Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #10

[Bohemian]

Life is almost never that black and white.

However, in this case specifically, if we can use this forum as an unscientific representation of society and possibly the jury...

... it appears with the exception of a few individuals in both directions, the perspectives and opinions are skewed heavily toward gender.

Anecdotal 'evidence' or 'True story brah!'?

I'm beginning to think I've finally found my long-lost Daddy *sobz*

 

[TheOtherChristina]

While several people on this thread resent the introduction of a legal analysis of the evidence, there are some posters who are interested. When GT walks free, and he will be acquitted, if not by this court then by the Court of Appeal, there will be devastation on this thread with posters commenting that they can't understand how he was acquitted.

I am hoping with my comments that there might be at least a bit of understanding of how he will be acquitted after proper consideration of the admissible evidence.

I get defensive of suggestions that if he gets acquitted it will be because the legal players are lazy, incompetent or corrupt.

Unfortunately, although many of us think he should be found guilty of murder or manslaughter, I think most of us understand exactly how and why he will be acquitted.

The judge's instructions have painted the jury into a very tight corner and it seems very likely at this point that the jury will hang or else he will be acquitted.

What I don't understand is why the trial has made it to this point if there is no legal room for the jury to select from the verdicts made available to them. Perhaps this is my American optimism showing, but isn't that the point of a jury, to synthesize the evidence and make a reasoned decision? As disappointing as it would have been, I don't know why the case wasn't dismissed before gettting to this point.

 

[Bohemian]

You are witnessing the same phenomena right here.

Please forgive me Clevernot. I promise to be good.

 

[barcode]

He asked her several times politely to stop beating him up. That didnt register with her. Then he escalates to threats... then it escalates to a physical altercation.

.

Except for we really can not take away from this what you would like. 1. He knew what he was saying was being recorded and 2. Many moons ago I had a girlfriend that would repeat many times during sex...."please don't hurt me anymore" all while digging her fingernails into my back. Everything was always consensual BUT what she said and how she said it was out of the norm.

So if we take into context "Don't beat me up anymore" it could have all been part of their playtime so to speak.

What I think escalated the situation more than anything was him being called a fa**ot.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

I hear it.

I have also been part of more altercations with all kinds of outcomes than one person should be in one lifetime. Many, many times, the woman doesn't get the opportunity to have a glass door separating them. Yes. The opportunity. Perspective.

When they are physically separated, at what point do her actions stop being his responsibility, and once again become her own free will?

That is where a definition is almost impossible to create that can satisfy a law that can be applied fairly in a civil society. What works in one extreme, is not going to work in the other.

If you honk at a car, and that car crashes are you responsible for scaring the driver? If you scream fire in a building with no fire, are you responsible for the stampede? If you scream fire in a building, but only in one room, are you responsible for the deaths of those unaware that you could have maybe saved if you thought your actions fully through, but didn't. If you push a person to suicide, are you responsible? What if what you said was innocuous, and was wrongly interpreted as a hurtful comment?

No, yes, no, yes, straw man.

 

[SouthAussie]

You cannot say definitively that she was choked or was not choked. The pathologist found no evidence of choking. That is your reasonable doubt. The onus is not on Tostee to prove his innocence.

I actually can say whatever I please, within the bounds of TOS.
I have said NUMEROUS times that I do not believe the pathologist could conclusively tell what damage Warriena had suffered prior to the fall, due to the 80+ injuries and condition of her remains.

 

[Amee]

Elizabeth Tilley Verified account ‏@liztilley84 [video=twitter;788883775195230208]https://twitter.com/liztilley84/status/788883775195230208[/video] Gable #Tostee enters court on day 9 of his trial as jury begins a 4th day of deliberations #tosteetrial @SkyNewsAust

 

[CleverKnot]

If that's the case, maybe it's more about personal experience than actual gender.

But primarily gender based experiences.

What couple hasn't had a heated argument, where he regards his words as being brutally honest, and she views them as abusive, and possibly feels the hurt or fear?

If the disagreement becomes physical, is the man not typically the one put in the position of whether to act, or not act because of the obvious physical discrepancies?

The males here are definitely having trouble putting themselves in her position, and the females are having just as much trouble in the reverse.

 

[Amee]

Kate Kyriacou Verified account ‏@KateKyriacou [video=twitter;788882822194798593]https://twitter.com/KateKyriacou/status/788882822194798593[/video] And we're back for day four of deliberations. #tostee

 

[SouthAussie]

While several people on this thread resent the introduction of a legal analysis of the evidence, there are some posters who are interested. When GT walks free, and he will be acquitted, if not by this court then by the Court of Appeal, there will be devastation on this thread with posters commenting that they can't understand how he was acquitted.

I am hoping with my comments that there might be at least a bit of understanding of how he will be acquitted after proper consideration of the admissible evidence.

I get defensive of suggestions that if he gets acquitted it will be because the legal players are lazy, incompetent or corrupt.

When the law ties the jury's hands behind their back, pokes a stick in one eye, and tells them to go and find that needle in the haystack ... something is not right with the system or the law. imo

.

 

[sweetcaro]

You cannot say definitively that she was choked or was not choked. The pathologist found no evidence of choking. That is your reasonable doubt. The onus is not on Tostee to prove his innocence.

Dr Little is being asked by Crown about strangulation again. She says there are also arm holds, in many cases don't leave marks. #tostee

She found no muscle injury or broken bone but did NOT rule it out. As she CLEARLY stated there are other forms of choking that are undetectable. I am sure If the judge thought there was no chance of choking having occurred he would not have given the Crown the opportunity to prosecute Tostee based on this very very very very very valid assumption.

[emoji35] [emoji35] [emoji35] [emoji35] [emoji35]

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

 

[TheOtherChristina]

I have a question for anyone who defends Tostee's choices. How do you envision the de-escalation playing out in a scenario in which Rrie does not fall from the balcony?

Let's posit for a moment that Tostee's intentions are good, no choking has taken place, his intent is to defuse the situation, and he has no reason to believe that she fears for her life.

He's inside. He's locked the balcony door. She's on the balcony. She is wearing pants, at a minimum. Her shoes are inside the apartment, as is her purse containing her ID, passport, keys and money. Her phone is unaccounted for. What happens next?

 

[CleverKnot]

One can actually, that is the prosecution's case, that she was choked and held in such a way as not to leave a mark, hence the murder charge.

Correct.

The case likely depends on defining at what moment after the door closes, do the consequences of her going over the balcony, no longer become his to bear.

 

[ahoy]

I've just been reading his trial posts under multiple user names elsewhere (on Big Footy, easy to spot, he can't help thanking his own posts lol). His deflection from other posters pondering the jury question concerning the metal object he was carrying, leads me to believe it was a crucial piece of evidence and he had to get rid of it.

That and his lies to his father about Warriena jumping, and not slipping while trying to get away, is enough for me to know he knows he is responsible for Warriena's terror and her death plunge.

His big footy messages are what brought me here. Do you agree the users Aware and Purlin are him?

 

[Myserty64]

Isn't there 'Double Jeopardy' law in QLD?

 

[SouthAussie]

I hear it.

I have also been part of more altercations with all kinds of outcomes than one person should be in one lifetime. Many, many times, the woman doesn't get the opportunity to have a glass door separating them. Yes. The opportunity. Perspective.

When they are physically separated, at what point do her actions stop being his responsibility, and once again become her own free will?

That is where a definition is almost impossible to create that can satisfy a law that can be applied fairly in a civil society. What works in one extreme, is not going to work in the other.

If you honk at a car, and that car crashes are you responsible for scaring the driver? If you scream fire in a building with no fire, are you responsible for the stampede? If you scream fire in a building, but only in one room, are you responsible for the deaths of those unaware that you could have maybe saved if you thought your actions fully through, but didn't. If you push a person to suicide, are you responsible? What if what you said was innocuous, and was wrongly interpreted as a hurtful comment?

BBM: When she has been released from her cage (his balcony) and is allowed to leave his apartment with her belongings.

 

[Rahamare]

The jury's analysis of the tape should come down to common sense. Common sense being sound practical judgement that is independent of specialized knowledge.
In other words, our own normal native intelligence that we all share as human beings.
The jury in this trial should be encouraged by the judge to use that very thing. Common sense. For example, the lack of words spoken by Warriena. The strangulation noises heard. That's common sense. The fear in her voice is common sense. His callous way of speaking is common sense. The number of times she says no. That's common sense. The sound of her voice in pleading is common sense. The chilling feeling you felt when listening is common sense. For the sake of us all, use common sense to put this man away so he can harm no more.

 

[Oddsocks]

But primarily gender based experiences.

What couple hasn't had a heated argument, where he regards his words as being brutally honest, and she views them as abusive, and possibly feels the hurt or fear?

If the disagreement becomes physical, is the man not typically the one put in the position of whether to act, or not act because of the obvious physical discrepancies?

The males here are definitely having trouble putting themselves in her position, and the females are having just as much trouble in the reverse.

I would hope that both males and females are having trouble putting themselves in GT's position.

 

[Bohemian]

The jury's analysis of the tape should come down to common sense. Common sense being sound practical judgement that is independent of specialized knowledge.
In other words, our own normal native intelligence that we all share as human beings.
The jury in this trial should be encouraged by the judge to use that very thing. Common sense. For example, the lack of words spoken by Warriena. The strangulation noises heard. That's common sense. The fear in her voice is common sense. His callous way of speaking is common sense. The number of times she says no. That's common sense. The sound of her voice in pleading is common sense. The chilling feeling you felt when listening is common sense. For the sake of us all, use common sense to put this man away so he can harm no more.

Yes, indeed, good old commonsense and conscience.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Isn't there 'Double Jeopardy' law in QLD?

This is what I found, Myserty.

“We are going to remove that barrier to justice for victims and their families.

“A retrial will be allowed for a past charge of murder when there is fresh and compelling evidence. It will also be allowed for past offences with 25 years or more imprisonment if the original acquittal is tainted

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/5/1/double-jeopardy-reform-means-justice-for-victims