British Expats
Page 2 of 2
1
2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Gable Tostee of Tinder (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/gable-tostee-tinder-884630/)

bats Oct 21st 2016 5:41 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12082304)
One assumes the members of the jury were reasonable people and, after hearing all of the evidence, they acquitted him. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but it won't change the outcome.
Indeed no. It's the whole beyond reasonable doubt thing and the judges instructions.

bats Oct 21st 2016 5:54 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12082462)
I'll open a small can of worms because I realise that the following argument has a few holes in it but...

If you define normality as that behaviour observed and followed by the majority of a species, then in this particular case, visiting a website that describes itself as a 'naughty dating site' and one that caters for niche behaviour will by definition be not normal.

When you have two individuals looking to behave abnormally then other social norms become of secondary importance and limitations on what might be considered acceptable behaviour do not exist.

Locking someone on a balcony high above ground level when they are drunk might seem reckless to any normal individual, but that's precisely the excitement and thrill seeking that visitors to a 'naughty dating site' might expect.

So, in answer to your statement, not all who engage in this behaviour are going to die, but like drug taking, some inevitably will.
Abnormally behaviour? What specifically do you consider abnormal?

dbd33 Oct 21st 2016 6:14 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12082541)
Abnormally behaviour? What specifically do you consider abnormal?
A good question. I fear that, by the standard being applied, I have been an individual looking to behave abnormally. Indeed, I fear that I've been an individual looking forward eagerly to behaving abnormally. And I count myself Mr. Probity.

bats Oct 21st 2016 8:01 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 12082559)
A good question. I fear that, by the standard being applied, I have been an individual looking to behave abnormally. Indeed, I fear that I've been an individual looking forward eagerly to behaving abnormally. And I count myself Mr. Probity.
Hmm yes. Probing.
But I don't think using Tinder makes someone abnormal but does it have subsets for those seeking abnormal fun rather than some standard casual sex?

Almost Canadian Oct 21st 2016 9:05 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12082526)
Indeed no. It's the whole beyond reasonable doubt thing and the judges instructions.
More likely it's a result of the evidence presented. There is a reason why the items that you referred to are not allowed to be presented at trial. The same reason why a complainant's sexual history is not presented in sexual assault cases.

bats Oct 21st 2016 9:16 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12082666)
More likely it's a result of the evidence presented. There is a reason why the items that you referred to are not allowed to be presented at trial. The same reason why a complainant's sexual history is not presented in sexual assault cases.
Oh I understand what you're saying but there are some points that were presented at the trial though and in response to questions the judge told them what to ignore, ie what Tostee did after she fell. (Going for a walk, eating a pizza, calling his father) In my mind he was responsible but when I read what the judge said could and couldn't be taken into account to come to a decision then that decision would have to be not guilty.

What I particularly dislike about this trial and its reporting is the slut shaming of the dead woman.

Almost Canadian Oct 21st 2016 9:22 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12082672)
Oh I understand what you're saying but there are some points that were presented at the trial though and in response to questions the judge told them what to ignore, ie what Tostee did after she fell. (Going for a walk, eating a pizza, calling his father) In my mind he was responsible but when I read what the judge said could and couldn't be taken into account to come to a decision then that decision would have to be not guilty.

What I particularly dislike about this trial and its reporting is the slut shaming of the dead woman.
Did you attend the trial? If not, how do you know what was said, or how it was said?

What Justice Robin Camp actually said and what the media have reported he said are very different.

I have minimal faith in the media being able to report anything appropriately.

Shirtback Oct 21st 2016 9:23 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
I followed this since the beginning, elsewhere (other fora). IMO, not a nice chap, but I never understood how/why he was charged with murder. I couldn't understand why that would 'work', legally.

Followed the trial too, I kept expecting the prosecution to come up with evidence/witnesses not publicly available.

Just a darn shame all round :(.

BristolUK Oct 21st 2016 9:36 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12082666)
...The same reason why a complainant's sexual history is not presented in sexual assault cases.
Unless they are wealthy footballers with girlfriends from a millionaire family who can afford expensive legal teams and who offer financial inducements for 'witnesses' to suddenly have relevant testimony at retrials, of course.

bats Oct 21st 2016 10:58 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
I think giving her home made vodka to drink would have been a huge factor in her drunkeness, even the defence said she was hallucinating. Ack. At least his life is completely ****ed up now

dave_j Oct 21st 2016 12:41 pm
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12082541)
Abnormally behaviour? What specifically do you consider abnormal?
I said my argument had a few holes in it.

What I was suggesting was that if you indulge in activities that 'normal' people think are outside the norm, then the probability that your next of kin will be reaching for the adding machine will increase above average expectations.

Now abnormal behaviour, using my definition, will extend to asexual activities like Mountain Climbing, Space Travel, Lion Taming, etc as well as meeting odd minded strangers for risky sex.

Shard Oct 21st 2016 11:47 pm
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
From what I recall (!) some young people like to push their realm of 'experience' living a life of maximum adventure (as the saying goes). Modern technology such as ubiquitous cameras, recorders, and social networks must not only facilitate but encourage such behaviours. I can't condemn either individual, they were just being young and irresponsible in the 21st century.

Almost Canadian Oct 22nd 2016 1:48 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12082697)
Unless they are wealthy footballers with girlfriends from a millionaire family who can afford expensive legal teams and who offer financial inducements for 'witnesses' to suddenly have relevant testimony at retrials, of course.
I don't understand the link between the portion of my quote that you have posted and what you have stated here.

Are you suggesting that wealthy footballers are able to adduce evidence about the complainant's sexual history at trial, or are you simply bitter that somebody that you think "did it" has not been convicted?

BristolUK Oct 22nd 2016 2:54 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12083046)
I don't understand the link between the portion of my quote that you have posted and what you have stated here.
You stated that sexual history was not presented in sexual assault cases.

There was a recent example, just last week, where you were wrong. It was presented in the retrial.

Almost Canadian Oct 22nd 2016 3:02 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083075)
You stated that sexual history was not presented in sexual assault cases.

There was a recent example, just last week, where you were wrong. It was presented in the retrial.
I suspect that there was a reason why the evidence was allowed and, if that decision was made inappropriately, an appeal would likely succeed.

Edit: Google has enabled me to discover what you were talking about. I guess my post should have included the word, "normally" as the exceptions to that particular rule are quite exceptional. I apologise for my error.

I note that, from what has been reported, it was the appeal court that allowed that evidence, after hearing arguments from both sides.

BristolUK Oct 22nd 2016 4:11 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12083078)
Edit: Google has enabled me to discover what you were talking about. I guess my post should have included the word, "normally" as the exceptions to that particular rule are quite exceptional.
In this particular case, there was a financial reward for the "information" and the idea that a sexual partner might indicate what they would like in a previous encounter with someone else doesn't seem particularly exceptional given the limited range of vocabulary used in such situations.

They'd hardly have discussed Brexit or something. ;)

Almost Canadian Oct 22nd 2016 8:18 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083110)
In this particular case, there was a financial reward for the "information" and the idea that a sexual partner might indicate what they would like in a previous encounter with someone else doesn't seem particularly exceptional given the limited range of vocabulary used in such situations.

They'd hardly have discussed Brexit or something. ;)
I wasn't one of the jurors, or the judge involved. I believe you are attempting to argue with someone that didn't make the decision.

BristolUK Oct 22nd 2016 9:53 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12083184)
I wasn't one of the jurors, or the judge involved.
Of course not...but you did say it could be allowed in exceptional cases.

I'm suggesting - not arguing - that there was nothing exceptional in the "new evidence" at the retrial that was not presented at the original trial that was very well reported in this case.

It's not as if the woman had a predilection for dressing as little bo peep while her partners dressed as a goat or something. Something like that would likely be accepted as exceptional rather than the variations on the expression reported which I would venture to suggest are extremely common in such encounters.

Your need to google suggests you were unaware of the original case, the appeal based on this "new evidence" and the subsequent retrial. Along with all the other stuff that was in the news about how she had been identified on social media, harassed, had identity changed numerous times and moved several times while several people were convicted of identifying her.

There really was an awful lot of media coverage that you appear to have missed. We're not just talking a few juicy headlines here.

I'm confident if you had followed the original case, the appeal and the retrial that you too would have misgivings about whether there was really anything exceptional about her past even without considering the £50,000 inducements for people to come forward and say she wanted them to do it harder. :blink:

bats Oct 22nd 2016 10:25 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083221)
Of course not...but you did say it could be allowed in exceptional cases.

I'm suggesting - not arguing - that there was nothing exceptional in the "new evidence" at the retrial that was not presented at the original trial that was very well reported in this case.

It's not as if the woman had a predilection for dressing as little bo peep while her partners dressed as a goat or something. Something like that would likely be accepted as exceptional rather than the variations on the expression reported which I would venture to suggest are extremely common in such encounters.

Your need to google suggests you were unaware of the original case, the appeal based on this "new evidence" and the subsequent retrial. Along with all the other stuff that was in the news about how she had been identified on social media, harassed, had identity changed numerous times and moved several times while several people were convicted of identifying her.

There really was an awful lot of media coverage that you appear to have missed. We're not just talking a few juicy headlines here.

I'm confident if you had followed the original case, the appeal and the retrial that you too would have misgivings about whether there was really anything exceptional about her past even without considering the £50,000 inducements for people to come forward and say she wanted them to do it harder. :blink:
They probably had small willies

BristolUK Oct 22nd 2016 10:40 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12083235)
They probably had small willies
:ohmy::lol:
But big cars. :rofl:

bats Oct 22nd 2016 1:27 pm
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083243)
:ohmy::lol:
But big cars. :rofl:
Won't what I was thinking but that too

bats Oct 23rd 2016 5:41 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083221)
Of course not...but you did say it could be allowed in exceptional cases.

I'm suggesting - not arguing - that there was nothing exceptional in the "new evidence" at the retrial that was not presented at the original trial that was very well reported in this case.

It's not as if the woman had a predilection for dressing as little bo peep while her partners dressed as a goat or something. Something like that would likely be accepted as exceptional rather than the variations on the expression reported which I would venture to suggest are extremely common in such encounters.

Your need to google suggests you were unaware of the original case, the appeal based on this "new evidence" and the subsequent retrial. Along with all the other stuff that was in the news about how she had been identified on social media, harassed, had identity changed numerous times and moved several times while several people were convicted of identifying her.

There really was an awful lot of media coverage that you appear to have missed. We're not just talking a few juicy headlines here.

I'm confident if you had followed the original case, the appeal and the retrial that you too would have misgivings about whether there was really anything exceptional about her past even without considering the £50,000 inducements for people to come forward and say she wanted them to do it harder. :blink:
C
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...e_iOSApp_Other

BristolUK Oct 23rd 2016 6:52 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12083708)
In the recent retrial of Evans, details about the sexual history of the complainant were used after appeal judges ruled the accounts were so similar to the alleged encounter with the footballer that it could not reasonably be explained as coincidental.
What? :eek:
That's just unbelievable given that the two different former partners recounted two different versions of what she said, so even they weren't in agreement. Not to mention that one of them hadn't even mentioned it in a police statement and only did so when it came to "court preparation" with the legal team and when asked why he'd not said it before said the police didn't ask him.
The MPs said the ruling created a precedent when such evidence had only previously been used once in the past 16 years in a case where the similarity of the sexual conduct was bizarre and unusual.

They are asking Wright and the justice secretary, Liz Truss, to change the law to specifically make it clear that sexual history evidence can only be used when the similar conduct is unusual and out of the ordinary.
Hence my Bo Peep reference. :(

bats Oct 23rd 2016 10:36 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083769)
What? :eek:
That's just unbelievable given that the two different former partners recounted two different versions of what she said, so even they weren't in agreement. Not to mention that one of them hadn't even mentioned it in a police statement and only did so when it came to "court preparation" with the legal team and when asked why he'd not said it before said the police didn't ask him.

Hence my Bo Peep reference. :(
I'd read that the new witnesses came forward after a reward was offered for more information.

BristolUK Oct 23rd 2016 11:00 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12083901)
I'd read that the new witnesses came forward after a reward was offered for more information.
:nod:

£50,000 each.

bats Oct 23rd 2016 11:06 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083915)
:nod:

£50,000 each.

Helps the mind remember wonderfully well.

So Ladies, if you've ever said "harder" during sex then don't bother reporting a rape as they'll never be convicted

Bermudashorts Oct 23rd 2016 3:59 pm
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by bats (Post 12083918)
Helps the mind remember wonderfully well.

So Ladies, if you've ever said "harder" during sex then don't bother reporting a rape as they'll never be convicted
Is this a Ched Evans thread now then? I don't really understand what that case has to do with this case. Trying to draw some kind of a parallel is flawed thinking. Incidentally so is your earlier rationale that if the jury had been allowed to consider that he (Gable) ate a pizza he would be rightfully locked up.

Almost Canadian Oct 24th 2016 2:24 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12083221)
Of course not...but you did say it could be allowed in exceptional cases.

I'm suggesting - not arguing - that there was nothing exceptional in the "new evidence" at the retrial that was not presented at the original trial that was very well reported in this case.

It's not as if the woman had a predilection for dressing as little bo peep while her partners dressed as a goat or something. Something like that would likely be accepted as exceptional rather than the variations on the expression reported which I would venture to suggest are extremely common in such encounters.

Your need to google suggests you were unaware of the original case, the appeal based on this "new evidence" and the subsequent retrial. Along with all the other stuff that was in the news about how she had been identified on social media, harassed, had identity changed numerous times and moved several times while several people were convicted of identifying her.

There really was an awful lot of media coverage that you appear to have missed. We're not just talking a few juicy headlines here.

I'm confident if you had followed the original case, the appeal and the retrial that you too would have misgivings about whether there was really anything exceptional about her past even without considering the £50,000 inducements for people to come forward and say she wanted them to do it harder. :blink:
As I have stated before, I have no confidence in the media's ability to report most things accurately, or without bias so, had I followed it, I would have done so with a huge amount of skepticism.

I don't know if the original trial's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, or to a lower Court. In any event, the appeal Court was satisfied that their decision was the correct one so, once again, the fact that you "suggest" they were wrong is irrelevant.

BristolUK Oct 24th 2016 2:33 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Bermudashorts (Post 12084032)
Is this a Ched Evans thread now then? I don't really understand what that case has to do with this case. Trying to draw some kind of a parallel is flawed thinking
It doesn't have anything to do with this case nor did anyone suggest it did.

A side comment was made suggesting that a person's history was not allowed in evidence and I mentioned the Evans case for no other reason than history had been allowed in it.

As often happens, it caused some thread drift.

BristolUK Oct 24th 2016 3:05 am
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
 
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12084387)
As I have stated before, I have no confidence in the media's ability to report most things accurately, or without bias so, had I followed it, I would have done so with a huge amount of skepticism.
Usually, though, one source will report on something according to its agenda while another one will do the opposite according to their agenda.

When the same details are reported with the same prominence in what would normally be media sources with different agendas, one wonders whether there might be something in it and a less cynical or jaded approach might be more sensible.

I don't know if the original trial's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, or to a lower Court. In any event, the appeal Court was satisfied that their decision was the correct one so, once again, the fact that you "suggest" they were wrong is irrelevant.
Once upon a time the courts used to be satisfied that hanging people for stealing sheep was correct too. Fortunately such things began to be questioned.:nod:


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:40 am.
Page 2 of 2
1
2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.