Gable Tostee

[Samson]

The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention. But regardless, I think it's extremely difficult to argue that the act of locking her on the balcony was an act of intimidation sufficient to "likely to endanger a human life". And I think a jury will likely think the same.

Juries are said to be hard to predict, but fortunately in this case there seem to be no disputed facts except the attempted strangling, which the jury will see straight through as prosecutorial over reach.
I predict 5 years out in 2.
I would give him home detention with drug monitoring and one strike he's out.

 

[banquetbear]

Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention.

...since you aren't a lawyer, here is a simple non-legal question for you. If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were bring wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Hard Cheese]

I made an online poll so lets vote - Is he guilty of Murder or Manslaughter yes/no

goo.gl/9v4sOK results at goo.gl/uZ6GHS

LOL. Is Tostee Guilty of Murder or manslaughter? YES/NO

I take it YES is a vote for murder, and NO for manslaughter

 

[Hard Cheese]

Just as a thought exercise...

Suppose he shoves her, drunk as she is, out the front door, and she tries to leave by the stairwell, falls down the stairs and dies?

Or maybe she makes it to the street, and walks out in front of a bus?

Is he responsible for her death in either of those scenarios under the relevant laws?

No - because neither would be reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions.

The same would be true if say, he put her out on the balcony and she slipped on an old banana peel left out there and went over the side.

You could also say the same thing about her attempt to climb down to the next floor...it's such a ridiculously dangerous feat that even a reasonable person might never consider anyone would try it - something so unlikely it might never enter their thought processes. It needs her to be fearful of her life, with escape the only option, to make it work.

 

[Shiner]

. It needs her to be fearful of her life, with escape the only option, to make it work.

It's easy enough to imagine from listening to the tapes. She did sound fearful at the end. But whether it can be proven is anyones guess.

It also seems that she took no time to make her decision. I've been wondering if, in her fear (hysteria?), and with a blood alcohol of 0.15, she may have forgotten for a moment where she was in relation to the ground.

 

[lionking]

The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or that he engaged in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention. But regardless, I think it's extremely difficult to argue that the act of locking her on the balcony was an act of intimidation "likely to endanger a human life". And I think a jury will likely think the same.

You will be wrong. Queensland juries. Hang em high.

 

[Samson]

You will be wrong. Queensland juries. Hang em high.

Lion king that is scarcely your best work. I suspect that is commonly the case but this jury is essentially being asked if they can be sure no one they hold dear could have transgressed this way. Every one has witnessed chaotic events emanating from the trans
Tasman alcohol culture.

 

[The Atheist]

Two defenders of Tostee join in short order. Tell me, so I can properly understand your posts and motivations. Are you part of some sort of Tostee defence group?

I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...

 

[Samson]

I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...

The problem with your theory is straightforward, gareth seems well versed in the case facts.
That is a good starting point.
Defenders' claims stand and fall on merit, not connection to the case.
I have none but agree with Gareth

 

[lionking]

Lion king that is scarcely your best work. I suspect that is commonly the case but this jury is essentially being asked if they can be sure no one they hold dear could have transgressed this way. Every one has witnessed chaotic events emanating from the trans
Tasman alcohol culture.

This post demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Seriously, is this how you think juries work? That they have to relate cases to their family circumstances?

Have you ever been empaneled? If you have been, is this what you were told? That you had to decide if a loved one could have offended in the way of the accused?

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Because this post looks like the work of a 16 year old.

 

[Samson]

This post demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Seriously, is this how you think juries work? That they have to relate cases to their family circumstances?

Have you ever been empaneled? If you have been, is this what you were told? That you had to decide if a loved one could have offended in the way of the accused?

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Because this post looks like the work of a 16 year old.

Of course Churchill figured that conundrum. If not a socialist at 18 you have no heart, but if not a capitalist at 32 you have no head.

This case is badly served by any dichotomy, murder manslaughter and so on.
If Tostee was only a pumped up stick man before this I don't see murder one, just an enduring tragedy.

 

[lionking]

Of course Churchill figured that conundrum. If not a socialist at 18 you have no heart, but if not a capitalist at 32 you have no head.

This case is badly served by any dichotomy, murder manslaughter and so on.
If Tostee was only a pumped up stick man before this I don't see murder one, just an enduring tragedy.

Cool. Do you mind actually responding to my post?

 

[catsmate]

The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or that he engaged in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.

Unlawful imprisonment.

 

[catsmate]

I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...

Actually this thread is the 36th hit (for me) for the sequence Gable Tostee trial transcript.

 

[lionking]

Unlawful imprisonment.

Correct.

 

[Ben1985]

...since you aren't a lawyer, here is a simple non-legal question for you. If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were bring wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.

It would probably depend on what case law says about situations where I'd been smashing his things and assaulting him first.

 

[Ben1985]

I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...

it's pretty high up the list when you type in "gable tostee case + forum"

 

[banquetbear]

It would probably depend on what case law says about situations where I'd been smashing his things and assaulting him first.

...case law isn't relevant to the question. You and I are not lawyers. I'm not asking you for the legal definition of "wrongfully detained." If I wanted that: I'll go ask a lawyer. Why don't you answer the question as stated?

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Ben1985]

It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.

 

[banquetbear]

It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.

...of course its an "honest question." Please don't question my integrity. Those bits I'm leaving out (ignoring of course the possibility that Tostee was "making stuff up for the recording") are relevant to whether or not Tostee should have let Warriena stay in the apartment, but are not relevant to Tostee's decision to detain Warriena.

So my question again:

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.