Famous Irish sports star 'won't face charges' for alleged rape in Dublin hotel say DPP

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
nuraknu

nuraknu

savage
Jul 20, 2016
6,247
10,770
A famous Irish sports star who allegedly raped a woman at a Dublin hotel in December 2018 will 'not face charges' according to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The sports person was arrested by Gardai in January 2019 in relation to the alleged incident which was said to have happened at a southside hotel....

Continue reading:
www.dublinlive.ie

Famous Irish sports star 'won't face charges' for alleged rape in Dublin hotel

It’s understood that the same star was also investigated for an alleged sexual assault of a woman near a Dublin pub in October 2019
www.dublinlive.ie www.dublinlive.ie
 
BenAskrensStrikingcoach

BenAskrensStrikingcoach

Formerly formulating formally
Jan 30, 2015
4,753
5,118
Slippery little bastard got away with it, took your fuckin time DPP.

Happens in a lot of rape cases unfortunately, rumor of a 1 million offer declined by the victim and another one of 2 million.

Unless there was another pay off offered and she took it chances are the case didn't have the evidence, talk of the scene being contaminated must have been true.

Thats 1 down, lets see if he kicks the 2nd one.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
That it took them this long to drop the case and that the reason cited was that 'The DPP gave the direction this week following concerns that the case over the complaint would not convince a jury' shows that there was something there. Not sure about Ireland, but in my experience prosecutors don't usually offer a statement that implies guilt like that if they are dropping what they think is a frivolous charge, and they don't take 18 months to do it.

We now have to go around pretending that he isn't a rapist piece of shit, but I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I believe he did exactly what was alleged by both victims. His behavior is highly consistent with it.
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Dr. Prosper Meniere said:
That it took them this long to drop the case and that the reason cited was that 'The DPP gave the direction this week following concerns that the case over the complaint would not convince a jury' shows that there was something there. Not sure about Ireland, but in my experience prosecutors don't usually offer a statement that implies guilt like that if they are dropping what they think is a frivolous charge, and they don't take 18 months to do it.

We now have to go around pretending that he isn't a rapist piece of shit, but I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. I believe he did exactly what was alleged by both victims. His behavior is highly consistent with it.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. We should probably just abolish the court system altogether and let public opinion dole out justice.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
That's a fair point. We should probably just abolish the court system altogether and let public opinion dole out justice.
Click to expand...
Did I say anything about locking him up? Just an opinion, sweetheart - nobody is saying throw due process out the window. I know I am working with no evidence. Maybe he is 100% innocent. We don't know any details and never will. But that goes for those who think he innocent based on nothing more than the case being dropped.

Unfortunately rape cases usually come down to 'he said, she said'. If you think a rich, famous man being acquitted of a rape charge means he was definitely 'innocent', that would make you extremely ignorant about the success of these types of prosecutions. So am I being unfair on Conor? Maybe. But maybe if he wasn't a drug addict and repeated criminal offender, his denials of two different rape allegations would hold more credibility.
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Dr. Prosper Meniere said:
But that goes for those who think he innocent based on nothing more than the case being dropped.
Click to expand...
It actually doesn't. It's "innocent until proven guilty" not "we aren't sure either way".

Dr. Prosper Meniere said:
If you think a rich, famous man being acquitted of a rape charge means he was definitely 'innocent'
Click to expand...
It's not what I think, I'm giving the man the expectation of innocence everyone is supposed to be given.

Dr. Prosper Meniere said:
But maybe if he wasn't a drug addict and repeated criminal offender
Click to expand...
Hey, who doesn't like to ride the white horse from time to time? and that old dude swung on him first.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
It actually doesn't. It's "innocent until proven guilty" not "we aren't sure either way".



It's not what I think, I'm giving the man the expectation of innocence everyone is supposed to be given.



Hey, who doesn't like to ride the white horse from time to time? and that old dude swung on him first.
Click to expand...
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a standard of opinion. If you believe OJ Simpson was actually innocent just because he was acquitted, then your standard of opinion would be that of a retard. That doesn't mean you advocate treating people who are acquitted of crimes in ways that are prejudicial and possibly illegal - you accept the decision - but there's nothing to stop you from thinking that person is guilty.

If you believe that Conor is 'innocent', then by definition you believe that the two alleged victims are lying. You also have absolutely no grounds, as of right now, to believe this. There's a reason why courts find people 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. All we have are allegations, a denial, and a process that determines whether the allegations have sufficient evidentiary basis for a conviction, not one that determines innocence (although it is possible to pretty firmly establish this in the process).

There's nothing to argue here. I admit that I have no evidence and am simply prejudiced against Conor. But that doesn't mean that I am necessarily wrong.
 
Sheepdog

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
Because innocence is assumed.
Click to expand...
No, it is because it is literally not the role of a criminal proceeding to determine innocence, only guilt. The failure to legally establish guilt does not impart actual value on the initial presumption or innocence - it is simply a restatement of a principle that defines who has the burden of proof for establishing guilt, which began in Roman times but never said 'innocence'.

The 'presumption of innocence' is not anywhere in the US constitution and only emerged in common law there in nearly the 1900s, long after cunts in effect were already being 'presumed innocent'. That doesn't mean it isn't now an important legal principle, just that it never had anything to do with courts making a judgement on innocence, which they still don't.

I'll let Cornell explain why an acquittal doesn't = innocent. They use OJ as an example too - they probably realised they had to use examples that someone with autism might be able to understand as well (unfortunately, like with me, it probably won't be enough.)

www.law.cornell.edu

acquittal

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
BeardOfKnowledge

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,549
56,270
Dr. Prosper Meniere said:
No, it is because it is literally not the role of a criminal proceeding to determine innocence, only guilt. The failure to legally establish guilt does not impart actual value on the initial presumption or innocence - it is simply a restatement of a principle that defines who has the burden of proof for establishing guilt, which began in Roman times but never said 'innocence'.

The 'presumption of innocence' is not anywhere in the US constitution and only emerged in common law there in nearly the 1900s, long after cunts in effect were already being 'presumed innocent'. That doesn't mean it isn't now an important legal principle, just that it never had anything to do with courts making a judgement on innocence, which they still don't.

I'll let Cornell explain why an acquittal doesn't = innocent. They use OJ as an example too - they probably realised they had to use examples that someone with autism might be able to understand as well (unfortunately, like with me, it probably won't be enough.)

www.law.cornell.edu

acquittal

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
So was Conor acquitted or not charged at all?
 
Robbie Hart

Robbie Hart

All Biden Voters Are Mindless Sheep
Feb 13, 2015
49,805
50,770
Money is a helluva friend and an answer to many questions.....

put enough money in and your result is guaranteed

Guilty as charged
 
Leigh

Leigh

Engineer
Pro Fighter
Jan 26, 2015
10,925
21,293
Here are the facts as presented by the media.
  • A woman claimed she was raped by Conor McGregor.
  • The woman went to hospital and staff there confirmed she had injuries consistent with rape.
  • Conor McGregor acknowledged he had sex with her but claimed it was consensual.
Form your own opinions on that.
 
SongExotic2

SongExotic2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD. #FREECAIN
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
39,771
53,674
This wasn't Conor. It was some woman. I thought we went over this before....
 
SongExotic2

SongExotic2

ATM 3 CHAMPION OF THE WORLD. #FREECAIN
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
39,771
53,674
God damn my memory is shitty, and I'm watching a movie, said sports star isn't Conor, it's some woman athlete from Ireland, went all bill Cosby with the finger banging.


Are you guys fucken donkeys or am I mental? How come I'm the only person who remembers this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom