Gable Tostee

[Noztradamus]

First time posting in this thread.

First of all, Tostee is responsible for the victim's death. It wasn't an unfortunate accident caused by alcohol or the victims fault.

It doesn't matter what her behaviour had been, it is irrelevant.

Tostee physically forced her into an unsafe environment. He then refused to release her. He then left her to fend for herself. His actions, behaviour and previous words could easily put the victim in fear for her life and very probably did. She died purely as a result of his illegal actions.

The much quoted relevant local law seems to require his prosecution for murder rather than manslaughter. This is not prosecutorial overreach.

On the facts of the case and the relevant law, it seems clear to me that he should have been found guilty.

Purely from the posts in this thread I am an inclined to think that the judge's instructions to the jury were the reason he was acquitted. I would be very interested in hearing an Australian legal experts' opinion on those instructions.

That Tostee will escape any penalty for causing a woman's death is a miscarriage of justice rather than a cause to celebrate.

Week late and a dollar short

 

[cullennz]

That's you.

Given Tostee's proven actions both before and after the balcony death, I'd lay good odds that most people would like him to jump off the same balcony.



How sweet - you hope they can forgive your POS pal.



Sure. Much better that than taking a serious look at the criminal and immoral behaviour of a narcissistic, amoral scumbag.

Newsflash

Wasn't criminal apparently

 

[cullennz]

First time posting in this thread.

First of all, Tostee is responsible for the victim's death. It wasn't an unfortunate accident caused by alcohol or the victims fault.

It doesn't matter what her behaviour had been, it is irrelevant.

Tostee physically forced her into an unsafe environment. He then refused to release her. He then left her to fend for herself. His actions, behaviour and previous words could easily put the victim in fear for her life and very probably did. She died purely as a result of his illegal actions.

The much quoted relevant local law seems to require his prosecution for murder rather than manslaughter. This is not prosecutorial overreach.

On the facts of the case and the relevant law, it seems clear to me that he should have been found guilty.

Purely from the posts in this thread I am an inclined to think that the judge's instructions to the jury were the reason he was acquitted. I would be very interested in hearing an Australian legal experts' opinion on those instructions.

That Tostee will escape any penalty for causing a woman's death is a miscarriage of justice rather than a cause to celebrate.

Um. Yes it was.

As the jury found and many posters including myself were saying.

It was a very sad turn of events that resulted in the unfortunate death of a bit of a nutty young woman.

But at the end of the day while a complete prick the bloke had no intent for her to die.

 

[Shiner]

Newsflash

Wasn't criminal apparently

Newsflash. No apparently about it. He is a convicted criminal.

His criminal history has been mentioned and linked to in this thread.

 

[cullennz]

And who is celebrating?

 

[lionking]

Well folks he is an innocent man so much of what you have to say is slander parroted from the media.

Also this forum is the only one largely negative of Tostee.

There are several online now and all of the others were largely in agreement that he is not guilty.

I am moving on. I spoke my mind here at the relevant time. I dont want to read any more nonsense.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0

I wont be back to this forum.

Have a nice day

The sort of post expected from someone who has POS Tostee as a hero. You will not be missed.

 

[Noztradamus]

Um. Yes it was.

As the jury found and many posters including myself were saying.

It was a very sad turn of events that resulted in the unfortunate death of a bit of a nutty young woman.

But at the end of the day while a complete prick the bloke had no intent for her to die.

That was always my read on the situation

 

[lionking]

That was always my read on the situation

Let's see what the coroner has to say. It's far from over for that violent thoughtless jerk Tostee.

 

[Shiner]

Let's see what the coroner has to say. It's far from over for that violent thoughtless jerk Tostee.

What are your thoughts on the Coroner’s investigation, LK? Is there scope for further charges against Tostee from it, or has the prosecution done it's dash? I ask because you have some history with LE, nd you seem up to speed on the judicial mumbo jumbo.

And who is celebrating?

What does this even mean? You said he isn't a criminal. I corrected you. Nobody mentioned celebrating.

 

[lionking]

What are your thoughts on the Coroner’s investigation, LK? Is there scope for further charges against Tostee from it, or has the prosecution done it's dash? I ask because you have some history with LE, nd you seem up to speed on the judicial mumbo jumbo.



What does this even mean? You said he isn't a criminal. I corrected you. Nobody mentioned celebrating.

The coroner can certainly make findings and recommend charges. It is then up to the DPP. I'm not sure how double jeopardy applies to coroners' findings.
I will do some research.

 

[cullennz]

Let's see what the coroner has to say. It's far from over for that violent thoughtless jerk Tostee.

One would presume the coroner has been done.

No one disagrees he is a prick.

Arguable who is more violent. But only one had real power over the other one.

And apparently he didn't intend to kill her

 

[lionking]

One would presume the coroner has been done.

No one disagrees he is a prick.

Arguable who is more violent. But only one had real power over the other one.

And apparently he didn't indeed to kill her

You presume incorrectly. As usual.

I wouldn't have mentioned the coroner if an inquest had been completed.

 

[Shiner]

One would presume the coroner has been done.

Would one be correct to presume that you don't read all of the information posted in this thread?

 

[cullennz]

You presume incorrectly. As usual.

I wouldn't have mentioned the coroner if an inquest had been completed.

I apologise.

But it's already been established she fell off

What we will get is what drugs she was taking. And him by the sounda

 

[banquetbear]

And apparently he didn't intend to kill her

...that wasn't, and isn't a requirement in the Australian criminal code.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html

302 Definition of murder 302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.
(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

Intent isn't a requirement.

And if you had taken my advice and read earlier in the thread you would have known that. Section (b) applies here.

What is required for murder though is for the prosecution to prove that Tostee had detained Wright on the balcony illegally against her will. And even though we have Wright on tape desperately pleading to be let off the balcony the Judge ruled that Tostee had "removed her", and was not detaining her, which takes murder off the table. Prosecution under section (b) was always going to be difficult, but once the judge directed the jury with this instruction winning the case became impossible.

 

[cullennz]

Blaming the judge. For what YOU think is a bad decision by an independent jury

Awesome

 

[Noztradamus]

...that wasn't, and isn't a requirement in the Australian criminal code.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html



Intent isn't a requirement.
.

That is some seriously ********** up Criminal Code

302 Definition of murder 302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm...it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed

Actually looking at it logically, it means that intent against the particular person killed is not needed BUT there must be proven intent to harm someone.

In this case that could not be proved against Tostee

 

[banquetbear]

Blaming the judge. For what YOU think is a bad decision by an independent jury

Awesome

...can you point out where I said the independent jury made a bad decision?

For gods sakes man stop being so reactionary with the reply button. Read what I actually said.

Here is what I posted on the other page:

...this is what I believed sealed it:



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

Based on that direction: I probably would have voted not guilty as well.

It wasn't a bad decision by the jury. It was the only decision they could have come too. And I would have done exactly the same thing.

Just calm your tits and read what I said for goodness sakes. I addressed the issue of intent. Of what the prosecution had to prove, and how that became impossible after the judge made his ruling. There was no inference of fault at all in my post.

 

[banquetbear]

That is some seriously ********** up Criminal Code



Actually looking at it logically, it means that intent against the particular person killed is not needed BUT there must be proven intent to harm someone.

In this case that could not be proved against Tostee

...I think you are misreading it. The key part is:

"a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances", so (a), (c), (d) and (e) wouldn't apply, but (b) would. At least that is how I read it.

 

[Shiner]

...I think you are misreading it. The key part is:

"a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances", so (a), (c), (d) and (e) wouldn't apply, but (b) would. At least that is how I read it.

That's the way I've been reading it too. But now I'm looking at it from Noztradamus' view ...... I don't know one way or the other.