• 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:
There is a valid point to reminding he had made the "should throw you off the balcony" comment.
In light of that I might review my position.
It could be argued
1. She didn't know him
2. He had the strength to do it, so
3. She wouldn't wait to give him the opportunity.
4. In a drunken state climbing to the next level looked doable.

hmmm
Click to expand...


I need to correct myself too. "Should" is a red herring introduced by me. Not intentionally.

Here is the quote from the audio.

"You're lucky I haven't chucked you off my balcony you goddamn psycho little bitch," Mr Tostee said.
Click to expand...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...iena-wrights-final-cries-20161011-grzgwu.html

The same article explains how the prosecution are pursuing the charges.

It is not alleged he threw or pushed Ms Wright but that he intimidated and threatened her so greatly she felt the only way to escape from him was to climb down from his balcony.
Click to expand...
 
Shiner said:
OK. I'm still not seeing his innocence. I don't believe, going by the way the law is written, that the prosecution needs to prove that he had foresight of her impending death.
Click to expand...

It follows from Section 23 (1)(b) of the Criminal code, which exculpates an accused from liability for the accidental outcome of their willed acts.

An event occurs by accident within the meaning of section 23(1)(b) if it was a consequence which was not in fact intended or foreseen by the accused and would not reasonably have been foreseen by an ordinary person [...] Where the event in question is a death, the test has also been stated in these terms – ‘the test of criminal responsibility under section 23 is not whether the death is an ‘immediate and direct’ consequence of a willed act of the accused, but whether death was such an unlikely consequence of that act an ordinary person could not reasonably have foreseen it.’ It has also been expressed as ‘an ordinary person in the position of the accused would have foreseen the event as a possible outcome’
Click to expand...

To find him guilty, the prosecution needs to prove the result of death could have been foreseen by the "reasonable man".

Shiner said:
She died. It is his fault that she died. This is indisputable in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No, he is not at fault - see above. He has an out clause provided for in law. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

There is no contention by the Crown that Tostee murdered Wright by pushing or throwing her off the balcony.

However, his culpability in her death is disputed.

The Crown has argued that the obvious fear in Wright's voice before she was locked on the balcony constitutes murder by virtue of the fact she was fleeing for her life when she fell.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11727301
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate here : if he put her out on the balcony, and then closed and locked the sliding door, you could argue she was no longer in any immediate danger, and "fleeing for her life" - there was a locked door between them. She could have yelled for help, or simply stayed put.
 
Last edited:
Hard Cheese said:
.
Playing devils advocate here : if he put her out on the balcony, and then closed and locked the sliding door, you could argue she was no longer in any immediate danger, and "fleeing for her life" - there was a locked door between them. She could have yelled for help, or simply stayed put.
Click to expand...

All valid points. I'm not disputing any of your post. It will be an interesting outcome whichever way it goes.

On the quoted though. I've seen the scenario suggested, and it isnt hard to imagine ......
he stood there miming threats. Running a finger across his throat.
Went to a drawer and got a knife.

Etcetera. All things are imaginable. What can be proven, or swayed, in court is to be seen soon enough, I guess.
 
I'm having $10 on him walking, which would be a sad result. Should get minimum 5-7 years for kidnapping/unlawful detention as a minimum.
 
Hard Cheese said:
Playing devils advocate here : if he put her out on the balcony, and then closed and locked the sliding door, you could argue she was no longer in any immediate danger, and "fleeing for her life" - there was a locked door between them. She could have yelled for help, or simply stayed put.
Click to expand...

I think you can make a case that having mentioned throwing her off the balcony, she feared for her life and that if she yelled out, he could come and throw her off anyway.

I'd buy that, but whether the jury does is another story.
 
Shiner said:
All valid points. I'm not disputing any of your post. It will be an interesting outcome whichever way it goes.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, very interesting. My feeling is that he is a dangerous, narcissistic idiot who should have known better to lock a scared, drunk girl out on the balcony of a 14th floor apartment. Climbing down to the next floor wouldn't have been the first thing I would have thought of, but I wouldn't put anyone drunk out on a high balcony, simply because of the risk of falling. Surely that's common sense.
 
Samson said:
I don't. I see a wider problem, the families get branded wrongly if the state over eggs the misdeeds of one member. Is Tostee's old man to be considered when heaping murder one on his boy?
Click to expand...
No.

What about the victim's family?
 
Here's an article from 2014 that shows some of the character of Mr Tostee.

A person posting, calling himself ‘G T’ and using a Facebook picture of Tostee, took to a bodybuilding site to deny causing New Zealander Warriena Tagpuno Wright to fall to her death.

The poster, active on the site since July 2004, has previously posted screenshots of explicit Tinder messages from an account that appears to be Mr Tostee’s.

The same poster also goes into graphic detail about previous sexual encounters, Tinder dates and his love of taking girls onto his Surfers Paradise balcony.
Click to expand...

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...t/news-story/9f05d8e10c8419f71e0b2805d8001dc1
 
Yes, in New Zealand the report would be before judge x and a jury of 12

During a slow day, this is a useful balcony link

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=9002152

The Herald said his fall was witnessed by someone opposite Bastion’s Happy Valley apartment.
He described seeing a man climb out of the top-floor window, clamber along the ledge, slip, lose his footing and plunge six floors to his death.
Bastion was alone when it happened, having become "tense and uptight, paranoid even". Maureen had left him, taking the children back to Australia.
Immediately, rumours about the death of the flamboyant businessman started to fly. Was he murdered, did he kill himself over bad business decisions?
The Herald said the answer was much less dramatic - "Bastie" - (as he was known) fell out of the window while on drugs.

Atheist can enjoy this one. This is not exactly what happened, he was laundering money for Chinese (rather poorly in futures) as a side line, 300 million....
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Yes, in New Zealand the report would be before judge x and a jury of 12

During a slow day, this is a useful balcony link

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=9002152

The Herald said his fall was witnessed by someone opposite Bastion’s Happy Valley apartment.
He described seeing a man climb out of the top-floor window, clamber along the ledge, slip, lose his footing and plunge six floors to his death.
Bastion was alone when it happened, having become "tense and uptight, paranoid even". Maureen had left him, taking the children back to Australia.
Immediately, rumours about the death of the flamboyant businessman started to fly. Was he murdered, did he kill himself over bad business decisions?
The Herald said the answer was much less dramatic - "Bastie" - (as he was known) fell out of the window while on drugs.

Atheist can enjoy this one. This is not exactly what happened, he was laundering money for Chinese (rather poorly in futures) as a side line, 300 million....
Click to expand...

It's nothing like what happened, to the extent of being totally off topic.

I'm intrigued why you are so attracted to violent, privileged alpha males. The proven murderer OP being just one.
 
lionking said:
It's nothing like what happened, to the extent of being totally off topic.

I'm intrigued why you are so attracted to violent, privileged alpha males. The proven murderer OP being just one.
Click to expand...
Why do you say attracted?
I know what happened there, he was driven to his death by the Chinese Mafia. He was murdered in a direct way that did not happen in this case. It is on topic accordingly, an example of someone who was caught between a rock and a hard place. I knew him and people who knew him, and he was murdered.
 
If the Jury are asked the question to consider the question by the Judge or prosecutor in closing 'why didn't he ring the police and tell them of the situation, also let her know that he'd asked them to come and sort it out' he's probably going to be found guilty. Equally, if he could close her out on the balcony, he could also close her out of the door, along with her belongings.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
At last details emerge

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11726687

An explosive audio recording played in court that captured Warriena Wright's final hours in Gable Tostee's Gold Coast apartment has revealed the New Zealander was drunk, at times incomprehensible and repeatedly violent towards the man charged with her murder.

"I've met some weird people on Tinder," the 30-year-old murder accused is heard to say, as the drunk Wright apparently swings in and out of violent episodes towards him.

And

At one point, she accuses him of stealing her phone.

"Where's my ******* ****? My ******* data," she says.

Asked what it looks like, she yells, "it looks like a ******* iPhone".

Wright insists on leaving, but Tostee tries to stop her.

"I didn't say you have to leave, I just said stop beating me up," he said.

She asks him again where her things are.

"I will ******* destroy your jaw. It's not ******* funny," she says.

"Look, that's your stuff right there," he replies.

"Get it for me. Get it for me. Get it for me," she yells.

"I'm calling the police, get it for me. Get it for me now.

Then he locks her on the balcony, she tries to climb down, and falls.

How is this anything like murder when he figures a way to get her sober rather than have her cause him unknowable grief with the police?
And why would a jury be entitled to determine it?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the laws in Australia, but in most US states this would likely be what is known as "felony murder". If somebody commits a felony, and somebody else dies as a direct result, the person who committed the felon can be charged with murder.

While there are obviously a lot of details to be filled in, locking the woman on the balcony was inexcusable. If not murder, it certainly seems to be some variety of homicide.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
I'm not familiar with the laws in New Zealand, but in most US states this would likely be what is known as "felony murder". If somebody commits a felony, and somebody else dies as a direct result, the person who committed the felon can be charged with murder.

While there are obviously a lot of details to be filled in, locking the woman on the balcony was inexcusable. If not murder, it certainly seems to be some variety of homicide.
Click to expand...

The case is in Australia, not New Zealand. There is no felony murder here. I think Tostee will be found guilty of murder as the Queensland law is written.
 
Quite shocked at the bigotry in the posts on this thread.

We are assumed "innocent until proven guilty" are we not? Here you are discussing how to frame murder on an innocent man.

Kidnapping? He restrained her on the ground after she physically and verbally assaulted him for an hour. She had struck him in the head with a metal object and had begun trashing his property.

I have ignored this case since it initially happened. I was not aware the recordings were available for such a long time.

So now it is at trial & the verdict will be soon.

I have listened to 40 minutes of the recordings and read a fair amount. Nothing suggests a murder or even warrants the manslaughter charge however I understand the due process of law must be followed.

Now my initial reaction when this happened in 2014 was the standard knee jerk reaction, evil nutter murdered a poor girl, rapist etc.

Lets establish the facts.

Tostee was popular with the ladies, a player. He has no record of sexual assault or indecency.

On the evening in question both parties agreed mutually to get drunk & have sex. The young lady was equally a party to this mutual sex between total strangers.

Both of them sounded drunk or very drunk on the recording.

Tostee seemed to be trying to be a gentleman throughout the evening all be it a drunken idiot. The young woman Warriena was clearly unable to handle the amount of alcohol she consumed and became beligerant.

It sounds like she assaulted tostee for at least an hour during which time he was self restrained & trying to be as polite as possible for a drunk having sex with a stranger. She also abused him verbally for at least an hour in her drunken state.

Warriena clearly had lost her self control, very drunk and became increasingly violent. At some point she began to trash the appartment, throwing objects at Tostee who himself even up to this point was non-threatening & non-violent.

She then grabbed a telescope stand and hit him in the head with it - it was at this time that Tostee tackled her to the ground and held her there while saying unpleasant things to her. It seems she was still holding the metal object at this stage.

Keep in mind she had begun to trash the apartment at this stage & could have smashed the glass door.

Tostee at no time struck her. The pathologist has also testified that she was not strangled.

He stuck her out on the balcony probably to cool her off. She became hysterical, tried to climb over the balcony and fell.

OK, what we have is a classic defensive knee jerk reaction. It is not even manslaughter. She assaulted him multiple times and was about to vandalise his property.

She was free to communicate with neighbours from the balcony & she was clearly a danger to herself unable to be escorted home.

What else was he to do? He did not hit her, he held her on the ground after she hit him in the head. He did not verbally abuse her throughout the evening. She did it to him.

If I was on the jury it would be a not guilty from me unless there is further evidence we have not been told.


As for male vs female predudice etc that is bigotry. This is a criminal case. It was clearly neither manslaughter nor murder & it was not kidnapping either. She was a danger to herself and others. The balcony was the best place for her to be had she not climbed off it.
 
Last edited:
Wild conjecture devoid of evidence. This large, strong guy could have easily put her out the front door and/or called the police. Instead he put on the balcony and threatened to throw her over.

Oh, and I'm not a member of the jury and can give my opinion based on the facts in front of me. I'm not bound by the "innocent before found guilty" legality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom