Woman accuses Cristiano Ronaldo of rape - CR7 case only

Status
Not open for further replies.
UncleBob said:
Well, no, it's always been a claim. His legal advisors aren't going to start releasing documents...

It's not brushed under the carpet when there's a fecking statement that it's not being prosecuted due to lack of evidence.

They are minor parts. The story is the claim of rape, a part of the story is the documents, the documents could be fake but the story about rape could be true.

What legally binding LVPD interview transcript are you referring to ?
Click to expand...

LVPD sent him / his legal team questions and he admitted in one set of the questions that she had repeatedly said no and stop. But then admitted he did have sex with her.

Do I really need to explain the mechanics of rape? No means no. Half way down the page, search the word "admit".

https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...nts-emerge-in-rape-allegations-a-1241349.html

You're not understanding what I'm saying, his team are happy to let it be swept under the carpet and have no more about it cause it suits CR after the no prosecution verdict.

I'm just saying they were all talk when this broke about suing Der Spiegel. I mean they could actually do it if they had any real legal proof of them being fake, similar to the Jackson estate suing HBO for example.

I'm sure there are other examples similar to this, but its early on a Saturday and I really can't be arsed going digging them out.
 
Keefy18 said:
LVPD sent him / his legal team questions and he admitted in one set of the questions that she had repeatedly said no and stop. But then admitted he did have sex with her.

Do I really need to explain the mechanics of rape? No means no. Half way down the page, search the word "admit".

https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...nts-emerge-in-rape-allegations-a-1241349.html

You're not understanding what I'm saying, his team are happy to let it be swept under the carpet and have no more about it cause it suits CR after the no prosecution verdict.

I'm just saying they were all talk when this broke about suing Der Spiegel. I mean they could actually do it if they had any real legal proof of them being fake, similar to the Jackson estate suing HBO for example.

I'm sure there are other examples similar to this, but its early on a Saturday and I really can't be arsed going digging them out.
Click to expand...

You can't even get the story straight.

It's not a Las Vegas PD questionnaire..If the police wants questions answered from a suspect they aren't going to send an email and wait for a reply. At the time when the questions were answered, the police were unaware that the person involved was Ronaldo. Claiming it's a "legally binding transcript" from an interview is absurd.

The key document appears to be a 27-page questionnaire that was developed by Ronaldo's lawyers to get an impression of what took place in the early morning hours of June 13, 2009, in the Hotel Palms Place in Las Vegas.

And, as I've said before, there's already different versions of it floating around, and there's the obvious issue of who exactly wrote down the answers, what was the original answer in it's original language and context. There's plenty of references to lawyers saying that it's important that Ronaldo himself doesn't write down any answers, but that lawyers do it. I'm generally skeptic that a set of extremely well paid lawyers would have their clients, in this case one of the biggest sporting stars on the planet, answer a set of questions on paper about rape. Yes, they obviously want to know as much as possible about the case in order to identify the best way of defending their position, but going as far as essentially having someone admit to a crime on paper ?

Nobody is questioning the definition of rape, but in terms he said/she said it's extremely difficult to prove what happened without more evidence.

Jackson estate suing HBO is entirely different. They referred to an old contract with a non-disparagement clause, claiming that airing the documentary was a breach of said clause. You're comparing apples with used condoms.

Too many people in here are adamant that this and that is essentially an admission of guilt, without having the slightest clue about how things work. This whole "if he was innocent/if the document was altered they'd sue Der Spiegel" is daft as feck.
 
Der spiegel isnt some sort of new media. They would probably discuss with their bunch of lawyers before they release this.

I also dont think Ronaldo's lawyer is inept to the level of having an admission of guilt.

Neither do i think the woman lawyer if indeed it's as clear as the media reported.

The truth is probably somewhere lies in the middle somewhere.
 


In a scathing recommendation to the judge hearing the case, Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts on Wednesday blamed Kathryn Mayorga’s attorney, Leslie Mark Stovall, for inappropriately basing the civil damages lawsuit on leaked and stolen documents shown to be privileged communications between Ronaldo and his lawyers.

“Dismissing Mayorga’s case for the inappropriate conduct of her attorney is a harsh result,” the magistrate wrote in his 23-page report to U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey. “But it is, unfortunately, the only appropriate sanction to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.”

“Stovall has acted in bad faith to his client’s — and his profession’s — detriment,” Albregts decided.
Click to expand...

Ronaldo is a lucky boy.
 
Kind of similar to the Giggs thing no? Public interest argument?
 
It's interesting its the NYTimes. Normally I quite rate them, Haberman etc. But this to me sounds like something a British tabloid would do so it can have a headline with the words RONALDO and RAPE in the title. Maybe SHOCKING NEW REVELATIONS IN RONALDO RAPE*.
* There were none, but headlines gonna headline.
 
cyberman said:
Maybe I’m being stupid but if there’s no case then what’s to release? It seems like a way to publicly prosecute somebody that didn’t meet the criteria of the law?
Click to expand...

They haven't said there's no case though, have they? The woman had a rape kit and no doubt the equivalent of an ABE interview. Just because the man says 'no I didn't do that' it doesn't mean there's no case, just insufficient evidence to prosecute a rape case, which is an incredibly high bar.
 
cyberman said:
Maybe I’m being stupid but if there’s no case then what’s to release? It seems like a way to publicly prosecute somebody that didn’t meet the criteria of the law?
Click to expand...

You’re not stupid, it’s freedom of the press to publish something if NYT finds something worth presenting but just NYT thinks it’s worth, doesn’t mean it is
 
Moving it to this thread since we should keep it out of Greenwoods.

SonyaCross493 said:
In the same way. It is POSSIBLE Ronaldo is innocent and didn't rape the woman. You have to accept you wasn't there and yes you might think he's got lucky based on the stuff you've seen from Football Leaks etc (which Ronaldo's team denies) or that German Tabloid but there is a legal process which has BOTH sides of the story and evidence. We haven't seen Ronaldo'a side of the story.



But just because rape is hard to prove (which I agree is sad) you shouldn't automatically assume Ronaldo is guilty either (which I think is what you are doing.. Ronaldo is the fall guy and punching bag and you are taking your anger out on him because of the poor rape conviction rates across the board). Some Women are also guilty of making stuff up. Otherwise every woman would be believed and we would have a lot of men locked up unfairly.



A judge and legal experts have to judge each case on a case-by-case basic which Ronaldo was cleared legally. Some other celebrities like Crosby and Weinstein wasn't.
Click to expand...

I mean, if the women were believed in the first place, you'd have a hell of a lot more rapists locked up and a very tiny percentage of people wrongly convicted IMO. Or just going off the stats, there's a less than 5% chance that it's a false claim.



Of course it's possible Ronaldo is innocent. None of us will ever know. But we're all capable of doing what we believe is the right thing. Some people will stick to the official word on things and go on with their day supporting a great player. I get it. Others will read up on more details, connect the dots with what they believe likely happened based on all the details available and come to a different conclusion, backed up by the fact that so many cases don't actually end in a conviction, and it's a very dangerous game to play if people start attacking the victims.



Generally I go with believing the victim that claims they've been raped. Theyre the ones whose life is permanently affected assuming they're telling the truth, which they are most of the time, because they have a hell of a lot to lose if they aren't (and it's easy to counter sue if they aren't). People aren't criminal master minds. They don't go to the police station and report they've been raped after they have sex if they don't feel like they've been abused or it wasn't consentual. And then be too afraid to name the person. And then get inspired 10 years later after a social movement that gives them a platform to speak out. That paints a pretty clear image for me. And given the other person has hundreds of millions of people who idolize him and he has endless amounts of money and fame, I don't feel bad about the off chance that he is in fact innocent because the man can fight it endlessly until he is fully cleared if he chooses, otherwise he's living a dream life anyway. Meanwhile the woman has to live with possibly being raped and having hundreds of millions of randoms hating her just because she had the audacity to speak badly about this star.
 
RedRonaldo said:
And you are literally calling Ronaldo a rapist now, after the court has already dismissed the case. You know you could get yourself into trouble of defamation, if this is getting reported.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm sure Ronaldo is going to go after Bosnian Red on Redcafe for saying he *might* be a rapist but won't actually try to sue the newspaper who he claims forged the document that they leaked. Makes sense...
I choose to believe the victim in the case because from reading the events and connecting the dots, its just the right thing to do.
  • Ronaldo admitted they had sex that night, but claims it was consentual
  • Mayorga reported it the very same night that she'd been raped, but refused to name the person (pretty obvious reasons when you're dealing with a big name)
  • Later she got paid off a massive sum to keep quiet
  • A decade later she gets inspired with the #metoo movement to come forward and tell her story
Now do you honestly believe she is some criminal master mind who had sex, and then had the evil cunning to claim she was raped but refused to name who it was just so she can keep it in her back pocket for a decade? fecking hell.
 
bosnian_red said:
Now do you honestly believe she is some criminal master mind who had sex, and then had the evil cunning to claim she was raped but refused to name who it was just so she can keep it in her back pocket for a decade? fecking hell.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that would require a ”mastermind” in fairness. She claimed rape, got a payoff to hush hush and then later came back to it.
Not sure what part of that requires a mastermind.
 
bosnian_red said:
Yes I'm sure Ronaldo is going to go after Bosnian Red on Redcafe for saying he *might* be a rapist but won't actually try to sue the newspaper who he claims forged the document that they leaked. Makes sense...
I choose to believe the victim in the case because from reading the events and connecting the dots, its just the right thing to do.
  • Ronaldo admitted they had sex that night, but claims it was consentual
  • Mayorga reported it the very same night that she'd been raped, but refused to name the person (pretty obvious reasons when you're dealing with a big name)
  • Later she got paid off a massive sum to keep quiet
  • A decade later she gets inspired with the #metoo movement to come forward and tell her story
Now do you honestly believe she is some criminal master mind who had sex, and then had the evil cunning to claim she was raped but refused to name who it was just so she can keep it in her back pocket for a decade? fecking hell.
Click to expand...

The pay off isn’t significant because that’s just a way to avoid the publicity and costs that would come with a lengthy court process. In all likelihood Mayorga would have lost both her criminal and civil cases as the majority of the proof would have been her word against his but as a multimillionaire athlete you’d not want to be associated with anything like that whether guilty or innocent.
 
bosnian_red said:
Moving it to this thread since we should keep it out of Greenwoods.



I mean, if the women were believed in the first place, you'd have a hell of a lot more rapists locked up and a very tiny percentage of people wrongly convicted IMO. Or just going off the stats, there's a less than 5% chance that it's a false claim.



Of course it's possible Ronaldo is innocent. None of us will ever know. But we're all capable of doing what we believe is the right thing. Some people will stick to the official word on things and go on with their day supporting a great player. I get it. Others will read up on more details, connect the dots with what they believe likely happened based on all the details available and come to a different conclusion, backed up by the fact that so many cases don't actually end in a conviction, and it's a very dangerous game to play if people start attacking the victims.



Generally I go with believing the victim that claims they've been raped. Theyre the ones whose life is permanently affected assuming they're telling the truth, which they are most of the time, because they have a hell of a lot to lose if they aren't (and it's easy to counter sue if they aren't). People aren't criminal master minds. They don't go to the police station and report they've been raped after they have sex if they don't feel like they've been abused or it wasn't consentual. And then be too afraid to name the person. And then get inspired 10 years later after a social movement that gives them a platform to speak out. That paints a pretty clear image for me. And given the other person has hundreds of millions of people who idolize him and he has endless amounts of money and fame, I don't feel bad about the off chance that he is in fact innocent because the man can fight it endlessly until he is fully cleared if he chooses, otherwise he's living a dream life anyway. Meanwhile the woman has to live with possibly being raped and having hundreds of millions of randoms hating her just because she had the audacity to speak badly about this star.
Click to expand...
My brother in law has just fought off a rape charge from his wife of 16 years, It's taken him 2 years! He lost his job his house and didn't get to see his kids in that time. In the end she admitted to making it up so she could leave him for another man. The law must defend the innocent. If a single innocent person loses their liberty that's one too many.

Develop law to convict the guilty not punish the innocent
 
Widow said:
My brother in law has just fought off a rape charge from his wife of 16 years, It's taken him 2 years! He lost his job his house and didn't get to see his kids in that time. In the end she admitted to making it up so she could leave him for another man. The law must defend the innocent. If a single innocent person loses their liberty that's one too many.

Develop law to convict the guilty not punish the innocent
Click to expand...

Here's some people who escaped punishment while quite obviously guilty of crimes (variable severity):

- Steve Gerrard (assault).
- John Terry (racial abuse).
- OJ Simpson (murder).
- Al Capone (murder and a lot of other stuff, except tax avoidance).

A lot of people aren't even charged for their crimes. To use two ends of the scale, Luiz Suarez could obviously have been charged for biting, but wasn't. The London bombers were never charged (because they died). I'm not aware of people getting punished legally for making up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify an invasion killing a lot of innocent people. They all did it.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Here's some people who escaped punishment while quite obviously guilty of crimes (variable severity):

- Steve Gerrard (assault).
- John Terry (racial abuse).
- OJ Simpson (murder).
- Al Capone (murder and a lot of other stuff, except tax avoidance).

A lot of people aren't even charged for their crimes. To use two ends of the scale, Luiz Suarez could obviously have been charged for biting, but wasn't. The London bombers were never charged (because they died). I'm not aware of people getting punished legally for making up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify an invasion killing a lot of innocent people. They all did it.
Click to expand...
We can't throw ten people in prison because seven of them are guilty.

Adapt law to reduce technicalities that allow people to escape justice, don't punish the innocent.

Edit: The trial of OJ Simpson is one of the worse showings of a jury trial in modern times. Whilst studying law I wrote an essay on the failings and clear misleadings during the trial. How they came to that verdict I'll never know BUT that is our legal system, a right to trial and the burden is on the prosecution not the defendant.
 
Last edited:
Its hard to punish Greenwood and look the other side with Ronaldo without accusations of hypocrisy. I don't know what the solution is, but its sure not very comfortable being Richard Arnold right now. A first month straight from hell for a new CEO.
 
VanDeBank said:
No it's not just "possible". It should be the assumption given there's no evidence or a conviction.
Click to expand...
That's an incredibly naive viewpoint to hold in general though. Rich and influential people get away with heinous crimes in the court all the time. Ever heard of OJ Simpson or Kobe Bryant for example?
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Its hard to punish Greenwood and look the other side with Ronaldo without accusations of hypocrisy. I don't know what the solution is, but its sure not very comfortable being Richard Arnold right now. A first month straight from hell for a new CEO.
Click to expand...
It's not hypocrisy though as Ronaldo hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong.

The court of public opinion isn't a barometer of guilt.
 
Moby said:
That's an incredibly naive viewpoint to hold in general though. Rich and influential people get away with heinous crimes in the court all the time. Ever heard of OJ Simpson or Kobe Bryant for example?
Click to expand...
But Ronnie was never in the court.

You can't suspect someone of anything without any evidence, regardless of their financial status.

It's literally he said, she said.
 
Widow said:
It's not hypocrisy though as Ronaldo hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong.

The court of public opinion isn't a barometer of guilt.
Click to expand...

I mean, like posted earlier in this thread, there are leaked documents that have him admitting to his lawyers that it was non-consensual. After that, its a question of morality vs lawfulness.
 
Moby said:
That's an incredibly naive viewpoint to hold in general though. Rich and influential people get away with heinous crimes in the court all the time. Ever heard of OJ Simpson or Kobe Bryant for example?
Click to expand...
Simpson ect... Found not guilty by a jury (astoundingly)

Mayorga was advised by her own council to settle out of court in a civil case, not criminal. This is usually the case when a conviction is not likely.

Wednesday at Stoke said:
I mean, like posted earlier in this thread, there are leaked documents that have him admitting to his lawyers that it was non-consensual. After that, its a question of morality vs lawfulness.
Click to expand...

The leaked files are contested by Ronaldos legal team and not proven to be true, hence why they can't be used in any criminal case.
 
VanDeBank said:
But Ronnie was never in the court.

You can't suspect someone of anything without any evidence, regardless of their financial status.

It's literally he said, she said.
Click to expand...
Yeah settle inside or outside. Whatever it takes for there people to get out of their shit.

As for he said she said. This is what HE said

answers: "I fecked her from the side. She made herself available. She was lying on her side, in bed, and I entered her from behind. It was rough. We didn't change position. 5/7 minutes. She said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available. The whole time it was rough, I turned her onto her side, and it was fast. Maybe she got some bruises when I grabbed her. (...) She didn't want to 'give it to me,' instead she jerked me off. I don't know any more exactly what she said when she was jerking me off. But she kept saying no. 'Don't do it' -- 'I'm not like the others.' I apologized afterwards."

That is rape.
 
Personally I don't believe Ronaldo from what I have read. He was also accused early in his Uinted career too. After the initial buzz of signing him I just haven't been able to warm to him since he's come back. I kind of hope that he leaves this summer.
 
Frasbul said:
Again: According to Spiegel, it is literally she said and he said it also.
Click to expand...
False. Der Spiegel revealed a document that says Ronaldo admits to rape, while Ronaldo himself disputes it.

Moby said:
Yeah settle inside or outside. Whatever it takes for there people to get out of their shit.

As for he said she said. This is what HE said

answers: "I fecked her from the side. She made herself available. She was lying on her side, in bed, and I entered her from behind. It was rough. We didn't change position. 5/7 minutes. She said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available. The whole time it was rough, I turned her onto her side, and it was fast. Maybe she got some bruises when I grabbed her. (...) She didn't want to 'give it to me,' instead she jerked me off. I don't know any more exactly what she said when she was jerking me off. But she kept saying no. 'Don't do it' -- 'I'm not like the others.' I apologized afterwards."

That is rape.
Click to expand...

Settlements aren't admissions of guilt, they're common as piss in the US.

No that's not what he said. There's a document that says that's what he said, but he disputes it.
 
Widow said:
Simpson ect... Found not guilty by a jury (astoundingly)

Mayorga was advised by her own council to settle out of court in a civil case, not criminal. This is usually the case when a conviction is not likely.



The leaked files are contested by Ronaldos legal team and not proven to be true, hence why they can't be used in any criminal case.
Click to expand...
Moby said:
Yeah settle inside or outside. Whatever it takes for there people to get out of their shit.

As for he said she said. This is what HE said

answers: "I fecked her from the side. She made herself available. She was lying on her side, in bed, and I entered her from behind. It was rough. We didn't change position. 5/7 minutes. She said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available. The whole time it was rough, I turned her onto her side, and it was fast. Maybe she got some bruises when I grabbed her. (...) She didn't want to 'give it to me,' instead she jerked me off. I don't know any more exactly what she said when she was jerking me off. But she kept saying no. 'Don't do it' -- 'I'm not like the others.' I apologized afterwards."

That is rape.
Click to expand...
As above, contested.

The settling out of court was on advise from her legal team.
 
VanDeBank said:
False. Der Spiegel revealed a document that says Ronaldo admits to rape, while Ronaldo himself disputes it.



Settlements aren't admissions of guilt, they're common as piss in the US.

No that's not what he said. There's a document that says that's what he said, but he disputes it.
Click to expand...

So you agree that your statement that there is no evidence is false? Because according to your logic, it is: he said, she said and also leaked documents that tell us he said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.