Police issue warrant for Cristiano Ronaldo’s DNA in rape case

Did someone seriously ask if DNA is viable after 9 years? Jesus Christ, mate.

I believe it is and can last a lot longer. There have been murder cases from the 70s that have been cleared up by DNA samples.

There are obviously rules and both sides would employ scientific experts to test the integrity of the evidence.

I know what would happen in an investigation, I don’t need to type a damn novel describing the process to show how I know how unlike yourself, you seem to know a lot about my personality to make judgment on a career path you don’t think I would suit.



I think it’s pathetic that they don’t keep the investigation under discrete circumstances.



You have, you have repeatedly posted ‘victim blaming’ as your go to, which says you think he is guilty since you’re so comfortable calling her a victim.



Well done, you yet again detailed what an investigation looks like, I know how it goes, I don’t need to type it down to prove so which you seem to think you do multiple times.



Why do you constantly tell me things that are clear as day, you respond to everything but the fact that you are doing the exact thing you’re accusing me of doing, which is blindly accepting that the victim is indeed a victim when no evidence has prove so yet.



I’m not ridiculing, I’m simply stating that 9 year old evidence may not be reliable since it is almost a decade old, that is my view, if you have a problem with someone’s view try shutting it and just moving along.



I’m am saying they should go about it with a little discretion, these cases occur all the time and most often then not they’re false claims aimed at destroying someone’s public image, I’m not sayin this case should be dismissed, I’m saying it should be done in a discrete manner, what problem you have with this I don’t know but you seem to enjoy rambling about the investigation process like some parrot.

I am telling you the process and the basic requirements of due process. Its clear you dont understand otherwise you wouldnt make such dumb statements. Something you seem to trivialise and fail to understand the significance of. All the more reason why you dont have the attributes to be a lawyer. All from what you have written. Objectivity is key.

And your opinion on having these cases dealt with under discretion?

Because you seem to be replying to everything but that.

Wow, the holy grail, becoming a lawyer, you’re so hung up on telling me I would be a crap laywer for some reason, lawyers are trained professionals, I am not, their qualities are brought to light and their weakness strengthened, of course I would make a bad lawyer now.

The police have limited discretion, but they must act according to the rules. That is why other lawyers or police will decide whether theres enough to go to trial. Requesting evidence is not pathetic as you claim.

I said women claiming men have raped them when they haven’t is pathetic, I see a lot of these cases week by week and go dismissed thank god, but that still does a number on the defendants image, what I said from that was separated from this case, since we’re talking about qualities of a lawyer let’s shift focus to your inability to interpret what a person said and instead put words into their mouths.

Some would argue that’s a useful a skill for a lawyer

Useless really, if it’s baseless it has no meaning.

Well it would depend on the circumstances; if you’re in front of a jury and you put words in someone’s mouth it could be effective

This isn’t law and order, lawyers wouldn’t waste time on false information when they have a solid case, unless they don’t of course

Well by definition if one side has a solid case the other doesn’t meaning they would need to, at least some extent, mislead the jury or divert from the actual facts of the case

In this case the user’s post was not done so for that aspect, he or she misinterpreted information and put words in my mouth, when the user was doing so he or she did not have any other motive, he/she thought his or her point was solid and valid when it wasn’t, you’re stating a lawyer deliberately stating false information to confuse the jury or suggest something unproven to get into their heads, the user was not doing so, but yes that could be useful if done correctly to some extent, if that is their plan unlike the above user who just misinterpreted information with no ulterior motive, to add this tactic is only really useful in court.

Well I wasn’t commenting on what the past user had said, I was only responding to you doubting the utility of putting words in someone’s mouth for a lawyer. It was a throw away comment really that I didn’t expect a debate on.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/police-issue-warrant-for-soccer-superstar-ronaldos-dna-in-rape-case/ar-BBS4Zly?li=BBoPWjQ#image=BBS34ju%7C8

The dress in question is from 9 years ago which is found to have DNA other than Ms. Mayorga’s, warrant has been issued for Mr Ronaldo’s DNA.

What baffles me is so what if they find DNA of his on her dress?

Ronald said it was consensual, if DNA is found why is that a big deal?

I swear some women claiming they’ve been raped by celebrities nowadays just to trash their good name, pathetic.

Yh it’s useful in a way, I revoke that comment, but it’s still a weak tactic when the jury makes their judgment on facts not hunches

Well if the facts are against you you have to try something