FC Bayern Forum

Dumbledore7 wrote:

Valerio wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:No denying Ronaldo's in the wrong, but the woman's conveniently chosen to do "the right thing" now despite accepting a bribe. Personally I'd rather the woman shuts up and let me enjoy Ronaldo play football while he still can, don't care if they jail him after retirement. Ruining my joy of the sport is an offence in my book so I don't have any respect for the woman either.

Does anyone really think Ronaldo would go to jail in USA?

Nope, just saying I don't care if he does. At worst this case will end with Ronaldo paying an undeserved amount of money to her and closed.

Of course.
That's what she want as well.
We all know.

And it will probably end as a film as well
Cause when I read spigel story I though it was the trama for a film

By the way dunno you guys but I would bear with it (being anally fucked) if they offered me 379.000€
2-3mins of pain for a life of gains! and realistically she could ask more money now!

A genius!

Valerio wrote:

MUTU wrote:

Valerio wrote:In the end after a sexual intercourse where there is violence aka no bruises

From the case report:

That on June 13, 2009, the same day of the sexual assault by Cristiano Ronaldo, the plaintiff submitted to a sexual assault medical examination at the University Medical Center where physical evidence of the sodomy was documented and photographed.

Dude of course!
If you had consensual anal sex and then went to a hospital it's a fact there is a evidence of sodomy
how else would it be?
What I meant was that there were no proofs o physical violence from Ronaldo like bruises or something which could suggest Ronaldo threatened her physically.

If you see a beaten up woman that's obvious it's rape but in a case like hers?
Only her words can differentiate between consesual anal **** and anal rape

Actually Ronaldo claimed he had vaginal intercourse with her and that her rectal injuries must have been caused by someone else. If she made up her anal story, she'd have had to have rough anal with someone else on that same day in order to try and frame Ronaldo for it. He also said "she said no and stop several times" which means to some extent it WAS rape. Interesting.

That at various times the “team” submitted written questions to Cristiano Ronaldo, and in the answers attributed to Cristiano Ronaldo, he stated:
1. He engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff.
2. “She was laying on the bed. I went from behind”;
3. “She said no and stop several times”;
4. A denial of “anal” penetration; and
5. That plaintiff’s rectal injuries were caused by another person after the plaintiff had vaginal intercourse with him.

The real winners of this case?
Der Spiegel

Can't see tweet? Click here!

The most important part seems to be the questionnaire from Sept 2009 where Ronaldo admitted that she said "no" and "stop it" several times (there's a scan of said page of the questionnaire in the twitter thread). There's also a statement by him that she complained that he forced her. From what I gathered their lawyers are now trying to get the privilege from these documents removed by suing the CR7 team for obstruction of justice and libel (they also requested a criminal investigation into these allegations), so they can later use these documents in court in a criminal trial for rape (as it stands they can't, because they fall under lawyer/client confidentiality).

As for the "oh, he's so rich and famous, he can't have raped a woman" part - he wouldn't be the first. Rape is not primarily about sexual impulses, but about exerting power over somebody against their will, so a woman's refusal is precisely why the rapist goes through with it.

attibuted?
This story get better by details

RedQueen wrote:The most important part seems to be the questionnaire from Sept 2009 where Ronaldo admitted that she said "no" and "stop it" several times (there's a scan of said page of the questionnaire in the twitter thread). There's also a statement by him that she complained that he forced her. From what I gathered their lawyers are now trying to get the privilege from these documents removed by suing the CR7 team for obstruction of justice and libel (they also requested a criminal investigation into these allegations)m so they can later use these documents in court in a criminal trial for rape (as it stands they can't, because they fall under lawyer/client confidentiality).

As for the "oh, he's so rich and famous, he can't have raped a woman" part - he wouldn't be the first. Rape is not primarily about sexual impulses, but about exerting power over somebody against their will, so a woman's refusal is precisely why the rapist goes through with it.

And what about the part where she claims that the woman at hospital and later the police office both suggested to shut up?

RedQueen wrote:The most important part seems to be the questionnaire from Sept 2009 where Ronaldo admitted that she said "no" and "stop it" several times (there's a scan of said page of the questionnaire in the twitter thread). There's also a statement by him that she complained that he forced her. From what I gathered their lawyers are now trying to get the privilege from these documents removed by suing the CR7 team for obstruction of justice and libel (they also requested a criminal investigation into these allegations), so they can later use these documents in court in a criminal trial for rape (as it stands they can't, because they fall under lawyer/client confidentiality).

Yes that part seems incriminating, but I wonder that if he himself supposedly admitted that she said "no" and "stop" several times, which would basically be admitting to rape, how come we're hearing about it 9 years later? Why wasn't he jailed at that time? And there's a disagreement about which 'hole' Ronaldo supposedly 'entered'... Ronaldo says vagina, which sounds credible. She says anus, which to me seems physically difficult. I don't know, nothing seems to add up to me, either for incriminating Ronaldo or for letting him walk free.

There's no doubt that it's rape and there's no doubt that, technically, it's the right thing to accuse.

But I also still think that accepting bribe to keep it quiet is almost as good as prostitution - if you would have accepted the money before the intercourse as you wouldn't have agreed to otherwise, what's the difference from asking for a compensation after? If it's not acceptable to the point where no amount of money can compensate, then the right thing to do is serve the man some justice. And on top of that changing your mind years later is the most basic mentality if there ever was one. If she was afraid of getting abused by the CR7 fans (which she is today), how is that any different now? Was she just getting ready mentally and legally? Was it because he's in Juventus where the fanbase might be more reasonable than Real or United? Would she still have spoken out now if he were still at Real?

Not that it matters in the court of law because she can and probably *should* do this because rape is wrong, but I can't see any reason for her doing this now other than she's broke.

@MUTU: She had a rape kit, so they would know what kind of intercourse they had (I seem to have missed that part where he said it was vaginal - I just saw he said "from behind").

This questionnaire is from a bunch of emails between Ronaldo and his lawyer that were only leaked by Football Leaks and obtained by Der Spiegel last year (when I first came across this case). Spiegel first published it in December 2017; at that time the woman wouldn't speak to the reporters and even ran from them when they tried to visit her at her home. They published the article anyway, with a pseudonym in her name's place. After the allegations were out in the open and she learned of the material, she got herself a new lawyer and decided to sue. She or anyone else but Ronaldo and his team wouldn't have known of these documents earlier than last December.

Dumbledore7 wrote:There's no doubt that it's rape and there's no doubt that, technically, it's the right thing to accuse.

But I also still think that accepting bribe to keep it quiet is almost as good as prostitution - if you would have accepted the money before the intercourse as you wouldn't have agreed to otherwise, what's the difference from asking for a compensation after? If it's not acceptable to the point where no amount of money can compensate, then the right thing to do is serve the man some justice. And on top of that changing your mind years later is the most basic mentality if there ever was one. If she was afraid of getting abused by the CR7 fans (which she is today), how is that any different now? Was she just getting ready mentally and legally? Was it because he's in Juventus where the fanbase might be more reasonable than Real or United? Would she still have spoken out now if he were still at Real?

Not that it matters in the court of law because she can and probably *should* do this because rape is wrong, but I can't see any reason for her doing this now other than she's broke.

Accepting the bribe is WORSE than prostitution, because not only are you disrespecting your own body for the sake of money but you're also helping to protect a rapist who may or may not have done the same thing to other women.

MUTU wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:Yes, I'm tempted to share both of your views, but don't want to get THAT pointy just now. Wanted to know what RedQueen might think about it.

Let me be honest. I wanted it to be rape because I don't like Ronaldo

But when I read that part about anal rape without using a weapon like holding a knife to her throat, I really don't think it's physically possible. Maybe she wanted and then changed her mind halfway through, and maybe he should've stopped immediately but didn't, but that wouldn't constitute rape in my books. She must have 'opened the backdoor and let him in'.

Rape isn't always about getting laid. It's often about power, control, and "I can do anything" mentality. I can give the definition of the rape - it's a sexual intercourse with a female who is unable to defend herself and without her consent; by force or threat of force or by bringing her into a helpless state. This is what I learned in my law school. It's not going to be the exactly same in USA, but "without her consent" is fundamental in every regulation of this institute,no matter the country or the law family - Anglo - Saxon or the Continental (European) family.

IsiahRashad wrote:

MUTU wrote:

Dumbledore7 wrote:Yes, I'm tempted to share both of your views, but don't want to get THAT pointy just now. Wanted to know what RedQueen might think about it.

Let me be honest. I wanted it to be rape because I don't like Ronaldo

But when I read that part about anal rape without using a weapon like holding a knife to her throat, I really don't think it's physically possible. Maybe she wanted and then changed her mind halfway through, and maybe he should've stopped immediately but didn't, but that wouldn't constitute rape in my books. She must have 'opened the backdoor and let him in'.

Rape isn't always about getting laid. It's often about power, control, and "I can do anything" mentality. I can give the definition of the rape - it's a sexual intercourse with a female who is unable to defend herself and without her consent; by force or threat of force or by bringing her into a helpless state. This is what I learned in my law school. It's not going to be the exactly same in USA, but "without her consent" is fundamental in every regulation of this institute,no matter the country or the law family - Anglo - Saxon or the Continental (European) family.

I've never been f**ked in the ass (thankfully), but my ASSUMPTION* is that you can stop penetration by simply stiffening your asshole muscles, thereby making it very difficult to near-impossible for a non-lubricated penis to penetrate. Anyone with experience taking it up there want to share their thoughts?

* no, I don't want to test it out

MUTU wrote:I've never been f**ked in the ass (thankfully), but my ASSUMPTION* is that you can stop penetration by simply stiffening your asshole muscles, thereby making it very difficult to near-impossible for a non-lubricated penis to penetrate. Anyone with experience taking it up there want to share their thoughts?

If she is saying - No, No. Stop, and you don't stop -you don't have her permission - this is enough to bring you under the severity of the law.