Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karinna said:
I know i can't believe they couldn't even find him guilty of manslaughter because they didn't have to prove intent with that. I know people think the judge is a good one, but i think he almost pushed them to a no guilty verdict after answering some of those questions to the jurors.
Click to expand...

I was on a murder jury once, two defendants. We agreed unanimously that one was guilty and the other was not guilty. The following week a few of us went back for the sentencing. One of the jurors said to me that she hoped she had made the right decision, she thought if everyone else was sure, she had to agree. I was really shocked.
 
I'm off to watch a few comedy programs and get some sleep. Then a round (or two or 10!) of kick-boxing on my heavy bag (maybe I'll even take my bat to it), Pilates and a swim tomorrow. That, and more moving meditations should see me right.

Goodnight my darling Websleuthers :eek:fftobed:
 
I just saw this post on my Facebook. One of the things my contact said: 'Tostee was acquitted from accusations that he pushed her off the balcony but he should be tried for restraining someone against their will...and depriving her of her liberty...."

I have no idea if she expects him to be charged with this in the future or that she meant to say "should have been tried....."

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data...3/sd-bb-104a-deprivation-of-liberty-s-355.pdf

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined1
or detained2
another in any place against the
other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived3
another of the other person’s
personal liberty.4

2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or
excused by law.
Detain means keep in confinement or under restraint. Restraint can be
exercised by threats. The defendant does not have to use force or physical
restraints. If the defendant compels the person by threats to remain in a
place against that person’s will, that is sufficient. Depriving of liberty
simply means taking away the free choice of a person to move about as he
or she wants.

Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 355. Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person's will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person's personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 355 355 Deprivation of liberty - AustLII
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s355.html

But as far as the law was concerned in this case, Tostee lawfully deprived Warriena of her liberty so he could not even be charged for that!
 
I learned a few new things this last week:

1. There is a subset of Australian society which refers to men and women in terms I'd never heard before.

2. The CWA is a self-funded volunteer philanthropic organisation which aims to improve the welfare of women and children in particular through community service. Membership is open to all Australian women, not just country women, and in fact there is a branch in the suburb next to mine. In addition to cookbooks, their shop sells jams and pickles and all sorts of useful things like handmade pottery, shopping bags, pens, teatowels and aprons.

3. A balcony is not necessarily part of the property it is attached to. My partner's response to that piece of information: "Well that just beggars belief."

I might just look into the CWA. :cupcake:
 
It seems clear that this girl was acting pretty crazy. My guess is that he recorded things because when the situation started going south he did not want her coming up with a different version of events later, as the girl is pretty much always believed over the guy in he said/she said situations. And if things did get to the point where police showed up, you can bet that her version would have been quite different from what was on the recording, and he would probably have been going to jail. No doubt that was on his mind. It is easy to be critical of his actions after the fact, but if you were in his situation, facing the certain knowledge of how things would play out if the police did arrive, would you act any different?

If he had not recorded the events there is no question that he would have been accused of throwing her off the balcony.

He did not do anything to her, other than lock her on the balcony to cool down. No reasonable person would expect such an individual to try to climb down from the 14th floor. It may be tragic, but the girl was pretty much solely to blame for her own death IMO.

I think that the jury reached the correct decision, the charges should never have been brought in the first place.
 
Tugela said:
It seems clear that this girl was acting pretty crazy. My guess is that he recorded things because when the situation started going south he did not want her coming up with a different version of events later, as the girl is pretty much always believed over the guy in he said/she said situations. And if things did get to the point where police showed up, you can bet that her version would have been quite different from what was on the recording, and he would probably have been going to jail. No doubt that was on his mind. It is easy to be critical of his actions after the fact, but if you were in his situation, facing the certain knowledge of how things would play out if the police did arrive, would you act any different?

If he had not recorded the events there is no question that he would have been accused of throwing her off the balcony.

He did not do anything to her, other than lock her on the balcony to cool down. No reasonable person would expect such an individual to try to climb down from the 14th floor. It may be tragic, but the girl was pretty much solely to blame for her own death IMO.

I think that the jury reached the correct decision, the charges should never have been brought in the first place.
Click to expand...

I take issue with this part in bold, and so I must conclude what leads from it does not pass the test of objectivity.
 
Kitsune said:
Hi everyone :) regarding the tape

I have been the person recorded before; with no knowledge of the fact the recording was taking place. While this was done on the phone (the recorder put their phone on speaker, to record us both), there is a certain tone and way that this person spoke, that at the time I thought “Are they trying to make out that this conversation isn’t happening like it is? Are they acting?”, but I didn’t know it was being recorded. This happened multiple times, the person liked to play mind games, it was their “thing”. I didn’t know about the recordings until they were given to me, after the person that had recorded them moved out of the house they were sharing and left the tapes behind. The person that recorded them used to use them for *advertiser censored* and giggles when having drinks, to show how tough they were to impress their friends.


I wanted to hear the full recording so I could see if I can pick any of the acting up, so far I am an hour in. IMO the media have taken pretty big liberty sniping in and out parts and not having them in the full context/order of events, or even getting right who said what in the audio transcript! I have picked up many different things; well I hear it, different to how the media have been portraying the whole evening. It even sounds like WW is making herself a drink at one point, the section where he is talking about “vodka on the rocks” which I believe he is referring to the rocks; I think she put them into the glass. GT is definitely “talking to the tape”/acting when WW first mentions calling the police, trying to coax her to say that she has hit him IMO


I don’t feel right listening, as I know in my situation it was absolutely humiliating having people hear the recorded conversation and I know her poor mum didn’t want it played in court.
Click to expand...

It had to be played because it showed exactly what happened leading up to her trying to climb down from the balcony. I expect that he recorded what was going on because her behavior was sufficiently disturbing for him to feel that he needed to be able to protect himself from whatever accusations she might make later. As things turned out, the decision to record what was going on is what saved him from being accused of murdering her (well, they did that anyway even though it was obvious that he had done no such thing). If he had not done that he would have got a life sentence for murder one. Instead the truth of the events that night is clear, all because of the recording.
 
Tortoise said:
I take issue with this part in bold, and so I must conclude what leads from it does not pass the test of objectivity.
Click to expand...

I must be missing something then. What did he do other than lock her on the balcony?
 
Tugela said:
It seems clear that this girl was acting pretty crazy. My guess is that he recorded things because when the situation started going south he did not want her coming up with a different version of events later, as the girl is pretty much always believed over the guy in he said/she said situations. And if things did get to the point where police showed up, you can bet that her version would have been quite different from what was on the recording, and he would probably have been going to jail. No doubt that was on his mind. It is easy to be critical of his actions after the fact, but if you were in his situation, facing the certain knowledge of how things would play out if the police did arrive, would you act any different?

If he had not recorded the events there is no question that he would have been accused of throwing her off the balcony.

He did not do anything to her, other than lock her on the balcony to cool down. No reasonable person would expect such an individual to try to climb down from the 14th floor. It may be tragic, but the girl was pretty much solely to blame for her own death IMO.

I think that the jury reached the correct decision, the charges should never have been brought in the first place.
Click to expand...

Are you a friend of his ???
 
Tugela said:
It seems clear that this girl was acting pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

edited by me for brevity.

you familiar with the psychology and psychiatric makeup of both the deceased and Mr Tostee?.. your qualifications are??

and you seem to have a remarkable capacity to actually read the mind of a person now deceased and read the mind of Mr Tostee... how did you manage to do this?
 
Tugela said:
I must be missing something then. What did he do other than lock her on the balcony?
Click to expand...

The thread(s) is full of what he did, Tugela. As is MSM.

He audibly tackled her to the floor, choked her, verbally threatened her "I would have let you go home, but you have been a bad girl", "I will fking knock you out" .... and pretty much terrified her to death.

His very creepy history with women also precedes him. Recording them, posting the info on another forum, laughing with the brahs about the sloots.
If you heard the full recording you may understand more.

We truly have not been acting as a lynch squad on a kind (not), caring (not), picked-on 28 (now 30) year old man.
He has documented mental issues, too, not that they are ANY excuse. And has dangerous, violent prior convictions.
 
it must be so satisfying and so ... well.. handy .. to be able to read peoples minds.. the living and the dead!!.. now.. that's talent..
 
Tugela said:
It had to be played because it showed exactly what happened leading up to her trying to climb down from the balcony. I expect that he recorded what was going on because her behavior was sufficiently disturbing for him to feel that he needed to be able to protect himself from whatever accusations she might make later. As things turned out, the decision to record what was going on is what saved him from being accused of murdering her (well, they did that anyway even though it was obvious that he had done no such thing). If he had not done that he would have got a life sentence for murder one. Instead the truth of the events that night is clear, all because of the recording.
Click to expand...

This was not Tostee's first rodeo. He was in the habit of recording his dates so he could brag about it on the internet. He freaked out another girl prior to Warriena and manhandled her out on the balcony to the point she fled from him, and luckily she was able to. He freaked her out to the point she deleted all her social media. Tostee has a bad history. He is a slimebag.IMO
 
Trooper said:
it must be so satisfying and so ... well.. handy .. to be able to read peoples minds.. the living and the dead!!.. now.. that's talent..
Click to expand...

Yeah wonder what the secret to that is?
 
Karinna said:
Yeah wonder what the secret to that is?
Click to expand...

I don't know!!. .. maybe it's genetic.. I just don't know.. I wonder if our poster can read anyone's mind? or is the gift confined to Warriena and Tostee.. how unfortunate if that is the case, since one isn't on earth anymore, and the other has a mind that would be the most boring read in history. Also, I suspect , the smallest mind.. all done in 30 seconds..
 
Estelle said:
I just saw this post on my Facebook. One of the things my contact said: 'Tostee was acquitted from accusations that he pushed her off the balcony but he should be tried for restraining someone against their will...and depriving her of her liberty...."

I have no idea if she expects him to be charged with this in the future or that she meant to say "should have been tried....."

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data...3/sd-bb-104a-deprivation-of-liberty-s-355.pdf

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined1
or detained2
another in any place against the
other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived3
another of the other person’s
personal liberty.4

2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or
excused by law.
Detain means keep in confinement or under restraint. Restraint can be
exercised by threats. The defendant does not have to use force or physical
restraints. If the defendant compels the person by threats to remain in a
place against that person’s will, that is sufficient. Depriving of liberty
simply means taking away the free choice of a person to move about as he
or she wants.

Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 355. Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person's will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person's personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 355 355 Deprivation of liberty - AustLII
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s355.html

But as far as the law was concerned in this case, Tostee lawfully deprived Warriena of her liberty so he could not even be charged for that!
Click to expand...

I posted about this a ways ago. It's "False Imprisonment under the Law". But i don't know if he can be charged separately for this now? Might be something Warriena's family could pursue with an attorney?
 
Karinna said:
I agree and that is why i think there should be professional jurors for high profile cases like murder, IMO.
Click to expand...

Karinna, this is a very interesting thought. One that I had never considered before.
On thinking on it a little, I think that there may be some validity. At least in having a professional foreperson to help out in the jury room ... or something like that.
Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 4,482 (members: 203, guests: 4,279)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
4,279
Total visitors
4,482
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,431
Messages
17,968,819
Members
228,768
Latest member
clancehan
Back
Top