• 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

Samson said:
I see an enlightened judge in the Masipa style who sees you can't trust juries. The jury system is unfit for purpose, would you hop on an aeroplane where a jury of morons was trying to figure how to fly it?
This judge did an outstanding job.
Click to expand...

How do you know? You have admitted that you are not an expert in the relevant law. I'm certainly not either but the law quoted in this thread seems a bit at odds with the instructions the judge gave. I'd love to hear an Aussie lawyer clear up the situation but I'm not about to rate the judge's performance. I am profoundly ignorant of how well he did because I do not know the applicable rules and laws. I thought you were in the same boat?
 
The Atheist said:
Pretty funny, though. From what I've seen, the discussion here is by miles one of the more balanced ones.

'Still, if all the other forums GT went to are bodybuilder forums, he's probably right. Mutants cleave together.




Mate, you really need to get out of that habit - you know, the one where you open your mouth with the keyboard then shove both feet into it.

As noted, Tostee is a convicted criminal with a record stretching back most of his adult life.



The judge clearly made an error of both fact and law in directing the jury that the balcony was "outside Tostee's property".

Here's a Newsflash for you: judges make mistakes. This is why appellate courts exist.
Click to expand...
Not for this.

I think the dude is scum but he didn't kill her
 
cullennz said:
Not for this.

I think the dude is scum but he didn't kill her
Click to expand...

He didn't push her over the balcony - that is not in dispute.

Whether his actions are defined as murder under state law and whether the Judges instructions to the jury were correct under state law are relevant issues.
 
Carnivore said:
He didn't push her over the balcony - that is not in dispute.

Whether his actions are defined as murder under state law and whether the Judges instructions to the jury were correct under state law are relevant issues.
Click to expand...
The case is one of the most high profile in Australian history.

I think if the judge was wrong it will be appealed by those that know law better than anyone on here.
 
The Atheist said:
The judge clearly made an error of both fact and law in directing the jury that the balcony was "outside Tostee's property".

Here's a Newsflash for you: judges make mistakes. This is why appellate courts exist.
Click to expand...

I found an article that goes into some detail on how the jury came to their decision.

Apparently there is a narrow avenue for appeal.

Legally speaking, there is not a lot else that can be done now that the jury has reached its verdict, and Tostee is a free man. Queensland's double jeopardy laws mean that he cannot be tried again, and Attorney-General Yvette D'ath cannot appeal his acquittal, although she may appeal any point of law raised in the trial, which could have implications for murder cases in the future.
Click to expand...

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts...e-no/971d2176-6ef5-4056-950a-a4d51cb0cb89.htm

And a little heart warmer .....

Members of the public gathered outside the court after the verdict was read out, and chanted "pig" at Tostee as he walked away a free man.
Click to expand...
 
I'll freely admit I am biased with this case as I thought that he couldn't be found guilty, but the jury had 3 days of discussion after weeks of seeing ALL evidence. Not just edited news highlights.

I think with 3 days people are placing a bit too much importance on a couple of questions to the judge.

Then again. I could be wrong and an idiot
 
cullennz said:
The case is one of the most high profile in Australian history.

I think if the judge was wrong it will be appealed by those that know law better than anyone on here.
Click to expand...

Well your first sentence is utter nonsense to start with.

As to the second, not all bad judgements are appealed. The DPP has to decide whether an appeal has a reasonable chance of success. I think the judge's directions were ludicrous, and hope they go before the appeals court, but the DPP may well conclude its not worth perusing given the high cost.

It will go before the coroner though. Let's wait and see. Another hero of at least one here, Pistorius went through multiple trials before being jailed, and may well go through more before justice prevails. So may Tostee.
 
lionking said:
Well your first sentence is utter nonsense to start with.

As to the second, not all bad judgements are appealed. The DPP has to decide whether an appeal has a reasonable chance of success. I think the judge's directions were ludicrous, and hope they go before the appeals court, but the DPP may well conclude its not worth perusing given the high cost.

It will go before the coroner though. Let's wait and see. Another hero of at least one here, Pistorius went through multiple trials before being jailed, and may well go through more before justice prevails. So may Tostee.
Click to expand...
It had news crews from around the world.

Good looking chick - tick

Weirdo bloke - tick

It is only a bad judgement in your opinion
 
Carnivore said:
How do you know? You have admitted that you are not an expert in the relevant law. I'm certainly not either but the law quoted in this thread seems a bit at odds with the instructions the judge gave. I'd love to hear an Aussie lawyer clear up the situation but I'm not about to rate the judge's performance. I am profoundly ignorant of how well he did because I do not know the applicable rules and laws. I thought you were in the same boat?
Click to expand...
I base my opinion on the principal the judge was clearly directing that jury to reach a decision I agree with. Nothing more nothing less. Law is to serve justice, not vice versa.
This was essentially a conscience vote rather than one of legal or scientific absolutes, and if the judge acted in a manner that deterred a ragtag collection of civil servants and beneficiaries visiting an absurd injustice on Tostee then I applaud him.
 
Samson said:
I base my opinion on the principal the judge was clearly directing that jury to reach a decision I agree with. Nothing more nothing less. Law is to serve justice, not vice versa.
This was essentially a conscience vote rather than one of legal or scientific absolutes, and if the judge acted in a manner that deterred a ragtag collection of civil servants and beneficiaries visiting an absurd injustice on Tostee then I applaud him.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Samson said:
I base my opinion on the principal the judge was clearly directing that jury to reach a decision I agree with. Nothing more nothing less. Law is to serve justice, not vice versa.
This was essentially a conscience vote rather than one of legal or scientific absolutes, and if the judge acted in a manner that deterred a ragtag collection of civil servants and beneficiaries visiting an absurd injustice on Tostee then I applaud him.
Click to expand...

Show me a jurisdiction anywhere where this is the principal applied? What is a conscience anyway?
 
lionking said:
Show me a jurisdiction anywhere where this is the principal applied? What is a conscience anyway?
Click to expand...
This was a rather unusual trial, where some sort of continuum of belief holds, is what I mean. I think we can all see the opposing view point, but realise we won't agree, similar to abortion, capital punishment and so on. Same facts different interpretation of what matters.
I don't think law should have much to do with this case because any precedents are wildly dissimilar, but I think Queensland needs to figure why the best looking charge they could drum up was murder 1.
I can actually see your outrage, I just don't share it.
 
Shiner said:
Apparently there is a narrow avenue for appeal.



https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts...e-no/971d2176-6ef5-4056-950a-a4d51cb0cb89.htm

And a little heart warmer .....
Click to expand...

I read the link. I would have thought an appeal could be on the grounds that the judge's directions were manifestly incorrect. I think that was the final reference to procedural issues (or other words to the same effect). I wonder why this is viewed as narrow grounds. I've seen it succeed in other cases, and I've seen laws change as a result of these appeals (the "provocation" defence in Victoria is a case to point). Perhaps there is something in the Queensland appeal process which disallows questioning of judges directions. I would be very, very surprised.
 
lionking said:
I read the link. I would have thought an appeal could be on the grounds that the judge's directions were manifestly incorrect. I think that was the final reference to procedural issues (or other words to the same effect). I wonder why this is viewed as narrow grounds. I've seen it succeed in other cases, and I've seen laws change as a result of these appeals (the "provocation" defence in Victoria is a case to point). Perhaps there is something in the Queensland appeal process which disallows questioning of judges directions. I would be very, very surprised.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I was the one who used the word 'narrow'. That was just my interpretation from reading the article. I would hope that the judges directions to the jury are , or can be, brought into question. Particularly the ones on the balcony not being part of the property, and the language/force point.

I got the feeling (perhaps incorrect) that the writer of the article was pro innocent from a couple of comments he made.
 
Samson said:
This was a rather unusual trial, where some sort of continuum of belief holds, is what I mean. I think we can all see the opposing view point, but realise we won't agree, similar to abortion, capital punishment and so on. Same facts different interpretation of what matters.
I don't think law should have much to do with this case because any precedents are wildly dissimilar, but I think Queensland needs to figure why the best looking charge they could drum up was murder 1.
I can actually see your outrage, I just don't share it.
Click to expand...
They took it on with the fall back of manslaughter. Which he was also found not guilty of.

I agree with you. It's down to people's interpretations and feelings IMO

Personally think 3 days of intense discussion by the jury with all the facts trumps skeptic forum.

I'd argue the questions to the judge didn't suddenly make up their mind or it would have made up their mind
 
The Atheist said:
:dl:

10/10 for consistency.

Overt support for two alpha-male-wannabe defendants.

I sense a pattern.
Click to expand...
TBF.

Being a roided up, self obsessed nutcase who by the sounds of it liked to tape his exploits to share with his mates on the forums and was basically a walking bellend, doesn't a killer make
 
cullennz said:
I'll freely admit I am biased with this case as I thought that he couldn't be found guilty, but the jury had 3 days of discussion after weeks of seeing ALL evidence. Not just edited news highlights.

I think with 3 days people are placing a bit too much importance on a couple of questions to the judge.

Then again. I could be wrong and an idiot
Click to expand...

You're not wrong :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom