The high-profile civil assault trial involving former UFC star Conor McGregor is reaching its final chapter as closing arguments were presented on Tuesday.
McGregor, along with co-defendant James Lawrence, stands accused of raping a hair colorist under the influence of alcohol and cocaine in 2018. The case has drawn significant attention, with courtroom updates provided by outlets such as RTE and Paul Healy of the Irish Mirror.
During the final moments in court, the plaintiff’s attorney, John Gordon, passionately recapped the evidence for the jury, highlighting the lasting trauma his client has endured since the alleged assault at a penthouse in late 2018. Gordon referred to testimonies from medical experts who noted severe bruising on the plaintiff the day after the incident, with one professional stating they had never seen someone so bruised before. The plaintiff claimed that these injuries were from a violent encounter in which she was choked and sexually assaulted.
Gordon left the jury with a sharp reminder: “Somebody did it. It happened in the Beacon Hotel. It was Mr McGregor.” He acknowledged the plaintiff’s partying lifestyle but argued that it didn’t change the events that allegedly transpired that night. He also took aim at McGregor’s alternative explanations for the bruising, including a theory that she could have hurt herself by diving into a bathtub. “Thank goodness you have the common sense to realize you are being sold a pup by this arrogant man,” Gordon concluded.
On the defense, McGregor’s lead attorney, Remy Farrell, focused on what he described as inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s narrative. Farrell cited CCTV footage that purportedly showed the plaintiff not appearing distressed post-incident, discrepancies in her text messages to her boyfriend, and varying accounts of the night. “The reason I put all that to you is [the] entirety of the approach of the plaintiff is it’s all very simple: She was raped, has the bruises to prove it and everything else is just a distraction,” Farrell argued, questioning her memory of the events. “As if someone has surgically excised some bits and not other bits.”
Lawrence’s attorney also defended his client by emphasizing that the encounter was consensual, pointing to CCTV footage showing the plaintiff in the hotel lobby, countering the claim that she was “a very vulnerable woman.”
The jury has now heard both sides and will soon begin deliberations, though it is not clear when a verdict will be reached.
What do you think about the arguments presented in this case? Do you believe the jury will lean one way or the other? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comment section below.