Conor McGregor
Retweeted by Conor McGregor from his Twitter account:
Predictably, mouthpieces of Official Ireland are jumping on today's finding against Conor McGregor @TheNotoriousMMA to brand him as a rapist.
My personal opinion is there is very little that makes sense about this case, and I was shocked at the guilty verdict. Before you make up your mind, consider these 10 key details about this case:
1. The accuser first propositioned McGregor, sending him suggestive pictures over social media and volunteering to go to his hotel. Despite this, she claims she had no desire to sleep with him.
2. She left her boyfriend to go see McGregor as part of a multi-day bender, but lied to him about where she was.
3. CCTV showed her kissing and touching both McGregor and his friend -- AFTER McGregor was alleged to have raped her. In fact, she stayed for hours partying and drinking after the alleged assault.
4. She alleged he put her in a choke hold and told her "now you know how I felt in the Octagon where I tapped out three times" -- Really?
5. A couple in the bedroom next door testified against her account of events, they never saw or heard any signs of assault. One of these people that testified this was HER OWN friend and work colleague!
6. One of those people testified that he slept with the woman. She denied this, but it was seemingly corroborated by CCTV footage showing her all over him AFTER the alleged assault. She also sued this man for sexual assault (despite claiming to have no recollection of meeting him), but he was found not guilty by the jury.
7. She claimed to have no memory of the events of the CCTV footage showing her all over the two men, but had a good memory of everything else.
8. She claimed to be out of it at the time of the assault, explaining her lapsed memory, but she was texting lengthy text messages of lies to her boyfriend at the time.
9. For some reason, her boyfriend recorded the conversation with her when she returned home. What does that suggest?
10. The case was thrown out as a criminal case by the Director of Public Prosecutions due to insufficient evidence -- twice. This was a civil case where it does not need to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt", but just found to be more likely than not. The jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men. And lastly, this is NOT a rape conviction, but an award for damages over an assault.
Finally, here is what the DPP told the woman when she tried to bring this as a criminal case, for why her story could not be proven in a criminal trial:
“One significant factor in this case was the existence of a second suspect who claims to have had sexual intercourse with you after you say you were raped by the first suspect”
...
“As you know, you have no recollection of intercourse with the second suspect and have stated that if sex had taken place it would not have been consensual”
...
“You also described in your statement the amount of alcohol and drugs you had consumed.
...
“The CCTV from the hotel as well as relevant witness statements from hotel staff and a taxi driver were considered."
It's obvious from the reactions of regime mouthpieces to this that they are gleeful about an opportunity to destroy McGregor's reputation and neutralise his voice in Irish politics, something they have been keen to do since he spoke out and expressed the voice of many voiceless Irish people last year.
Whatever your feelings on Conor, he doesn't deserve the awful label of rapist on the basis of this.
This is a perfect example of the post-Marxist framing of life - best, it's true, seen as a narrative - as a battle between the powerful and the powerless. I'm not saying he didn't do it - although the evidence does heavily suggest this - but for many people the facts of the case didn't matter as much as Nikita Hand being powerless and Conor McGregor being the one with all the money and influence. If we see things this way, without seeing his position as a result of merit - he was a great MMA fighter once with a gift for self-promotion - we're all doomed into a negative, self-destructive spiral. Eight women and four men on the jury, it was biased from the start. Rape is a terrible crime, used widely in war for its psychological effect, but we can't ignore evidence. I wonder if the judge means to run for politics at some point.
I think it's because this post-Marxist viewpoint is a kind of narrative is why that it's so appealing to people, without them realising. They can also easily form groups around it.