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

999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Rs5644)
Actually it's you who is biased.You don't know if he's guilty or not yet you are accusing me of victim blaming.We haven't even established a victim yet.There have been quite a few high profile celebrity cases which have gone nowhere.Cliff Richard had his house searched on tv.

Was he guilty? Nope.And then there was that whole thing with Sir Edward Heath.Again went nowhere.His accuser has been charged with wasting police time.Liam Allen is another one.The case collapsed against him when texts emerged exonerating him.That led to a review of all rape cases across the country and the director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders stepped down.She received no new years honours like all of her predecessors.Even recently there has been another case with a cricketer in Worcester accused of rape.The jury came back inconclusive.

You are quite right.There is a bias here.But it's not mine.The tendency is to believe " victims" now without evidence.Sex you regret having whilst drunk is not rape.
I am not biased. I havent made a judgment either way because nobody is in a realistic position to do so. So that would be a flasehood by you.
She is an alleged victim. That is the matter they are investigating.

Now you are meandering away from the thread and the OP.

It is quite normal for the police to take an allegation of a serious crimer seriously and conduct an investigation, which is all that is happening here. Whether or not she went to his room doesnt preclude the possibility of her being raped and it doesnt make her more culpable.

Whatever evidence they find and whatever happened , then that is up to the lawyers to assess whether theres enough evidence to proceed and a jury to decide if there should be a conviction. At no stage have I stated anything about the innocence or guilt of either. Fortunately the police will treat the case on its own merits.
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by 999tigger)
The police arent doing that though. You have an inability to be objective or conduct a rational analysis of what has happened or what would need to happen in an investigation, hence you would make a terrible lawyer.
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.

(Original post by 999tigger)
The police havent painted anyone. All they have done is request evidence as part of their investigation , which you call pathetic.
I think it’s pathetic that they don’t keep the investigation under discrete circumstances.

(Original post by 999tigger)
You are incorrect I havent stated either way whether he is innocent or guilty because that has to follow due process.
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.

(Original post by 999tigger)
The police have to listen and examine her claim.
They collect evidence and then assess whether theres enough for a prosecution. That would include listening to the other side.
It would be normal for the evidence to be reviewed by someone other than the investigating team to assess the legal merits.
The case would then go to trial and depending on the country the decision on innocence or guilty would be decided by a judge or a jury.
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.

(Original post by 999tigger)
He is innocent till proven guilty, but he is also under investigation or facing charges.
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.

(Original post by 999tigger)
The fact you attempt to ridicule evidence that happens to be nine years old shows how much you understand about forensics or why they are requesting the DNA in the first place. It is all standard procedure.
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.

(Original post by 999tigger)
She may have a case and she may not. He may be innocent and he may be proven guilty . I will wait and see to see what evidence surfaces and if the case goes to trial then what the judge or jury make of it. I dont throw my rattle out of the pram merely because someone has made an allegation and the police investigate by collecting evidence i.e their job. To criticise that says more about you.
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.
Last edited by TheNamesBond.; 1 week ago
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
Did someone seriously ask if DNA is viable after 9 years? Jesus Christ, mate.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
(Original post by gjd800)
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.
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(Original post by 999tigger)
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.
Yeah, that's the point I'm making man - they got DNA off King Tut's mummified corpse!
1
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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.
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by 999tigger)
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.
Last edited by TheNamesBond.; 1 week ago
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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. The police should just do their job, which is investigate, other people can make decisions and the merits of the case. Requesting evidence is not pathetic as you claim.
Last edited by 999tigger; 1 week ago
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by 999tigger)
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.
Last edited by TheNamesBond.; 1 week ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Underscore__)
Some would argue that’s a useful a skill for a lawyer
Useless really, if it’s baseless it has no meaning.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by Underscore__)
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
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Underscore__; 1 week ago
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by Underscore__)
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.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#37
(Original post by Underscore__)
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.
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
0
reply
MQE99
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
If he did it, it'll destroy the legacy he has built
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ge=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.
lol i literally said two minutes ago in another thread that women crying wolf and sjws believing them are destroying the real meaning of rape. it's gonna be a sick sick world out here for everyone real soon.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise