Guilty.
my foundation of belief = Intent. Intent is 90% of the law, in being charged, being on trial, being convicted. What was Gabe's intent?. luckily, he tells us himself, although he is erratic, he does tell us. He tell us, and Warriena, she is bloody lucky he doesn't toss her off the balcony. Then he tells her he is escorting her out the door. Then he tells her , and us, he is not letting her out, because she is a bad girl.
What would an ordinary woman on the Gold Coast Light Rail believe?? this is the key , and it is my contention that she would believe , due to his words, his savage delivery of those words, his conveyed intent, that he was indeed going to chuck her off the balcony. It isn't up to the victim to try and unravel the erratic utterances of Gabe, she obviously reacted to the action, ( shoving her out on the balcony ) with the threat.. and this is a rational conclusion she has reached. It is horrible and unthinkable but Warriena has every reason to believe these two events. He says he is going to do it, and he begins to do it. <-----Intent.
His behaviour after the crime is inherent in the crime itself, and the jury will look upon his actions as one of a man guilty as hell.
The jury has the transcript of the tape and the tape itself. They can listen to all , bits, one particular bit, over and over again. .. they will draw their own conclusions, they are obliged to do that, and the voice of Holt will fade as much as the voice of Cash.
The defence of Gabe Tostee relied exclusively on Tostee's version of the recorded evening. No other defence was presented, and the jury is entitled to take that into consideration as to the value and integrity of the tape itself, and the spontaneity of the recorder himself during his participation.