Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jypsijemini

Tinder Hookup Gone Wrong

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
4 hours ago, Jujo-jo said:

I think also, that he has been in past situations that have not gone well at all and probably many of them.

This is probably the reason why he feels the need to record these women he's hooking up with. 

And to me that's a red flag all in its self.

I get that some women may try to black mail, cry wolf, steal and all that but if you're a charming, sweet respectable, guy, that's gental who makes women feel safe and good then there wouldn't be the need to be paranoid and take precautionary measures to the point to have proof to protect himself incase things do go terribly wrong.

 

 

One of his ex girlfriends was one of his most ardent and strongest witnesses. He bragged to have bedded over 100 partners. 

He is hooking up regularly because he is a young man. That's what they do largely. It was a hookup site. Not dating or relationships, instant sex 

There's no red flags there. That's all been looked into as well. Surely you know a death investigation would scrutinise all angles? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
5 hours ago, Jujo-jo said:

Oh and isn't it against the law to record people who are not aware of it? I didnt see the sign on his wall that said warning you are being recorded, I didnt hear him tell her that either.

It was used in court. If it was illegal don't you think that would have been an issue? 

See what I mean, your looking for things to hang him on. You're biased. 

2.20.46am: Tostee: 'It is all on recording you know. It is all being recorded.

Quote

That's just weird and freaky, or is that pretty common for men to do that?

No, its not common. But it's not to a bad idea it seems. Maybe it should be a common thing? 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 hours ago, Jujo-jo said:

Oh and isn't it against the law to record people who are not aware of it? I didnt see the sign on his wall that said warning you are being recorded, I didnt hear him tell her that either.

That's just weird and freaky, or is that pretty common for men to do that?

The law says it is illegal to record a phone call without the permission of the person on the other end. But I'm not aware of any law that says you can't record a face-to-face conversation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

You'll never hear it ventilated in the media, but the promiscuity factor has definitely coloured this case. Many people perceive the promiscuous as not the best kind of people. I'd say from experience that perception has a sound basis. But of course there are no laws about it. If this was a case of a young woman who was in that apartment on a different basis, it could well have ended with a conviction of at least some kind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
9 hours ago, Habitat said:

The law says it is illegal to record a phone call without the permission of the person on the other end. But I'm not aware of any law that says you can't record a face-to-face conversation.

The requirements for a recorded conversation are no different. As a general rule, evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court, and surreptitious tape recordings by telephone are illegal in most states under their respective penal (or criminal) codes.

I'm told I can't use a recorded conversation as evidence in court. ...

 

 

My states law

... eavesdropping statute prohibits recording in-person and telephone conversations withoutconsent from all parties, though one court has interpreted it as requiring consent from only one party. Violations are considered a felony, and carry potential fines, imprisonment, and civil damages.Jan 4, 2018
Justia › 50-state-surveys › recording...

Not sure about other states....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Let's hope you are never in a confined space with a crazy drunk person. Can you imagine what that's like? 

Luck had nothing to do with it. The recording was the game changer.

Yep have been, been there, done that...

Not fun! Common sense says call the police or leave a.s.a.p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So could hers. Why are his held as first option?

You keep coming back to a push when the evidence is very clear that such is not the case.

How can you say you are not biased or just wanting to blame him considering that? 

It's all recorded remember. Every word. What could a lie detector test determine further than that? 

I dont think he should have been found guilty of murder but negligence, yes!

Precedence is what he showd, by not taking the steps to walk out of his own apartment. & No he should not have had to but that would have been the responsible thing to have done and if he had done that, she'd still be alive. Point blank!

Evidence / precedence ; )

Evidence is not always 100% especially if you can only hear, thats only getting 1/2 of the story and not be able to see, that is a huge missing link which in turns leaves it up to the jury to fill in the blanks. And sometimes jury's get it wrong. 

By the way, those aren't rocks, geez! I've been stoned with much larger, one was packed inside clay twice the size and they were being whiped at me one right after another, not one here, then one four or eight seconds later... (one got me right in the eye, I couldn't see for a week and I had a huge black eye).

He makes it sound like he was severly abused and beat up by her when he clearly was not! Man! kids even throw stones and rocks much bigger than that at each other everyday and don't woo is me over it ; ) is he that much of a sis... he playd a victim a little too much in my opinion only for his own gain. 

Yeah maybe he was innocent but I didn't get all that out of his interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I disagree. Wrights death was investigated as well as any other. I don't feel that the tape shows she could not leave, during the evening right up until the last minutes plenty of opportunities w Iere there. I don't consider seperating a violent person from oneself deprivation of liberty. I just don't see too many other options in that instance. 

She wouldn't be found guilty of assault.  There is no evidence of violence of than the Tostee's statement and the defense's shadow of doubt.  Your judgement is made without Wright able to defend herself; ie, natural justice.

You're right that it has been investigated thoroughly, and forensics found no evidence of violence by Wright and couldn't determine the age of the Tostee's scraped elbow and knee.

Wright's ultimate plea to go home was denied by Tostee as some form of punishment.  He locked her in on his lease.  In Qld it's deprivation of liberty. In other states its false imprisonment. 

Edited by Golden Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
18 hours ago, Jujo-jo said:

Oh and isn't it against the law to record people who are not aware of it? I didnt see the sign on his wall that said warning you are being recorded, I didnt hear him tell her that either.

That's just weird and freaky, or is that pretty common for men to do that?

It's only illegal to record a conversation you're not engaged in.

He hasn't done anything improper with the recording.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It's only illegal to record a conversation you're not engaged in.

He hasn't done anything improper with the recording.

: ) well I'd have to say we're dead locked ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It's only illegal to record a conversation you're not engaged in.

First I've heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

First I've heard of it.

Did I forget to specify private conversations? Pardon me.

Quote

 

Recording private conversations

In Queensland, it’s not illegal to simply record a conversation you’re involved in (either over the phone or face-to-face) without the consent of the other people involved in the conversation, but there are restrictions on what you can do with the recording. It is illegal to record private conversations that you’re not involved in - get legal advice.

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Personal-rights-and-safety/Privacy-and-identity/Privacy#toc-recording-private-conversations-2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Jujo-jo
And then there is this...
You are free to ask to record conversations with other people and to do so when they consent. Though, if you record a conversation with otherswithout them knowing or after they have told you no, you could be in trouble. If word gets out that you secretly recorded a conversation, youcould also face criminal charges.Aug 31, 2017

And ....

As a general rule of thumb: No,recording (audio of) someone without their consent is not legal. ... If you are only recording one person, you willgenerally require that persons consent for it to be legal. And without theirconsent you would require a warrant issued by a judge to make it legal.

 

And he admitted that he does it regularly but he wasn't held accountable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Grey areas, of which the legal profession is beloved, where would they be without them !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

There must be a reason why no-one (at least to my knowledge) has written a book about this case. Maybe the prospective authors think it has more to play out.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, Jujo-jo said:
And then there is this...
You are free to ask to record conversations with other people and to do so when they consent. Though, if you record a conversation with otherswithout them knowing or after they have told you no, you could be in trouble. If word gets out that you secretly recorded a conversation, youcould also face criminal charges.Aug 31, 2017

And ....

As a general rule of thumb: No,recording (audio of) someone without their consent is not legal. ... If you are only recording one person, you willgenerally require that persons consent for it to be legal. And without theirconsent you would require a warrant issued by a judge to make it legal.

 

And he admitted that he does it regularly but he wasn't held accountable...

There's often differences between the law in the USA and Australia.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.