Gable Tostee

[cullennz]

Certainly - I'm not blaming him for taking the money.

The media company should perhaps look at donating the same amount as his fee to a suitable charity.

After all, the chick dying was the story - why should he get all the money?

The media company probably should.

He is a prick so won't

 

[Samson]

Certainly - I'm not blaming him for taking the money.

The media company should perhaps look at donating the same amount as his fee to a suitable charity.

After all, the chick dying was the story - why should he get all the money?

He was wrongly accused of murder. Wright was a drunken abusing fool. Tostee should capitalise. This is one more case that highlights the rush to judgement by a supremely gullible public, just like Pistorius. Who did of course commit a direct offence, but in a tortured republic that is still trying to deconstruct apartheid.

 

[cullennz]

He was wrongly accused of murder. Wright was a drunken abusing fool. Tostee should capitalise. This is one more case that highlights the rush to judgement by a supremely gullible public, just like Pistorius. Who did of course commit a direct offence, but in a tortured republic that is still trying to deconstruct apartheid.

Mate

He was innocent of killing her but don't pretend he isn't a complete tool.

 

[Sideroxylon]

He was wrongly accused of murder. Wright was a drunken abusing fool. Tostee should capitalise. This is one more case that highlights the rush to judgement by a supremely gullible public, just like Pistorius. Who did of course commit a direct offence, but in a tortured republic that is still trying to deconstruct apartheid.

When questioned by a reporter about the fact Ms Wright screamed "no" 33 times in the audio recording, Mr Tostee replied: "Yeah, she was certainly trying to make a lot of noise."​

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37868025

He's a selfish turd.

 

[Samson]

When questioned by a reporter about the fact Ms Wright screamed "no" 33 times in the audio recording, Mr Tostee replied: "Yeah, she was certainly trying to make a lot of noise."​

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37868025

He's a selfish turd.

Agreed, the world is choc full of them. Arrogant people with cash they never earned.
Nothing new there, and since we would all say we would not have been involved in that sordid scene, we're all going to say we wouldn't cash in.
It's a bit like an obituary to a dead pilot, they always describe an operator with impeccable safety standards.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Agreed, the world is choc full of them. Arrogant people with cash they never earned.
Nothing new there, and since we would all say we would not have been involved in that sordid scene, we're all going to say we wouldn't cash in.
It's a bit like an obituary to a dead pilot, they always describe an operator with impeccable safety standards.

Don't assume we are all campaigners.

 

[lionking]

Tostee may pick up a few media dollars, but this worthless piece of **** will never earn decent money again.

Back to you Cullen. Didn't I see you in another thread saying that the guy who threw a punch at a woman should have simply walked away? Why didn't the object of your sympathy, Tostee, simply do the same, or even better put her out the door? In one thread you are advising someone to avoid confrontation, in this, you are defending violent and untimately deadly confrontation.

Time to look in the mirror.

 

[GlennCashQC]

New to the thread, but very old to this case.

There is a fair bit of dung flying around on this thread, so Ive joined to correct it. Ive read all the posts, and as usual we have a few vociferous haters because their depth of perception is so easily influenced by selective soundbytes issued by the media. In a a word, gullible. Oh, and gender bias of course.

I'll start off by responding to a few posts from the last 4 pages only, just to warm up ....

It's a coroner's investigation, not an autopsy. That was done in 2014. Because it was a contentious case, and went against apparent public opinion, and I suppose because of the failings of the prosecution, it has been referred to the coroner for further inquiry. To give the coroner a chance to recommend any changes in legislation that may be apropriate. The coroner may also recommend (just guessing here) changes to the safety railings on a certain apartment buulding ...... or implementing the clauses that allow a second trial .....
*lots of supposition in there by me.

All wrong. There is no coroners investigation. There is no need. This is another soundbyte issued by the police as a PR stunt to make it appear they are empathetic with the deceased's family. The coroner will mark this file closed.

If no appeal is made against the judge's ruling on Tostee's property, then no, he cannot even be guilty of manslaughter.
The law is an ass. We know this.

There will be no appeal on this ruling, because it is not a ruling. Outdoor areas are considered common property, not actual private property. This is standard definition.

He'd threatened to throw her off the balcony.He locked her on the balcony, part of his property. He'd put her in a position of danger, whereas he could have put her outside his apartment in the corridor. Manslaughter might be questionable, but I think there ought to have been a verdict of unlawful detention at the very least. I'm certain that under NZ law, he would have been found guilty of that as a minimum, because he had unquestionably denied her her freedom.I know a bloke who got eight years for exactly that offence in the '90s.

He didnt threaten her at all, it was a casual remark. His actions do not amount to kidnapping or unlawful detention, so he cant be charged with that. He did not deny her freedom since the time period was only 11 secs. Context is important. NZ law is irrelevant in Australia.

Congratulations. You win the Trolling Post of the Year Award. "Hero". When describing a narcissist, murdering jerk. You have set the bar high. Akin to describing Hitler as a misunderstood dog lover.Well done. Good show.

Wrong, no one was murdered. As for trolling, Ive seen all you posts early int he thread, and well, hello POT!

He was wrongly accused of murder. Wright was a drunken abusing fool. Tostee should capitalise. This is one more case that highlights the rush to judgement by a supremely gullible public, just like Pistorius. Who did of course commit a direct offence, but in a tortured republic that is still trying to deconstruct apartheid.

Agreed, well said.

When questioned by a reporter about the fact Ms Wright screamed "no" 33 times in the audio recording, Mr Tostee replied: "Yeah, she was certainly trying to make a lot of noise."​

He's a selfish turd.

Exactly how did you work that out?

Agreed, the world is choc full of them. Arrogant people with cash they never earned.
Nothing new there, and since we would all say we would not have been involved in that sordid scene, we're all going to say we wouldn't cash in.
It's a bit like an obituary to a dead pilot, they always describe an operator with impeccable safety standards.

Where do you get this idea form that he is wealthy? Hes a carpet layer, lets get real.

Tostee may pick up a few media dollars, but this worthless piece of **** will never earn decent money again.

More over- emotional illogical rants. You couldn't predict this at all. It's clear you have an irrational hatred of the guy.

 

[Hard Cheese]

There will be no appeal on this ruling, because it is not a ruling. Outdoor areas are considered common property, not actual private property. This is standard definition.

Question - even though it is an outdoor area, how could the balcony be considered common property? It isn't accessible by anyone else in the building in any practical sense. Also, the balcony would appear on the property title, no?

Does this definition not apply?

Occupants (Home Invasion) Protection Bill 2002

Quote:
(1) It is lawful for an occupant of a dwelling house to use any force or do
anything else the occupant believes is necessary—
..
(b) to cause an intruder in the dwelling house to leave the dwelling house; or

A “dwelling house” includes—
(a) a building or other structure where someone lives; and
(b) a building or other structure that is—
(i) within the curtilage of a dwelling house; and
(ii) occupied in connection with the dwelling house or whose use is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling house;

I'm not disagreeing that he tried to remove her from his property. I would think though that most people would consider an attached balcony to be part of the property.

 

[cullennz]

All kind of irrelevant as he was no where near her when she fell

 

[Samson]

Where do you get this idea form that he is wealthy? Hes a carpet layer, lets get real.

I am making assumptions. I expect there is a safety net from family that allows a carpet layer to lead this life style. As you can see I am trying to be dispassionate in discussing the case.

 

[Hungry81]

Question - even though it is an outdoor area, how could the balcony be considered common property? It isn't accessible by anyone else in the building in any practical sense. Also, the balcony would appear on the property title, no?

Does this definition not apply?



I'm not disagreeing that he tried to remove her from his property. I would think though that most people would consider an attached balcony to be part of the property.

It is. I have a balcony. its included in the floorplan of the unit and is part of the unit area calculations when determining strata contribution. It most certainly is not common property. If I someone is on my balcony they have not left my premisis.
However just to add some confusion The balcony railings and the drain pipe are the only parts maintained by the strata company.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiner]

All wrong. There is no coroners investigation. There is no need. This is another soundbyte issued by the police as a PR stunt to make it appear they are empathetic with the deceased's family. The coroner will mark this file closed.

Firstly. How could I possibly know that?

Secondly. Are you identifying as a barrister?

And just to be clear . . Was I included in the previous description in your gracious introduction? You read what I wrote, ignored three seperate disclaimers, and still thought it worthy of derision?

Welcome to the forum.

 

[GlennCashQC]

Question - even though it is an outdoor area, how could the balcony be considered common property? It isn't accessible by anyone else in the building in any practical sense. Also, the balcony would appear on the property title, no?

Does this definition not apply?

I'm not disagreeing that he tried to remove her from his property. I would think though that most people would consider an attached balcony to be part of the property.

Perhaps not common property in the normal use of it, but lets say the body corporate hired skyscraper window cleaners to clean the outside of the building, they would be entitled to access the balcony. But think of a ground based unit, that has an entirely closed patio area. It is for the exclusive use of the inhabitant, but it is not considered part of the dwelling area. That is the essential point - that Tostee contained her externally in an area outside of his dwelling - this fits with his intent of stopping her trashing his apartment by removing her from it. The fact that the balcony does not allow access elsewhere is irrelevant. It is a safe space.

Also the legislation you quoted is not Qld law, and this irrelevant.

 

[GlennCashQC]

All kind of irrelevant as he was no where near her when she fell

100% correct.

I am making assumptions. I expect there is a safety net from family that allows a carpet layer to lead this life style. As you can see I am trying to be dispassionate in discussing the case.

What lifestyle? He works as a carpet layer, and his parents drive 10 yo common cars. they live in a modest house. The apartment rented for $390 a week, not exactly a stretch.

Firstly. How could I possibly know that?

exactly , so it pays to comment only after basing a thought on a cogent idea or personal experience. Agreed?

Secondly. Are you identifying as a barrister?

Nope, but the clown prosecuting this in court was Glenn Cash QC, and I thought it would be ironic to use his name.

And just to be clear . . Was I included in the previous description in your gracious introduction?

The haters bit? Not sure, Id have to go back and reread, but there were 2 big haters...lol. Females of course.

You read what I wrote, ignored three seperate disclaimers, and still thought it worthy of derision?

I saw your disclaimers but even so its better to make a well thought out post, rather than baseless speculation, wouldnt you agree? No derision made by me, I simply corrected a fallacy or two. One of the lunkhead detectives told the court reporters after the acquittal that there was still a chance for the coroner to make findings. Well...what a load of horse dung. The coroner merely held open its decision pending the outcome of the trial as it was legally required to do. Now that it is complete and the events of the night are confirmed, the coroner will now rubber stamp their file complete, "death by accident" . They have no need to do any investigation, as all the facts are in the open now.

Welcome to the forum.

Ta muchly. Are you all Kiwis?

 

[lionking]

More Tostee fanboys searching the internet to correct heathens who have different opinions. Posting as if poor judicial decisions are never made, least of all in Queensland.

No, your hero was, is and will remain scum of the lowest order. He may (or may not, an appeal is still possible) escape a conviction here, but a killer he is. And he's stupid enough to react violently to women again.

Now can you fanboys explain why he didn't put this small woman out the front door and call the police? And why he took so long to eventually call the police?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Exactly how did you work that out?

Even with the benefit of hindsight she was just some woman wanting to make a lot of noise? Really?

 

[Hard Cheese]

But think of a ground based unit, that has an entirely closed patio area. It is for the exclusive use of the inhabitant, but it is not considered part of the dwelling area.
...
Also the legislation you quoted is not Qld law, and this irrelevant.

The definition of a dwelling in the Queensland criminal code (Criminal Code Act 1899 Ch1 1 p35) says otherwise:

dwelling includes any building or structure, or part of a building or structure, which is for the time being kept by the owner or occupier for the residence therein of himself or herself, his or her family, or servants, or any of them, and it is immaterial that it is from time to time uninhabited.

A building or structure adjacent to, and occupied with, a dwelling is deemed to be part of the dwelling if there is a communication between such building or structure and the dwelling, either immediate or by means of a covered and enclosed passage leading from the one to the other, but not otherwise.

I don't see how Tostee's balcony could not be deemed part of his dwelling by that definition.

 

[cullennz]

More Tostee fanboys searching the internet to correct heathens who have different opinions. Posting as if poor judicial decisions are never made, least of all in Queensland.

No, your hero was, is and will remain scum of the lowest order. He may (or may not, an appeal is still possible) escape a conviction here, but a killer he is. And he's stupid enough to react violently to women again.

Now can you fanboys explain why he didn't put this small woman out the front door and call the police? And why he took so long to eventually call the police?

The bloke is pretty scummy but she was a violent nutso and he wasn't any where near her when she fell.

So appeal no. Killer no. Prick yes

 

[lionking]

New to the thread, but very old to this case.

There is a fair bit of dung flying around on this thread, so Ive joined to correct it. Ive read all the posts, and as usual we have a few vociferous haters because their depth of perception is so easily influenced by selective soundbytes issued by the media. In a a word, gullible. Oh, and gender bias of course.

I'll start off by responding to a few posts from the last 4 pages only, just to warm up ....

All wrong. There is no coroners investigation. There is no need. This is another soundbyte issued by the police as a PR stunt to make it appear they are empathetic with the deceased's family. The coroner will mark this file closed.

There will be no appeal on this ruling, because it is not a ruling. Outdoor areas are considered common property, not actual private property. This is standard definition.

He didnt threaten her at all, it was a casual remark. His actions do not amount to kidnapping or unlawful detention, so he cant be charged with that. He did not deny her freedom since the time period was only 11 secs. Context is important. NZ law is irrelevant in Australia.

Wrong, no one was murdered. As for trolling, Ive seen all you posts early int he thread, and well, hello POT!

Agreed, well said.

Exactly how did you work that out?

Where do you get this idea form that he is wealthy? Hes a carpet layer, lets get real.

More over- emotional illogical rants. You couldn't predict this at all. It's clear you have an irrational hatred of the guy.

I wonder if the real Glen Cash knows you are using his name to post like this? Hmmm.