• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gable Tostee

gareththomasnz said:
Its looking in his favour from the judges responses



My poll has a few respondents but most are not guilty.

I think he was recording in case there were false rape or assault allegations. Which there may well have been the next day had she not fallen off the balcony.
Click to expand...
I think we can totally rule out a verdict of murder at this stage.
In the case of a manslaughter conviction the judge presumably has complete discretion on sentencing.
 
Shiner said:
On Tostee's youtube account, there is video of a woman stealing his wallet from his loungeroom. Taken by fixed surveillance camera.

I've always found it curious that he had surveillance before the night Ms Wright fell to her death, but apparently had no working camera, or no camera that night.

Makes me wonder what he was carrying .......
Click to expand...

If he was disposing of surveillance gear (say a small camera on a stick) and presumably wiping any recording on it, don't you also wonder why he didn't erase the recording on his phone? If there was no recording, the Crown wouldn't have much of a case.
 
Unable to reach a verdict. This is where theater of the absurd begins.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the bar, and this has clearly not been reached.
What purpose is achieved by a war of attrition in the jury room now?

Of course it may be 11 not guiltys and one guilty, in which case a just result is still possible.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Unable to reach a verdict. This is where theater of the absurd begins.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the bar, and this has clearly not been reached.
What purpose is achieved by a war of attrition in the jury room now?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I also think these two directions don't leave much for them to debate

The judge said the jury had asked when does a person behaving in a disorderly manner start? He told the court and jury the answer was it does not matter, if the jury is satisfied reasonable force was used to remove a disorderly person then it must find the accused not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

The judge said the jury's second question regarded whether removing someone from a balcony constituted removal from a property, Justice John Byrne said the answer was "yes."
Click to expand...
 
Hard Cheese said:
If he was disposing of surveillance gear (say a small camera on a stick) and presumably wiping any recording on it, don't you also wonder why he didn't erase the recording on his phone? If there was no recording, the Crown wouldn't have much of a case.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why he disclosed the audio. It is just as damning for him as it is exonerating. (If it is either) I'm sure he thought it would exonerate him.

Purely hypothetically, I think a video might show things differently than the audio tape.
Especially when things got physical. Using his body weight to pin her. Choking/not choking her.

It does seem a long shot. Just thought I'd put it out there. I'm feeling lonely now that I'm being ignored.
 
I wonder do you guys know how long a jury may deliberate for max in Queensland as its a hung jury at present

Clearly there will be one or two of them unable to aquit on grounds of bias ;-)

Judge has told them to keep debating - could this go on all week?
 
Last edited:
Here is the link to the quoted news article.

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...y/news-story/e5d80892f80ccff0a480d8e6127ded9e

I really can't see how the judge's ruling that he had successfully removed her from his property can possibly hold water. Try that one on a real estate agent. "I'm not paying for the balcony. It isn't part of the property"

But going off the way the question was asked and that ruling, I think he's going to walk.
 
Last edited:
gareththomasnz said:
I wonder do you guys know how long a jury may deliberate for max in Queensland as its a hung jury at present
Click to expand...

It's at the judge's discretion. For a murder charge they have to come up with a unanimous verdict, if they can't he will keep directing them to go back until they agree. Ultimately if he thinks there is no way they will come to an agreement, he can dismiss the jury....but that would be last resort
 
Hard Cheese said:
It's at the judge's discretion. For a murder charge they have to come up with a unanimous verdict, if they can't he will keep directing them to go back until they agree. Ultimately if he thinks there is no way they will come to an agreement, he can dismiss the jury....but that would be last resort
Click to expand...
We have a seriously hung jury on this thread, which may be representative.
On the Lundy thread, once Atheist examined the evidence we got a unanimous not guilty, the same evidence with which the jury found unanimous guilt.
That was a binary choice, this case sits on a continuum, but not even lionking seems to expect a verdict of murder.
 
Shiner said:
Here is the link to the quoted news article.

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...y/news-story/e5d80892f80ccff0a480d8e6127ded9e

I really can't see how the judge's ruling that he had successfully removed her from his property can possibly hold water. Try that one on a real estate agent. "I'm not paying for the balcony. It isn't part of the property"
Click to expand...

The balcony is part of the property under the law

Occupants (Home Invasion) Protection Bill 2002

A “dwelling house” includes—
(a) a building or other structure where someone lives; and(b) a building or other structure that is—
(i) within the curtilage of a dwelling house; and
(ii) occupied in connection with the dwelling house or whose use is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling house;
Click to expand...


However the law says he is permitted to remove someone from the property. Whether he is successful isn't relevant.

(1) It is lawful for an occupant of a dwelling house to use any force or do
anything else the occupant believes is necessary—
..
(b) to cause an intruder in the dwelling house to leave the dwelling house; or
..
(d) to defend himself or herself, another occupant or anyone else lawfully in the dwelling house (“invitee”) against violence used or threatened against any of them by an intruder who is—
(i) attempting to break or enter the dwelling house; or
(ii) in the dwelling house;
Click to expand...

i.e if you threw an intruder out into your front garden and locked the door, technically they are still on your property - but you're permitted to eject them.
 
Awaiting the next trial 2018

Aside: Large black man gets drunk with Tostee. Beats Tostee up for an hour and after wrestling Tostee locks him on the balcony. As Tostee is calling the cops he gets a carving knife from the kitchen to defend himself and scare the baddy.

Large black man with tatoo's & biker jacket then climbs over balcony to escape, screaming and hollering but falls to his death.



You see all fof the fuss is because it was a pretty girl. She has the exact same rights and responsibilities as any other adult. But because it is a pretty girl who screamed at the end just the same as had she been an actual victim - there is a knee jerk reaction.

She was not actually a victim in this incident IMHO

It needs to be unanimous for Murder but not manslaughter apparently, does it need to be unanimous to aquit?
 
Last edited:
Shiner said:
I've always wondered why he disclosed the audio. It is just as damning for him as it is exonerating. (If it is either) I'm sure he thought it would exonerate him.

Purely hypothetically, I think a video might show things differently than the audio tape.
Especially when things got physical. Using his body weight to pin her. Choking/not choking her.

It does seem a long shot. Just thought I'd put it out there. I'm feeling lonely now that I'm being ignored.
Click to expand...

This article says that the police discovered the recording.

The audio recording, which was discovered by police on a Sony Xperia phone they found in Tostee’s father’s car, has been released by the court.
Click to expand...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...her-tinder-date-charged-with-murder-1.2831431
 
alex04 said:
As far as I'm aware, any decision needs to be unanimous.
Click to expand...
In the mother country Jeremy Bamber went down 10 2 after his sister killed the family then shot herself. He's done 30 of LWP so far.
New Zealand allows 11 1 verdicts I believe, Aussie? No idea.
 
Samson said:
In the mother country Jeremy Bamber went down 10 2 after his sister killed the family then shot herself. He's done 30 of LWP so far.
New Zealand allows 11 1 verdicts I believe, Aussie? No idea.
Click to expand...

Naturally. Yet you post in a thread about an Australian case. And you seem to expect to be treated seriously. Why?
 
I'll put you out of your misery Samson. Unanimous verdicts are required for murder trials in Queensland.

You're welcome.
 
Hard Cheese said:
The balcony is part of the property under the law

However the law says he is permitted to remove someone from the property. Whether he is successful isn't relevant.

i.e if you threw an intruder out into your front garden and locked the door, technically they are still on your property - but you're permitted to eject them.
Click to expand...

My only point of contention there is your last. If I threw the intruder onto my front lawn, they are free to leave my property. On a 14th floor balcony? Not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom