Sorry to ask but I can't find it. Could someone please direct me to the footage/photo of Tostee with the mystery object in his hand.
There's some screen *advertiser censored* somewhere on this thread, too.
Sorry to ask but I can't find it. Could someone please direct me to the footage/photo of Tostee with the mystery object in his hand.
Notwithstanding that you find it 'ridiculous, the Jury is duty bound to act within the instructions of the Trial Judge. They are not free to go on wild speculative excursions of their own outside the evidence presented at the Trial, and those instructions. If the Crown has lead evidence which leaves gaps, it is not for the Jury to fill them. That would be speculation.
I think the jury would like to convict but realise they can't actually do it. That's why they're asking silly questions.
Notwithstanding that you find it 'ridiculous, the Jury is duty bound to act within the instructions of the Trial Judge. They are not free to go on wild speculative excursions of their own outside the evidence presented at the Trial , and those instructions. If the Crown has lead evidence which leaves gaps, it is not for the Jury to fill them. That would be speculation.
Gable Tostee jury seeks more answers
OCTOBER 17, 20165:46PM
Addressing jurors on a range of arguments that arose at trial, Justice John Byrne urged them not to consider Tostees conduct after Wright fatally plunged from his balcony as any indicator of guilt.
CCTV footage shown to the jury in the trial last week showed Tostee leaving his apartment building by the basement carpark, so as to avoid emergency services who had raced to the scene, in the early hours of August 8, 2014.
The above is more to the point in regard to the jury being instructed to ignore Tostee's actions after Warriena's death. The judge didn't instruct the jury to do that at all. Justice Byrne urged the jury not to consider Tostee's failure to call OOO, calling his lawyer, slinking around in the carpark and waddling off to order pizza was not indicative of guilt. It was more likely shock that caused this weird behaviour. (Yeah, right!). Justice Byrne did not at any time tell the jury to ignore what was in the CCTV footage.
Thank Christ for that!
Sorry to ask but I can't find it. Could someone please direct me to the footage/photo of Tostee with the mystery object in his hand.
SHOTS
pulled a Stolz there =p
So why would they present the evidence at all? I find it odd that they present the CCTV footage, phone conversations etc from after the fall, but then instruct them to ignore it. Why would they present it in the first place?
The second funny typo of the day lolThere's some screen *advertiser censored* somewhere on this thread, too.
So why would they present the evidence at all? I find it odd that they present the CCTV footage, phone conversations etc from after the fall, but then instruct them to ignore it. Why would they present it in the first place?
SHOTS
pulled a Stolz there =p
There certainly is!There's some screen *advertiser censored* somewhere on this thread, too.
Well, if I was Warriena's family I would try to find a top lawyer who wanted to work pro bono, or raise a whole bunch of money via crowd funding and pay him/her, and see if I could push this to an appeal (if he walks). Because it is absurd that they cannot consider all the evidence.
In Gittany's trial, the judge considered ALL the evidence, and gave a 5 hour verdict to answer it all ... so it could not successfully go to appeal.
jcb - just nudging you on this
The above is more to the point in regard to the jury being instructed to ignore Tostee's actions after Warriena's death. The judge didn't instruct the jury to do that at all. Justice Byrne urged the jury not to consider Tostee's failure to call OOO, calling his lawyer, slinking around in the carpark and waddling off to order pizza was not indicative of guilt. It was more likely shock that caused this weird behaviour. (Yeah, right!). Justice Byrne did not at any time tell the jury to ignore what was in the CCTV footage.
Thank Christ for that!
So why would they present the evidence at all? I find it odd that they present the CCTV footage, phone conversations etc from after the fall, but then instruct them to ignore it. Why would they present it in the first place?
I assumed so, but still seems odd. ThanksBBM.
The answer is..................context. Simple as that.
Maybe, it's hit the fan?! :
So why would they present the evidence at all? I find it odd that they present the CCTV footage, phone conversations etc from after the fall, but then instruct them to ignore it. Why would they present it in the first place?
just as some would pick the olives off a pizza.