Gable Tostee

[lionking]

You can't read anything into that.

I bloody can. I said earlier that we are not the jury and our opinions can't be directed by a judge.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Who cares if you don't buy it? The law does. Have you been even following this thread?

This comment shows yet again that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Prove it or withdraw.

I bloody can. I said earlier that we are not the jury and our opinions can't be directed by a judge.

I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum, not "True Detective"? One minute you're quoting the law, the next minute you're ignoring it.

 

[Noztradamus]

I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum.

Many people make that mistake.

 

[Ben1985]

I think, even if the jury does decide that it wasn't a reasonable consideration that she might try to climb, there is still the matter of the deprivation of liberty being a crime.
Tthe resulting death during that crime makes it murder. Probably reduced to manslaughter. I assume the prosecution can have multiple angles, but ......
No idea how close I am with that. It looks tight to me, it's just the ANAL thing.
Am Not A Lawyer.

Only if death was a "likely" outcome of the criminal act.

I tend to think that this whole case is going to turn on whether or not the jury agrees with the prosecution's contention that Wright was strangled before being locked on the balcony. If so, I think it's reasonable for Tostee to have assumed that she would be in fear for her life and that she would likely try and escape (and hence almost certainly fall to her death). If not, then I don't think there's enough there for the jury to agree that Wright trying to climb down the balcony was foreseeable.

 

[banquetbear]

You can't read anything into that.

...of course I can! We are having a discussion on a messageboard. I'm not subject to a judges directions.

I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum, not "True Detective"? One minute you're quoting the law, the next minute you're ignoring it.

The law as written, and the directions given by a judge to a jury prior to deliberation, are two different things. Do you need someone to explain the difference to you, or do you think you can figure the two things out on your own?

 

[Hard Cheese]

Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all.

...of course I can! We are having a discussion on a messageboard. I'm not subject to a judges directions.

So your position wrt to the first statement would be different if you were on a jury rather than being on a message board?

 

[gareththomasnz]

Sorry I did have a good hunt around for about an hour - dont recall the link

I'm just awaiting the verdict now.

Justice Byrne addressed the six men and six women of the jury on a range of issues, including whether or not Tostee intended to cause Ms Wright grievous bodily harm, which caused her to undertake the act that led to he death.

“The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused,” he said.

“If you are left with a reasonable doubt, your duty is to acquit.”

He also reminded jurors their task was an intellectual one, not an emotional one.

“You should dismiss all sympathy and prejudice, no such emotion has any place in your position,” he said.

“You must approach dispassionately.”

Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?

 

[Shiner]

Sorry I did have a good hunt around for about an hour - dont recall the link

I'm just awaiting the verdict now.



Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?

Interesting part you chose to share. Here's the link.


http://www.news.com.au/national/que...e/news-story/65b9c695740ec304025eb2475c5b238c

What verdict are you awaiting just now?

Most tellingly, however, the jury also sought clarification as to whether Ms Wright’s state of mind at the time she fell was important, and if her intoxication was something they had to consider as to whether her decision to climb over the balcony balustrade was unreasonable and irrational.
Their final question was to seek clarification of the terms “causation”, “unlawfulness” and “intent”.
Counsel for the prosecution and defence will reconvene at 10am tomorrow, in order to answer the questions.
The jury has been excused from their deliberations until then.

 

[Samson]

Maybe the judge agrees with you

Hard Cheese, I am at heart a statistician.

All the cases that don't stack up begin with ordinary men and women.

 

[The Atheist]

Huh, just a plain old misogynist.

Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?

Now, where else have I seen that quote, or something very similar.

That's right, Twitter, tweeted by a gareththomasnz, bodybuilder:

NZ also has a high rate of male suicide - The vast majority of suicides are male. Kiwi bitches boy - they'll kill ya

Well, you've got one less to worry about now, eh?

 

[The Atheist]

A couple more tweets that may shed some light on the posting in this thread:

Tostee must be aquited surely, plenty of abusive females & males in this country. Females tend 2 get away with abusing their children/spouse

Frankly if this guy is charged with murder then he may has well have raped & beaten the **** out of her - he is innocent

Nothing to see here.

 

[banquetbear]

So your position wrt to the first statement would be different if you were on a jury rather than being on a message board?

...with all due respect: and I mean this in the nicest of possible of ways, but this well may be the dumbest question I've been asked in a while. Yes: if I was on a jury, I would deliberate as per the judges directions. I may or may not still hold the same opinion: but I feel I would be able to put my gut feelings aside and to deliberate as directed.

Now: if you were less inclined to constantly take pot-shots at me for some sort of "perceived slight" I'd be happy to discuss what the judges directions might mean for the trial. But you seem intent in trying to "catch me out." I have no idea why.

 

[Hard Cheese]

...with all due respect: and I mean this in the nicest of possible of ways, but this well may be the dumbest question I've been asked in a while. Yes: if I was on a jury, I would deliberate as per the judges directions. I may or may not still hold the same opinion: but I feel I would be able to put my gut feelings aside and to deliberate as directed.

Now: if you were less inclined to constantly take pot-shots at me for some sort of "perceived slight" I'd be happy to discuss what the judges directions might mean for the trial. But you seem intent in trying to "catch me out." I have no idea why.

I'm simply trying to work out why you think his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence, if that's what you meant by your response in caps. If it's just a "gut feeling" that forms an opinion, that's fine.

 

[banquetbear]

I'm simply trying to work out why you think his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence, if that's what you meant by your response in caps. If it's just a "gut feeling" that forms an opinion, that's fine.

...well thats simply because I made no claim that "his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence." I said "Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all." Where did I talk about "guilt or innocence?"

If you are having trouble understanding what I'm saying, why don't you start by reading the words that I have written?

 

[Hard Cheese]

...well thats simply because I made no claim that "his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence." I said "Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all." Where did I talk about "guilt or innocence?"

So it's just what you think he should have done in the circumstances. That's fine, no need to get snarky.

 

[lionking]

So it's just what you think he should have done in the circumstances. That's fine, no need to get snarky.

Rule of So. Automatically loses.

Tostee acted like an utterly callous jerk. Does't go to his guilt, but to his character and arguably motivation. It's the context the jury will use to help decide his guilt.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Rule of So. Automatically loses.

Tostee acted like an utterly callous jerk. Does't go to his guilt, but to his character and arguably motivation. It's the context the jury will use to help decide his guilt.

I hope not, because the judge told them specifically not to use them (his actions after her fall, that is)

 

[lionking]

I hope not, because the judge told them specifically not to use them (his actions after her fall, that is)

You hope not? Why are you so invested in this obnoxious jerk's innocence?

 

[Hard Cheese]

You hope not? Why are you so invested in this obnoxious jerk's innocence?

The judge gave the jury a specific directive, I hope they heed it, because, obnoxious as I also find him, he deserves a fair trial like anyone else.

 

[lionking]

The judge gave the jury a specific directive, I hope they heed it, because, obnoxious as I also find him, he deserves a fair trial like anyone else.

Why do you hope they heed it? I repeat, why are you so invested in this idiot's innocence?