Ray Darcy. Live on de telly. 3/2/ 18

retro:electro

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Watched a lot of stuff on this and it's very hard to find any truth. The media, especially Nick Pisa, were scum in their irresponsible reporting of this case. The Italian police cant really be trusted, as they seemed to make a ballsup with the bra clasp, and the interrogation team seemed to think they were Bobbys trying to find who bombed Birmingham. Amanda is very odd person, seems to be a bit of a sociopath, buying lingerie after the girl was killed, why were their phones off all night, why did they buy cleaning supplies? Her naming of Patrick Lamumba was also bizarre but I'm prepared to give her a break on that given the behaviour of the police. Rudy Guede's story kept changing depending on how the chips fell. Still hard to understand how he would murder Meredith and leave a number two in the jacks. How difficult would it have been to flush to remove the DNA evidence?

It's the most bizarre case I've ever read about.

The bleach buying story is fake news.
She didn't buy lingerie, she bought underwear and clothes since her house was a crime scene and she wasn't allowed to enter it to get her stuff. Something as innocent as buying a 5 pack of knickers was twisted to fit the sex crazed manic narrative.

BorneTobyWilde

Italians are dramatic people.. They wanted the hot American girl to be guilty, it was a great story they wanted so bad to be true.

retro:electro

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Italians are dramatic people.. They wanted the hot American girl to be guilty, it was a great story they wanted so bad to be true.

Rude Guede admitted it and was locked up, but that wasn't enough. It wasn't glamourous enough for them, too vanilla.

paleoperson

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Italians are dramatic people.. They wanted the hot American girl to be guilty, it was a great story they wanted so bad to be true.

This sort of thing is not helpful lol.

xalot

From what i understand most of the dna is attributed to the main suspect. A black man with a record. Happy days. Done and dusted.
Why would the Italian police go after an American with money if they didn't genuinely believe she was involved.
If the crime scene wasn't so contaminated I think there would be a much stronger case against her.
That said telling a 20 year old they were hiv positive is diplorable

xalot

Double post

Ol' Donie

Only caught the first few minutes.

Were the orchestra on for a reason?

darlett

paleoperson wrote: »

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Italians are dramatic people.. They wanted the hot American girl to be guilty, it was a great story they wanted so bad to be true.

This sort of thing is not helpful lol.

If we're restricting this thread to helpful posts best get deleting lol

paleoperson wrote: »

Jesus christ wtf is she wearing? She looks like a 16th century housewife.

paleoperson wrote: »

Why can't she just dress normally? She doesn't have to go for a slutty look.

Seems to me this girl has lost it.

Fair?

donkeykong5

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Only caught the first few minutes.

Were the orchestra on for a reason?

Yeah david Norris has joined it.

paleoperson

darlett wrote: »

If we're restricting this thread to helpful posts best get deleting lol

Fair?

I was in no way suggesting that her choice of clothes had any bearing on whether she was innocent or guilty.

Patty O Furniture

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

Not Cark!

Is that near Doagh? :P

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Only caught the first few minutes.

Were the orchestra on for a reason?

I think it's to give her a dramatic overture, as you know also them Italians, they're a very dramatic people :P

BorneTobyWilde

You can't tell cops they're wrong, it's a world wide epidemic. They were determined to prove they were right, even when the evidence pointed else where.

Thargor

Charmeleon wrote: »

His shoeprints were all over the scene and he left a trail of prints going towards the front door, however two sets of bare footprints in blood were also found. One set matches Amanda's feet and the other was a match for Sollecito but not Guede. He didn't act alone, he also had no motive to set up the fake break-in.

His DNA was found all over her consistent with a sexual assault, no DNA was found for the other two anywhere. And he didnt fake a break-in, he broke in, he was a burglar with multiple previous break-ins on his record, and he was usually armed with a knife during these.

horseburger

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

Now perform ''Angel Of Death.''

Say Your Number wrote: »

I was hoping she'd sing Holy Wars.

Are ye referring to Thin Lizzy? Or Slayer and Megadeth, or Hank Williams?

horseburger

Hiberno12345 wrote: »

This guy is a chain smoker and totally crap.

I disagree. Sean Keane is excellent. Here he sings Isle of Hope Isle of Tears, the third version is a recording he did with his sister Dolores.

horseburger

The Talking Bread wrote: »

God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30

Good lord, over 30 is really old, isn't it.

Isn't it shocking, that she can be over 30, and "still beautiful"?

paleoperson

Apparently she's going around giving "talks" about it, charging £7,000 a talk. How disrespectful. That's where the tv licence money is going (I assume she charges a lot more for a tv appearance of course).

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/27/amanda-knox-charging-up-to-7000-a-night-for-talks-about-meredith-kerchers-murder-7266115/

horseburger

paleoperson wrote: »

Apparently she's going around giving "talks" about it, charging £7,000 a talk. How disrespectful. That's where the tv licence money is going (I assume she charges a lot more for a tv appearance of course).

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/27/amanda-knox-charging-up-to-7000-a-night-for-talks-about-meredith-kerchers-murder-7266115/

I think the headline is misleading. It isn't proved in the article, that she does charge that much.

The headline states: "Amanda Knox ‘charging up to £7,000 a night for talks about Meredith Kercher’s murder’"

But the article includes the following sentence, which suggests that there is no proof, for what is claimed in the headline:

"She has signed up to the All American Speakers agency and her fees allegedly range between $5,001 – $10,000 (£7,000)".

I think the headline is also misleading, because in the topics section of the All American Speakers website, detailing what she speaks about, it doesn't state that Amanda Knox speaks about the killing of Meredith Kercher.

It states:

"When 20-year-old Amanda Knox travelled to Perugia, Italy to study abroad in 2007, she looked forward to the year of her life: making friends, eating gelato, and studying Italian. She never dreamed that a month into her stay one of her roommates would be brutally murdered, and that she would be accused and convicted of that terrible crime. During her eight years on trial and four years suffering wrongful imprisonment, it seemed like the truth of her innocence didn't matter. She had every reason to give into rage and despair. But she didn't. This is the story of how she survived and what she learned in the process".

Perhaps the headline for the article in The Metro, would be more accurate, if it stated "Amanda Knox allegedly charging up to 7000 a night to speak about how she survived and what she learned in the process".

https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Amanda-Knox/399072

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/27/amanda-knox-charging-up-to-7000-a-night-for-talks-about-meredith-kerchers-murder-7266115/

One of the reviews on the All American Speakers site includes the following:

"Students were glad to have an honest and refreshing take on the way that we treat detainees, those who are wrongfully convicted, and women who go through the system. Students also appreciated that Amanda was not afraid or ashamed of being emotional during the keynote".

It sounds like she doesn't just speak about the death of Meredith Kercher, as claimed in the headline. It sounds like she speaks about the circumstances she found herself in - circumstances relating to the killing, and the resulting legal proceedings.

I mean, if she didn't kill Meredith Kercher, and arrived home to find her dead, how could she speak about the killing?

https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Amanda-Knox/399072

The Talking Bread

horseburger wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30

Good lord, over 30 is really old, isn't it.

Isn't it shocking, that she can be over 30, and "still beautiful"?

Get over yourself.

That's not whate I meant.

horseburger

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Get over yourself.

That's not whate I meant.

Well then, what did you mean, by saying:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30"

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106047024&postcount=171

retro:electro

paleoperson wrote: »

Apparently she's going around giving "talks" about it, charging £7,000 a talk. How disrespectful. That's where the tv licence money is going (I assume she charges a lot more for a tv appearance of course).

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/27/amanda-knox-charging-up-to-7000-a-night-for-talks-about-meredith-kerchers-murder-7266115/

Her family are in debt and she is trying to make back some of the money they lost while trying to get her out of jail for a murder she didn't commit. Yes Meredith died and that's very sad but Amanda was wronged too and treated horribly. I'd do exactly the same thing and try and earn back every last cent.

The Talking Bread

horseburger wrote: »

Well then, what did you mean, by saying:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30"

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106047024&postcount=171

I meant that it is absolutely shocking that any girl that is over 30 can be in any way whatsoever good looking.

Is that what you want to hear?

I am happy to feed your faux offence any day.

Anyone else wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous assumption.

So now that you have "caught me out on being such a bigot",lets leave this

newcavanman

Hiberno12345 wrote: »

She is a good looking Woman. But the feminism ****e is a right turn off.

Shes a pain in the hole. I tried listening to her on the Drivetime show, and it seemed that every interview or discussion was based on looking for the anti women angle, so she could go on one of her feminist anti men rants
It seems to bethat in RTE these days, the default setting is that if a man and woman of equal qualifications are in the running, then the job needs to be given to a woman. Perhaps im wrong, but I cant recall any broadcasting positions that have become vacant in the last year which have been filled by a man
Surely giving a job to a woman, just because shes a woman is as bad as the mysoginy that Ms mcinerny and her ilk complain about?
Ps no doubt Ray will be spared in the anti men witchunt

sligojoek

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I meant that it is absolutely shocking that any girl that is over 30 can be in any way whatsoever good looking.

Is that what you want to hear?

I am happy to feed your faux offence any day.

Anyone else wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous assumption.

So now that you have "caught me out on being such a bigot",lets leave this

TTB, I'd ignore him. He does the same thing on the RD radio thread. Never has anything to say about the show. Just comes on when it's over to pick holes in everyones posts and dumps numerous links despite warnings from mods.

The Talking Bread

sligojoek wrote: »

TTB, I'd ignore him. He does the same thing on the RD radio thread. Never has anything to say about the show. Just comes on when it's over to pick holes in everyones posts and dumps numerous links despite warnings from mods.

Ha, just had a quick gawk at some of the posts!

Paranoia and the burning desire to be offended sparks to mind!

horseburger

sligojoek wrote: »

TTB, I'd ignore him. He does the same thing on the RD radio thread. Never has anything to say about the show. Just comes on when it's over to pick holes in everyones posts and dumps numerous links despite warnings from mods.

But you and others have no problem constantly picking holes in absolutely everything that Ray D'Arcy says, insinuating he's implying things that he isn't implying, trying to suggest he's being aggressive to guests, for example in a recent interview that he did with David Gray?

horseburger

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I meant that it is absolutely shocking that any girl that is over 30 can be in any way whatsoever good looking.

Is that what you want to hear?

I am happy to feed your faux offence any day.

Anyone else wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous assumption.

So now that you have "caught me out on being such a bigot",lets leave this

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

What were you trying to say, when you said:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30."

The Talking Bread

horseburger wrote: »

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

What were you trying to say, when you said:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30"

I am not going to answer you! I would hate to burst your bubble of paranoia! Why in God's name would I give a monkeys about how much you break down everything to take offence.

Smile and be happy! Life is not all about getting upset about your obsession with internet posts and taking offence with them!

So no, I amn't going to answer your ridiculous assumption based queries

FIN.

horseburger

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I am not going to answer you! I would hate to burst your bubble of paranoia! Why in God's name would I give a monkeys about how much you break down everything to take offence.

Smile and be happy! Life is not all about getting upset about your obsession with internet posts and taking offence with them!

So no, I amn't going to answer your ridiculous assumption based queries

FIN.

"Why in God's name" would you try and suggest that you meant something else by what you wrote, only to find it very hard to state, what it is, that you meant, by what you wrote?

The Talking Bread

Bless.

monkey9

horseburger wrote: »

"Why in God's name" would you try and suggest that you meant something else by what you wrote, only to find it very hard to state, what it is, that you meant, by what you wrote?

Cos it's clearly obvious what he meant and doesn't need explaining even if you're pretending that it does.

Hitchens

Breaking News: Amanda Knox to go on nationwide tour with The Wolfe Tones

donkeykong5

Hitchens wrote: »

Breaking News: Amanda Knox to go on nationwide tour with The Wolfe Tones

Priceless.

sightband

horseburger wrote: »

But you and others have no problem constantly picking holes in absolutely everything that Ray D'Arcy says, insinuating he's implying things that he isn't implying, trying to suggest he's being aggressive to guests, for example in a recent interview that he did with David Gray?

Difference is Ray is paid €400k+ to do a job that he seems to be unable to and doesn’t seem to care that he can’t. If it was me, I’d expect no less than for people to pick holes in my performances.

David Gray interview was a disgrace, he had zero research done and embarrassed them both. He doesn’t seem to research anything, and if he does it’s as if it’s done real-time on Wikipedia or two minutes before he ‘clocks on’. Ray loves Montrose gravy and himself...he’s absolutely shįte and a right pain in the hoop.

The Talking Bread

sightband wrote: »

Difference is Ray is paid €400k+ to do a job that he seems to be unable to and doesn’t seem to care that he can’t. If it was me, I’d expect no less than for people to pick holes in my performances.

David Gray interview was a disgrace, he had zero research done and embarrassed them both. He doesn’t seem to research anything, and if he does it’s as if it’s done real-time on Wikipedia or two minutes before he ‘clocks on’. Ray loves Montrose gravy and himself...he’s absolutely shįte and a right pain in the hoop.

Hey now, don't do Ray a disservice. The level of research he put into that fascinating skype treasure hunt segment last night was exceptional

Franz Von Peppercorn

paleoperson wrote: »

Apparently she's going around giving "talks" about it, charging £7,000 a talk. How disrespectful. That's where the tv licence money is going (I assume she charges a lot more for a tv appearance of course).

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/27/amanda-knox-charging-up-to-7000-a-night-for-talks-about-meredith-kerchers-murder-7266115/

She’s talking about miscarriages of justice.

The troglodytes of the British tabloids are all over this “IRA” song.

horseburger

sightband wrote: »

Difference is Ray is paid €400k+ to do a job that he seems to be unable to and doesn’t seem to care that he can’t. If it was me, I’d expect no less than for people to pick holes in my performances.

David Gray interview was a disgrace, he had zero research done and embarrassed them both. He doesn’t seem to research anything, and if he does it’s as if it’s done real-time on Wikipedia or two minutes before he ‘clocks on’. Ray loves Montrose gravy and himself...he’s absolutely shįte and a right pain in the hoop.

The point I raised, was the accusations, against Ray D'Arcy, of aggression towards David Gray.

There was no aggression, all he did was get the date of the release, and the recording, of the album wrong, and he responded to David Gray by asking when the album was recorded.

I think it was just a mistake he made, as to when the album was released, and when it was recorded, because the album had been released a second time, on a different label, three years after it was recorded.

It was recorded in 1997, and first released on IHT Records in 1998. In 2000, when it was re-released on ATO records, it grew in popularity. It is understandable if many who got the album upon its second release, were not familiar with it, when it was first released.

There was no aggression from Ray D'Arcy towards David Gray. All he was doing was starting a discussion with David Gray, about the 20th anniversary of the album. Ray D'Arcy was technically correct in saying the album was 20 years old, considering it was recorded in 1997.

Posters here, regularly try and find fault, with Ray D'Arcy.

For example,

Recently a poster, named citykat tried to suggest that Ray D'Arcy was wrong in suggesting, in an interview with Lisa McInerney, that she was the eldest child, of her mother.

During the interview, citykat posted on the forum, inaccurately suggesting, that Ray D'Arcy was incorrect in the question that he had asked.

citykat posted the following:

"Ray: you're the oldest in your family.
Guest: no I'm the youngest... "

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105818072&postcount=7680

citykat wrote: »

Ray: you're the oldest in your family.
Guest: no I'm the youngest...

Ray D'Arcy was technically correct, in saying that Lisa McInerney was the eldest child, of her mother. When Lisa McInerney said that she was the youngest child, she was referring to the household, where she was brought up by her grandparents, where her siblings were her aunts and uncles.

Posters, very often, don't let accuracy, get in the way of smart-assed-ness, in their efforts, to find fault with Ray D'Arcy.

Here are the links to the audio of the interview and the facebook video, of the interview.

https://rte.ie/r.html?rii=b9_21300217_19148_12-01-2018_

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/ray/programmes/2018/0112/932880-ray-darcy-friday-12-january-2018/

https://www.facebook.com/rteradio1/videos/1615981775126186/

horseburger

monkey9 wrote: »

Cos it's clearly obvious what he meant and doesn't need explaining even if you're pretending that it does.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?

The poster stated:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30."

Why didn't the poster say "She is beautiful", rather than "God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl, but she looks well over 30."

Stating "but she looks well over 30" is a negative remark.

So what if she looks older than 30?

I'm sensing that people in this discussion don't like their remarks being quizzed, yet they have no problem making constant smart assed remarks about Ray D'Arcy, Ryan Tubridy, Joe Duffy etc.

Alf Veedersane

horseburger wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?

The poster stated:

"God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl but she looks well over 30."

Why didn't the poster say "She is beautiful", rather than "God, she has aged. Still beautiful girl, but she looks well over 30."

Stating "but she looks well over 30" is a negative remark.

So what if she looks older than 30?

Its not quantum mechanics. She's beautiful but she looks well over 30.

It's an observation. So what if the poster thinks she looks well over 30?

I'm not sure why you're making a big deal of it but that's for you.

horseburger

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Its not quantum mechanics. She's beautiful but she looks a lot older than 30.

It's an observation.

I'm not sure why you're making a big deal of it but that's for you.

I'm questioning the use of the particular phrase.

What was stated was "God she has aged. Still Beautiful girl, but she looks well over 30.

Why didn't the poster just state that she was beautiful.

Does the poster think that when you are over 30, that there's a slim possibility of being "beautiful"?

What's wrong with looking "well over 30"?

Alf Veedersane

horseburger wrote: »

I'm questioning the use of the particular phrase.

What was stated was "God she has aged. Still Beautiful girl, but she looks well over 30.

Why didn't the poster just state that she was beautiful.

What's wrong with looking "well over 30"?

Who said there was anything wrong with it? You're the one giving it the negative spin.

It's not a positive or a negative. It's just an observation. The poster clearly didn't think there was anything wrong with it hence they also said she was beautiful.

I suggest you find something more credible to be outraged by.

horseburger

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Who said there was anything wrong with it? You're the one giving it the negative spin.

It's not a positive or a negative. It's just an observation. The poster clearly didn't think there was anything wrong with it hence they also said she was beautiful.

I suggest you find something more credible to be outraged by.

Why didn't the poster say "she is beautiful and looks well over 30", rather than "she is beautiful but looks well over 30"?

"but looks well over 30" is a negative remark.

Why didn't the poster just say "she is beautiful"?

Alf Veedersane

horseburger wrote: »

Why didn't the poster say "she is beautiful and looks well over 30", rather than "she is beautiful but looks well over 30"?

"but looks well over 30" is a negative remark.

Why didn't the poster just say "she is beautiful"?

Because the poster had two simultaneous opinions.

It's only negative if you think being well over 30 is negative.

Are you telling me its negative to look well over 30?

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Why didn't the poster say "she is beautiful and looks well over 30", rather than "she is beautiful but looks well over 30"?

"but looks well over 30" is a negative remark.

Why didn't the poster just say "she is beautiful"?

Oh spare me , I’m losing the will to live with all this:mad::mad:
Talk about being pedantic !!

horseburger

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Because the poster had two simultaneous opinions.

It's only negative if you think being well over 30 is negative.

Are you telling me its negative to look well over 30?

No, I do not think it's a negative to look over 30.

What I am suggesting is that if someone writes "but she looks well over 30", that they might very well think that looking over 30, is a negative.

The word "but" is important, because when that word is used, it is used to emphasise a negative.

For example 'Liverpool had most of the possession of the ball during the match, but they didn't capitalize on that, by scoring any goals'.

'The concert was good. You could see the band were enthusiastic, but the sound in the venue was poor".

Franz Von Peppercorn

horseburger wrote: »

I'm questioning the use of the particular phrase.

What was stated was "God she has aged. Still Beautiful girl, but she looks well over 30.

Why didn't the poster just state that she was beautiful.

Does the poster think that when you are over 30, that there's a slim possibility of being "beautiful"?

What's wrong with looking "well over 30"?

Christ you are a snowflake. People do get less attractive as they age.

Alf Veedersane

horseburger wrote: »

No, I do not think it's a negative to look over 30.

What I am suggesting is that if someone writes "but she looks well over 30", that they might very well think that looking over 30, is a negative.

The word "but" is important, because when that word is used, it is used to emphasise a negative.

For example 'Liverpool had most of the possession of the ball during the match, but they didn't capitalize on that, by scoring any goals'.

'The concert was good. You could see the band were enthusiastic, but the sound in the venue was poor".

So you're speculating and trying to find a negative in a comment where the poster said she was beautiful?

horseburger

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Christ you are a snowflake. People do get less attractive as they age.

Really? At what age?

horseburger

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you're speculating and trying to find a negative in a comment where the poster said she was beautiful?

The poster said she is "still beautiful" despite looking "well over 30".

Franz Von Peppercorn

horseburger wrote: »

Really? At what age?

30.

Now can we move on and discuss the show rather than your inane preoccupation.