• 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

cullennz said:
Jury.

Loads more info than tape.

Found not guilty

Get a life
Click to expand...

...another weird post. Who were you talking too? Were you talking to me?

This forum is here to discuss "Trials and Errors."

If you don't want to discuss "Trials and Errors", then maybe your mistake is hanging out in a forum called "Trials and Errors" and making weird random comments every so often.

And regarding "getting a life": perhaps you should be taking your own advice.
 
banquetbear said:
...another weird post. Who were you talking too? Were you talking to me?

This forum is here to discuss "Trials and Errors."

If you don't want to discuss "Trials and Errors", then maybe your mistake is hanging out in a forum called "Trials and Errors" and making weird random comments every so often.

And regarding "getting a life": perhaps you should be taking your own advice.
Click to expand...
I bow to you. Knower of all the jury did
 
cullennz said:
You obviously know more than the jury
Click to expand...

...why would you say that?

I have already said in this thread (and I know you have read what I have said) that if I was on the jury, and if I had the same jury instructions as this jury, I would have voted "not guilty" as well. So how is the jury relevant to anything I have said? What on earth are you going on about? If you don't want to discuss any of the things I am actually saying, why are you talking to me?
 
banquetbear said:
I've been a member of these boards since 2003. In the 13 years here you are the first to accuse me of being a gender I wasn't: and the first to think I'm lying when I told you the truth.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, your phenotype does not correspond to your claimed genotype, but it is of insufficient interest to keep going on about. Move on.

banquetbear said:
So just to be clear here: he was pushing her head down into the carpet to stop her from talking or making any noises, correct? And he did that for (in your opinion) a minute 45 seconds?That's a pretty big detail to have forgotten to put in your summary in post 872. Are you going to update it?
Click to expand...
No, it says she was restrained. IT has no bearing on the death.

banquetbear said:
I think your notes are wrong.
I've listened again. At 1 hour 17 minutes Wright's mood audibly changes and sounds very scared from that point on. From 1 hour 18 minutes her voice gets muffled and Tostee says " I do need a sample of DNA." Then she is prevented from talking somehow by Tostee: at 1 21 he tells her to get up. At 1 21 33 we hear the gurgling. At 1 23 08 we finally hear Wright again. This is where she yells no about 38 time: Tostee puts her on the balcony, and she falls to her death.

So he either stopped her or attempted to stop her from talking for about five minutes: not two minutes, and not a minute 45 seconds.
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of listening to the recording which you STILL do not appear to have done properly. I cant make this any clearer
1:21:35 She tries to hit him with the clamp, he restrains her.
2:23:16 The object is dropped and her releases her. She does not leave the apartment.

banquetbear said:
...another weird post. Who were you talking too? Were you talking to me?
This forum is here to discuss "Trials and Errors."
If you don't want to discuss "Trials and Errors", then maybe your mistake is hanging out in a forum called "Trials and Errors" and making weird random comments every so often.
And regarding "getting a life": perhaps you should be taking your own advice.
Click to expand...
Clearly Cullenz was talking "too" you since his comment followed directly after your post. I enjoy his comments, and they make perfect sense to me every time. His comments in this thread are on point.
 
Last edited:
GlennCashQC said:
In my opinion, your phenotype does not correspond to your claimed genotype, but it is of insufficient interest to keep going on about. Move on.
Click to expand...

...well your opinion is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Completely wrong. I know this for certain: I checked this morning.

So move on.

No, it says she was restrained. IT has no bearing on the death.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. The audio clearly shows she was in fear for her life. Those weren't the screams of someone having a pleasant evening out. Her state of mind is both relevant to the case and to my personal opinions of Tostee.

It's just a matter of listening to the recording which you STILL do not appear to have done properly. I cant make this any clearer
1:21:35 She tries to hit him with the clamp, he restrains her.
2:23:16 The object is dropped and her releases her. She does not leave the apartment.
Click to expand...

Could you see the clamp in the audio? I couldn't see it. Tostee is an unreliable narrator. He knew he was recording the conversation. At times he was clearly playing for the audio tape.

Clearly Cullenz was talking "too" you since his comment followed directly after your post. I enjoy his comments, and they make perfect sense to me every time. His comments in this thread are on point.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to express mine. If he was clearly talking to me then he should have quoted me. That is how message-board etiquette works.
 
banquetbear said:
...well your opinion is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Completely wrong. I know this for certain: I checked this morning.
So move on.
Click to expand...
Lol the emphatic persistent denials are amusing. Apparently it's so important to you.

banquetbear said:
Of course it does. The audio clearly shows she was in fear for her life. Those weren't the screams of someone having a pleasant evening out. Her state of mind is both relevant to the case and to my personal opinions of Tostee.
Click to expand...
Of course you are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion, these screams were not genuine, you could hear her pumping herself up at the beginning like a kid throwing a tantrum as it is being marched off to the bathtub. If she was in fear for her life, it was her own psychosis, Tostee did nothing to warrrant it. Such was the opinion of the jury. Ive been in fights and been held in headlocks, had worse done to me than what was done to her, and I didn't go run out on the road and commit suicide. That is the perspective that I have on this.

banquetbear said:
Could you see the clamp in the audio? I couldn't see it. Tostee is an unreliable narrator. He knew he was recording the conversation. At times he was clearly playing for the audio tape.
Click to expand...
Again, you talk about this case without knowing the facts. The clamp was photographed by Police when they entered the apartment. The prosecution (you know, the mob who actually represented WW) actually conceded that she had it and tried to hit him with it. So i think its a bit pointless in continuing with your automatic game-saying of everything just to be difficult and opposing.

banquetbear said:
You are entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to express mine. If he was clearly talking to me then he should have quoted me. That is how message-board etiquette works.
Click to expand...
Actually no. Your opinion again which is not what is shared on all the forums I have been on. The actual purpose of quoting is to draw focus on what is being replied to. Maybe because it is one of many points made, or one of many points being answered in reply to multiple members.

When a post is short and you reply immediately after it, quoting is clearly redundant and wasting disc space. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much the Daily Mail paid her for the story and pics?

She seems to have made the beginnings of a career with Tostee as the bait.

I hope she milked him for plenty before she bailed out.
 
Last edited:
Just to be fair, if some anonymous poster on the internet with whom I'd been disagreeing suddenly started smugly insisting I wasn't a woman, I'd be pretty annoyed. I'd certainly at least point out they were wrong a few times before giving up. Probably more than few.

I never really understand that "look at how much you're denying my accusation, it must be true!" line of argument. What is banquetbear supposed to do, exactly, in this case? Let someone say "Nope, don't believe you, you're a woman, lol" ad nauseum (to say nothing of the reason for it being insinuation that a woman's reasoning on this issue wouldn't count as much as a man's! wow!) without saying anything at all? I mean, eventually one has to give up (which he did), but that hardly reached the point of hysterical denial. Come on.

Before the rain of ad homs can begin, let me just clarify that I have no strong opinion on this case, I haven't heard the tapes, and I haven't looked at any sources other than most of what has been linked in this thread. I often follow threads in this subforum in my downtime because I find them interesting, but I rarely have the excess time or inclination to do my own research or even form strong theories. I know dick-all about law in Australia or New Zealand, beyond the fact that New Zealand cases tend to pop up a lot in this subforum. Perhaps we just have a high number of New Zealand posters with an interest in true crime and court cases.

I find the Trials and Errors haunt here a much more pallatable read than a lot of websleuths threads because the members here aren't banned from discussing particular theories.

Carry on, ladies and gents! (Humph. If that's really what you are. :D )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom