IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Gable Tostee , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 18th October 2016, 01:33 AM   #361
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
If the jury can't come to a unanimous decision on murder, then they can apply a majority verdict (11 of 12) to a lesser charge of manslaughter
That raises an interesting permutation, does an 11 1 not guilty of manslaughter fly to acquit completely?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:36 AM   #362
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Your hero has been charged with and is being tried for murder.
It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is also possible to believe Tostee and Pistorius are not murderers, but to not regard them as heros. Clearly neither should be considered leaders of the moral free world.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:40 AM   #363
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
If the jury can't come to a unanimous decision on murder, then they can apply a majority verdict (11 of 12) to a lesser charge of manslaughter
It's a long way from that possibility. And 11 out of 12? Dream away.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:48 AM   #364
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
My only point of contention there is your last. If I threw the intruder onto my front lawn, they are free to leave my property.
I see what you are saying. But the law doesn't place any conditions on what you can do, other than you can only use reasonable force. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that closing and locking a sliding door was unreasonable force.

I guess the question here might be, at what point does self defence/removing of a person from your property turn into deprivation of liberty? Was the intention of closing the sliding door to protect himself/defuse the situation, or to keep her trapped? I think you can make a case for either.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:50 AM   #365
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That raises an interesting permutation, does an 11 1 not guilty of manslaughter fly to acquit completely?
Are you serious? What makes you think it would be 11-1 to acquit and not 11-1 to convict?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:53 AM   #366
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I see what you are saying. But the law doesn't place any conditions on what you can do, other than you can only use reasonable force. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that closing and locking a sliding door was unreasonable force.

I guess the question here might be, at what point does self defence/removing of a person from your property turn into deprivation of liberty? Was the intention of closing the sliding door to protect himself/defuse the situation, or to keep her trapped? I think you can make a case for either.
Oh for goodness sake. This buffed, large body builder couldn't simply put her out the door and call the police? He simply had to "defend" himself by putting her on a high balcony and threaten her? Seriously?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 01:55 AM   #367
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That raises an interesting permutation, does an 11 1 not guilty of manslaughter fly to acquit completely?
Yes

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
It's a long way from that possibility. And 11 out of 12? Dream away.
Quote:
By s 59 unanimous verdicts are still required in trials on indictment for the following offences:
(a) murder (s 59(1)(a)(i));

if on the trial of an offence mentioned in s 59(1)(a)(i) or (ii), the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict and the defendant is liable to be convicted of another offence not mentioned in those provisions, then in relation to the conviction for the other offence, s 59A (which allows for a majority verdict) applies as if the defendant were originally charged with the other offence: s 59(4).


A “majority verdict” is defined as a verdict, where the jury consists of 12 jurors, on which at least 11 jurors agree....etc...etc
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:04 AM   #368
Fixit
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
Very interesting from what little I know of the Judge's summary, he's made the situation clear but the Jury seem to be struggling with the concepts. Would be an interesting Jury room.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:08 AM   #369
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Are you serious? What makes you think it would be 11-1 to acquit and not 11-1 to convict?
I know only what I read and hear, but I can see a difficulty. Because he has been charged with murder, it may not be possible to resolve it by 1 jury member sticking out for manslaughter while 11 wish to acquit of manslaughter. I am not doing a good job of this, maybe Hard Cheese can figure it.

ETA I see HC has already answered.

Last edited by Samson; 18th October 2016 at 02:10 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:12 AM   #370
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Oh for goodness sake. This buffed, large body builder couldn't simply put her out the door and call the police?
Sure he could have. But he's not required to.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:13 AM   #371
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
Very interesting from what little I know of the Judge's summary, he's made the situation clear but the Jury seem to be struggling with the concepts. Would be an interesting Jury room.
Maybe the prosecution were looking for 12 dimwits and rounded up the Lundy jury

Some of the questions they asked this morning were daft. What age was Tostee? I bet the judge was trying not to roll his eyes at that one.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 18th October 2016 at 02:15 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:20 AM   #372
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Yes
What makes you think it will be 11-1 for acquittal? And not 11-1 for guilty?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:22 AM   #373
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Maybe the prosecution were looking for 12 dimwits and rounded up the Lundy jury

Some of the questions they asked this morning were daft. What age was Tostee? I bet the judge was trying not to roll his eyes at that one.
Not even Queensland would come up with the equivalent of 12 NZ dimwits.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:25 AM   #374
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Sure he could have. But he's not required to.
We will see about that.

Even if, hypothetically, he was not required to put her out the front door, why didn't he? This is the question the Tostee apologists (groupies?) are not prepared to answer. And a young woman is dead as a result.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:26 AM   #375
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Awaiting the next trial 2018

Aside: Large black man gets drunk with Tostee. Beats Tostee up for an hour and after wrestling Tostee locks him on the balcony. As Tostee is calling the cops he gets a carving knife from the kitchen to defend himself and scare the baddy.

Large black man with tatoo's & biker jacket then climbs over balcony to escape, screaming and hollering but falls to his death.



You see all fof the fuss is because it was a pretty girl. She has the exact same rights and responsibilities as any other adult. But because it is a pretty girl who screamed at the end just the same as had she been an actual victim - there is a knee jerk reaction.

She was not actually a victim in this incident IMHO

<snip>
Quote:
You see all fof the fuss is because it was a pretty girl.
There have definitely been some biased and inaccurate stories and opinion pieces covering this, which is definitely worthy of (a separate) discussion. I think it's irrelevant to the point of whether he was responsible for her death or not.

It seems pretty clear that at the very least he used intimidation to defuse the situation; the problem with this is that he verbally threatened her too, and also I think it's fair to say that she would have found him physically imposing when things got serious.

His statements on the BB forums don't match up with the recording.

From his post:
Quote:
She never tried to get back in, bang on the door or even cry out to me or anyone else.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=165463311


From the transcripts of the recording:
Quote:
Female: 'No no no no no no no no no no no no. Just let me go home.'
Male: 'I would but you have been a bad girl.' Sound of door sliding shut.
2.20am: 'Just let me go home. Just let me go home.' Last words of 'just let me go home'. Male - heavy breathing. Faint scream detected.
2.21.23am: Very heavy breathing from male.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fterwards.html

I'm all for defending the indefensible but this doesn't add up. Even taking into account alcoholic state, and stress of the situation, I find it impossible to believe he didn't hear her. She was asking to be let back in; the way he tells it, she didn't.

Any way you look at it, and however he justified it - he still intimidated her and pushed her out onto a 14 story balcony. She was obviously in fear, so I think there is a good case for criminal negligence.

I'm very interested in seeing the outcome, and I predict a manslaughter verdict.
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:29 AM   #376
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
My only point of contention there is your last. If I threw the intruder onto my front lawn, they are free to leave my property. On a 14th floor balcony? Not so much.
I thought that was an interesting point. Judge Byrne says that the removal of a person to a balcony does constitute removal from a property.

Makes sense at ground level.. 14th level not so much :/
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:30 AM   #377
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
There have definitely been some biased and inaccurate stories and opinion pieces covering this, which is definitely worthy of (a separate) discussion. I think it's irrelevant to the point of whether he was responsible for her death or not.

It seems pretty clear that at the very least he used intimidation to defuse the situation; the problem with this is that he verbally threatened her too, and also I think it's fair to say that she would have found him physically imposing when things got serious.

His statements on the BB forums don't match up with the recording.

From his post:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=165463311


From the transcripts of the recording:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fterwards.html

I'm all for defending the indefensible but this doesn't add up. Even taking into account alcoholic state, and stress of the situation, I find it impossible to believe he didn't hear her. She was asking to be let back in; the way he tells it, she didn't.

Any way you look at it, and however he justified it - he still intimidated her and pushed her out onto a 14 story balcony. She was obviously in fear, so I think there is a good case for criminal negligence.

I'm very interested in seeing the outcome, and I predict a manslaughter verdict.
Good post. Murder or manslaughter. I still think the former.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:35 AM   #378
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What makes you think it will be 11-1 for acquittal? And not 11-1 for guilty?
I didn't say either way. I lean towards acquittal given the judge's comments and the time it is taking them to get to a unanimous decision.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:39 AM   #379
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I didn't say either way. I lean towards acquittal given the judge's comments and the time it is taking them to get to a unanimous decision.
Huh? This is nothing for a murder trial. They can take many days and even weeks in Australia.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:48 AM   #380
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
Are they debating murder or aquittal? I say acquittal with 2-3 stubbornly calling it manslaughter

You are not allowed to discriminate LionKing you dont seem to get it. If a woman assaults you you may smack her in the chops & it is self defense.

Also amusing - the the only other two forums I could find one is largely in favour of acquittal, a recent thread probably 80% but a fair number of replies

The other old fitness forum thread is about 60-70% in favour of not guilty

So you guys here I think are 80-90% in favour of a guilty verdict

Which I think is quite unusual.

[edit]

Just found the one on bodybuilding.com thats 3 forums all largely supportive of the accused and this one against the accused. There was also some mention of drugs in her system being suppressed by the prosecution.

I think its a frame up - apalling

Last edited by gareththomasnz; 18th October 2016 at 02:59 AM.
gareththomasnz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:51 AM   #381
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
We will see about that.

Even if, hypothetically, he was not required to put her out the front door, why didn't he? This is the question the Tostee apologists (groupies?) are not prepared to answer.
There is actually a semi-reasonable explanation for it in his post on that body building forum. It's possibly all ghost written, but his story doesn't jump out at me as being outrageously unbelievable.

Quote:
The struggle took place about 2-3 metres away from the rear glass doors that lead to my balcony. My front door was about 10m away, and has an automatic closer and lock which I would have had to flick then hold open while trying to force her out. This would have been much more difficult and wasn't really an option. Putting her outdoors would have meant I could separate her from me and keep an eye on her through the glass doors until she either calmed down or I called someone like security or police to take her away.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 18th October 2016 at 03:01 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 02:53 AM   #382
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Huh? This is nothing for a murder trial. They can take many days and even weeks in Australia.
Sure. But there was only one week of evidence, not a huge amount to digest compared to other trials.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:08 AM   #383
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
There is actually a semi-reasonable explanation for it in his post on that body building forum. It's possibly all ghost written, but his story doesn't jump out at me as being outrageously unbelievable.
Hilarious self-serving crap
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:10 AM   #384
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
There is actually a semi-reasonable explanation for it in his post on that body building forum. It's possibly all ghost written, but his story doesn't jump out at me as being outrageously unbelievable.
Some *********** bodybuilder. This is self-serving crap, and no doubt written by another groupie.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:19 AM   #385
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Are they debating murder or aquittal? I say acquittal with 2-3 stubbornly calling it manslaughter

You are not allowed to discriminate LionKing you dont seem to get it. If a woman assaults you you may smack her in the chops & it is self defense.

Also amusing - the the only other two forums I could find one is largely in favour of acquittal, a recent thread probably 80% but a fair number of replies

The other old fitness forum thread is about 60-70% in favour of not guilty

So you guys here I think are 80-90% in favour of a guilty verdict

Which I think is quite unusual.

[edit]

Just found the one on bodybuilding.com thats 3 forums all largely supportive of the accused and this one against the accused. There was also some mention of drugs in her system being suppressed by the prosecution.

I think its a frame up - apalling
Oh I get it alright. I get the groupies who have (magically) appeared here can't conceive that their hero is guilty. I get the stupid, ridiculous idea that a large, buffed bodybuilder can be threatened and intimidated by a small, drunk woman. I get the pathetic idea that it was proper behaviour to put her on a high balcony while threatening her than putting her out the front door and ringing the cops. I get it that his behaviour of not calling cops but going outside furtively to get a pizza is the behaviour of a guilty jerk.

What am I missing?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:19 AM   #386
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Hilarious self-serving crap
Good grief, it's pointless discussing anything with you. 39,146 posts, all of them gems like this one no doubt.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:21 AM   #387
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Good grief, it's pointless discussing anything with you. 39,146 posts, all of them gems like this one no doubt.
Have a good look at the MA while you have a moment. This thread isn't about me.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 03:59 AM   #388
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Looking at that pic she probably could have made it to the next balcony had she swung it right
Something she wouldn't have had to do had she not been illegally imprisoned.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Most of the anti Tostee rantings on this forum are assuming guilt on Tostee's behalf, also I dont think any of you have listened to more than the final 5 - 10 minutes recorded if any at all.


Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
The whole truth in this case means the whole recording & all evidence presented to the jurors, not the transcripts which portray 20% of the information the actual recording does. Not just the nasty bit of the recording but all of it in full context.
Those would be the same partial transcripts on which you were basing you claims of Tostee's obvious innocence previously?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:02 AM   #389
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
I dont think they can as he was the victim of a prolonged hour long assault
Rubbish.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
He also did not assault the woman.
Untrue.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Her response was disproportionate and irrational because she was blind drunk. As was her violence through out the evening.
Unsupported assertions that, even if true, do not justify his actions.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
You people are a lynch mob - disgraceful
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:02 AM   #390
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
His sex, size, skin colour, body odour etc have no legal bearing

I think he has been framed by the cops and the media
gareththomasnz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:03 AM   #391
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
There is a bias toward convicting tostee on this forum
There's a bias towards reality on this forum.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
I am not your mother - perform your own internet search for the recordings
So you won't be supporting you claims then...
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:05 AM   #392
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
His sex, size, skin colour, body odour etc have no legal bearing

I think he has been framed by the cops and the media
Yup, a conspiracy theorist, just as I thought. There is a section of the forum you would be quite comfortable with ----------->
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:09 AM   #393
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
More excuse the murderer blame the victim nonsense.
Indeed. There's a lot of it around atm from the alt-right and misogynists in general.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
In the mother country Jeremy Bamber went down 10 2 after his sister killed the family then shot herself he brutally murdered his adoptive parents, his adoptive sister and her two young children and crudely attempted to frame her.
There you go, I've fixed that for you. No charge.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:10 AM   #394
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Sure he could have. But he's not required to.
Nor was he required to unlawfully imprison her on a balcony.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:12 AM   #395
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
There is actually a semi-reasonable explanation for it in his post on that body building forum.


Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
his story doesn't jump out at me as being outrageously unbelievable.
Except, of course, where it conflicts with the recording.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:13 AM   #396
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Murder or manslaughter. I still think the former.
I'll be extremely surprised if they find for murder. I'm thinking they're deadlocked between manslaughter and an acquittal.
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:13 AM   #397
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Yup, a conspiracy theorist, just as I thought. There is a section of the forum you would be quite comfortable with ----------->
He seems to be going full-Trump.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:20 AM   #398
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
I'll be extremely surprised if they find for murder. I'm thinking they're deadlocked between manslaughter and an acquittal.
I doubt it. 11-1 for an acquittal. Murder, manslaughter or re-trial.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:29 AM   #399
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I doubt it. 11-1 for an acquittal. Murder, manslaughter or re-trial.
Ah yes good point, re-trial is another real possibility.

And fair enough. Hopefully we find out very soon.
alex04 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 04:39 AM   #400
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
Ah yes good point, re-trial is another real possibility.

And fair enough. Hopefully we find out very soon.
I think this is a case where a retrial is totally unjustified.
With the recording nothing new will emerge, a complete waste of resources. A hung jury means reasonable doubt end of story.
I presume the solicitor general makes the decision like here.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.