|
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. |
17th October 2016, 04:24 AM | #321 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
I just told you - because the judge gave them a directive that they should not take his actions after she fell into account when determining guilt or innocence. Am I supposed to be hoping they ignore the judge, just because I don't like the look of his face? If they follow his directive and find him guilty, I have no problem at all with that.
|
17th October 2016, 05:15 AM | #322 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
Untrue.
Irrelevant. Have you reported these illegal actions to the authorities? Yes, there is. Irrelevant. If she hadn't been locked on the balcony she wouldn't have died. Did you actually read the transcript? Or just the bits that supported your opinions? Unsupported assertion. Untrue. There's the matter of Tostee illegally imprisoning Wright in a dangerous locale rather than take other steps. Or, and this might be a revolutionary concept to you, it might prevent further deaths. |
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 05:18 AM | #323 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 05:19 AM | #324 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 05:21 AM | #325 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 05:24 AM | #326 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 05:25 AM | #327 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
17th October 2016, 07:18 AM | #328 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Purgatory, PA
Posts: 2,815
|
I read through the transcripts of what he recorded and have some questions and opinions on the case. First, he is very much responsible for her death. I wouldn't go so far as to say murder but definitely manslaughter. He keeps her against her will, there can be no doubt about that. She asked to leave and he said no with a smug "because you were a bad girl". There is no self protection involved in that, he was angry and punishing her. It is very reasonable to assume that it would be dangerous to put a highly inebriated person on a high balcony. Not just because it has happened before but common sense, and also - because it has happened before. His behavior after is also very telling. He lies and leaves out details when telling the story to his father. I am also confused about him calling her phone several times after. Especially knowing it was in his pocket.
So to my questions - why was he recording all this to begin with in the first place? The second question, if he was completely innocent in all this why not lock her outside the apartment and call the police? How much trouble could she have possibly caused for him if he innocent of any wrong doing and had all her destruction on tape? |
17th October 2016, 12:21 PM | #329 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
I think the Judge's comments are critical, there's no blueprint as to how someone should react, or will react in such a situation. When Tostee asked his father why such '****' happened to him one can read sinister or regret - certainly not predict guilt or innocence from them alone.
|
17th October 2016, 06:07 PM | #330 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
Dont think they wil aquit also I wasnt aware he had someting in his hand when leaving
Looking at that pic she probably could have made it to the next balcony had she swung it right So far I still think he deserves aquittal but have we heard all evidence presented in the trial? 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. Its "innocent until proven guilty", and "the whole truth" 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. That is non-bias Also right now Tostee is an innocent man that stands accused. So have any of you presented any evidence of his guilt? No I dont think so. What you have done is ignore much of what transpired and twisted things to match your bias. This is not a situation where Tostee must prove he is innocent. The crown must prove he is guilty of murder or manslaughter. I dont think they can as he was the victim of a prolonged hour long assault which none of you it seems have bothered to listen to on the recordings. He also did not assault the woman. Her response was disproportionate and irrational because she was blind drunk. As was her violence through out the evening. Innocent untill proven guilty - not guilty until proven innocent If you have just heard the last 5 minutes & read some transcripts then bugger off - you dont have enough info to form an opinion You people are a lynch mob - disgraceful |
17th October 2016, 06:38 PM | #331 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
I think this is new information. I don't recall it being mentioned before. It is interesting though.
Which pic? Yep. You've said that a few times now. Although you started this post expressing doubt? You were asked to provide a link or directions to a full recording. You obviously know where to find that. You didn't produce. Haha. Funny. You said "non-bias". Has someone in this thread suggested otherwise? Yep. We know. Got it loud and clear. No. I don't want to. |
17th October 2016, 06:41 PM | #332 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
Lets wait & see
There is a bias toward convicting tostee on this forum - Putting a drunk idiot on a balcony after they assaulted you does not constitute manslaughter I am not your mother - perform your own internet search for the recordings Things that would change my mind - 1. He did infact sexually assault her earlier in the evening 2. He had seriously assaulted her, actually punched her hard in the guts or similar Frankly the way she was behaving had he slapped her in the face or yelled in her face full volume I still would not consider him to be guilty Now if you have not listened to the recordings of her behaviour for 30-40 minutes then go and look for it. We could just show a video of the police putting Tostee in jail and rant on hey look at this poor man - the police are putting him in jail - never mind why That is the mentality of bias that you folks have displayed - lynch mob |
17th October 2016, 06:47 PM | #333 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
17th October 2016, 06:58 PM | #334 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
Shiner I'm going to ignore you.
Now interesting that I dont think anybody on here has pointed out Tostee has been getting psychiatric assistance. Not for violence or aggression but for depression and self esteem issues. I wonder if Wareina also has some psychiatric background. I could find zero internet footprint on wareina wright even searching exclusively prior to the unfortunate evening. I can not find anybody online even claiming to be friends of the deceased. That is quite unusual. "Should Ms Wright’s mental state be considered due to alcohol consumption?" My god I wonder what the judge will say
Quote:
|
17th October 2016, 08:18 PM | #335 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,997
|
|
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
17th October 2016, 08:21 PM | #336 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
Bigoted remark noted from the atheist
Quote:
Also average IQ is not so bright so this can go either way I think the two outstandingly stupid questions are about his age and if the fact she was drunk are relevant Kewl if it went to hung jury then we could argue for six months... not |
17th October 2016, 08:24 PM | #337 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
17th October 2016, 08:34 PM | #338 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
17th October 2016, 09:23 PM | #339 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
Oh my. What ever will I do now? Ignored? By someone with an agenda? That's never happened.
On Tostee's youtube account, there is video of a woman stealing his wallet from his loungeroom. Taken by fixed surveillance camera. I've always found it curious that he had surveillance before the night Ms Wright fell to her death, but apparently had no working camera, or no camera that night. Makes me wonder what he was carrying ....... |
17th October 2016, 10:05 PM | #340 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
Its looking in his favour from the judges responses
Quote:
I think he was recording in case there were false rape or assault allegations. Which there may well have been the next day had she not fallen off the balcony. |
17th October 2016, 10:20 PM | #341 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
|
17th October 2016, 10:22 PM | #342 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
17th October 2016, 10:45 PM | #343 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
Unable to reach a verdict. This is where theater of the absurd begins.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the bar, and this has clearly not been reached. What purpose is achieved by a war of attrition in the jury room now? Of course it may be 11 not guiltys and one guilty, in which case a just result is still possible. |
17th October 2016, 10:49 PM | #344 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
17th October 2016, 10:59 PM | #345 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
I've always wondered why he disclosed the audio. It is just as damning for him as it is exonerating. (If it is either) I'm sure he thought it would exonerate him.
Purely hypothetically, I think a video might show things differently than the audio tape. Especially when things got physical. Using his body weight to pin her. Choking/not choking her. It does seem a long shot. Just thought I'd put it out there. I'm feeling lonely now that I'm being ignored. |
17th October 2016, 11:04 PM | #346 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
I wonder do you guys know how long a jury may deliberate for max in Queensland as its a hung jury at present
Clearly there will be one or two of them unable to aquit on grounds of bias ;-) Judge has told them to keep debating - could this go on all week? |
17th October 2016, 11:07 PM | #347 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
Here is the link to the quoted news article.
http://www.news.com.au/national/quee...80d8e6127ded9e I really can't see how the judge's ruling that he had successfully removed her from his property can possibly hold water. Try that one on a real estate agent. "I'm not paying for the balcony. It isn't part of the property" But going off the way the question was asked and that ruling, I think he's going to walk. |
17th October 2016, 11:25 PM | #348 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
It's at the judge's discretion. For a murder charge they have to come up with a unanimous verdict, if they can't he will keep directing them to go back until they agree. Ultimately if he thinks there is no way they will come to an agreement, he can dismiss the jury....but that would be last resort
|
17th October 2016, 11:35 PM | #349 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
We have a seriously hung jury on this thread, which may be representative.
On the Lundy thread, once Atheist examined the evidence we got a unanimous not guilty, the same evidence with which the jury found unanimous guilt. That was a binary choice, this case sits on a continuum, but not even lionking seems to expect a verdict of murder. |
17th October 2016, 11:54 PM | #350 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
The balcony is part of the property under the law
Quote:
However the law says he is permitted to remove someone from the property. Whether he is successful isn't relevant.
Quote:
|
18th October 2016, 12:06 AM | #351 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
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 It needs to be unanimous for Murder but not manslaughter apparently, does it need to be unanimous to aquit? |
18th October 2016, 12:49 AM | #352 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
|
This article says that the police discovered the recording.
Quote:
|
18th October 2016, 12:54 AM | #353 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
|
|
18th October 2016, 01:00 AM | #354 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
|
18th October 2016, 01:07 AM | #355 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
18th October 2016, 01:09 AM | #356 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
I'll put you out of your misery Samson. Unanimous verdicts are required for murder trials in Queensland.
You're welcome. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
18th October 2016, 01:19 AM | #357 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
|
18th October 2016, 01:21 AM | #358 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
18th October 2016, 01:22 AM | #359 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
18th October 2016, 01:30 AM | #360 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|