• 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

Shiner said:
Ok. I can see your point now. I think if that were the case, and I'm not disputing it now, the jury question would have been more like ...

"Does the force used by Tostee to move Wright onto the balcony go under the allowance to use force to remove someone from your property."

I know we only have the media reports to go by, but I still see my interpretation as more likely. Based on reports.

In hindsight, after seeing what you mean, I think you're just as likely to have the correct interpretation.

We shall see, eh?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think if it is interpreted your way, the balcony is certainly part of the property, and the prosecution would be looking at it very carefully as the basis of an appeal....it's a case of the judge misdirecting a jury. But even if they then argue murder as a result of the act of deprivation of liberty - there is the debate of her death being foreseeable by a reasonable person, which the jury must have already concluded that it was not. I just can't see how it ultimately helps the prosecution to pursue the property angle

But we shall see, indeed
 
Hard Cheese said:
Yes, I think if it is interpreted your way, the balcony is certainly part of the property, and the prosecution would be looking at it very carefully as the basis of an appeal....it's a case of the judge misdirecting a jury. But even if they then argue murder as a result of the act of deprivation of liberty - there is the debate of her death being foreseeable by a reasonable person, which the jury must have already concluded that it was not. I just can't see how it ultimately helps the prosecution to pursue the property angle

But we shall see, indeed
Click to expand...

I like your reasoning. :thumbsup:
 
Hard Cheese said:
Yes, I think if it is interpreted your way, the balcony is certainly part of the property, and the prosecution would be looking at it very carefully as the basis of an appeal....it's a case of the judge misdirecting a jury. But even if they then argue murder as a result of the act of deprivation of liberty - there is the debate of her death being foreseeable by a reasonable person, which the jury must have already concluded that it was not. I just can't see how it ultimately helps the prosecution to pursue the property angle

But we shall see, indeed
Click to expand...
Hang on, defendant can appeal against conviction, but crown can't appeal against acquittal.
Except in Italy.
And I might be wrong (almost never :rolleyes:)
 
At the end of the day did he chuck her off - no

Were they both smashed off their face - Yes

Was she a nutter and him a prick - Yes

The only arguable weapon he used was his voice. Did it kill her - doubtful
 
Samson said:
Hang on, defendant can appeal against conviction, but crown can't appeal against acquittal.
Except in Italy.
And I might be wrong (almost never :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Comprehensively. Where did you get this idea from? Think of your hero Pistorius. And millions of others.

The crown can and does appeal in Australia and often wins. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
lionking said:
You are wrong. Comprehensively. Where did you get this idea from? Think of your hero Pistorius. And millions of others.

The crown can and does appeal in Australia and often wins. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
If there is one case that will be interesting to see if its appealed it's this one
 
lionking said:
You are wrong. Comprehensively. Where did you get this idea from? Think of your hero Pistorius. And millions of others.

The crown can and does appeal in Australia and often wins. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
What about double jeopardy huh?
Any attempt to have another crack is double jeopardy, goes back to Magna Carta (check)
 
Give up.

You are right.

I am an ignorant sympathiser.

You are the clear headed one holding a noose.
 
Samson said:
What about double jeopardy huh?
Any attempt to have another crack is double jeopardy, goes back to Magna Carta (check)
Click to expand...

Oh please. Do a minimum bit of research. An appeal is not a re-trial. I'll repeat:

An appeal is not a *********** re-trial

Can we have just a minimal understanding of law here?
 
lionking said:
Oh please. Do a minimum bit of research. An appeal is not a re-trial. I'll repeat:

An appeal is not a *********** re-trial

Can we have just a minimal understanding of law here?
Click to expand...
Appealing what??? He was acquitted!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom