Sure, he should have let her leave earlier instead of convincing her to stay. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it? But that is all irrelevant to the issue of her not leaving when asked and assaulting him with an object to the extent he accused her of trying to knock him out and kill him. Because that issue is what got her locked on th balcony.
https://jade.io/article/67628
Here's a link to it - was busy yesty and noticed someone on the FB group posted it.
Completely different facts and arguments, I really don't see how this would add any weight to the prosecution's arguments.
In Royall the prosecution relied on three scenarios. Either he pushed her out of the window, or she accidently fell while retreating from his assault or she jumped because she thought it was the only way to eacape an assault from him.
In the present case, we know she tried to climb down so only the third scenario in Royall is relevant. But we can also exclude this scenario because what we know from the recordings is that Mr Tostee was the person who was assaultes numerous times over the night. We know from the recording that his demeanor only changed after she struck him with an object with sufficient force that he believed she was trying to kill him. He responded quite reasonably by locking her outside to prevent further assault to him.
There is simply no way it can be argued that she was trying to escape violence from him by climbing down. As she told the people below, she simply wanted to go home.
That didn't work out too well for prosecutors last year in the Tumara Cousins murder case, though ... and it was a much stronger case than this one.
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/...ef85bdf923a8c1
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...ce235ab244b5f1
It has been discussed before here, and on other forums running a thread on this case. The only similarity the Royall case has is that a female fell from a hi rise to her death. The reasons that led to that are all completely dissimilar to this case. Same goes for the Gittany case.
Clearly you did not even "read into" the Royall case as you claimed. So why did you post that irrelevance? To try and appear intelligent? You failed, as we saw in the Batterham thread. Again we see you post whilst having no idea what you are talking about.
Amen. What is painful is people who believe everything they read and see on the net. The fool who said that this case was based on Royall actually works in the state Prosecutions Dept, and clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Then you have clueless people reading it, and taking it as gospel. Stupidity feeds on it self like a virus.
The above isn't discussion. The above is just trying to rip me to shreds because of the.. Batterham thread? Stop de-railing. Cheers.
Sorry, I said charged instead of found guilty. It's clear what I meant. 'No idea about Australian Law', okay. I don't think i need to 'prove' anything to you.
The prosecution, referenced the Royall case when building their case, I didn't say it was clever, I said this was a very fucking different case - read what I wrote, AGAIN. I mentioned it, because it's relevant, it doesn't mean I agree with it. It's just information.
PS If you don't know WHY I brought it up, you can utilise your eyeballs (those balls in the front of your face) and read. I happened to discussed this with a lawyer, and thought I'd remind everyone how the prosecutions case came to be in the first place. They used the Royall case as the bones, but, as I said, that actually had evidence and was a very different case, thus why this one is a clusterfuck.
I love having to write the same thing three times, in a way to best suit different people. I won't again.
And I would venture to say that since the toxicology only reported BAC, we'll never know whether there were any drugs in her system. It's a possible theory that she was hallucinating on the balcony - to me it seems the only reason she would elect to jump over. Tostee could not be responsible for identifying she was high on drugs. The absence of a drug test in the toxicology was a glaring error by the police and can only create doubt in the minds of jurors. Beyond reasonable doubt is the proof standard, and it is not allowed to be compromised by doubt. When there is doubt, they cannot convict.
Stupid is as stupid does. This case involves some very complex legal arguments. People are trying to simplify it into a discussion of what he and she should or should not have done, or a discussion of morals and ethics, or oversimplifying in regards to other cases. But the legal system doesn't work that way.
Mr Tostee has just arrived back in court. The judge will sum up and then the jury will retire to reach a verdict. Maybe today? I can't see the jury deliberating for too long on this one, tomorrow at the latest.
I have tried to refrained from commenting here until the trial was over. Facts obviously came out during the trial, including the toxicology results (BAC .156%).
If you are saying how can I believe those court details were published correctly you have a valid point given the sloppy manner in which so many other details of this case have been reported incorrectly over time. The media couldn't even get the trial date right - they reported it as Oct 30th! I think though, if any falsehoods were published the defence team would be straight onto the media to have it corrected ASAP, because obviously a falsehood there could prejudice their client. Some of the court tweets have been corrected very swiftly. So I think the trial reporting is accurate, as opposed to what mainstream media normally do.
I'm so stupidified. I haven't felt this way since Jodis thread.
So confused over what everybody is fighting about.
The jury have heard the full audio recording. They have examined it in detail. They have heard all the nuances in Wright's and Tostee's voices, which would have corrected the false narrative being spun by the media and on forums. The false details that the police drafted up in the audio transcript in their original brief have been corrected also. Details have now come to light that Wright was a disturbed individual. All these things were not previously available to the people commenting here and elsewhere on this case. I suspect the outcome will be very different to what the baying hounds out for Tostee's blood want.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)