Gable Tostee

[GlennCashQC]

More Tostee fanboys searching the internet to correct heathens who have different opinions.

More of the irrational unhinged hysterical bleating we have seen from you since day 1 in this thread. You call people trolls for not falling into the "hes a pizza eating killer" schtik you have so gullibly fallen for, and insult people when their view differs form yours. I can show you posts where you adamantly stated Tostee is going to jail, and yet the acquittal shows all your misplaced faux outrage amounted to nothing. the only fangirl here is you - a fangirl of drivel trotted out by the media.

Posting as if poor judicial decisions are never made, least of all in Queensland.

Judicial decisions are amongst the soundest you will find. Decision are arrived at to a level of expertise no ordinary person would even understand. They are often called poor because people dont understand legal principles. For example the Baden Clay appeal to downgrade murder to manslaughter was indeed a good decision. Since the high Court overruled that, was that a good or a bad decision? Well more learned people than you or I are discussing the flow on effects of that decision, for and against. But that decision set a precedent in how the right to silence is now viewed in Australia. Its turned the legal profession upside down.

No, your hero was, is and will remain scum of the lowest order.

Please dont put your emotive hysterical words into my mouth. Tostee does have my sympathy though, for the way in which his life has been systematically ruined through no fault of his own.

He may (or may not, an appeal is still possible) escape a conviction here, but a killer he is.

You are wrong again, an appeal is not possible.

And he's stupid enough to react violently to women again.

More nonsense. He was polite and very tolerant of WW until she crossed the line. Her behaviour was appalling, and most men would not have been as tolerant as Tostee. Moreover, Tostee has zero history of violence, and has had 150+ women in his apartment. Gee, not one complaint for any of them. You were saying? Drivel is what you were saying....

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?

You've been told already, would another round make any difference? Re read the thread. Just asking the same question over and over OCD style wont cut it with me, sorry.

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

Thats my opinion too. The screams don't sound genuine to me, they remind me more of a child being spanked or being dragged off to the bathtub. You cry out for help if you are in fear of your life and other people are around (the apartment block), not carry on like a turnip. Listen to her first 5 screams, shes pumping herself up, like a child does throwing a tanty.

Here are some real ones for you to consider of people facing death head on. Compare to the tantrum screams WW is engaging in. Just not the same by any measure. I cant post links yet, but here are the Youtube Ids which you can just punch into the search box on Youtube

nKRKzdJQ7QQ
4PSE-EBKPls (2:00 mark)
rgXQK3NfRY4 (2:00 mark)

I can only speculate on what her issue was - my personal opinion is, from Wrights comments and attitude through the night, is that she was trying to put across that she "ruled" and was a goddess of some sort, and beating him up during the rough sex was all part of that. But then when he told her to leave, and when he tried to bundle her up, the fantasy of her being in charge that she concocted in her head was shattered, and she had a brain snap over losing her power. This is why she scaled the balcony immediately without even stopping. totally irrational event or someone at twice her BAC. To my mind, a very messed up person.

The definition of a dwelling in the Queensland criminal code (Criminal Code Act 1899 Ch1 1 p35) says otherwise:
I don't see how Tostee's balcony could not be deemed part of his dwelling by that definition.

Its not a habitable (furnished )part of the dwelling. The point is it was an external area, devoid of furnishings. The court rightly ruled that was a permissible action. He left her there so she could not damage any further property. TBH, the definition isn't important, it just had to be explained to a juror who was fishing for red herrings and not abiding by the judges directions.

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

Do you? Who cares? Why dont you email him and tell him? I doubt he cares either.

 

[lionking]

Listen if I say you fanboys are right, will you pat yourselves on the back and leave this forum satisfied you have "won"?

Or will you do as almost everyone who joins this forum does and participate in other threads?

If the latter, I can disagree with you on one issue, but respect your contribution on others. If the former, and you only came here to correct wrong thinking heathens, nice knowing you. We have a neat ignore function on this forum.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Its not a habitable (furnished )part of the dwelling.

But it's still legally part of the dwelling - furnished, habitable, or not. A balcony is a structure that is immediately attached to his residence and "it is immaterial that it is from time to time uninhabited"

The point is it was an external area, devoid of furnishings. The court rightly ruled that was a permissible action.

I don't have a problem with his actions at all, I agree that they were permissible. What I find strange - and I would imagine was a WTF moment for most - is the judge's direction to the jury that removing Ms Wright from the apartment to the balcony constituted removing her from his property. I would hope that it was made clearer to the jury than the general public that it was Tostee's action he was talking about, not the change of location

 

[cullennz]

But it's still legally part of the dwelling - furnished, habitable, or not. A balcony is a structure that is immediately attached to his residence and "it is immaterial that it is from time to time uninhabited"



I don't have a problem with his actions at all, I agree that they were permissible. What I find strange - and I would imagine was a WTF moment for most - is the judge's direction to the jury that removing Ms Wright from the apartment to the balcony constituted removing her from his property. I would hope that it was made clearer to the jury than the general public that it was Tostee's action he was talking about, not the change of location

It's semantics

 

[Shiner]

Ta muchly. Are you all Kiwis?

Nope. .The main players are trans Tasman, and I think UK, US, and some EU people have contributed too. Possibly China and Thailand.

 

[lionking]

It's semantics

Try that argument next time you are in court.

What a stupid post.

 

[cullennz]

Try that argument next time you are in court.

What a stupid post.

What does it have to do with being murder?

I'm genuinely interested

 

[lionking]

What does it have to do with being murder?

I'm genuinely interested

No you are not. Try posting and responding in plain, understandable English.

 

[cullennz]

No you are not. Try posting and responding in plain, understandable English.

What does property division of a balcony have to do with if he murdered her from inside the apartment?

She's a fairly simple question

 

[Hard Cheese]

What does property division of a balcony have to do with if he murdered her from inside the apartment?

At one point in the trial

The jury also asked if Tostee putting Ms Wright on his balcony constituted removing her from his property and Justice Byrne replied: "yes".

Which was met with some incredulity earlier in the thread. I hope the judge was more forthcoming than that - or it might just be the way it was reported here. I see an Australian source reported

Justice Byrne said putting Ms Wright on to the balcony constituted removing her from the property under a homeowner’s right to eject a disorderly person.

I was just interested in the point of law about the definition of property, because of the way it was reported in the first instance his direction seems counterintuitive if you interpret it in the normal way

 

[cullennz]

They also asked some stupid irrelevant question about his age and whether they should take drinking into account.

They were wasting the judges time with obvious questions

 

[Hard Cheese]

They also asked some stupid irrelevant question about his age and whether they should take drinking into account.

Yes, those questions were genuinely moronic. Imagine if you got those geniuses on your jury.

The judge's answer to the balcony/property question probably sounds counterintuitive because his exasperation got the better of him and he didn't explain it properly (or maybe he did, and we just didn't get to hear it)

 

[cullennz]

Yes, those questions were genuinely moronic. Imagine if you got those geniuses on your jury.

The judge's answer to the balcony/property question probably sounds counterintuitive because his exasperation got the better of him and he didn't explain it properly (or maybe he did, and we just didn't get to hear it)

That was my theory tbh

 

[GlennCashQC]

Listen if I say you fanboys are right, will you pat yourselves on the back and leave this forum satisfied you have "won"?

More provocative, argumentative, hysterical shrew type language noted. Us "fanboys" as you call us are entitled to post our opinions, exactly as you Wright fangirls do.

Or will you do as almost everyone who joins this forum does and participate in other threads?

Again, who cares? What I do on this forum is my business, not yours. Adjust, or go away.

If the latter, I can disagree with you on one issue, but respect your contribution on others. If the former, and you only came here to correct wrong thinking heathens, nice knowing you.

Again, who cares? All you want to do is discuss or berate forum members which is contrary to the rules on most forums. I myself intend to discuss the facts objectively in an unbiased fashion without using hysterical emotional sexist language.

We have a neat ignore function on this forum.

ALL FORUMS have an ignore function, So please use it without narcissistically announcing it to everyone.

But it's still legally part of the dwelling - furnished, habitable, or not. A balcony is a structure that is immediately attached to his residence and "it is immaterial that it is from time to time uninhabited"...I don't have a problem with his actions at all, I agree that they were permissible. What I find strange - and I would imagine was a WTF moment for most - is the judge's direction to the jury that removing Ms Wright from the apartment to the balcony constituted removing her from his property. I would hope that it was made clearer to the jury than the general public that it was Tostee's action he was talking about, not the change of location

Your missing the point completely. This came up because of a dumb juror, the one or two sticking to the guilty camp that were dragging the deliberations on for 4 days. These last few recalcitrants wanted to hang Tostee, so they ignored the judges directions and brought up irrelevant issues such as his age, what he was carrying when existing the building, etc. They STILL did not understand what was relevant despite being schooled on it by the judge. The definition of the balcony as part of his residence is irrelevant, that why the judge wasted no time on it. The point was that it was unfurnished outdoor area outside of the locked up habitable area; an area where she could do less damage.This fitted in with what his counsel put forward. That is all there is to it really.

Try that argument next time you are in court.What a stupid post.

Actually it wasnt a stupid post at all, it just shows that you dont pay attention to what s being said. It is actually semantics as Cullenz correctly pointed out. I gave the reasons why in the reply above this one. It wasnt a feature of this trial at all.

 

[Hard Cheese]

It is actually semantics as Cullenz correctly pointed out. I gave the reasons why in the reply above this one. It wasnt a feature of this trial at all.

It's semantics because his direction was ambiguously worded (or poorly reported and/or without context). If you are on my balcony, you are still on my property.

 

[cullennz]

It's semantics because his direction was ambiguously worded (or poorly reported and/or without context). If you are on my balcony, you are still on my property.

But it was a stupid irrelevant question. Amongst other stupid irrelevant questions.

One more time.

How is it relevant to whether he murdered her?

 

[Hard Cheese]

But it was a stupid irrelevant question. Amongst other stupid irrelevant questions.

One more time.

How is it relevant to whether he murdered her?

It's not - in that he was legally entitled to put her out on the balcony.

But stupid question as it may be, the judge's answer needs to be clear and legally correct - he is directing a jury. If they were confused, it doesn't help confusing them further.

 

[cullennz]

It's not - in that he was legally entitled to put her out on the balcony.

But stupid question as it may be, the judge's answer needs to be clear and legally correct - he is directing a jury. If they were confused, it doesn't help confusing them further.

Cool

Personally just go with who cares

 

[Hungry81]

It's not - in that he was legally entitled to put her out on the balcony.

But stupid question as it may be, the judge's answer needs to be clear and legally correct - he is directing a jury. If they were confused, it doesn't help confusing them further.

But why was he legally entitled to put her out on his balcony? Is it now legal for me to lock someone on my balcony that I invite into my place and refuse to let them go?

The judge was incompetent in his instructions and the prosecutors should have gone for manslaughter and unlawful detention so the simple hick jury would have had an easier time.

 

[cullennz]

But why was he legally entitled to put her out on his balcony? Is it now legal for me to lock someone on my balcony that I invite into my place and refuse to let them go?

The judge was incompetent in his instructions and the prosecutors should have gone for manslaughter and unlawful detention so the simple hick jury would have had an easier time.

She was saying she wanted to kill him and throwing ****.

If he just punched her and she died then you might have a point