Bondage is fine, until she no longer consents ie "Untie me". I see nothing in that transcript that says she's calling the police because he took her phone. I clearly see her saying "Goodnight" then that she's calling the police then asking where her phone is when she went to call the police.
Just stop. The transcript doesn't lie.
I know he ordered pizza, but what really matters here is what happened in the moments before she went over the railing. The pizza should have no bearing on the jury's decision.
Which part of the situation are you saying he didn't try to resolve? I'm asking because when you read or listen to the whole recording instead of just snippets, he was actually quite tolerant of her odd and/or aggressive behavior until he just ... wasn't.
Reading is hard.
It's in the transcript that she wanted to leave. He didn't want her to. I'm not sure what you're not grasping here, but I don't have time for this.
I provided the part of the transcript that showed you were not correct in your statement and that's all I can do.
.. locking someone on a balcony with no exit other than jumping/trying to get to the floor below is forcing her to stay, you ignorant, lazy fucknuckle.
Boston told you, transcripts showed you - she asked to leave, he said no or leave without your shit. Why couldn't she take her stuff with her? Who would leave their bag with wallet/phone etc in it behind? I fucking wouldn't.
At least be somewhat intelligent in your attempts.
Sorry, that's incorrect, the transcript does lie, and has been proven so at various times. This quote you made in the previous page
'1.36am: Female: 'Are you going to f***ing untie me because I will F***ing destroy your jaw. It is not f****ing funny ... 'Get it for me'. Male: 'No, you get it.' Female: 'I am going to call the police.'
well recent court exchanges were tweeted whereby the police now say that it was 'Are you going to Muay Thai me....'.
So that is another example of how people are getting the wrong impressions left right and centre, because of poor police work in this case.
Im sorry to correct you again, but the Judge concerned has told the jurors the evidence is the audio of the evening not the transcript. Referring to the transcript as though it is a bible on this matter is fallacious. It has been shown to have numerous errors. Parts of the conversation are missing also. It is not reliable.
And Muay Thai sounds like YOU'RE FLY!
AND NOW WE'RE ALL FRIENDS
I'm sorry that you have no grasp of the Australian legal system. She was locked on the balcony because she was violent. Completely legal in Australia. Go and read the Queensland Criminal Code.
But first you might need to learn to read and comprehend what you are reading. As I made abundantly clear, I said that there is no evidence he physically prevented her from leaving BEFORE he locked her on the balcony. This was in relation to Boston Babe's claims that he had stopped her from leaving earlier, specifically when she threatened to call the police.
I would ask you to be somewhat intelligent in your own attempts but you have just demonstrated that is far beyond your capabilities.
Whoa whoa whoa
death2me is definitely not imperial asshole or if he is at least his newest ID actually knows how to carry a conversation and deliver a compelling counter-argument without reducing to insults and misogyny. They also made a valid point about the different between the Aussie court system and the US's.
I think it's highly likely that Gable fucknugget Toastee will be cleared of homicide, because I also think it's likely all he did was just depraved indifference, locking a drunk person in a dangerous place. I don't think it can be proved that he intended or suspected something like this could happen.
It doesn't change the fact that he is without a doubt one of the biggest douchebags to ever walk the face of the earth.
I agree with you that he's going to get off and that he's still a douchebag. What I was countering was the statement that she refused to leave and never tried to leave etc. That's simply not true. They were both nuttier than fruitcakes, that's for sure. But he holds some responsibility here in that he didn't let her leave before it got to the point where she did get violent ie he was thinking with his dick.
These folks make it out as if he's some innocent victim that didn't contribute to this situation in any way.
ETA: This is my basic argument in a nutshell. They're saying she should have left when he told her to. I'm saying, he should have let her when she previously tried to.
Boston told you, transcripts showed you - she asked to leave, he said no or leave without your shit. Why couldn't she take her stuff with her? Who would leave their bag with wallet/phone etc in it behind? I fucking wouldn't.
At least be somewhat intelligent in your attempts.[/QUOTE]
It has been argued by QCs that Tostees behaviour was legal. Qld law allows restraint.
If you only focus on Tostee's actions in absence of the whole context (meaning Ms Wrights behaviour), then you will arrive at a false conclusion. I believe this is what has happened with your comment.
I believe Tostee didn't allow her to collect her things for the moment because he wanted her out immediately. In view of Wright's behaviour that makes sense.
It would be obvious to think he was not not going to keep her belongings, and there is no evidence of that in his past behaviour. A person must leave a premise immediately when asked to do so, they do not get special rights to remain until their property is collected. That is the law.
Could you provide evidence of this? Nothing I have heard indicates that she tried to ever leave and was prevented from doing so. Rather the evidence is to the contrary, that she would not leave when told to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)