The civil case is still open apparently.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Cristiano Ronaldo not facing prosecution following sexual assault allegations
- Thread starter Jam
- Start date
The civil case is still open apparently.
CRapist has perhaps the greatest PR team in the planet, it's really quite something seeing absolutely nothing stick to him.
His "admission" is more than likely inadmissible evidence. So you throw that right out and pretend that it doesn't exist. The prosecutor has to decide to move forward based on the remaining evidence.
Could they not have demanded that his lawyers provide the original statements he sent them? I don't understand how the law firm couldn't be legally made to hand that over.
*let me guess, client attorney privilege would prevent that?
Rich people will get away with everything, but then again the only sort of proof was something which veridicity was never proven. This was the only possible outcome unless something new came up.
Ugh
Yeah, I mean he says he raped her, she says he raped her, who to believe?
I believe Ronaldo admitted in a questionnaire that she said "stop" and "no" multiple times. And he continued raping her.
Yes to his lawyer's. That internal questionnaire got leaked which is why we know he did it, but probably also why it can't be used as evidence to prosecute him.
This is about the most evidence you're going get with a rape case. Full admission, she went directly to the police and got tested so none of this "why did she wait so long" business...
It's mind boggling.
It's mind boggling.
There are no official admissable statements. These documents can't be used, unless the attorney is so bad he he has admissable evidence and can't even get a conviction with this thing black on white.
Why aren't his statements on raping her admissible? Seems clear cut that he admitted to raping her. But then again I see people saying that those statements were faked?
Their veradicity has never been proven AFAIK. Der Spiegel obviously claim they're the real deal (and they unearthed plenty of other true things in the same leak, so chances are they're true), while on Ronaldo's side they pointed out that it's fake, and even if it wasn't it's inadmissible as it's a private document. Whatever the case, it was obvious long ago that statement alone (true or false it may be) is not gonna be enough for anything because it's not Ronaldo's official statement: the one they submitted back in the day was different, obviously without the incriminating part. Anyone's free to interpret it as they see fit but that was never gonna be enough to seal the deal, the only realistic option was if new evidence surfaced, which didn't happen.
This time it's not even really about the "rich guy gets away with rape" thing, in these circumstances I'd argue most people would have gotten away with it as the proof is inadmissible and questionable in its nature by default. The court won't rule it admissible or believeable based on the fact alone that a lot of other stuff Der Spiegel leaked was legit. The document's legitimacy was not proven and even if it were, it's likely inadmissible in court in that state. And even assuming it all did go to court with that statement being used as evidence, they could always claim he misspoke, he misremembered, he was drunk or whatever the fuck, as they published a "corrected" version which contained the "facts" shortly after. That statement was never gonna be enough as is, other evidence was needed which obviously becomes harder and harder to obtain.
He didn't admit under oath, or under police interview after the detective read his rights.
If the transcripts are real (and with a high likelihood they are), he did admit to it.
Jesus Christ he OUTRIGHT confessed to rape. I honestly didnt know that. Thought it was a her word against his case.
Some of the offenders not only go free, but also get elected President. But don't worry, we have the sacrificial lambs face justice to make it seem like the system works such as Cosby, R. Kelly, and Weinstein, when in reality they are facing charges decades after their crimes began and only when they became too public and forced the hands of prosecutors.
What's said between the accused and his counselor is not admissible in the court of law.
LOL do you think this is the Chinese court system or something?
No, just stating that he admitted to raping her. Not sure how that is so hard to wrap your head around. Also, if you look closer, I never said he confessed.
When did I said I didn't believe his admission? I said that statement can not be used against him in court. Can you tell the difference? Did I say you said anything about he confessed? No I didn't.
I haven't said anything about it being admissible or not. The very first post of me was just stating that it's not a cut and dry "he said she said" case since we know he admitted to it. Whether or not that is used in court is something I don't make a call on. Only thing I have ever referred to in this thread is that he admitted to it.
So you point is he admitted to it? Nobody in this thread is disputing it. This thread is about the news of the prosecutor decided against pursuing further legal action.
Yes, since the poster I originally commented on (which you replied to) said this was just a cut and dry "he said, she said" case which it clearly isn't/wasn't.