Jury coming back in now.
Jury coming back in now.
Not guilty of.murder
Not guilty of manslaughter
Justice prevails despite dumb jury member/s.
Judge says he is disappointed a female juror identified herself.
I'm pretty sure she'll realize what a dumbass she is after reading all of her Instagram comments.Originally Posted by death2me
Or not. She deleted her Instagram.
Lol. Many people screen shotted it.
I know I did.
I said it earlier. He's like Zimmerman. We'll hear about him again.
You can take those Fleets and shove them up your ass
Like Zimmerman? An innocent man?
I don't think Zimmerman is innocent. Gable is.
I guess now I'm going to concentrate on Justin Ross Harris and Shayna Hubers' trial.
I'm waiting for Batterham.
Fixed.
You can take those Fleets and shove them up your ass
Cute. Google presumption of innocence babe.
Yep! Even worse.
The posts to the juror's more than 2,000 followers over several days specifically identified the person as a juror on Mr Tostee's murder trial and the juror's thoughts about being part of the case.
'I snagged a nasty one, so it's a bit full on,' one post said.
'I took it home with me yesterday and woke quite miserable this morning. Will make sure I leave it behind this afternoon,' another one said.
'I'm sure that I'm never thrown anything that I can't handle, so although it will be a tough trial, I will learn and grow from it,' a third comment read.
The juror wrote on Wednesday - the jury's second day of deliberations - that it '[may be] over tomorrow'
The juror, who cannot be identified, did not discuss the evidence in the trial or the jury's deliberations.
Defence barrister Saul Holt QC argued for a mistrial but Justice John Byrne dismissed the application.
But he did scold the juror anonymously after the jury delivered its verdict.
'This is a particularly disappointing feature of the events of the day but only one is responsible for it,' Justice Byrne said.
'That juror will discover when [they] accesses [their] Instagram account that many members of the public have commented on [the juror's] decision to communicate with others during the course of the trial.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4Nc6AvPzN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You're comments are appalling. As someone whom has heard the full recording it was clearly WW who was the nutbag. GT was reasonable at all times. It really is about time you listened to it, rather than keep talking nonsense based on media headlines.
You car analogy is ridiculous - in that scenario one persons safety is totally dependent on another's safe operation of machinery. This case wasn't anything like that. WW could have left anytime, but chose not to. When she was told emphatically to leave she still did not. It was only right in the last 20 secs of her life that she finally asked to go home after she had behaved extremely badly. The recording shows this quite clearly.
As to involuntary manslaughter, we don't have that here. We just have manslaughter, with varying degrees of culpability.
Stills are not illegal here. There are limits on what you can do with them.
Your Zimmerman comment is stupid. That again, is a totally different scenario. Nothing like this.
Tostee was rightly acquitted, not wrongfully. You are out of line saying he will re offend because you have no basis for saying that. His history is minimal, 2 DUIs , one of which he has paid dearly for. He was in his 20s during these offences and after that jail period , and this court case, there is every chance that he will adjust his ways. He was a young and foolish but nothing like you paint him out to be.
You can stop your duty of care blaming too. He owed her no duty of care. It was up to WW to behave like an adult and moderate her own behaviour. She refused and paid the price, and was responsible for her own death. And that is all there is to it really. To insist a man is responsible for managing and picking up after women is an insult to women in general. We have fought for equality, but people like you with a victim mentality throw it all away by resorting to female privilege and expecting men to take the blame for all your own short comings. As you see, the jury of 6 men and 6 women didn't buy it. WW pushed the limits, then didn't like it when she had to be treated like a child and restrained, and her ego couldn't deal with it. Lost her mind, and decided to be spiderman. That is not GT's fault.
This young man has my sympathy, and I hope he restarts his life in good form. I feel sorrow at the loss of WWs life, but this is another example of a mentally disturbed person that should have been receiving care.
If there is one lesson to learn from this case, it is to stay away from crazy people.
Finally!
The jury made the right decision. A conviction would have been a miscarriage of justice.
That dipshit juror ... wth. I'm assuming some of the dumb jury questions came from her.
Yeah, I wouldn't have convicted on these particular charges, with this particular presentation of evidence.
It makes no sense they didn't focus on the alcohol consumption & go after him for putting her in that state with his homebrew. Especially when a man was recently found guilty of manslaughter in QLD for supplying the homebrewed spirits that led to 2 deaths.
Different death circs, yes. But even the Tostee supporters point out Warriena's irrational, out of control & "extremely drunk" behaviour. His homebrew did that.
http://www.news.com.au/national/quee...30e73d0df352a0
Thank god this is over and all the horrible posting in this thread can end. The mods are the real winners today.
My guess is they didn't go after him for the alcohol because they couldn't. They said in court that Warriena's fingerprints were found on some of the beer bottles. They didn't say how many (unless I missed that), but, if her prints (or DNA) were on five of the bottles, I think it would be very difficult to prove that GT was solely responsible for her level of drunkenness.
I don't know the abv of the beer she picked out, but, based on her size and her BAC, it seems possible she was already quite drunk on beer before she willingly started drinking the vodka. Would the vodka have made her more drunk? Sure, but even store-bought vodka would do that.
Someone on WS (an Aussie) said the other day that it's not illegal to make or be in possession of homemade alcohol as long as you don't sell it. I'm not sure if that's accurate, but if it is, I don't know what charges police would be able to come up with in this situation. And it's just a very different case than homemade alcohol actually poisoning someone and killing them because it was made with industrial strength weed killer.
It would be interesting to know if the authorities determined how much of the beer she drank, though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
