You cant argue to retry someone who was cleared of charges.
Stella is in love.
Cleared of THOSE charges. I wouldn't doubt with how crazy people got over this arguing that it should have been a mistrial because of the Chatty Cathy juror.
ETA: Orrrrrr.... Do they have such a thing as Civil Suits there? Either way, I'm afraid it's not the last of this thread. We'll be hearing news about him. Question is will it be another offense? Or a reality show?
Yeah she's really proud of her new collection of garbage (used coffee cups).
I was suspicious Monday when the jury asked about the object in GT's hand in the cctv footage after Warriena fell. That object became a very hot topic of conversation on the internet last Thursday or Friday (depending on which continent one resides). It made me wonder if one (or more) of the jurors spent the weekend Googling around and reading things they shouldn't have been reading ... especially since the judge had already explicitly said they should disregard everything GT did after she fell. Now that we know that numbskull was posting on social media about jury duty, I'm even more suspicious.
Just to clarify, he can totally be retried for murder in Queensland. They have to have new evidence though.
It could very well have ended in the jurybeing dismissed. Jurors are not allowed to discuss their involvement in a case on social media. The very experienced defence solicitor advocated ernestly for the jury to be dismissed because of it. So I don't think it is fair to say people are crazy for thinking that is the way it should have gone.
she purchased beers before going to his apartment. Do you also think the beer manufacturer should face charges? The bottlo she purchased it from? The hops farmer? Tinder?
Where do you draw the line? She got drunk of her own accord. He didn't force her to drink. She was responsible for herself.
Unfortunately people like this are too stupid to learn their lesson. They were told directly by the judge not to discuss anything on social media. She simply couldn't grasp the concept that for a brief period of time, her duty to the administration of justice and her duty to the court outweighed her personal desire to publish her boring little life on line.
He tried to get her to drink more and she wouldn't. IMHO he was using his homebrew to make her more compliant. Here in the states it's actually considered rape to have sex with a woman as drunk as she was. If you're questioning whether it was the beer they shared versus the homebrew that got her to that state, I think it's obvious what the culprit was. Even Gable mentioned how amazed he was at how fucked up his brew made her.
Yeah plenty of that on twitter. I've also talked to a number of people here in Australia since the verdict and surprised at how many people felt he should be responsible for her death. They don't want to hear any logic, the media has done such a good job of painting Mr Tostee as the tinder killer that there are people who still seem to think he might have actually thrown her off the balcony.
I never got the impression that she didn't consent either, their prior conversations prove intent on her part.
My view is pretty basic. They both hold some responsibility for what happened even if he didn't intend for her to die and if she didn't intend to die. People are going so far as saying she committed suicide.... C'mon.
Both of them had terrible judgment, I just feel he should face some sort of punishment for creating a dangerous environment. He had other options, calling the police to have her removed, leaving his apartment and getting building security, letting her leave when she previously tried to. He fucked up and someone died. Normally that carries some kind of punishment.
I agree with you insofar as they both had terrible judgement but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But I don't agree at all that he created a dangerous situation. The last thing that occured before her being put on the balcony was her striking him with the telescope or whatever it was. That gave him the right to remove her from the property to protect himself and his belongings. The balcony was the closest door and that is where he removed her. Now we can argue all day about whether he should have put her out the main door but the fact is the balcony is not an inferently dangerous place. She had to take specific actions to make it unsafe by climbing over the balcony.
If he had left her out there for hours then I think the trial would have gone very differently but the fact is she made rmthe decision to climb over quite quickly when it was still a reasonable time to restrain her.
Yeaaaahhhh. I do see what you're saying, but my only argument with that would be if he felt his life was in danger and that he needed to separate himself from her, it's obvious that she was in a irrational state of mind. People keep saying that he couldn't have known that she would be so irrational to try to climb down from the balcony when it was her irrational behavior that led him to want to separate himself from her. So, I view it more as a really bad decision that he made when he had other options available to him.
We just see the situation differently. I don't know if you're Male or Female, but if you're Male it could be because I'm Female and I know the state of panic that could lead to irrational decisions as a Woman feeling threatened. Being a Male, he may not have fully understood that. There's just some things that don't sit well with me. Him having her phone, him mentioning throwing her off the balcony etc. It makes me feel like at least part of his actions were driven by spite rather than only fear of her.
BTW, I'm enjoying having a civil conversation about this. It's SO much better this way.
No, they could've. Even if they assumed she drank ALL of it herself, it would be pretty easy to calculate how much of it came from his home made stuff. & aside from that, even the beer she consumed within his home becomes relevant because householders can be held liable if a person is served alcohol on their premises & they become involved in an accident.
I think I posted a link earlier re this. There are laws re the safe service of alcohol for bar staff, they can be charged if they continue to serve an intoxicated person who later becomes involved in an accident & that liability extends to private householders. He continued giving her alcohol after her behaviour had obviously changed & clearly states himself on the recording that he shouldn't have given her so much of his homebrew, so it's definitely something they could've pursued & IF this was a serious prosecution, it would've made more sense than the bullshit they went with.
Edit :
& it's definitely illegal to produce it at all, police just don't often charge people unless they're caught selling because they don't realise it's being produced.
The stills themselves are legal IF you use them to produce essential oils. So unless you're reported for selling homebrew, or they search your home in relation to something else & discover alcohol, not oils, in your still, you're unlikely to be caught.
Edit 2 nah, actually I think my link was mostly civil liability. I don't know how social host liability re the beer would work for manslaughter, or even if it could. It could work with the homebrew depending on quantities. It definitely does NOT work for murder. That charge was ridiculous under the circumstances.
& in answer to death2me, I draw the line at supply of spirits, illegally brewed & supplied within the producer's home - especially if they were presented to the deceased as "vodka" & not illegal moonshine.
& it seems QLD courts do too, because they've already sentenced a man for manslaughter for supplying the same shit at his home.
Last edited by blighted star; 10-20-2016 at 06:28 PM.
This has been referenced previously and I didn't bother replying because it isn't related in any way. The facts of that case were completely different and involved the consumption of methanol instead of ethanol, resulting in the deaths. He essentially poisoned them by suppyling the spirits.
I have no idea why you think that case has a shred of relevance to Tostee.
I think it was safer for him to put her on the balcony rather than let her walk out the door. She could've stumbled into traffic, fell down a flight of stairs, etc.
Lol are you even half serious? That guy "poisoned" his offspring because he didnt control the methanol content. Methanol is not legal to drink, alcohol is legal to drink.
The chemical makeup of the alcohol in Wrights body was not introduced in court. So that tells you they they could not find an entry point for it into the trial. The alcohol must have been "clean". If her BAC was tainted by other substances, it would have been noted. But nothing. so it makes perfect sense not to pursue the alcohol angle.
Yep always have to play the female privilege/victim card, dont we? Here's the thing - Wright chose to drink alcohol that evening (if indeed it came from that still). It is not Tostee's job to be her daddy, and tell her what to do.
Stop pushing responsibility onto the nearest male. Wright made bad choices, quite a few bad ones. That is her fault, no one elses.
Yeah these jurors were told not to bother considering anything after the fall, so what do they do? Ask about what he was holding when he left the building. This jury is one of the dumbest I have ever seen, not surprising it took them 3 days to deliver a verdict most juries would have delivered in 4 - 8 hours.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)