Gable Tostee of Tinder
Oct 23rd 2016, 5:41 pm
#62
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
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.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...e_iOSApp_Other
Oct 23rd 2016, 6:52 pm
#63
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,064
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
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.
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.
Oct 23rd 2016, 10:36 pm
#64
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
What?
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.
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.
Oct 23rd 2016, 11:00 pm
#65
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,064
Oct 24th 2016, 3:59 am
#67
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
Oct 24th 2016, 2:24 pm
#68
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,378
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
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.
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.
Oct 24th 2016, 2:33 pm
#69
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,064
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
Oct 24th 2016, 3:05 pm
#70
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 51,064
Re: Gable Tostee of Tinder
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.
