Honestly, all you people defending Ronaldo are as bad as the people in the Greenwood thread. This is disgusting.
Woman accuses Cristiano Ronaldo of rape - CR7 case only
- Thread starter Don Alfredo
- Start date
- Status
And all you that have labelled him a rapist without actual, legal evidence is disgusting!
If he had been found to have done it, I certainly wouldn't defend him but he hasn't
If you entertain the very real possibility that he settled with the woman as to not damage his brand with further legal proceedings, no he wouldn't because he's making decisions with his bank account in the back of his head, not to "clear his name", which he can't possibly do, because drawn out legal proceedings wouldn't clear him in the public eye, that's not how it works. Michael Jackson's reputation was damaged more by an acquittal than if there hadn't been a trial.
We don't know if it's evidence or not in a legal sense until it gets admitted or thrown out in court. I certainly wouldn't errh towards the side of "he's a rapist" based on such weak, possible evidence.
If you think a leaked document is just as strong evidence as pictures and audio recordings from a GF no less, you have very shitty judgement.
If all accusations are taken at face value, it would incentivize false accusations.
Also the 5% figure is the figure that were provably false, a large % of accusations are neither proven nor disproven. We can only speculate on the actual %, but it will be higher than 5%.
Disclaimer: just an observation on the topic broadly. In no way, shape or form should this post be construed as making any point about any particular case, such as Ronaldo, Greenwood or their accusers.
A settlement isn't an admission of guilt. But you make it knowing how it would be perceived by the public if it came to light.
Beyond that, the details of how Mayorga acted at the time make for a credible accusation.
Ultimately though this depends on whether you believe the hundreds of documents presented to Der Spiegel (including the supposed admission and its supporting emails) are legitimate. If they are, Ronaldo is certainly a rapist. If they're not, it is curious that his lawyers neither pursued legal action against Der Spiegel nor released any proof that the documents had been altered or falsified given the originals belong to Ronaldo & his lawyers. If they showed a single one had been altered/falsified, it would punch a hole through the allegations and stop his reputation from being shredded. Because once the accusations became so public, the point behind making the settlement just to preserve his reputation vanished.
Beyond that, the details of how Mayorga acted at the time make for a credible accusation.
Ultimately though this depends on whether you believe the hundreds of documents presented to Der Spiegel (including the supposed admission and its supporting emails) are legitimate. If they are, Ronaldo is certainly a rapist. If they're not, it is curious that his lawyers neither pursued legal action against Der Spiegel nor released any proof that the documents had been altered or falsified given the originals belong to Ronaldo & his lawyers. If they showed a single one had been altered/falsified, it would punch a hole through the allegations and stop his reputation from being shredded. Because once the accusations became so public, the point behind making the settlement just to preserve his reputation vanished.
Why wouldn't his name be cleared in legal proceedings if those actual quotes in the document are completely false and he never said any of that? It's not a document with a third person account. They are actual quotes word by word by the accused party.
You literally said it. His actions aren't those of someone who is completely innocent and would want such a disgusting accusation to be completely marked off but of one who is trying to close the chapter with as little publicity and fuss.
not how it works. Its very normal to threaten with lawsuits but Ronaldos lawyers will have pointed out that its difficult to win against newspapers and that losing will have bigger consequences as it would give the impression of guilt.
Exactly this.
Risk vs Reward should be fairly easy to understand, has little to do with guilt or innocense
Mate I'd love you to explain me why if a newspaper that posted actual quotes of you saying something can't be sued? This isn't a news article citing unknown sources that usually muddles the water. They absolutely quoted him with the whole incident played out word to word.
There is a NDA attached to the settlement I believe, this could have preventing them from releasing any documents. Furthermore, it's not Ronaldos legal teams job to prove his innocence, that burden is on the plaintiff.
As for the paper, it would be hard to prove who amended the document. The same can also be said of the plaintiffs legal team, why have they not used them to bring charges against Ronaldo if they are true?
His name wouldn't be cleared in the public eye. His brand takes a hit from legal/court proceedings alone.
Where did I say that? His actions can be perfectly justified from an innocent angle.
He had sex, she said it wasn't consensual, he said it was. Ronnie pays her 200k to shut up so there's no legal proceedings and he keeps making bank. Why would he then suddenly sue a fecking German newspaper when he just wants as little fuzz as possible.
Basically, you're choosing to go with a guilty angle rather than a bank balance one. I'm not going to errh towards he's a rapist when the evidence is weak as piss.
Nope, every time there's a news story on the legal proceedings/court battle, it damages his brand because a good chunk of people just see the headline and think "there could be something to it". It literally works like advertising does.
I'm not sure if you mean in terms of the settlement or not taking legal action against Der Spiegel.
In terms of the settlement, sure. Innocent people sometimes weigh it up and decide that paying the money is worth it to not damage their reputation. Guilty people also take that approach to quash accusations against them. It is what it is.
In terms of deciding not to pursue legal action against Der Spiegel, that comes at immediate cost to the reputation he had previously paid quite a lot of money to maintain. And that choice comes in the context of him seemingly having an atypically obvious route to winning legal action against the paper. Because, according to him, Der Spiegel's report is based on documents that are either altered or entirely fake. And the original, accurate documents include ones between Ronaldo and his lawyers. Quite a weakness in Der Spiegel's case given how regularly fraudulent documents get disproven in court. And as I say, in this case there are hundreds of documents and disproving any of them would call the credibility of the others into doubt.
Last edited:
This makes no sense. There is a public document that has exact quotes from him saying he raped someone and he is being accused of rape based on that. Literally the first action for someone that is such a huge global personality would be we to sue the source of such a document IF they were completely innocent and had nothing to hide. How the feck will that demonstrate anything besides intention to clear their name from a baseless allegation?
Last time I checked direct quotes from someone accused of rape saying they raped the victim aren't 'weak as piss'.
In terms of legal action against der spiegel. Ronaldos name as a brand is huge, any decision made is on the basis of protecting it as much as possible, its a numbers game. As soon as the story broke his reputation took a hit, damage is already done, launching a lawsuit where he has to disclose documents to prove a falsification has so much potential for a disaster that his legal team will always advise caution no matter what they say in public. The more attention the bigger the damage is.
Best case scenario he wins, people will still know of the story, that he paid her off and that she claims rape, the story itself doesnt go away, just a document, a small part of the story. The upside of winning is small, but the potential downside is huge.
What? That document is the biggest reason he is considered a rapist by a section of the public and falsifying that would completely erase the allegations in the public eye.
On the other hand neglecting the obvious course of action is what is letting people believe those allegations to be true. Remove that and the whole case is reduced to her word against his. And winning the lawsuit would be a massive publicity boost for the brand.
The legal advice is spot on and would be given to someone who has potentially more damaging details to be uncovered if they went to court not to someone who has nothing to hide.
Wow, do you really believe were Ronaldo to sue Spiegel they would investigate the the veracity of the contents of the document?
It would be about if Der Spiegel was within their rights to publish or if they need to retract it and pay damages (which again, is peanuts compared to what Ronaldo continues to make if there's at little fuzz as possible)
He could still sue them if he were guilty, it wouldn't change a thing.
It would have people talking about the rape, which damages his brand.
So far everything Ronaldo has done points to him caring about his bank balance above all, which to me still is a more likely explanation for his action than being guilty.
Michael Jackson reputation took a hit despite the acquittal.
If MJ had a choice to go to court, and cared about his bank balance, he'd say no rather than try to clear his name.
You're assuming he'd say yes because of moral reasons and are completely ignoring that (rich) people love money above else.
Right now every time there's a Ronaldo story online, you will find people referencing the rape allegations. His reputation has already been forever damaged by the Der Spiegel report that he refused to pursue legal action against. If he had taken legal action against them and won, it would of course have done more to preserve his reputation than doing nothing did. Because as is they've reported on evidence that he admitted to being a rapist, and he has allowed it to stand unchallenged beyond just asking people take his word for it that it isn't true.
Also in reference to @UncleBob's post, disproving the documents would also have prevented the subsequent civil case that was pursued by Mayorga, which was based on those allegedly falsified documents. And those false documents are the central pillar in people's belief that he is likely a rapist, so disproving it would have mattered a lot.
If you are credibly accused of rape and you repeatedly turn down chances to prove your innocence by paying large amounts of money to settle, refusing to take legal action, not trying to disprove evidence publicly presented against you and trying to block cases going to trial then the impact that will have on the public's perception of you and what likely happened should be obvious. That's the route Ronaldo and his lawyers have opted to go down and his current level of reputational damage is the result. There will now likely forever be these credible accusations hanging over him, because with the information we have been presented with huge swathes of rational people would conclude that he probably committed rape.
god no
"he's already wasted 200k, so now his next decision won't be based on cost-benefit"
That's sunk cost fallacy.
A case against Der Spiegel could cost him more money
For people that care enough to read/research the whole story when all is said and done. Which is a massive minority of the public and customers.
Again, like I said, a case against Der Spiegel wouldn't be about what's in the document, it'd be about if Der Spiegel was within their rights to publish this (alleged fake) document they got. Ronaldo probably loses more money from people being remembered about the rape allegation than he would gain in a settlement.
I don't know why you're unwilling to look at his actions from a financial, rather than a moral perspective.
It's incredibly naive to think 200k is large of sum of money compared to what he'd lose out on if he'd be in a court battle.
Replace reputational damage, with brand damage and it sounds really silly. Again I'm assuming he's makes business decisions, not moral ones.
So tell us honestly. Do you think the document and every quote in there is completely fake?
I don't know what part of it is real or fake, which is why I'm not assuming Ronaldo is a rapist. It could be real, but it doesn't look like something that's very hard to fabricate/edit either.
But again, he could be guilty and his actions would still make sense from a financial perspective alone, which is why it doesn't make sense for me to conclude he's guilty based on him settling with the girl or not suing Der Spiegel.
Imagine just one sponsor dropping because they don't want to associate their brand with someone that is being linked to a rape case in the papers/internet every day. It could have a snowball effect and he'd lose tenfold more money from 1 sponsor dropping than a 200k settlement and Der Spiegel possibly compensating him.
Last edited:
Kathryn Mayorga’s story is a tougher sell than a domestic abuse one with irrefutable evidence but it’s believable and as a fan already put me in a position I didn’t like being in and one that’s only intensified over the weekend.
Let's assume it is completely fake. Do you think a newspaper would release an exact document - not an article with ambiguity - but an actual clear cut document with multiple direct quotes of Ronaldo literally admitting to rape, if they completely fabricated it and could be easily sued for it? What exactly do they gain from risking that amount of financial loss from getting sued? Did they predict one of the biggest names in the world who is also one of the richest names in the sport and carries a huge brand would opt out of taking legal action against something that is as damning as that document? It is pretty much as big a hard evidence you can find in a case like this - it's basically the accused admitting of the crime. Do Der Speigel have a history of randomly accusing and defaming celebrities with concrete evidence using direct quotes from them?
And secondly, assuming you have read the entire document and how it presents the entire incident, what is your own opinion on how likely it is that the events unfolded as they are presented there? This isn't a first of it's kind incident, we know similar events with similarly rich and influential celebrities have happened in the past.
The thing about people who behave a certain way is that they’re likely to do it over and over again as has been shown with many such scumbags.
This seems to be very much an isolated incident. It could be that it isn’t entirely true or it has scared him into mending his ways. No one can say for certain one way or the other.
There’s no criminal case, there’s no civil case, there’s no repercussion from sponsorship or football so Ronaldo has nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging with Der Spiegel and creating a further media circus around it because even if he disproved everything it will never get rid of the story while on the other hand if he wasn’t able to disprove some of the documents in court it could be perceived as guilt.
The advice of his lawyers would be to ignore it.
The documents in question is just a small part of the case anyway, and it's a major newspaper, so unless his legal team have been documenting what the actual content is and Der Spiegel refused to accept it and published something against better knowledge, it's going to be extremely difficult to convince someone that they've actually done something wrong. Most will see it as Der Spiegel being well within their rights to believe the content to be true, given the rest of the documents they've been given via football leaks, and that it's just a small piece of a much larger case where the major story is the woman who'se accusing him of rape and not a document. Risk vs Reward, and the risk isn't anywhere near worth the potential downside.
And, as I've said before, there's 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 ? The level of stupidity would be unprecedented.
He didn't pay a large amount, he forked out less than he earns in a week from his standard contract, from which he earns less than he does from his sponsorship deals.
Unless something big changes that forces his legal team to act, then there's little or no reason to do anything. They're well aware that some will always believe he did it, hardly his biggest concern and his sponsorship deals are still rock solid. They'll stick to him being targeted due to his wealth, just like what happened with Van Persie, even Neymar, someone hoping to land a bit of cash. There's no reason to go for a more active approach at the moment, especially with the general atmosphere as a result of metoo in all of this.
Damn.
Why are you assuming Der Spiegel falsified the documents themselves if the documents are fake? They could have gotten them already falsified (which is more likely)
Again, you fail to separate the morale ("damming" ..) and the financial ("huge brand")
It'd be worse for his own brand to sue and have his name linked with the rape allegation for months even if he ended up being in the right, which means he has nothing to gain financially by suing. I'm sure Der Spiegel considered the odds of getting sued, but I doubt it played a big role in the decision to publish. They could believe the document to be true and they definitely thought they had a good case were they going to get sued (which again, would be about being right to publish and not about the rape).
Again, I don't understand your unwillingness to look at all his decisions and actions from a financial point of view, which is less of a stretch than assuming he's guilty. Occam's Razor applies here. Money is a primary motive for a lot of people.
The general public is far less aware or interested in the details as you are. The more often they hear Ronaldo and Rape in one sentence, the less likely are they to buy his shit because the name leaves a dirty taste in their mouth.
Do you think money is not Ronaldo's primary motivator here and him being guilty is more likely or do you think going to court with the woman to "clear his name" and suing Der Spiegel wouldn't cost him money through brand damage(therefore he's guilty by not doing so)?
Which one is it?
What?
That seems a very odd response to the post you quoted.
You just went back and repeated your previous post, I've put the discussion on Ronaldo suing the newspaper to the side in that post where I asked you about your own opinion on the matter looking at the events as they unfolded. Maybe you can answer each question in that post from your own perspective - putting the legal and financial strategies to the side for a moment?
We're not throwing them in jail, we're judging them as private citizens.
Which I why asked you this question, because we're going in circles and your pov isn't entirely clear to me.
Why would I leave the financial motive aside when I believe it's his primary motivator in literally every action he's taken and a far more likely motivator and easier explanation than hiding his guilt?
It's like asking me why I would sell my guitar leaving aside the financial aspect, when I've already told you I'm selling my guitar for money.
No but everyone should assume he's innocent. Like we all did with MJ.
Mate, did you read my post that you quoted?
Can you explain this:
Do you think a newspaper would release an exact document - not an article with ambiguity - but an actual clear cut document with multiple direct quotes of Ronaldo literally admitting to rape, if they completely fabricated it and could be easily sued for it? What exactly do they gain from risking that amount of financial loss from getting sued? Did they predict one of the biggest names in the world who is also one of the richest names in the sport and carries a huge brand would opt out of taking legal action against something that is as damning as that document? It is pretty much as big a hard evidence you can find in a case like this - it's basically the accused admitting of the crime. Do Der Speigel have a history of randomly accusing and defaming celebrities with concrete evidence using direct quotes from them?
This happened before Ronaldo's decision to not sue them, and has nothing to do with what you're going on about.
And finally, this:
And secondly, assuming you have read the entire document and how it presents the entire incident, what is your own opinion on how likely it is that the events unfolded as they are presented there? This isn't a first of it's kind incident, we know similar events with similarly rich and influential celebrities have happened in the past.
Again, this has nothing with Ronaldo's decision to sue the newspaper or not.
Right back at ya
Other (rich and influential) people have also been wrongly accused. It's a non argument.
Anyway, I'm hoping you can answer my question so I know where you stand:
You've refused to give an answer twice now.
Last edited:
Can this thread just be locked unless something new comes out? They are just rehashing the same old argument. @Wibble @golden_blunder @Damien @Solius
Last edited:
Part of the problem why so few women ever come forward with stories like this is that powerful people are usually well protected by an army of lawyers and usually rabid fans, by now I think there are only rabid fans really, who never believe the victim anything and come up with the biggest mental gymnastics possible to make their client/idol be the real victim here.
It's why there had to be more than 10 women making claims against Weinstein before anything really stuck to him. Why Roman Polanski still isn't in jail and an American President can pay of a porn star and still remain in office. This narrative of oh so poor and powerful men who get accused by these evil women, who are just after the money, is contributing to rape culture remaining a major cultural issue.
It's why there had to be more than 10 women making claims against Weinstein before anything really stuck to him. Why Roman Polanski still isn't in jail and an American President can pay of a porn star and still remain in office. This narrative of oh so poor and powerful men who get accused by these evil women, who are just after the money, is contributing to rape culture remaining a major cultural issue.
Such an incredibly stupid, evil and bad take.
It's really not.
Yes it is. There is clear proof in the Greenwood case. Here, there is not. This should be fairly simple to differentiate for anybody with half a brain cell.
Some truly horrible, evil, misled people in this thread. Suggest it is locked again as the discourse here is incredibly naive.
- Status