The judge very clearly, and often, explained it was rape. Further to the above post about sexual not being said and more trying to cast doubt over assault or that it wasnt rape the judge said the jury had been directed in detail on law and facts and knew exactly what they were being required to decide."
Iām not sure how more clear this could be. On countless occasions the judge said she was claiming she was raped, he said rape is a serious accusation.
If you called mcgregor a rapist, im not sure how he could sue for defamation given what a jury has decreed and what a judge has said about him. His character would not be defamed
The fact is though, he was found liable for assault, not guilty of rape.
Hereās the thing. Were he now to be prosecuted by the DPP and found āinnocentā of rape. Could one still call him a rapist?
Thereās no guilt in civil court bud. In the eyes of the law he has no record of raping anyone.
He was found liable for assault by way of rape. The judge said he raped her. But i think as mac said above , assault is something that needs to be entered for a civil case to proceed rather than rape? ā¦ the judge was very insistent in saying mcgregor raped her.
But we must also remember the burden of proof in a civil case is extremely low and judgement is found on what most likely happened.
Iām not entirely sure that anyone would agree the burden of proof in a civil case is āextremely lowā. It would be very high, but its not the same as a criminal case where it is ābeyond reasonable doubtā. I wouldnt be diminishing a result in a civil case which sat through days of testimony and had a jury involved as being āextremely lowā.
