Søren Roest Korsgaard

Cristiano Ronaldo Accused of Rape. Is he Telling the Truth?

Introduction

Kathryn Mayorga, a former model and teacher, has alleged that Cristiano Ronaldo raped her in 2009. This article examines the veracity of Ronaldo’s denials.

Contents

I. Tweets from Cristiano Ronaldo
II. Quote from Press Conference
III. Quote from Instagram Video
IIII. Analysis
IIIII. Conclusion

I. Tweets from Cristiano Ronaldo

7:16 AM – 3 Oct 2018

“I firmly deny the accusations being issued against me. Rape is an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in. Keen as I may be to clear my name, I refuse to feed the media spectacle created by people seeking to promote themselves at my expense.”*
https://twitter.com/Cristiano/status/1047490574687907841

“My clear conscious will thereby allow me to await with tranquillity the results of any and all investigations.”
https://twitter.com/Cristiano/status/1047490701137784832

II. Quote from Press Conference

“Hehe again? You didn’t listen to what I say hehe. I am happy man. This is not…the statement … we did the statement two weeks ago, if I’m not wrong, so I am glad. Of course, I’m not gonna lie on this situation. I’m very happy. My lawyers, they are confidence, and, of course, I am, too.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/cristiano-ronaldo-press-conference-live-manchester-united-vs-juventus-rape-allegations-latest-news-a8596316.html

III. Quote from Instagram Video

“No, no, no, no, no. What they said today: Fake, fake news. They wanna… They wanna promote them by my name. It’s normal. They wanna be famous to say my name, but it is part of the job. I am a happy man and all good.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cristiano-ronaldo-denies-rape-allegations-video-woman-las-vegas-hotel-fake-news-a8561846.html

* Misspellings and typographical errors are not addressed in this analysis.

IIII. Analysis

“I firmly deny the accusations being issued against me.”

In statement analysis the only reliable denial is one in which the act itself is denied, e.g. I didn’t do it. Deceptive people will deny the conclusion, e.g. “I’m innocent,” the accusation, e.g. “I categorically deny and dismiss these baseless and ridiculous allegations,” or the capability, e.g. “I could never do those things,” or somehow else try to represent that they have made an actual denial.
Ronaldo’s denial is very weak: He denies the accusations but not the rape itself. Denying certain accusations are different from stating that they are not true as “deny” can mean to refuse to accept; many alcoholics deny they drink too much.
Ronaldo qualifies “deny” by putting “firmly” in front of it. In statement analysis the shortest sentence is the best. The need to qualify indicates a need to persuade such as when OJ Simpson proclaimed that he is, “absolutely, 100 percent not guilty.” The qualification of “deny” suggests that Ronaldo has an internal grading system related to denying. Where is a firm denial placed in that – is there a level or several above it? Similarly, OJ Simpson’s 100% not guilty assertion appears quite weak in light of another statement of his: “I had one thousand percent faith and trust in Nicole’s decisions about the kids.” In view of this declaration, it can be inferred that he is 900% guilty and only 100% not guilty.
Ronaldo’s denial is also characterized by passive and distancing language. Who issued the accusations? What are the accusations? Passivity and distancing language alleviate responsibility and thereby facilitate deception. We have been unable to find any statement from Ronaldo containing the accuser’s name, gender, or even that it is a singular person; he uses gender neutral pronouns in the plural form. Linguistically, he distances himself from Kathryn Mayorga to a great extent.
 
“Rape is an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in.”

Still, Ronaldo does not deny that he raped Kathryn Mayorga. He uses the “I could not have done it …” type of defense which is invariably weak. Notice that Ronaldo could have written “rape goes against …;” in lieu of the shortest sentence, he adds that it “is an abominable crime.” He does not connect himself with the statement, e.g. “To me rape is…” or “I regard rape as an abominable crime…;” he uses universal language. He likely wants to us interpret this universal statement as being one of his core beliefs.
Does not everyone or almost everyone agree that rape is an abominable crime? Why does Ronaldo have a need to assert something so obvious to any sensible human being? It demonstrates a need to portray himself as a normal and harmless person, one who could not have committed the rape. Why not simply deny the act: “I did not rape Kathryn Mayorga?” By pinpointing a self-evident truth that rape is an abominable crime, Ronaldo is unquestionably also trying to ingratiate himself with the readers i.e. using a classic, psychological technique to influence them by appearing sympathetic.
It is significant that he references his belief-system and self-image as the reasons he could not have committed the rape. What is missing? He neglects the action component – he does not state that he did not rape and he would not rape. Most people can relate to doing something which is not in harmony with one’s belief-system and self-image. Among others, a study on cheating has shown that among those who have admitted to cheating “64% say that infidelity is always wrong [1].” Similarly, rapists do not view themselves as actual rapists [2]. Rationalization is the keyword.  

“Keen as I may be to clear my name, I refuse to feed the media spectacle created by people seeking to promote themselves at my expense.”

The auxiliary verb “may” is “used to express possibility or probability [3].” It follows that there is only a possibility or probability that Ronaldo wants to clear his name. This also becomes clear as we read the entire sentence: He would rather not clear his name than “feed the media spectacle.” If you were falsely accused of committing a horrendous crime – would you not do anything in your power to clear your name? Clearing one’s name is also vague and ambiguous phraseology as opposed to stating that “I didn’t rape Kathryn Mayorga and I will prove it.”
Notice, he is trying to get the readers to make the assumption that clearing his name entails a feeding of the “media spectacle.” However, it is a non-sequitur: If he cleared his name there would not be a media spectacle; refusing to divulge information will most likely cause the media and others to continue to investigate and ask questions. Ronaldo is unquestionably trying to build an alibi for not cooperating with the media and authorities. He may fear that he is unable to sufficiently clear his name, and the more information he provides the more damaging the case against him becomes, and the end result is an intensification of discussions and cover stories in the media.
In lieu of naming the accuser, Kathryn Mayorga, Ronaldo insinuates that “people” are behind the media spectacle; passive language facilitates deception and creates distance. For example, someone who has committed a murder might say “the gun went off,” but guns are not capable of taking action such as committing violence. Note that “spectacle” means “a visually striking performance or display [4];” media spectacles are not related to the veracity of an event; his sentence falls short of affirming that the rape is a concoction and it did not happen.
He also assigns the conspirators with a motive: “people seeking to promote themselves at my expense.” Who are these people? How does he know their motive? How will this group promote themselves through the accusations? Note that Ronaldo does not state that they are aiming to get his money.
Assigning a motive and implying it is a conspiracy are likely attempts to gain sympathy, make it more likely in the eyes of the readers that he is innocent, and especially draw suspicion onto the accuser; deflection is a form a manipulation aimed at changing the course of a discussion from its original source. Usage of deflection suggests that the rape subject is extremely sensitive to Ronaldo.  

“My clear conscious will thereby allow me to await with tranquillity the results of any and all investigations.”

Ronaldo states that he has a “clear conscious (sic).” Most people would say that their conscience is clean, not clear. Let us explore the difference. Clear means being free of distractions, e.g. clear thought. A clean conscience, on the other hand, implies one which is not soiled by misdeeds. The most well-known serial killers such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Ian Brady did not have a clean conscience, but they did have a clear one that is what allowed them to perpetrate atrocities like clockwork, without moral distractions. Note that he writes that his “clear” conscience is the reason he can be tranquil. It is very significant that he does not say that he did not do it, and that is why he can remain tranquil.
Ronaldo is addressing the rape claim of Kathryn Mayorga, yet he says “any and all investigations.” This is a strong indication that he might be thinking about other actions in addition to the alleged rape of Kathryn Mayorga. Coincidentally, a quick internet search reveals that he was arrested and questioned about two other rapes in 2005, four years before the alleged rape of Mayorga, but was released and no charges were filed [5]. In 2018, it was reported that Members of the British Parliament made an effort to reopen these two cases [6].

Moving on, during a press conference, he continually emphasized that he was a “happy man.” When a journalist finally pressured him to address the allegation, he responded:

“Hehe again? You didn’t listen to what I say hehe. I am happy man. This is not…the statement … we did the statement two weeks ago, if I’m not wrong, so I am glad. Of course, I’m not gonna lie on this situation. I’m very happy. My lawyers, they are confidence, and, of course, I am, too.”

If you had been falsely accused of a rape and during a media conference you were asked about it. Would you say you are a “happy man” or would you rather say you did not do it? How is it even possible to be happy when one is being accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable? Specifically, he has been accused of a brutal anal rape. He does not deny it.
It has been observed that when confronted with rape or sexual molestation allegations, sexual predators sometimes use the unreliable denial that they are “happily married.” The offender wants us to believe that his successful marriage means that he could not have done it. Similarly, it appears that Ronaldo wants us to believe that his positive mental state precludes him from having committed rape.
Notice that Ronaldo first answered the journalist’s question with a question indicating sensitivity, and that he needed time to think about his response. He also avoided the topic showing that he is withholding information about the incident. His giggling “hehe” is another indication of sensitivity, and that he most likely was unsettled and nervous about the questioning. The fragmented and unfinished sentences are also indications of anxiety, self-censorship, and of withholding information.
The “statement” he refers to was a denial issued by his lawyer shortly before the conference. Ronaldo then goes on to state “so,” which shows a need to explain, he then adds “I am glad.” This is a bizarre statement and conclusion; he is “glad” that his lawyer issued a denial on his behalf. However, contextually it makes sense as Ronaldo has been unable to make a denial on his own behalf; so, he is happy someone else could do it for him. The phrase “of course” is used instead of explaining self-evident truths, e.g. of course the sun is hot. Thus, when Ronaldo says, “Of course, I’m not gonna lie on this situation.” He wants us to take for granted that he is not lying and that you do not need to question this point. He wants you to assume it without proving it. Negatives in statement analysis are very important; it suggests that this is a very sensitive matter to him. Furthermore, it is evident that lying is on his mind.
He proceeds to assert that his lawyers are “confidence (sic).” However, he does not say what they are confident about. He then says, “of course, I am, too.” It is not at all a self-evident truth that he is confident; his language shows that he is everything but confident when asked about the rape.

During an Instagram video he had this to say about the rape charges:

“No, no, no, no, no. What they said today: Fake, fake news. They wanna… They wanna promote them by my name. It’s normal. They wanna be famous to say my name, but it is part of the job. I am a happy man and all good.”

First, Ronaldo repeats his denial “no,” five times. This is a very weak denial. Similarly, if someone told you, “I’m a very, very, very, very, very happy man,” would you believe him? Why is there a need to exaggerate? His repeated denials suggest that his initial “no,” does not have the strength to stand on its own and that he is trying to persuade us. Proclaiming that the rape of Kathryn Mayorga is “fake, fake news” falls short of saying “I didn’t do it.” Again, Ronaldo distances himself from the accuser and uses a “they.”
His assertion that it is “normal,” indicates that his perception of normality is anything but normal. Proclaiming something abnormal to be “normal” is likely an attempt to downplay the incident as normal behavior is common and does not deserve much attention. The implication is also that he may regard other types of abnormal behavior as being “normal.”
His assertion that “they want to promote them by my name … they want to be famous to say my name, but it is part of job,” is a convoluted and incoherent attempt to assign a motive to the accuser. It is deflection and demonization of the accuser. Once more, he says he is a “happy man,” which is an attempt to persuade us that happiness precludes rape, but it does not.

IIIII. Conclusion

The statements contain an abundance of deceptive indicators suggesting a very high likelihood of its presence in the quotations analyzed. In the opinion of the analyst:

1. Ronaldo did not deny raping Kathryn Mayorga.
2. His denials are unreliable and impersonal.
3. He consistently refers to the accuser in the plural rather than addressing that it is a “she,” and her name is Kathryn Mayorga. 
4. He is withholding information about the incident.
5. Manipulation is present, including deflection, and demonization of the alleged victim.
6. His conscience is clear, not clean.
7. He guards himself with an alibi to justify not being corporative.
8. He insinuates that it a conspiracy and such is “normal” to him.


Note that this article does not in any way claim that Cristiano Ronaldo is a rapist. He is innocent until proven guilty.

About the writer: Søren Korsgaard, author of America’s Jack the Ripper: The Crimes and Psychology of the Zodiac Killer, is the editor of www.crimeandpower.com and webmaster of www.paulcraigroberts.org. Support Søren’s work by donating Bitcoin: 19Z22vsdaKJX4gy8GDy6J8QU1ZZ9EvSoEo    

References

1. “How Often Do People Really Cheat on Each Other?” https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/201010/how-often-do-people-really-cheat-each-other
2. “When Campus Rapists Don’t Think They’re Rapists” https://www.newsweek.com/campus-rapists-an d-semantics-297463
3. “May” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/may  
4. “Spectacle” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/spectacle
5. “United star arrested in rape inquiry” https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/19/newsstory.sport8
6. “Police are urged to re-examine 2005 accusation against Ronaldo of rape in hotel” https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/police-are-urged-to-reexamine-2005-accusation-against-ronaldo-of-rape-in-hotel-37390102.html

Author Since: Apr 09, 2019

Related Post