Search results

They shouldn't be thinking anything of it. They did their job and found him not guilty based on the evidence presented.

How are members then surprised by a verdict that has been reached by only examining the evidence before the court?

He/she has provided very logical responses from a legal point of view to help understand how the correct decision based on the evidence was not guilty. There is no place for emotions when examining the evidence at hand in order to come to a rational conclusion. Display of emotion appears to have...

Hit the nail on the head. Taking the view of examining only the evidence as presented in Court appears to be heavily frowned upon on this forum, to the point where you are vilified.

Thanks

Correct. He is i not guilty.

An innocent man. What a relief.

Thakn gosh. There was no other option

That is still your reasonable doubt. It is common ground that Tostee was assaulted with a metal clamp. So, was the force Tostee used to place her on the balcony proportionate to a potentially lethal stirke?

You cannot say definitively that she was choked or was not choked. The pathologist found no evidence of choking. That is your reasonable doubt. The onus is not on Tostee to prove his innocence.

That can't be concluded. Speculation of choking sound. Pathologist found no evidence of trauma. That is reasonable doubt.

This trial is getting completely out of control. Any guilty verdict is going to be quashed on appeal. He cannot be found guilty based on the evidence before the court.

There is zero evidence of rape, nor is it the charge he is facing.

Strange direction that the Jury is taking this

What the? Innocent until proven guilty? ..... The onus is on the prosecution. Tostee does not need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, but again, you are still speculating. The evidence does not show said trauma inflicted by Tostee.

There was no evidence of injury to Warriena that suggested any foul play from Tostee.

If you are referring to the choking noises that is still pure speculation. There is no evidence on Warrina's body that indicates she was choked. As such, based on the evidence, the force used to remove her to the balcony was reasonable. You cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that she was choked...

You're the only poster that seems to comprehend the notion of only assessing the evidence that was presented. Do you have a legal background?

It is not for the Jury to decide whether or not the Prosecution 'could have' built a better case. They are there to come to a decision based on the evidence that WAS presented. Not what you want to be presented.