case should be handled.

What exactly do you want them to ask? Do you want them to ask him point blank if he's the Irish sports star under investigation? We know Irish law prohibits identifying people involved in sexual assault cases so he can't give an answer. Given that, putting him on the spot is at best grandstanding, at worst an unethical smear attempt to make him appear guilty without trial.

Jimmy Smith made a good point. UFC, ESPN and Conor's people would all be wanting to avoid a situation where one or two journalists try to keep asking the same question and push the issue. It could cause unwanted attention and if things get ugly Conor could get heated and say something that could be used to make him look bad. Given that he can't answer and we have no confirmation he is involved I could understand if they took steps to prevent that.

If the details we've seen are true it sounds horrific and I hope the case is properly prosecuted but this isn't the road to go down.

 

[Captain Herb]

Call bullshit all you like.



Belfast rape trial review: ‘hammer of the law’ to hit social media misconduct
Review begins after calls for reform following Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding trial


A retired judge reviewing how sexual violence court cases are dealt with by the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland has warned “the hammer of the law will have to come down on misconduct in terms of social media”.

The review was initiated after widespread calls for reform following the rape trial involving two former Ireland and Ulster rugby players, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

In March both men were acquitted of raping the same woman in June 2016. Mr Jackson was also cleared of sexual assault. Two of their friends, on related charges, were also found not guilty.

Sir John Gillen made the comments in an interview on Friday with legal expert Joshua Rozenberg on BBC Radio Four’s Law in Action.

Over the last six weeks Sir John said he had interviewed a number of complainants and those who have been accused and acquitted.

He said in several instances they spoke of their “lives being ruined” by social media and of rumours and untruths being spread.

Sir John, who retired last year from the North’s court of appeal, is expected to report back to the Criminal Justice Board, which includes the Lord Chief Justice, the PSNI’s chief constable, and the director of public prosecutions, by January 2019.

Sir John told Mr Rozenberg while he had only begun the review process and was keeping an open mind, he was already certain of three points.

These were; the “pathway from complaint to trial is too long,” that the trial process is “unacceptably daunting” and that, as a society we “need to reassess our whole approach to the trauma of serious sexual offences”.

Sir John said social media was a vital factor in all three.
‘Unacceptable’

He said typically it can take up to two years for a case to come to trial and that over 40 per cent of complainants can drop out of the legal process.

This was “unacceptable”, he said.

He warned, that with the presence of social media, the “anonymity of the complainant is now a figment of our imagination”.

He also said he was exploring the possibility of anonymity for the accused as comments on social media “renders the possibility of a fair trial, worrying”.

Commenting on societal attitudes to sexual offences he said it embraced myths about trauma and serious sexual offences in particular, which in turn influenced juries; and he spoke of the issue of juror misconduct in terms of social media.

“The need to dispel mythology of jurors is a vital factor and one that is gripping my attention,” he said.

“In the Republic of Ireland there is legislation now dealing specifically with juror misconduct in terms of social media, and Scotland are looking at the same thing.

“Maybe it is time we did that [in Northern Ireland] too. “The hammer of the law will have to come down on misconduct in terms of social media.”

Sir John said the crucial protection of complainant anonymity being under threat, as evidenced “in a number of high profile trials”.
Social media

He said in small places like Belfast, Derry, Newry or Strabane the “law becomes a farce” when names are “bandied about on social media” and that this was detrimental to the administration of justice.

Sir John said he was considering anonymity for defendants, like in the Republic of Ireland, as the “accused deserve a fair trial”.

Sir John is considering recommending excluding the public - not the media or relatives of the parties - from trials to tackle a number of issues including making some effort to control social media in small jurisdictions.

He also said it was difficult for jurors to avoid social media. “Maybe the answer is we need better and stronger education of jurors,” he said.

“But the concept of a fair trial is fundamental to our legal system and all possibilities have to be looked at to ensure that both sides, complainants and accused, are getting a fair trial.”

The Office of the Attorney General of Northern Ireland is investigating possible contempt of court by a juror in the trial of the rugby players who made comments about the case online. A deadline for its conclusion has not been set.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...-law-to-hit-social-media-misconduct-1.3540158

...in small places like Belfast, Derry, Newry or Strabane the “law becomes a farce” when names are “bandied about on social media” and that this was detrimental to the administration of justice.


Obviously talking about social media at a local level. No one outside of Ireland knows who Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are.

Thanks for posting the article though, I thought it was interesting that it said that it could take two years for a sexual assault charge to go to trial. The case was only sent to the prosecutors last spring and given that there's a new allegation, maybe they want to wait and see if both charges should be brought together. But yes, I agree that the Irish should follow the law in not naming the suspect and the system should be overhauled for quicker justice.

 

[MIKOM]

Obviously talking about social media at a local level.

Where do you think a jury comes from............. Mars?
There are less than 5 million people in Ireland, and they all have access to social media and sherdog.

 

[AP_RESURRECTION]

Might as well just file for bankruptcy yright then as your biggest topic will no longer give you any access. Just pretend to ask real questions, be a bitch and do your job as a pawn (or whatever Dana would say to them behind closed doors).

Its all part of modern society. Money rules. Anything else is buried if the person makes money. And every back channel will be used to help silence stuff like this. Thats the benefit of being big.

 

[Captain Herb]

Where do you think a jury comes from............. Mars?
There are less than 5 million people in Ireland, and they all have access to social media and sherdog.

But again, in the Conor case, it was the local social chat groups that were spreading all the rumors and gossip and naming the suspect. I hope you notice that all the information that I reference is straight from the police department and was published in the print media. I don't refer to the rumors like she is related to Dee or that they had to surgically remove her tampon etc. I'm just sticking to the facts of the case as the police have released them to the papers.

 

[kflo]

I'll let you know if and when charges are filed. In the mean time, the facts of the case are the facts. Woman sexually assaulted with multiple serious injuries. Conor says he had sexual contact, woman says she was raped. Because of the serious nature of the injuries it's highly unlikely that it was consensual.



Going to have to call bullshit on that

if those were the clear and only "facts" we wouldn't be here over a year later with no charges.

 

[Captain Herb]

And from your good self..... "Dude, they said blood was everywhere and she had internal and external injuries including strangulation marks. Conor brutally assaulted this woman and I hope the Irish Criminal Justice system has the guts to prosecute him"........... no allegedly there, Captain Herb.

That's all true what I wrote. It's my opinion that the evidence shows clearly that Conor was the one who did it. Why? Because the victim says it was Conor and Conor's DNA was found on the victim and hotel CCTV shows them entering and leaving Conor's room with Conor's crew. I suppose Conor could have had consensual sex despite she was on her period and blood going everywhere, then one of his buddies strangled and beat her, but if that's the case, why would Conor take the fall for one of his rent-a-friends?

 

[kflo]

That's all true what I wrote. It's my opinion that the evidence shows clearly that Conor was the one who did it. Why? Because the victim says it was Conor and Conor's DNA was found on the victim and hotel CCTV shows them entering and leaving Conor's room with Conor's crew. I suppose Conor could have had consensual sex despite she was on her period and blood going everywhere, then one of his buddies strangled and beat her, but if that's the case, why would Conor take the fall for one of his rent-a-friends?

why haven't charges been brought forward in over a year?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Sick fucks

That could be their mother or sister. Conor fans are the worst

It's really sad that the #metoo movement and general bullshit lynching mobs on social media have sesensitised the general public on such matters.

I, myself, have become very skeptical of rape charges from Anglo-Saxon countries.

 

[Captain Herb]

why haven't charges been brought forward in over a year?

Check out the article @MIKOM posted above. It's about the process for sexual assault cases in Ireland and how it can be two years between the crime and a trial. In Conor's case, it's only been a year AND there is a second case. If they want to bring charges in the second case, prosecutors may want to try them together which would presumably cause further delays.

 

[Nightgunner05]

Check out the article @MIKOM posted above. It's about the process for sexual assault cases in Ireland and how it can be two years between the crime and a trial. In Conor's case, it's only been a year AND there is a second case. If they want to bring charges in the second case, prosecutors may want to try them together which would presumably cause further delays.

So what your saying is that Conor could rape people every few months just so his case never gets to trial. Hmm interdesting...

 

[MIKOM]

Conor brutally assaulted this woman
That's all true what I wrote. ?

There is no way I could ever say that "hand on heart" without a court conviction.............. but you go right ahead.