Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #10

[Bohemian]

jurors in the gable tostee murder trial have been told only to focus on what the *accused killer did, not what he said.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...s/news-story/cbce58160ea72cabc0bebcd2fd23b090

ffs...

 

[Amee]

Ben Murphy ‏@BenBMurph [video=twitter;788838492067368960]https://twitter.com/BenBMurph/status/788838492067368960[/video] It's day 9 of Gable Tostee's trial, day 4 of deliberations, jury have asked 7 questions & heard from 22 witnesses @7NewsQueensland #Tostee

 

[BreakingNews]

It's interesting to compare his behaviour in the DUI car chase to his behaviour in this one.

I mean, there were -other people- in that car! He could've killed them.. could've killed police officers... could've killed other drivers... Gave not 1 sh_t about any of 'em, just took off and hang the consequences. Probably thought it was a real good time, lol brahs.


Coulda just pulled over for the cops.


Coulda let her leave the two tmes she said she was going... coulda put her out the front door/called police/whatever.

Coulda.. shoulda... Fact is, he just lives for the thrills and lulz of it all, in the moment. What he feels later, I don't know.. and don't particularly care.

I cant see him pulling over for the cops. Cops labelled him a serial pest and he had previous for assaulting police officer.

Sent from my Blade S6 using Tapatalk

 

[Dogface]

So if you were in your car, you wouldn't push the attacker out of the car given the chance, and lock yourself in?

It's just as likely as he was locking her out, he felt he was locking himself in, where it was safe.

In a car, you could drive off. Just getting my attacker out of my home wouldn't make me feel substantially safe enough and I would IMMEDIATELY call the cops. He was still going to have to deal with her. It was completely pointless to lock her there.

 

[matey]

That is likely where it is hung up. I can almost guarantee you, the exact same points being made here, are the same points being made there.

It's also likely that the sides are drawn primarily down gender lines.

Manslaughter, hinges on cause, rather than intent. Did he cause her death?

The men will likely take a factual, chronological approach where he de-escalated and separated, and after that, there is some onus on her to act reasonably, and he couldn't possibly have predicted that she would go over the rail.

The women, will likely take a more emotional approach, whereby of course she was in fear, and his words and threats literally forced her over the rail.

Thus, the question regarding words being force. Both sides are likely entrenched, and it boiled down to both sides looking for that legal technicality to force the issue.

Given that the judge essentially said no, words are not force, it will undoubtedly embolden the side that believes if he didn't push her physically, he didn't push her.

The only outcome, if I analyzed it correctly, can only be not guilty, or hung jury. It is a very slim chance the side that was validated by the judge, and therefore the law, will ignore that direct support. They will wield it as gospel from that point on.

CleverKnot...IMO..This is your best post yet...I agree with a lot of things you state here...:tyou:

 

[Ausgirl]

ffs...

I know, right? WHY in the f__ instruct the jury to focus on that crucial 6 mins of audio and then tell them to IGNORE Tostee's part in it.

Now I really AM eyeballing that judge. Who's he drinkin with down at the ol' boys club.

 

[Ausgirl]

I actually feel like this judge has been kicking the legs out from under a guilty verdict, one at a time.

Maybe I'm just sick over this latest direction. Fricken nonsensical.

 

[CleverKnot]

I mostly agree with this - other than the contentious de-escalation presumption , of course. I think that was anger and unreasonable brute force.

But I think that it is important to understand how terrifying it is to a woman to be choked and threatened. Or to try to understand that.

Indeed.

I can speak to being the weaker opponent in an altercation, and the absolute panic you feel when restrained and threatend with your life.

The same goes the other direction though.

I can also speak to being the stronger one in an altercation. That same fight or flight response is still there while you are defending yourself and attempting to use what is force enough to protect yourself with the adrenaline exaggerating your strength, heightening your panic, and limiting your depth of thought. You are not in absolute control, nor confident that you will not get hurt.

He asked her several times politely to stop beating him up. That didnt register with her. Then he escalates to threats... then it escalates to a physical altercation.

It's not a black and white issue, where all the bad things he said were with negative intent, and all the bad things she said were proof of her fear and meant to de-escalate the big bad ogre.

There are two sides to this story that should be explored and understood.

 

[BreakingNews]

Having been on several jury trials, i can assure you that gender has little to do with the end result. Jury work is usually taken very seriously and its about the law, not about anything else. No jurorist wants to admit they cant make a decision.

Sent from my Blade S6 using Tapatalk

 

[Bohemian]

Mind you I suppose there was no self defence element in the Gittany case. Heck I wish he'd chosen to video rather than record!

First of all, nice to meet you Raha. It's great to have you aboard.

Do you mean GT? That's true although we also don't know that he didn't/doesn't have a video recording of events.

There are still the matters that are not settled in my mind:

the 'missing item' from the disassembled spotting scope in the crime scene photographs,

the 'mystery item' GT was (covertly) concealing about his person after the fact, and

IIRC the police statement that the recording found on the mobile phone purported to be GT's and seized from the floor of his father's car was not the original one, and

the knowledge that an audiovisual recording device can be fitted to a spotting scope.

Not that it matters a hill of beans at the moment, or maybe ever. Just sayin' is all...

 

[Rahamare]

I actually feel like this judge has been kicking the legs out from under a guilty verdict, one at a time.

Maybe I'm just sick over this latest direction. Fricken nonsensical.

I feel the same way! I imagine when they posed the language force question he moved his lips from side to side, crinkled his nose and goes "hmmmm nope"

 

[CleverKnot]

She was screaming up until the point where she went over the balcony. It all happened very quickly. Warriena was terrified. Remember, 50 seconds after was when Tostee called his lawyer.

She's no longer restrained, the door closes, and what was heard from behind the glass?

She wasn't screaming for help, or that she was hurt, or calling for the police.

She was trying to reason with him, no?

 

[SouthAussie]

I actually feel like this judge has been kicking the legs out from under a guilty verdict, one at a time.

Maybe I'm just sick over this latest direction. Fricken nonsensical.

It certainly is strange that the jury has been instructed not to consider ALL the evidence. Quite the opposite direction that is usually given to a jury.

I feel as though he has been very limiting to the jury. Expecting them to arrive at a good decision without considering the complete recording, and the CCTV.

One can only hope that there have been good and valid legal arguments presented, and that we hear what they were.

Otherwise, I am thinking that the silver tongued Saul Holt has too much influence in the Qld legal fraternity.

 

[Rahamare]

First of all, nice to meet you Raha. It's great to have you aboard.

Do you mean GT? That's true although we also don't know that he didn't/doesn't have a video recording of events.

There are still the matters of the disassembled spotting scope in the crime scene photographs and the 'mystery item' GT was (covertly) concealing about his person after the fact, as well as IIRC the police statement that the recirding found on the mobile phone seized from the floor of his father's car was not the original, that are not settled in my mind. I know an audiovisual recording device can be fitted to a spotting scope. Not that it matters a hill of beans at the moment, or maybe ever. Just sayin' is all...

I've often thought he'd be the type to keep a memento. If he has one in this case I wonder where he's hiding it! That CCTV object is the bane of my existence at the moment and I can't believe it is being followed up. Thanks for the warm welcome

 

[SouthAussie]

She's no longer restrained, the door closes, and what was heard from behind the glass?

She wasn't screaming for help, or that she was hurt, or calling for the police.

She was trying to reason with him, no?

Sorry. I can't discuss this with you any more at this point. I am frustrated that you cannot hear the evident choking and terror.

Good luck with your debates with others. :seeya:

 

[Rahamare]

Sorry isn't*** being followed up

 

[Ausgirl]

It certainly is strange that the jury has been instructed not to consider ALL the evidence. Quite the opposite direction that is usually given to a jury.

I feel as though he has been very limiting to the jury. Expecting them to arrive at a good decision without considering the complete recording, and the CCTV.

One can only hope that there have been good and valid legal arguments presented, and that we hear what they were.

Otherwise, I am thinking that the silver tongued Saul Holt has too much influence in the Qld legal fraternity.

Or the judge is riled about the police/prosecution pushing for murder. Who knows. It's just fricken wrong that W's "state of mind" is ruled valid, and Tostee's violent rant is not.

Just smells bad, IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Sorry isn't*** being followed up

We got what you meant, Rahamare. No worries.

 

[CleverKnot]

In a car, you could drive off. Just getting my attacker out of my home wouldn't make me feel substantially safe enough and I would IMMEDIATELY call the cops. He was still going to have to deal with her. It was completely pointless to lock her there.

Correct.

So what would then be the likely reason to lock her there?

A quick resolution, and de-escalation of the situation without too much thought put into taking that action.

 

[matey]

I am really hoping for the Verdict to be "Guilty for Manslaughter", but am afraid that he "may walk free"...:notgood: