Probably the only way to clear that up. Maybe metadata shows it's been tampered with then. If it's just the word of his legal team it looks quite far fetched using the hack in 2015 to reframe the narrative.
Woman accuses Cristiano Ronaldo of rape - CR7 case only
- Thread starter Don Alfredo
- Start date
- Status
Probably the only way to clear that up. Maybe metadata shows it's been tampered with then. If it's just the word of his legal team it looks quite far fetched using the hack in 2015 to reframe the narrative.
Thanks for the update. I really don't understand why some crimes have to prescribe, honestly. "Yes, I raped that woman...but hey! you didn't catch me till now!
"I don't think it will even reach to a court, and even so, I don't think will never see the originals.
But they recognized that they had this kind of conversations and that the issue was taken seriously. At least there is smoke. Will see the fire
That new law can’t be applied in retrospect. However, I THINK there might be a «loophole» considering there was actually filed a complaint.
Ie, unless I’m getting it wrong, if she had NOT filed a complaint then no action could have been taken down the line - apart from a civil suit of course.
Thanks for the update. I really don't understand why some crimes have to prescribe, honestly. "Yes, I raped that woman...but hey! you didn't catch me till now!
They say it’s because it makes it hard for people to defend themselves. If someone came out of nowhere from 20 years ago saying you did something, you’d might have no clue how to defend yourself because you can’t remember. But in all honesty I think it’s just about making sure that reporting crimes is done in a time frame that suits the system.
I wasn’t sure on that, because I wasnt sure if she made a complaint or not and whether that would be the bench mark. I’m not 100% sure how it works. Does she have to make a complaint in the allotted time, or is it the prosecutor that has to bring a charge with in the time frame?
Not completely sure myself, but I think it is just that the complaint has to be made in time. If that is correct then that criteria has been met.
Oh well, interesting times ahead for Ronny.
It make somehow sense. But 30 years ago was no DNA test and other technologies...and who knows in the future. When there is new evidence that proof without doubt that someone is guilty, it goes beyond "I can't remember" . But of course is my opinion.
Sometimes like corruption, it takes long to know what is going on
What I don't understand is that if he did not rape her and claims he still did have an agreement with her that was published in a distorted form by Der Spiegel, what was the need for a clandestine agreement in the first place anyway if it was consensual? Doesn't an agreement or an out-of-court settlement imply some mischief by one party, for which the other party agrees a compensation to bury the incident?
Btw, the woman looks a lot like Tara Reid. Sorry if that is the least important of all issues here, but I couldn't help noticing.
Btw, the woman looks a lot like Tara Reid. Sorry if that is the least important of all issues here, but I couldn't help noticing.
Of course not. A person as famous as him could lose a lot more than that if publicly accused of rape. He depends on his image and popularity for most of his income.What I don't understand is that if he did not rape her and claims he still did have an agreement with her that was published in a distorted form by Der Spiegel, what was the need for a clandestine agreement in the first place anyway if it was consensual? Doesn't an agreement or an out-of-court settlement imply some mischief by one party, for which the other party agrees a compensation to bury the incident?
Btw, the woman looks a lot like Tara Reid. Sorry if that is the least important of all issues here, but I couldn't help noticing.
What I don't understand is that if he did not rape her and claims he still did have an agreement with her that was published in a distorted form by Der Spiegel, what was the need for a clandestine agreement in the first place anyway if it was consensual? Doesn't an agreement or an out-of-court settlement imply some mischief by one party, for which the other party agrees a compensation to bury the incident?
Btw, the woman looks a lot like Tara Reid. Sorry if that is the least important of all issues here, but I couldn't help noticing.
I read that real madrid forced him to settle in order to make it go away. Thats how a lot of these go, you pay to avoid the scandal and damage to reputation, image or whatever regardless of guilt. Because as we all know even the suggestion of rape is enough to put a big question mark over your head for the rest of your life.
#MeTsu .
Even Weinstein is now getting away with the case I doubt that we'll see anything out of this.
Even Weinstein is now getting away with the case I doubt that we'll see anything out of this.
How much did he pay her? Less than a weeks wage? It could have been that it was all consensual but Ronaldo and his legal team know that it doesn't matter what happened, it's all about what you can prove in court and it would end it being one word against another.What I don't understand is that if he did not rape her and claims he still did have an agreement with her that was published in a distorted form by Der Spiegel, what was the need for a clandestine agreement in the first place anyway if it was consensual? Doesn't an agreement or an out-of-court settlement imply some mischief by one party, for which the other party agrees a compensation to bury the incident?
Btw, the woman looks a lot like Tara Reid. Sorry if that is the least important of all issues here, but I couldn't help noticing.
For the sake of a weeks wage, it saves you having your name dragged through the mud, reputation in tatters, being convicted by the media/public and not a court.
Alternatively...he could have raped her and thought he could pay her to shut her up.
The originals would be covered under attorney-client privilege, I think.
All the defense has to do is invalidate what’s out there.
Not gonna lie, seems like she ran out of the settlement money and is trying to get some more.
There is something off about this whole story. If it's fake, I hope she pays the price for trying to ruin a man's career and life to get more money.
If Ronaldo is really guilty, doesn't even matter if it was 9y ago, he should get properly punished as well.
Unless she wins the case (if there is a case), I'm pretty sure her life will be ruined anyway.
There is something off about this whole story. If it's fake, I hope she pays the price for trying to ruin a man's career and life to get more money.
If Ronaldo is really guilty, doesn't even matter if it was 9y ago, he should get properly punished as well.
Unless she wins the case (if there is a case), I'm pretty sure her life will be ruined anyway.
Do you people have any evidence to suggest that it's common for rich celebrities to pay people, even when innocent, just to avoid public damage? Or are you pulling that idea out of thin air?
I find it hard to believe. First, they have access to the best lawyers. Second, there is ego and pride involved. I wouldn't want to be extorted for 100€ even if it isn't that much money. Finally, they'd open up to more and more events of the same type. There's a reason why governments rarely pay ransom money for their citizens...
Argento pulled the same defence and no one bought it.
I find it hard to believe. First, they have access to the best lawyers. Second, there is ego and pride involved. I wouldn't want to be extorted for 100€ even if it isn't that much money. Finally, they'd open up to more and more events of the same type. There's a reason why governments rarely pay ransom money for their citizens...
Argento pulled the same defence and no one bought it.
300k is a drop in the ocean compared to the reputation damage of even being linked with a controversy like this.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe. It doesn't matter if you have the best lawyers in the world and are completely innocent, get cleared in a court - There are huge numbers of people who have already cast judgement on Ronaldo because of this story, he is already guilty in some eyes and his reputation damaged.
Also they do..
The only reason there's reputation damage is because the story is somewhat credible, backed by leaked documents and a reputable newspaper.
I think it's possible, but find it hard to believe it's common.
Certainly, they can't be forced to show it. But they can if they want. If true, it would probably shut down the issue, at least in the court of public opinion. They have every reason to do it.
In this case there is credible info from Ronaldo's lawyer himself.
Lets wait till see if Ronaldo is guilty and if not this woman needs to be punished
Punished for what ? Coming forward to say she was raped ?
I said if she wasn't.
I don’t have any examples, but I’m fairly certain that it’s not unheard of at all.
They are very common in Hollywood. So much so that it is ridiculous to automatically assume guilt because a non-disclosure agreement exists.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hollywood-nondisclosure-20171026-story.html
My stance will always be "feck the court of public opinion".
As for Ronaldo and his lawyers, they'll only be concerned about public opinion if enough sponsors pull out.
I agree with your stance, but my point is that public opinion is extremely important for Ronaldo's bottom line.
That sounds very simple on paper, but it really isn't. What if the case never gets anywhere due to a lack of hard evidence? Does that automatically mean she lied and should be punished? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ronaldo not being found guilty is not the same as the woman being guilty of lying.
I think people in general need to be very careful turning against alledged sexual assault victims. Even if a case can't be proven or the alledged offender is found not guilty, there's always the possibility that it still happened. Often, victims have to deal with double punishment: the actual crime against them and the backlash/shame/victim blaming (even in cases where the other party is found guilty). And that's a heart breaking situation, one I would never wish to unwittingly support. Of course, this does not automatically imply siding against the other party, which is what a lot of people don't seem to understand.
I completely agree. However, it also works both ways - even if Ronaldo is cleared then there will probably always be a lingering doubt and stigma.
Again....I said if she wasn't. You're describing scenarios where we won't know. Also, each case needs to be dealt with differently. Just because a lot of times sexual assault victims are not believed and have to deal with backlash doesn't mean this is happening this time too.
We all have the right to form an opinion and so far, it sounds like this girl is a bit crazy. She took their money and is probably running low on it and is bringing it up again. Now I know people are going to attack me for this view I hold but that would be hypocritical because same way you can't just not believe assault victims you can't tarnish anyone that is alleged.
My point is, each case is different. In this case my gut feeling tells me she's in it for money but my gut feeling is thankfully not used to make decisions and experts will decide.
Oh and if it is found that Ronaldo is innocent without doubt, she needs to be punished just as harshly as how Ronaldo would have been. People don't realize how severe a crime it is to falsely accuse someone especially on actual victims.
It does work both ways to certain degree, which is sort of what I meant with that last sentence. But I don't think it's completely the same, that risk of "double punishment" I mentioned is never there. What is clear though, is whoever the wronged party is, the impact on their life is terrible. If only most people would refrain from having their judgement ready (and offering that judgement on social media or wherever). But that's just wishful thinking.
Sure, you have the right to form an opinion, I just don't for the life of me understand why you would want to exercise that right in such a way about a case like this. I'm dead serious when I say I truly don't understand people who react like you do, nor do I want to. Best we leave it at that.
Look at what happened during the Ulrika Johnson revelations, John Leslie was found not guilty of other accusations in court, but his career is over and people still believe he's guilty. I'm not saying it's right but I can see why even if you were innocent why many would want to settle out of court.
Last edited:
No, she shouldn't be punished if Ronaldo is merely found innocent by the legal system, that would be ridiculous. Only if she was charged and found guilty of making false accusations should she face the legal repercussions. They are different things.
I wouldn't necessarily expect their to be a correlation between innocence or guilt and paying an out of court settlement. There is probably a link between people dripping with wealth and paying people off.
Forget the money the allegations seem credible in and of themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily expect their to be a correlation between innocence or guilt and paying an out of court settlement. There is probably a link between people dripping with wealth and paying people off.
Forget the money the allegations seem credible in and of themselves.
Proving the victim is actually lying would tend to be incredibly difficult in a case like this, since to an extent you do often end up relying on the word of either party insofar as they're pushing their own side of the story. Unless she/her lawyers were to cock up and say something which implicates they have lied then there'd be no way of proving she wasn't telling the truth, and it's a fairly dangerous road to go down unless there is any evidence which suggests that.
Some of the comments here absolutely beggars belief.
Which comments?
@Daysleeper
We've seen this before. The statement presents the usual path that Mr. Ronaldo and his lawyers have taken in the past when unsuccessfully fighting our investigative work. More details below. (2/11)
Our story is carefully researched. We have hundreds of documents from different sources that substantiate our reporting. Here you can see some of them: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussbal...zum-vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-a-1231897.html … We have no reason to believe that those documents are not authentic. (3/11)
Furthermore, as always and before publishing every single article in DER SPIEGEL, we have meticulously fact-checked our information and had it legally reviewed. We are therefore confident with the sources that we base our story upon. We stand by our reporting. (4/11)
CR7’s new lawyer, Mr. Christiansen, writes that some of the documents were “complete fabrications”. This comes 2 weeks after we published! While always denying the rape accusations, this is the 1st time that Ronaldo's side are actually refuting facts of this recent article. (5/11)
Doubting our documents seems to be their preferred strategy: When we published an article about the settlement agreement between Mayorga and Ronaldo in 2017, his advisors first called it „journalistic fiction“. Now, Cristiano admits that he agreed to that settlement. (6/11)
When we reported about Mr. Ronaldo’s tax fraud, his lawyers first claimed that the information from our documents were “unreliable”. CR7 denied that he had committed any tax fraud. But by now, he admitted his guilt and paid money back to the Spanish state. (7/11)
Before publishing our story about the rape accusations, we gave Mr. Ronaldo and his lawyers the opportunity to respond to the allegations. They could have disputed the facts that we presented to them. They did not do that. (8/11)
Instead, they chose to have a media lawyer threaten us. He claimed that we infringed Ronaldo’s personal rights and announced that he would sue us if we went ahead with publication. So far, we have not received anything in this regard. We will continue to cover the story. (9/11)
Only Mayorga and Ronaldo know the truth about the incident. It’s not our job to judge, we only report. We tell both sides of the story. The responsible authorities will determine the following steps. So far, of course the presumption of innocence applies to Ronaldo. (10/11)
Here you can read further backgrounds on the research and content of this story:
… This investigation has been a team effort Der Spiegel from the start and continues like that. Please follow @antjewindmann, @rafanelli, @andreasmeyhoff for updates!(11/11)
There was a statement released yesterday, on behalf of Cristiano Ronaldo, concerning the rape allegations and our reporting at @derSpiegel. CR7's lawyer claimed that we quoted manipulated documents in our story. This is our answer. (1/11)
We've seen this before. The statement presents the usual path that Mr. Ronaldo and his lawyers have taken in the past when unsuccessfully fighting our investigative work. More details below. (2/11)
Our story is carefully researched. We have hundreds of documents from different sources that substantiate our reporting. Here you can see some of them: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussbal...zum-vorwurf-der-vergewaltigung-a-1231897.html … We have no reason to believe that those documents are not authentic. (3/11)
Furthermore, as always and before publishing every single article in DER SPIEGEL, we have meticulously fact-checked our information and had it legally reviewed. We are therefore confident with the sources that we base our story upon. We stand by our reporting. (4/11)
CR7’s new lawyer, Mr. Christiansen, writes that some of the documents were “complete fabrications”. This comes 2 weeks after we published! While always denying the rape accusations, this is the 1st time that Ronaldo's side are actually refuting facts of this recent article. (5/11)
Doubting our documents seems to be their preferred strategy: When we published an article about the settlement agreement between Mayorga and Ronaldo in 2017, his advisors first called it „journalistic fiction“. Now, Cristiano admits that he agreed to that settlement. (6/11)
When we reported about Mr. Ronaldo’s tax fraud, his lawyers first claimed that the information from our documents were “unreliable”. CR7 denied that he had committed any tax fraud. But by now, he admitted his guilt and paid money back to the Spanish state. (7/11)
Before publishing our story about the rape accusations, we gave Mr. Ronaldo and his lawyers the opportunity to respond to the allegations. They could have disputed the facts that we presented to them. They did not do that. (8/11)
Instead, they chose to have a media lawyer threaten us. He claimed that we infringed Ronaldo’s personal rights and announced that he would sue us if we went ahead with publication. So far, we have not received anything in this regard. We will continue to cover the story. (9/11)
Only Mayorga and Ronaldo know the truth about the incident. It’s not our job to judge, we only report. We tell both sides of the story. The responsible authorities will determine the following steps. So far, of course the presumption of innocence applies to Ronaldo. (10/11)
Here you can read further backgrounds on the research and content of this story:
… This investigation has been a team effort Der Spiegel from the start and continues like that. Please follow @antjewindmann, @rafanelli, @andreasmeyhoff for updates!(11/11)
Ever watched Ray Donovan ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...-behind-tinseltowns-dark-secrets-8707532.html
- Status