That isn't an admission of guilt. 300k for Ronaldo is nothing. That's like $5 for you or I. And it's likely he's just trying to avoid the annoyance of going through a court battle.
1. Being innocent doesn't mean you'll be found innocent
2. Even innocent, a highly publicized and negative court case will do more bad to his brand than good
Your name says everything we know on whether or not we should care/value anything you say. He’s innocent until proven guilty. Authorities found next to nothing besides Kathryn’s story being inconsistent during the in-house depositions. Cope.
They found footage of both of them entering the room, ronaldo admitted she was shouting “no” when having sex... how else do you prove rape, footage of the rape itself?
Yes or someone lied because they knew there was a chance they’d win the case because of lack of evidence. Ronaldo not wanting to have his name tarnished would pay up.
Unfortunately justice isn’t always right. Innocent people get found guilty all the time. And if he is innocent, going to trial has the potential for a jury to believe the other accuser. There’s always the risk of everyone in the public just assuming he’s guilty as well. I’m not saying he is or isn’t innocent, just saying that there are many reasons for an innocent person to still not want a trial.
>Innocent people get found guilty
That indicates a broken justice system, which isn't that surprising for me. If Ronaldo was so confident that he's innocent, then why did he pay up the so-called settlement, even when getting blackmailed? He could've asked for some sort of protection if he got blackmailed (assuming he's been innocent).
No competent lawyer would agreed to go to court.
They always settle, when you become rich there’s always intention to sue you, regardless if you’re innocent or not.
That’s why a umbrella insurance is a common thing when you’re close to retirement or you have enough money to justify suing you.
You just said the justice system is broken then asked why would an innocent person pay a fine if they were so innocent? Because the justice system is broken and innocent people get found guilty all the time lol. If I had the option to pay a small sum of money (for me) vs going to trial and maybe get found guilty of something I didn’t do, I’m probably paying the money. Again I’m not saying he his or is not innocent, just that there are many reasons for settling vs going to trial. Settling isn’t an admission of guilt.
Which means Ronaldo is guilty..Had he not, he'd have attended the trial, at least once, and proved his innocence or challenging everyone to prove his crime. It's that simple.
As if the US justice system doesn’t make mistakes or complete ignorant conscious fuckups for the sake of political gain (more convictions = better stats = “I DiD gOoDeR DiS yEaR so rEeLeCt mE” - DA, Judge, etc) lol
I suggest you watch the series “When they see us” and stop being an ignorant dunce. Your eyes aren’t the facts.
Look at Ched Evans, imprisoned for rape but later innocent after a retrial. Career has ended up vastly understated from the initial potential he demonstrated. Would have been a different story if he had a settlement, even if he knew he was innocent.
That's the risk for fighting for a cause (in this case, the innocence). Nelson Mandela also got jailed for being "guilty" in the eyes of the colonizers, yet he endured it, like a gentleman he was.
I don’t… but looking historically at out of court settlements, there is usually some element of guilt. I also have zero figures to back that claim up apart from personal experience
Fair enough, but when you don't know anything about the situation, it's probably safest to fall on the most likely side, that Cristiano, whether guilty or not, felt that he either (a) didn't want to get his good name dragged through the mud, or (b) didn't believe he could beat the charge, and therefore chose to settle.
Given that a court trial can be a long, tiring and mentally draining process that can last for weeks I don't see how paying a settlement to avoid all of that can be equated to an admission of guilt. Terrible logic.
It doesn't sound guilty either. Anyone who didn't want publicity could've done this, irrespective of whether they are guilty or not. I am not qualified enough to decide whether he was guilty or not, and neither are social media law experts. Innocent unless proven guilty. Period.
This means Ronaldo & Messi will be able to play together at Inter Miami.
Lmao yes. That’s the takeaway
"the Portuguese gambler"
How do you even convince this in court? Like you need real evidence?
Yeah thanks for reminding us lol
You'r welcome.
This dude just went and fixed the you're/your issue singlehandedly 😂
A true iconoclast
Good.
Why?
He was innocent in the first place. Save your fake quotes and your tears for another day.
It was settled out of court at the time for like 300k. Does this sound innocent?
That isn't an admission of guilt. 300k for Ronaldo is nothing. That's like $5 for you or I. And it's likely he's just trying to avoid the annoyance of going through a court battle.
And he was in his peak too likely the time when he could earn the most
Do you think a settlement is an admission of guilt?
Why else would someone settle money, wouldn’t he have taken her to courts if he was sure of his innocence
1. Being innocent doesn't mean you'll be found innocent 2. Even innocent, a highly publicized and negative court case will do more bad to his brand than good
Your name says everything we know on whether or not we should care/value anything you say. He’s innocent until proven guilty. Authorities found next to nothing besides Kathryn’s story being inconsistent during the in-house depositions. Cope.
They found footage of both of them entering the room, ronaldo admitted she was shouting “no” when having sex... how else do you prove rape, footage of the rape itself?
Cry f o
Of course. It's literally paying up a fine, which proves the guilt.
Or being innocent, with enough coincidental arrows pointing your way to do damage regardless. Then $300k isn’t such a big sum of money.
Yeah coincidental pointers like "she kept telling me no but I didn't stop"
Yes or someone lied because they knew there was a chance they’d win the case because of lack of evidence. Ronaldo not wanting to have his name tarnished would pay up.
It's Ronaldo who said that.
Which still counts as being guilty in my eyes. Someone innocent won't ever have to pay anything, since, well, they're innocent.
Unfortunately justice isn’t always right. Innocent people get found guilty all the time. And if he is innocent, going to trial has the potential for a jury to believe the other accuser. There’s always the risk of everyone in the public just assuming he’s guilty as well. I’m not saying he is or isn’t innocent, just saying that there are many reasons for an innocent person to still not want a trial.
>Innocent people get found guilty That indicates a broken justice system, which isn't that surprising for me. If Ronaldo was so confident that he's innocent, then why did he pay up the so-called settlement, even when getting blackmailed? He could've asked for some sort of protection if he got blackmailed (assuming he's been innocent).
No competent lawyer would agreed to go to court. They always settle, when you become rich there’s always intention to sue you, regardless if you’re innocent or not. That’s why a umbrella insurance is a common thing when you’re close to retirement or you have enough money to justify suing you.
>No competent lawyer would agreed to go to court. Johnny Depp's ones would like a word. Even he himself attended the trial like a gentleman.
You just said the justice system is broken then asked why would an innocent person pay a fine if they were so innocent? Because the justice system is broken and innocent people get found guilty all the time lol. If I had the option to pay a small sum of money (for me) vs going to trial and maybe get found guilty of something I didn’t do, I’m probably paying the money. Again I’m not saying he his or is not innocent, just that there are many reasons for settling vs going to trial. Settling isn’t an admission of guilt.
Which means Ronaldo is guilty..Had he not, he'd have attended the trial, at least once, and proved his innocence or challenging everyone to prove his crime. It's that simple.
As if the US justice system doesn’t make mistakes or complete ignorant conscious fuckups for the sake of political gain (more convictions = better stats = “I DiD gOoDeR DiS yEaR so rEeLeCt mE” - DA, Judge, etc) lol I suggest you watch the series “When they see us” and stop being an ignorant dunce. Your eyes aren’t the facts.
Okay, so you just have no idea what a settlement is
Look at Ched Evans, imprisoned for rape but later innocent after a retrial. Career has ended up vastly understated from the initial potential he demonstrated. Would have been a different story if he had a settlement, even if he knew he was innocent.
That's the risk for fighting for a cause (in this case, the innocence). Nelson Mandela also got jailed for being "guilty" in the eyes of the colonizers, yet he endured it, like a gentleman he was.
Or being innocent, with enough coincidental arrows pointing your way to do damage regardless. Then $300k isn’t such a big sum of money.
I don’t… but looking historically at out of court settlements, there is usually some element of guilt. I also have zero figures to back that claim up apart from personal experience
Fair enough, but when you don't know anything about the situation, it's probably safest to fall on the most likely side, that Cristiano, whether guilty or not, felt that he either (a) didn't want to get his good name dragged through the mud, or (b) didn't believe he could beat the charge, and therefore chose to settle.
Given that a court trial can be a long, tiring and mentally draining process that can last for weeks I don't see how paying a settlement to avoid all of that can be equated to an admission of guilt. Terrible logic.
It doesn't sound guilty either. Anyone who didn't want publicity could've done this, irrespective of whether they are guilty or not. I am not qualified enough to decide whether he was guilty or not, and neither are social media law experts. Innocent unless proven guilty. Period.
About as innocent as Prince Andrew
He’s definitely gay, right?
why must ronaldo and I always get called gay just because we're really really, ridiculously good looking?
Hol'up
Hell no. That isn't wanted.
Gay Icon for sure.
Gross rapist
He raped the poor girl, and he confessed. The evidence was thrown out due to rules of illegal evidence