Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

nullzero · 12-11-2018 07:28PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's what you took from my post?

Do you wear the exact same type of clothes 7 days a week? Clothes worn to work portray a particular image. Companies wouldn't spend millions on uniforms otherwise. Would you be more likely take financial advice from a financial advisor wearing shorts & a Hawaiin shirt? Or a financial adviser in a suit?

Clothing portrays a particular image. Before you even speak to someone for the first time you subconsciously form an opinion based on hairstyle and clothing. This is fact.

Barristers use every tool at their disposal. Defence barrister will want to show a thong but would prefer to hide Bridget Jones knickers from a jury. The prosecution will want the opposite. They will try hide the thong but will stretch the granny knickers as big as possible while showing the jury. It's their job to paint a particular picture.

Three paragraphs and you're still making no sense.
Do you really believe people would form that type of opinion in a rape trial?
Is the world so set against women in your mind?

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 07:36PM

nullzero wrote:

Three paragraphs and you're still making no sense. Do you really believe people would form that type of opinion in a rape trial? Is the world so set against women in your mind?

I'm making no sense?
I'm waiting for you to explain what other reason the defense shows the thong.

Yes some people would definitely form that opinion. It's why the thong was shown by the defensive and not the prosecution.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 07:54PM

nullzero wrote: »

Three paragraphs and you're still making no sense.
Do you really believe people would form that type of opinion in a rape trial?
Is the world so set against women in your mind?

Here's one for you, Bodybuilder, 6 foot tall weighing 18 stone of pure muscle with shaved head will be at a major disadvantage in front of a judge where his GF/ wife claims assault compared to a 5 foot meekly looking guy with glasses with GF/ wife making the same claims.

It's a fact of life. People subconsciously judge you on how you look or the clothes you wear. I'm old enough to remember judges commenting on rape victims revealing clothes in the 80s only to go on & give the rapist a suspended sentence.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 08:40PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's one for you, Bodybuilder, 6 foot tall weighing 18 stone of pure muscle with shaved head will be at a major disadvantage in front of a judge where his GF/ wife claims assault compared to a 5 foot meekly looking guy with glasses with GF/ wife making the same claims.

It's a fact of life. People subconsciously judge you on how you look or the clothes you wear. I'm old enough to remember judges commenting on rape victims revealing clothes in the 80s only to go on & give the rapist a suspended sentence.

So you are saying that nobody that served on a jury in Ireland has ever been capable of higher reasoning?
To say people aren't able to make decisions other than rash ones based on appearance is laughable.

Here's one for you, go off and construct a reasonable, rational well thought out(or casually pondered) argument and then come back and post it.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 08:42PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm making no sense?
I'm waiting for you to explain what other reason the defense shows the thong.

Yes some people would definitely form that opinion. It's why the thong was shown by the defensive and not the prosecution.

The defence showed the thong so suggest the woman was "asking for it". It was a stupid argument, the issue is that the thong is part of the evidence collected in the investigation.
I'm not defending the way the thong was used, I'm just highlighting the fact that the thong was a part of the evidence.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 09:00PM

nullzero wrote: »

So you are saying that nobody that served on a jury in Ireland has ever been capable of higher reasoning?
To say people aren't able to make decisions other than rash ones based on appearance is laughable.

I'm not saying Nobody. All it takes is to convince one & you won't have a majority verdict

nullzero wrote: »

The defence showed the thong so suggest the woman was "asking for it". It was a stupid argument, the issue is that the thong is part of the evidence collected in the investigation.
I'm not defending the way the thong was used, I'm just highlighting the fact that the thong was a part of the evidence.

"Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

He's trying to install reasonable doubt here. Not only that but it seems he succeed.

This man is a highly trained professional. He knew exactly what he was doing by his above statement. You mightn't believe that there are people out there that don't believe that a girl in a thong is looking for sex but this barristers training & the training of barristers worldwide would suggest that you are wrong in your belief. You haven't posted a single word so far to back up your own personal belief. You have presented no argument so far.

JeffKenna · 12-11-2018 09:51PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not saying Nobody. All it takes is to convince one & you won't have a majority verdict

He's trying to install reasonable doubt here. Not only that but it seems he succeed.

This man is a highly trained professional. He knew exactly what he was doing by his above statement. You mightn't believe that there are people out there that don't believe that a girl in a thong is looking for sex but this barristers training & the training of barristers worldwide would suggest that you are wrong in your belief. You haven't posted a single word so far to back up your own personal belief. You have presented no argument so far.

Who's he, this man you are referring to?

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 09:56PM

JeffKenna wrote: »

Who's he, this man you are referring to?

The barrister in the rape case. It's the same man everyone here is talking about. The quote below is his

"Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

JeffKenna · 12-11-2018 09:59PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The barrister in the rape case. It's the same man everyone here is talking about. The quote below is his

The barrister was a women.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 10:00PM

JeffKenna wrote:

The barrister was a women.

OK then she. It makes no difference to the thread

JeffKenna · 12-11-2018 10:03PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OK then she. It makes no difference to the thread

Well it does in the sense that you didn't even bother to get the basic facts right.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 10:17PM

JeffKenna wrote:

Well it does in the sense that you didn't even bother to get the basic facts right.

The newspaper article I read just says a barrister. Doesn't give a name or say male or female. If the paper does not report the basic facts then what am I to do.

JeffKenna · 12-11-2018 10:21PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The newspaper article I read just says a barrister. Doesn't give a name or say male or female. If the paper does not report the basic facts then what am I to do.

Well if you're not sure if the barrister is a male or female maybe refer to them in a gender neutral term before launching a sexist rant.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 10:26PM

JeffKenna wrote:

Well if you're not sure if the barrister is a male or female maybe refer to them in a gender neutral term before launching a sexist rant.

Sexist rant?

I think you are talking about another poster. You won't find any of my posts sexiest rants

argentum · 12-11-2018 10:29PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ve just listened to Ciara Kelly segment today . Is there something wrong with her ? Her own personal feelings and her emotions are hugely to the fore in all of these interviews. She was barely in control of her temper today ! “Are you listening to me” she’s beginning to sound like Ryan Tubridy “you will know if I lose control “ comment last week .

Whatever the subject and whatever my own feelings on them I think Ciara Kelly needs to be seriously reigned in by Newstalk. She does NOT speak for me as a woman . She challenged a defense lawyer today on the process of the judicial system and the unanimous verdict of a jury . She targeted the solicitor as if this was his case and his decision. It got hugely personal.

Is Ciara Kelly going through a horrendous menopause ? Because lately she is far from unbiased, she is far from tempered and she is constantly on the edge of her emotions. Her interview techniques are appalling.

I can't believe that a woman wrote the above sexist nonsense.If I as a man wrote it people would come down on me like a ton of bricks and rightly so.She didn't claim to be speaking on behalf of you ..was the barrister who spoke about a lacy thong speaking on your behalf....she spoke the truth and I know if my wife or daughter was ever raped it would be good to have someone like her in the prosecution team on their side.

12-11-2018 10:51PM

I heard that segment today and while I know Ciara Kelly has to stoke controversy for her ratings etc, she came across as ludicrously unprofessional and really put the solicitor in a bind. If he came down to her level it would just have been a screaming match between one person who was informed and one person who based their view on what they read on twitter.

It is nonsense to break down a complex rape trial (or any other complex trial for that matter) to one piece of evidence on a brief radio discussion. Ciara Kelly really was indefensible today. I can see a few decent reasons for displaying the underwear of a rape victim in a trial (were they ripped, was there DNA etc) that didn't seem to be addressed in today's segment (nor, in reality, should they be addressed in an early afternoon talk show).

Dick Swiveller · 12-11-2018 11:46PM

argentum wrote: »

I can't believe that a woman wrote the above sexist nonsense.If I as a man wrote it people would come down on me like a ton of bricks and rightly so.She didn't claim to be speaking on behalf of you ..was the barrister who spoke about a lacy thong speaking on your behalf....she spoke the truth and I know if my wife or daughter was ever raped it would be good to have someone like her in the prosecution team on their side.

No, she is an uninformed moron - waxing lyrical about something she clearly doesn't understand. Even the solicitor was astonished at her ignorance. The thong in the case under discussion was part of the evidence. Clothing often is. Whether it is good or bad evidence, the jury will decide.

Dick Swiveller · 12-11-2018 11:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I heard that segment today and while I know Ciara Kelly has to stoke controversy for her ratings etc, she came across as ludicrously unprofessional and really put the solicitor in a bind. If he came down to her level it would just have been a screaming match between one person who was informed and one person who based their view on what they read on twitter.

It is nonsense to break down a complex rape trial (or any other complex trial for that matter) to one piece of evidence on a brief radio discussion. Ciara Kelly really was indefensible today. I can see a few decent reasons for displaying the underwear of a rape victim in a trial (were they ripped, was there DNA etc) that didn't seem to be addressed in today's segment (nor, in reality, should they be addressed in an early afternoon talk show).

I agree with what you say here but you need to be careful with the language you use. The person is not a victim but a complainant. If the accused is found guilty then the complainant is a victim. Calling a person a victim before a verdict has been reached goes against the presumption of innocence.

12-11-2018 11:52PM

Stoolcup wrote: »

I agree with what you say here but you need to be careful with the language you use. The person is not a victim but a complainant. If the accused is found guilty then the complainant is a victim. Calling a person a victim before a verdict has been reached goes against the presumption of innocence.

Absolutely agree, lazy use of language on my part.

Ciara Kelly should also reflect that lunchtime radio is really no place for in-depth conversations about intricate subjects. Entire books are written about what should and shouldn't be evidence. Fair enough to stoke up the ratings but today was just bizarre radio.

meeeeh · 13-11-2018 12:02AM

Stoolcup wrote: »

No, she is an uninformed moron - waxing lyrical about something she clearly doesn't understand. Even the solicitor was astonished at her ignorance. The thong in the case under discussion was part of the evidence. Clothing often is. Whether it is good or bad evidence, the jury will decide.

So you think that concluding woman was open to sex because she wore a thong is reasonable because that what the subject of the discussion was. It wasn't about what hard evidence was found on the thong, it was what underwear said about character of accuser. The statement from defence said nothing about the evidence on the thong.

Edit: just to add, he did after a lot of avoiding admit that he would nit make a statement defending barrister made in that case.

nullzero · 13-11-2018 12:07AM

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think that concluding woman was open to sex because she wore a thong is reasonable because that what the subject of the discussion was. It wasn't about what hard evidence was found on the thong, it was what underwear said about character of accuser. The statement from defence said nothing about the evidence on the thong.

Call me old fashioned, but when somebody makes a simplistic statement and another goes off on an unrelated tangent the second person typically isn't keeping pace (and in this case its a very slow pace, with extremely simple statements being made) with what's going on.

The person you quoted stated that the thong was part of the evidence, and that its use or perceived misuse wasn't secondary to that fact. Your insistence on pushing the topic of the morality of the defence is essentially pushing against an open door. You and other posters seem to be missing this fact. The thong was a piece of evidence plain and simple.

nullzero · 13-11-2018 12:12AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not saying Nobody. All it takes is to convince one & you won't have a majority verdict

He's trying to install reasonable doubt here. Not only that but it seems he succeed.

This man is a highly trained professional. He knew exactly what he was doing by his above statement. You mightn't believe that there are people out there that don't believe that a girl in a thong is looking for sex but this barristers training & the training of barristers worldwide would suggest that you are wrong in your belief. You haven't posted a single word so far to back up your own personal belief. You have presented no argument so far.

I haven't presented any evidence?
Would you like me to conduct a poll?
You have some neck to take the moral high ground in that manner.
I don't know anybody who feels a thong is an invitation to sex, I don't need to link to a peer reviewed paper to prove that.
The only person here who seems to believe a thong is an invitation to sext is you.

meeeeh · 13-11-2018 12:12AM

nullzero wrote: »

Call me old fashioned, but when somebody makes a simplistic statement and another goes off on an unrelated tangent the second person typically isn't keeping pace (and in this case its a very slow pace, with extremely simple statements being made) with what's going on.

The person you quoted stated that the thong was part of the evidence, and that its use or perceived misuse wasn't secondary to that fact. Your insistence on pushing the topic of the morality of the defence is essentially pushing against an open door. You and other posters seem to be missing this fact. The thong was a piece of evidence plain and simple.

Explain to me then why morality was used in closing speech. It wasn't semen traces or lack of them, why morality unless they hoped they it worked?

13-11-2018 12:14AM

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think that concluding woman was open to sex because she wore a thong is reasonable because that what the subject of the discussion was. It wasn't about what hard evidence was found on the thong, it was what underwear said about character of accuser. The statement from defence said nothing about the evidence on the thong.

Edit: just to add, he did after a lot of avoiding admit that he would nit make a statement defending barrister made in that case.

That might well be what the discussion today was, but we have no real context for what the evidence presented in court actually was, apart from what was recorded in the respect of the closing statements. There is just too big a gap in what was reported.

We have no idea what the jury was presented with during the trial and why the formed their verdict.

Today was nonsense radio from a seriously uninformed presenter.

nullzero · 13-11-2018 12:16AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Explain to me then why morality was used in closing speech. It wasn't semen traces or lack of them, why morality unless they hoped they it worked?

The thing is we're not discussing that we're discussing the fact that the thong was a piece of evidence.
The morality of presenting it as evidence on the part of the defence is secondary.
As an aside I don't agree with it personally, but that's not what is being discussed.
Can you accept that the thong was a piece of evidence procured during the investigation?

Robert2012 · 13-11-2018 12:29AM

meeeeh wrote: »

So have many here think lacy thong means woman wants to have sex? I can't understand how to type of underwear is relevant (unless there is some physical evidence on it). But maybe it's my silly female brain and I should stop wearing thogs to avoid panty lines because that means I want to have sex with any randomer.

I actually thought you were a self-hating white heterosexual male, thanks for clarifying, it explains a lot.

What are "thogs" by the way, they're not items of ladies clothing that I'm familiar with..

meeeeh · 13-11-2018 12:36AM

nullzero wrote: »

The thing is we're not discussing that we're discussing the fact that the thong was a piece of evidence.
The morality of presenting it as evidence on the part of the defence is secondary.
As an aside I don't agree with it personally, but that's not what is being discussed.
Can you accept that the thong was a piece of evidence procured during the investigation?

But the discussion was about how the type of underwear is used in rape trials. The statement was read at the beginning of discussion. He used the evidence thing to avoid the question he was asked. Then he claimed she said the man who was found innocent was guilty to further muddy the water. It was all a screen to avoid answering why the type of underwear was used as defence. It seems he played quite a few here and led them down the garden path.

meeeeh · 13-11-2018 12:40AM

Robert2012 wrote: »

I actually thought you were a self-hating white heterosexual male, thanks for clarifying, it explains a lot.

What are "thogs" by the way, they're not items of ladies clothing that I'm familiar with..

I would say there is a lot of what you are not familiar with so I wouldn't overly worry about that.

nullzero · 13-11-2018 12:40AM

meeeeh wrote: »

But the discussion was about how the type of underwear is used in rape trials. The statement was read at the beginning of discussion. He used the evidence thing to avoid the question he was asked. Then he claimed she said the man who was found innocent was guilty to further muddy the water. It was all a screen to avoid answering why the type of underwear was used as defence. It seems he played quite a few here and led them down the garden path.

OK baby steps...

The defence using the thong was in my opinion a cheep immoral ploy. We don't really know how much of an influence it had on the jury if we're being honest.

Now,the thong was evidence and the defence were within their rights to use it, regardless of their motives(which I incidentally disagree with), can you understand that?

13-11-2018 12:42AM

meeeeh wrote: »

But the discussion was about how the type of underwear is used in rape trials. The statement was read at the beginning of discussion. He used the evidence thing to avoid the question he was asked. Then he claimed she said the man who was found innocent was guilty to further muddy the water. It was all a screen to avoid answering why the type of underwear was used as defence. It seems he played quite a few here and led them down the garden path.

But the "evidence thing" isn't avoiding the question, it's answering the question.

He wasn't in court, he has no idea what was or wasn't presented, it would be unprofessional of him to elaborate on a scenario he has no knowledge of. We need a lot more information about what was said during the trial, not just about the closing statement.

Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

Comments