It could perhaps go the opposite way - an example may be made of him due to his celebrity/role model status. I’m quite sure that he doesn’t actually face any punitive charges though, as it’s apparently a civil pursuit. Presumably it would just be financial or something? I’m repeating what I’ve read to be honest so don’t take my word on this.
Woman accuses Cristiano Ronaldo of rape - CR7 case only
- Thread starter Don Alfredo
- Start date
- Status
Some people here making statements having obviously read nothing about the allegations at all.
The claim should not be taken seriously without evidence. That is the fundamental basis of the legal system.
Wasn’t one of the judges accusers problem based on a drinking game where he got his cock out at uni? If that’s what sex abuse is now I’ve got a whole load of claims to put in with my lawyer from my uni days.
Last edited:
Often, there is no actual evidence of a sexual assault. What you're saying is that victims should sit down and shut up, or risk having people like you call them liars.
And if a drinking game involves sticking your cock in the face of someone who doesn't want your cock in their face, you're doing something illegal.
No I’m not tell them to sit down and shut up. I’m saying make the accusation but the law should protect the accused.
Which in itself is disturbing.
It's always baffled me how people will leap to the defence of those they admire without any perspective or objectivity.
What you define as evidence isn't what is actually defined as evidence. She has evidence. In this particular case the supposed evidence is quite significant. She may have physical evidence, but even if she doesn't, that doesn't mean she doesn't have evidence.
Dr. Ford was originally being dismissed in exactly the same way you dismissed Mayorga just now. She's just some strange woman out to get someone. Then Dr. Ford spoke under oath and it was universally agreed she was credible, and therefore she should be taken seriously. Now the president's mocking her...and you think people are being taken too seriously?!
The judge's suggested sexual assault was he stuck his dick into someone's face, without consent, and she was traumatised by it. You might think it's "soft" to be traumatised by that, you might think it's all a bit of fun, but that is sexual assault.
So if you did that, yes, you committed sexual assault. And I'd be embarrassed about ever doing that. There's a big difference between that and rape, but that doesn't mean it's ok. It just means it's less bad. It's an undeniably positive thing for that kind of thing to be eradicated from uni culture, both through legal action and social movements.
Last edited:
This was posted in the Brett Kavanaugh thread but it seems a perfect response to your last few posts.
Unfortunate some people still have the views they do in this day and age.
Can you point me to this evidence? All I've seen so far is two people give testimony, both seemed compelling enough, but where is the evidence against the accused?
Agreed on my description of someone getting their cock out. But I stand by the fact I want hard evidence and without it the accused should be protected until this is established.
I think the evidence mentioned is the Q&A where Ronaldo said that "she said stop" etc, but for all we know that could have been a bad translation and/or taken out of context. We just have to wait and see.
Sorry I'm getting myself confused between cases now! I did refer to the Kavanaugh case, but interesting info about the Ronaldo stuff non the less!
Ultimately, we can't really have an informed opinion on this until it has taken its course. What troubles me is the frequency in which the accused are seemingly guilty until proven innocent, and how acceptable it is to carry this out in the public eye. Now, if Ronaldo is guilty then he deserves everything that's coming to him, but even if he is innocent he still has this lingering doubt looming over him for the remainder of his life.
Yeah, I agree, but at the same time it's important not to "belittle" the accuser, for the lack of a better word. It's a difficult balance.
The person you deemed to be a money grabbing whore is the person who supposedly has substantive evidence. That's who I was talking about.
It's troubling for certain, and there is a potential for it to spin out of control. But the opposite is true. It's troubling how often the accusers were seen as being guilty of bribery, character assassination or just plain perjury. On the flipside of the assumption of innocence (for the accused) is the assumption of guilt (for the accuser).
The assumption of guilt has different levels of impact, but it also takes place in different contexts. If an innocent person is wrongly assumed to be a rapist, there's no doubt that has a huge, lasting impact for the majority, especially in the public eye. But let's not exaggerate that. Harvey Weinstein was an accused sexual assailant for years and was incredibly successful on that time, with a strong all round reputation. Times are changing but the conditions that allowed him to continue need to change. There will always be a negative implication of that change.
On the other hand if a victim is wrongly dismissed, then not only is she dealing with lasting mental and perhaps physical issues from the attack, but her reputation is damaged too. The reputational damage is less severe than in the prior scenario, but piled on top of the assault itself it is no less damaging or long lasting overall.
The implication of @fergieisold's position is to increase the prevalence if the latter. You're
putting it forward as the "balanced" view on things, sticking up for the other victims in this whole situation when they're being wrongly attacked. But we don't know that they're being wrongly attacked, and that assumption is an indirect attack of the other victims. Sometimes it is a direct attack on them.
It's a perfectly reasonable position to hold, but it's not a fair or balanced one. It's just an opinion given from a particular worldview, protecting someone you feel needs to be protected. And who you feels need protecting is people like you. That's what most of this discussion boils down to because there's no simple answer. The problem is when people start appointing their own view as the balanced or moral view. That's not constructive.
Last edited:
Not commenting on this case untill I see more details but having read about US justice system, a plea deal or any civil settlement for dropping of charges is not a definite indicator of guilt. So this line of argument that he paid x amount of money so he must be guilty is not correct.
This is getting mainstream coverage now so we should see more details coming out. Superficially this looks bad for Ronaldo, can't imagine a woman making false accusation against someone of his profile. But it is unlikely anything would come of it, atheletes like Kobe had rape allegations against them in the past and IIRC nothing came of them as in they didn't really harm his public profile either.
This is getting mainstream coverage now so we should see more details coming out. Superficially this looks bad for Ronaldo, can't imagine a woman making false accusation against someone of his profile. But it is unlikely anything would come of it, atheletes like Kobe had rape allegations against them in the past and IIRC nothing came of them as in they didn't really harm his public profile either.
«I firmly deny the accusations being issued against me. Rape is an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in. Keen as I may be to clear my name, I refuse to feed the media spectacle created by people seeking to promote themselves at my expense.
My clear conscious will thereby allow me to await with tranquillity the results of any and all investigations.»
Translation from his FB.
That's possible but strikes me as a very, very generous defence. Especially in the context of him having paid the settlement as well.
He deserves to be indicted for that 'dancing'. Atrocious . Ricky Gervais was better in the office.I hate the sun but heres a video of him on the night
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/7401...g-rape-accuser-kathryn-mayorga-las-vegas/amp/ dancing with said woman.
He really has some terrible moves on the dancefloor.
It's like he's taking a shit on the dancefloor at one point. All that mone,y come on give Pablo a call from the local samba class and learn some moves.
If she was bothered about criminal charges, this would have came out years ago.
she reported it to the police at the time and asked them to give her some time because she was traumatised and needed to get some help first
even if she hadn't, the overwhelming majority of rape and sexual assault is never reported, much of it getting reported much later than it happened so who gives a shit how long the person waits
She might still be interested. Her mind might have changed since then and it's possible for a victim to want justice (if this has indeed happened as she alleges) but simultaneously be too scared to be open in public about what's happened.
Would an annulment of the NDA imply that she would have to return the money?
Am I just imagining stuff now or did I read that she had spent the settlement (or parts of it anyway) on treatment/therapy after the alleged incident? If that could be collaborated by journals/receipts then surely that would go a long way to back up her side?
Her lawyers held a press conference...
Lawyer seems a bit scatter-brained.
Lawyer seems a bit scatter-brained.
I think their argument is that they did not violate the NDA. Der Spiegel broke the story with CRs lawyer's emails so the responsibility falls on them.
In such a case the payee would not be obliged return any funds.
Last edited:
Yes, the argument is Ronaldo’s side breached the terms of the NDA, first by not fulfilling their obligations (his lawyer supposedly didn’t read him the victim’s letter as required), and secondly by allowing details of the settlement to be leaked/hacked.
Cheers Mike, I'd forgotten that part about the letter as well, which was a condition of the agreement.
How could they prove that Ronaldo had not been read the letter? Did Ronaldo say so in the documents? Seem like a pretty daft thing to be caught out by Team Ronaldo.
There's a leaked email chain where her lawyer asks for confirmation that the letter has been read to Ronaldo (this is on the deadline date stipulated in the NDA for the letter to have been read). His lawyer replies that Ronaldo has read it - he then forwards this email to a colleague with the comment 'Pinocchio'.
Ronaldo is a great role model to so many kids and I've always liked him.
Hope it turns out that he can put this behind him and continue his stellar career - and by that I mean that I hope he's done nothing wrong and can get back to doing what he does best, scoring goals.
Hope it turns out that he can put this behind him and continue his stellar career - and by that I mean that I hope he's done nothing wrong and can get back to doing what he does best, scoring goals.
I see. Would that not be inadmissible?
That's unclear. Firstly, breach of the NDA would be a civil proceeding rather than a criminal case. Secondly, the 'Pinocchio' email is not between Ronaldo and his attorney, but between his attorney and a third party (albeit within the same organisation), where attorney-client privilege may not necessarily apply.
The state of this.
Is it really so hard to not completely feck up a simple PR tweet?
#WeAreAllMessi all over again (not comparing the crimes/situation or anything just the 1st twitter fail I could think off right now)
- Status