Gable Tostee

[Shiner]

What we will get is what drugs she was taking. And him by the sounda

Toxicology reports were referenced in many of the news articles linked in this thread.

Ms Wright’s blood alcohol was mentioned repeatedly. One of the links I provided even detailed the ME's method of extracting clean blood from the body.

I think, if either of them were using drugs that night, that information would have come out in the trial.

I could be wrong.

 

[cullennz]

...can you point out where I said the independent jury made a bad decision?

For gods sakes man stop being so reactionary with the reply button. Read what I actually said.

Here is what I posted on the other page:



It wasn't a bad decision by the jury. It was the only decision they could have come too. And I would have done exactly the same thing.

Just calm your tits and read what I said for goodness sakes. I addressed the issue of intent. Of what the prosecution had to prove, and how that became impossible after the judge made his ruling. There was no inference of fault at all in my post.

Indeed. Your blaming the judge for not knowing law after all these years, as well as you claim to

 

[cullennz]

Toxicology reports were referenced in many of the news articles linked in this thread.

Ms Wright’s blood alcohol was mentioned repeatedly. One of the links I provided even detailed the ME's method of extracting clean blood from the body.

I think, if either of them were using drugs that night, that information would have come out in the trial.

I could be wrong.

Then it will probably be a bit boring unless we have an NCIS moment

 

[banquetbear]

Indeed. Your blaming the judge for not knowing law after all these years, as well as you claim to

...oh knock it off. Either read what I've written and respond to the actual words that I said, or don't bother. I didn't blame the judge. I didn't accuse him of "not knowing the law". I have accused you of not knowing the law. Because you don't.

I stated the prosecution had a very weak case: that case was dependent on a point of law, the judge directed that the jury on that point of law, that direction made it virtually impossible for the prosecution to win, the jury delivered a verdict in line with both the judges directions and the law as written. I would have made the same decision as the jury, even though I wanted Tostee to spend time in jail.

How on earth are you spinning that as "blaming the judge?"

 

[cullennz]

...oh knock it off. Either read what I've written and respond to the actual words that I said, or don't bother. I didn't blame the judge. I didn't accuse him of "not knowing the law". I have accused you of not knowing the law. Because you don't.

I stated the prosecution had a very weak case: that case was dependent on a point of law, the judge directed that the jury on that point of law, that direction made it virtually impossible for the prosecution to win, the jury delivered a verdict in line with both the judges directions and the law as written. I would have made the same decision as the jury, even though I wanted Tostee to spend time in jail.

How on earth are you spinning that as "blaming the judge?"

Because all you seem to see is blame for a pretty obvious decision

 

[banquetbear]

Because all you seem to see is blame for a pretty obvious decision

...again: where are you seeing "blame?" Seriously: why are you claiming I'm blaming the judge when I absolutely and obviously haven't?

The decision only became "obvious" once the judge made his direction. It wasn't obvious beforehand. And it has been explained to you why it wasn't obvious beforehand. The prosecution wouldn't have taken this case to trial if they thought it was "obvious" they were going to loose.

 

[cullennz]

...again: where are you seeing "blame?" Seriously: why are you claiming I'm blaming the judge when I absolutely and obviously haven't?

The decision only became "obvious" once the judge made his direction. It wasn't obvious beforehand. And it has been explained to you why it wasn't obvious beforehand. The prosecution wouldn't have taken this case to trial if they thought it was "obvious" they were going to loose.

I'm just saying if you think the judgment was wrong you must see one or more parties that in your view corrupted the decision

 

[banquetbear]

I'm just saying if you think the judgment was wrong you must see one or more parties that in your view corrupted the decision

...why must I think this?

 

[lionking]

Indeed. Your blaming the judge for not knowing law after all these years, as well as you claim to

Unbelievable. You have shown you have no idea of the issues at play here.

 

[cullennz]

...why must I think this?

Because to you its wrong

This isn't rocket science

 

[banquetbear]

Because to you its wrong

This isn't rocket science

...to me what is wrong exactly?

What isn't rocket science?

Why must I "see one or more parties that in your view corrupted the decision"? What does that even mean, and how are you relating it to the words I said?

You have accused me of "Blaming the judge. For what YOU think is a bad decision by an independent jury" when I don't think the jury came to a bad decision. You are all over the place. I don't have a clue what you are talking about now. Do you know what you are talking about?

 

[cullennz]

...to me what is wrong exactly?

What isn't rocket science?

Why must I "see one or more parties that in your view corrupted the decision"? What does that even mean, and how are you relating it to the words I said?

You have accused me of "Blaming the judge. For what YOU think is a bad decision by an independent jury" when I don't think the jury came to a bad decision. You are all over the place. I don't have a clue what you are talking about now. Do you know what you are talking about?

You said the decision was wrong.

What do you think the reason is?

 

[banquetbear]

You said the decision was wrong.

...cite?

 

[Shiner]

.... You are all over the place. I don't have a clue what you are talking about now. Do you know what you are talking about?

That seems to be a recurring theme. Very good question.

 

[lionking]

You said the decision was wrong.

What do you think the reason is?

Really funny. You seem to hold positions on NZ cases totally contradictory to the judicial ruling. And you are quite comfortable with this. Yet when people point out stupidity and inconsistencies in rulings you are all "but the judge and jury...". Why?

 

[cullennz]

What are your thoughts on the Coroner’s investigation, LK? Is there scope for further charges against Tostee from it, or has the prosecution done it's dash? I ask because you have some history with LE, nd you seem up to speed on the judicial mumbo jumbo.



What does this even mean? You said he isn't a criminal. I corrected you. Nobody mentioned celebrating.

Canivor about 4 posts ago

 

[lionking]

Canivor about 4 posts ago

What?

 

[cullennz]

What?

That Tostee will escape any penalty for causing a woman's death is a miscarriage of justice rather than a cause to celebrate.

This

 

[The Atheist]

If you say it three times with your eyes closed, it might even come true!

Pretty funny, though. From what I've seen, the discussion here is by miles one of the more balanced ones.

'Still, if all the other forums GT went to are bodybuilder forums, he's probably right. Mutants cleave together.

Newsflash

Wasn't criminal apparently

Mate, you really need to get out of that habit - you know, the one where you open your mouth with the keyboard then shove both feet into it.

As noted, Tostee is a convicted criminal with a record stretching back most of his adult life.

Blaming the judge. For what YOU think is a bad decision by an independent jury

Awesome

The judge clearly made an error of both fact and law in directing the jury that the balcony was "outside Tostee's property".

Here's a Newsflash for you: judges make mistakes. This is why appellate courts exist.

 

[Samson]

Pretty funny, though. From what I've seen, the discussion here is by miles one of the more balanced ones.

'Still, if all the other forums GT went to are bodybuilder forums, he's probably right. Mutants cleave together.




Mate, you really need to get out of that habit - you know, the one where you open your mouth with the keyboard then shove both feet into it.

As noted, Tostee is a convicted criminal with a record stretching back most of his adult life.



The judge clearly made an error of both fact and law in directing the jury that the balcony was "outside Tostee's property".

Here's a Newsflash for you: judges make mistakes. This is why appellate courts exist.

I see an enlightened judge in the Masipa style who sees you can't trust juries. The jury system is unfit for purpose, would you hop on an aeroplane where a jury of morons was trying to figure how to fly it?
This judge did an outstanding job.