Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question! Does the judge get to "phone a friend" in these situations or just go through law definitions and previous case's??:thinking:
I would really like to know the answer.....if anyone knows it please :)
And another question! Does the jury get a "cheat sheet" everything in say dot points and a layman's interpretation of what the judge says in his answers? TIA
 
.... and forcibly holding her down is what then? Fun?

No. It seems that was the way he prevented a continuation of her assault upon him with the rocks. Please keep in mind that the Crown did not contest that she did unlawfully assault him with those rocks.

Someone is throwing rocks at me. I move to them and grab them, even take them to the floor. They then sieze a nearby metal object and unlawfully assault me with that. Such an assault could have killed me, or caused me grievous bodily harm. Okay, I conclude, 'You are going out there,' and I remove them to the balcony of my 14th Floor Unit, and shut the sliding door. Next thing I know........they have disappeared.
 
The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

The concern the use of force by the accused in reliance of what he said, as distinct from what he did, in the three particularised episodes - that is, the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused in the three acts particularised not with any menace that might have been presented by the words the accused used that accompanied the use of force used by him.



Does anyone care to explain this, I'm as thick as some of the jury, obviously.

What I can gather, did Tostee act on his threats? eg: I'll throw you off the balcony. I'll knock you out!
There are four defences used that we at home are not aware of? There is a breakdown of 3 particular episodes, we're not privy too also?

Just picture your daughter and find him guilty of murder.

There's really no need to make this harder. Jmo. The jury needs to wake up.
 
I would really like to know the answer.....if anyone knows it please :)
And another question! Does the jury get a "cheat sheet" everything in say dot points and a layman's interpretation of what the judge says in his answers? TIA

My guess is that he looks at precedence, and can quietly phone a friend (fellow high court judge) to consult, if needed. But, being a high court judge, he would have a good grip on the law and precedence.

I just wish some of them would set a new precedence sometimes! I have felt that in other cases. Have some nerve, set a new precedence, see it through the court of appeals, and make things right. (I'm not necessarily talking about this case here).
 
CleverKnot posted:



I agree. The more out of left field questions they ask suggests, if there is a conviction, this is a Jury acting perversely, acting contrary to instructions, and on a fishing expedition of their own.

I agree.
 
This is now becoming excruciatingly painful. I reckon one jury member reckons they're Sherlock Holmes.
 
My guess is that he looks at precedence, and can quietly phone a friend (fellow high court judge) to consult, if needed. But, being a high court judge, he would have a good grip on the law and precedence.

I just wish some of them would set a new precedence sometimes! I have felt that in other cases. Have some nerve, set a new precedence, see it through the court of appeals, and make things right. (I'm not necessarily talking about this case here).

Thanks SouthAussie :) I agree some laws need changing, and new precedence set, IMO it has to be done carefully so those new precedence are not used in the wrong way iygwim?
 
Big thanks to all the WS members that are exercising restraint. Keeping the thread open for Warriena! :happydance:
 
I've not been following very closely, so please forgive my very basic question...
The jury are deliberating - but in what charge, murder or manslaughter? Or can they choose? I cannot remember how this works... TIA [emoji8]
 
attachment.php
If you watch any UFC or MMA fight, you will see that choking someone to the point of unconsciousness takes mere seconds. Less than 5. Much less than 45. No need to take anyone's word on it.

If the intent was to choke her out, or kill her, it likely would have happened. Everyone agrees he has a massive physical advantage over her. The reality of the situation is that he let up on her.

Like it or not, putting her out there and walking away is just as much a sign of de-escalation on his part, as it is some sort of threat.

Even if the "threat" to throw her off of the balcony was said with complete intent, he had the opportunity to do it, and walked away.
 
You say that as if it is difficult to know what is likely to have happened? His threats are clear, his ability to overpower her obvious, her fear of him unquestionable while she is begging to be allowed to go home. I don't see that it's any reach at all?


BBM.

I did not make that comment specific to this case, rather it was a general remark about some popular responses when there is a death not from natural causes.
 
If you watch any UFC or MMA fight, you will see that choking someone to the point of unconsciousness takes mere seconds. Less than 5. Much less than 45. No need to take anyone's word on it.

If the intent was to choke her out, or kill her, it likely would have happened. Everyone agrees he has a massive physical advantage over her. The reality of the situation is that he let up on her.

Like it or not, putting her out there and walking away is just as much a sign of de-escalation on his part, as it is some sort of threat.

Even if the "threat" to throw her off of the balcony was said with complete intent, he had the opportunity to do it, and walked away.

BBM

That very point has been made here often, and ignored. It is spot on.
 
I keep coming back to the point where the whole thing escalated. I'm only going by the transcript cos I can't find the audio with the whole thing.

2.09am: Male states she is a 'woos' and offers her food. Says that if she 'was going to go all kung fu on me then I will kick your *advertiser censored**'. Calm conversation.
2.10am: Sound of a struggle. Female: 'That really hurt my vagina.' Male laughing and female replies: 'You sound like a *advertiser censored****'.
Obviously he's not going to like being called a ****** after being called one a million times by his fellow brahs, but I don't think this is what flips him.
2.12am: Male states, she is insane. Male say: 'Alright I give up what do you want' There is a loud bang and he says, 'oww'.
2.12.31am: Male say: 'I will do what you want. I will be your sex slave (possibly having rocks thrown)'.
2.13am: Male says: 'Alright, that is enough, That is enough.' ...female says, 'no seriously, I have to have a ****.'
She can't go to the toilet. She's restrained. The way she says "no, seriously, I have to have a ****" she's reiterating the fact she needs to poo. Does she say it more than once in the actual audio or has she been partially restrained the whole time and is throwing pebbles at him obstinately because she wants to leave/go to the toilet? She was tied up earlier in the night. Anyhoo, he is annoyed at this point.
2.14AM: Male says, 'You are not my kind of girl. You have worn out your welcome. You have to leave. Female says. 'ok, it is all good.' Female out of breath. Male states, 'you have to leave'. Female replies 'OK. It's all good'. He says, 'I thought you were a nice girl.'
She's agreeing to leave here. He's restraining her. She isn't breathing properly.
2.14.51am: Male says, you are *advertiser censored**ing insane'.
2.15am: Male states I think you are kidding but you are not. Go on right now. Male states — I do need a sample of DNA.
He's talking about her need to poo here. He thinks she's kidding, just trying to trick him into letting her go from however he's restraining her, which is what I wondered as well, if she thought telling him she needed to poo would make him let her go. But he calls her bluff - go on right now (poo), and makes his stupid joke about dna.
2.15.31am: Male says, 'I thought you were kidding and I have taken enough. This is *advertiser censored**ing bull**** ... you are lucky I haven't chucked you off my balcony you god damn psycho little b**** ... who the *advertiser censored** do you think you ..'.
What happened here?? It's a matter of moments after he's joking about needing her dna and calling her bluff about needing to poo. Something happens that escalates the situation. I thought you were kidding about what? Needing to poo?? What happened here?
2.16am: 'What. What - got something to say- say it.' Female breathing heavily. Female states '(unintelligible) sexist'. Male replies, 'yeah right. I am the one who is injured. You don't have a god damn scratch on you'.
He's obviously restricting her ability to speak. The "what? what? got something to say? say it" is a taunt. He's taunting her because he knows she's not in a position where she can reply easily. Probably gagging her or choking her. The response from her is intriguing. It's not your usual run of the mill insult. She insulted him with fa**ot earlier, something a lot of people say because it's supposed to be insulting to men. This time, though, she calls him a sexist which is interesting.
2.16.51am: Male states: 'I thought that you were just playing around but I am *advertiser censored**ing sick of this s***. You're a god damn psycho. I am going to let you go. I am going to walk you out of this apartment just the way you are.
'You are not going to collect any of your belongings, you are just going to walk out and I am going to slam the door on you, do you understand. If you try and pull anything. I'll knock you out, I'll knock you the *advertiser censored** out. Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand?
This is also weird. "just the way you are". I don't think this is just about her belongings. I think there was something about her appearance that he thought would humiliate her if he was to walk her out just the way she was in that moment.
 
I've not been following very closely, so please forgive my very basic question...
The jury are deliberating - but in what charge, murder or manslaughter? Or can they choose? I cannot remember how this works... TIA [emoji8]

I believe they can choose, both are on the table
 
Jury in the Gable Tostee murder trial returns to the courtroom with another note for the judge.

Does Gable Tostee listen to rap music?
 
My guess is that he looks at precedence, and can quietly phone a friend (fellow high court judge) to consult, if needed. But, being a high court judge, he would have a good grip on the law and precedence.

I just wish some of them would set a new precedence sometimes! I have felt that in other cases. Have some nerve, set a new precedence, see it through the court of appeals, and make things right. (I'm not necessarily talking about this case here).
See the Mustafa Ururyar case in Canada.
 
I've not been following very closely, so please forgive my very basic question...
The jury are deliberating - but in what charge, murder or manslaughter? Or can they choose? I cannot remember how this works... TIA [emoji8]
They can consider both, apparently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,840
Total visitors
2,920

Forum statistics

Threads
592,395
Messages
17,968,322
Members
228,766
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top