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

[LozDa]

IT doesn't seem worth it. Most of my posts trying to analyse the evidence have been deleted. I have been blocked by several members who joyfully announce it as they do it. I get the impression that most members aren't really interested in the legal aspects of the case.

The clues are all there.

Being verified means that when you are speaking about 'legal aspects of the case', members know that it is not just being purported as correct, but actually is correct. Therefore, they might be more interested......

 

[jessicalouise]

That's a very good point. But I understand the cynical comments of the original commenter on the Coronial referral. The police were trying to make it sound like the Coroner could somehow change the verdict.

Well the OC doesn't show much regard for the basic intelligence of the posters on this forum.

 

[John Dillinger]

Good Lord EldeFruit.....Are you STILL HERE.....I thought you quoted "THE END" hours ago.

You have put more time & effort into this thread "than all the rest of us put together"
Aren't you feeling a little weary yet ?:bedtime:.......illowfight:.....fftobed:.....illowfight2:.....:bedtime:

He's trying to keep the Witch Hunters at bay...lol

 

[jessicalouise]

But it's not the answer either. Our young gen's (tech kids) are using Tinder, Happ'n and whatever is hot at the moment to meet people. Even PokemonGo has been used to meet people.

Our laws should protect people, regardless if they meet up via an app/ at a bar or at church/ Uni. That includes if they visit another's home/ car or balcony.

Legal system failure as far as I'm concerned & I can see it being an issue again in the future


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with this. Technology and the app in question is not the problem here and never was.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

The clues are all there.

Being verified means that when you are speaking about 'legal aspects of the case', members know that it is not just being purported as correct, but actually is correct. Therefore, they might be more interested......

Having spoken to other lawyers who have been on this site, my experience is not unique. The open hostility towards members who don't concur with the majority is the reason there is a paucity of verified legal opinion on here.

 

[SouthAussie]

Got a feeling everyone posting here would read the book or watch the TV movie or his interview.

:hilarious: Not me! I know far too much about his sordid life as it is, thanks to this case.

 

[LozDa]

Having spoken to other lawyers who have been on this site, my experience is not unique. The open hostility towards members who don't concur with the majority is the reason there is a paucity of verified legal opinion on here.

Well, I'd be interested to hear a moderator's perspective on this. Not sure how they can gauge whether you hold a majority position or not when verifying you. Do you always take the converse to majority position on all cases? Or are you saying they have done that to lawyers on this specific case?

 

[BreakingNews]

Good to know. And good that young women are seeing the danger that can lurk on some of those sites.

And it is not just the young women avoiding these sites...

 

[jessicalouise]

Having spoken to other lawyers who have been on this site, my experience is not unique. The open hostility towards members who don't concur with the majority is the reason there is a paucity of verified legal opinion on here.

The law, dare i say it, can be very dry and depressing. I don't think the reason most people come to this forum is necessarily for the "legal" aspect. Though i'm sure some do and it has its place occasionally. Especially when needing more info about certain aspects or certain things explained.

Thing is, the law may be the law, but the law is not necessarily the whole truth. Anyone who has been a victim of crime can attest to this. The legal system often lets people down. I can talk about my own two experiences of how it has. Murder trials are never about the victim, they're about the accused. Every lawyer i know and have worked with thinks our justice system is great and they like their job and respect "the law", but they're seeing it from a very different perspective than the rest of us.

Being able to talk about things that aren't admissible in court (for example) is important, but is totally frowned upon by those in the legal fraternity.

Sometimes it is about the ~feels~.

 

[Karinna]

And it is not just the young women avoiding these sites...

Fair enough.

 

[insidecircle]

Having spoken to other lawyers who have been on this site, my experience is not unique. The open hostility towards members who don't concur with the majority is the reason there is a paucity of verified legal opinion on here.

Hit the nail on the head. Taking the view of examining only the evidence as presented in Court appears to be heavily frowned upon on this forum, to the point where you are vilified.

 

[Karinna]

Got a feeling everyone posting here would read the book or watch the TV movie or his interview.

Well not me that's for sure uke:

 

[Safeguard]

I am neither a regular, nor entrenched. I have a brain however, so am therefore capable of independent thought. I am also perfectly capable of technical and dispassionate commentary. It's the word 'respectful' that's missing though.

I do love the way you use your words though .

See? I can skirt around rules by using facetiousness too.

Great post!

 

[insidecircle]

Clinical and dispassionate is one thing, talking down to and being condescending is another. Also ignoring people's outrage and venting lacks empathy and why would anyone welcome a lack of that?

It's important to be able to read the tone of a discussion and not try to intentionally pee people off.

He/she has provided very logical responses from a legal point of view to help understand how the correct decision based on the evidence was not guilty. There is no place for emotions when examining the evidence at hand in order to come to a rational conclusion. Display of emotion appears to have some correlation to lack of understanding of the acquittal.

 

[Elde Fruit]

I am neither a regular, nor entrenched. I have a brain however, so am therefore capable of independent thought. I am also perfectly capable of technical and dispassionate commentary. It's the word 'respectful' that's missing though.

I do love the way you use your words though .

See? I can skirt around rules by using facetiousness too.

BBM. Sorry, no I don't, and I saw no facetiousness in what you posted, but let's leave it at that.

 

[SouthAussie]

The law, dare i say it, can be very dry and depressing. I don't think the reason most people come to this forum is necessarily for the "legal" aspect. Though i'm sure some do and it has its place occasionally. Especially when needing more info about certain aspects or certain things explained.

Thing is, the law may be the law, but the law is not necessarily the whole truth. Anyone who has been a victim of crime can attest to this. The legal system often lets people down. I can talk about my own two experiences of how it has. Murder trials are never about the victim, they're about the accused. Every lawyer i know and have worked with thinks our justice system is great and they like their job and respect "the law", but they're seeing it from a very different perspective than the rest of us.

Being able to talk about things that aren't admissible in court (for example) is important, but is totally frowned upon by those in the legal fraternity.

Sometimes it is about the ~feels~.

I agree, jessica. It is also about not being talked down to, because we are all intelligent human beings who like to analyse and research our subject(s). We do not come from a position of no knowledge. And because we disagree with any particular laws, does not mean that we can't understand the law and still disagree with it.

My pet peeve is the laws that protect pedos. I am sure lawyers will give us every reason in the book why those laws are 'correct'. But they are not. And these creeps should not be protected with privacy and set free over and over again to rape and molest more children. We have a right to protect our children, and part of that protection is having a public national sex offender registry. But that is a subject for another forum .....

 

[jessicalouise]

Hit the nail on the head. Taking the view of examining only the evidence as presented in Court appears to be heavily frowned upon on this forum, to the point where you are vilified.

Maybe because that's what the court is for ...?
And we are not have those same constraints.

 

[SouthAussie]

Hit the nail on the head. Taking the view of examining only the evidence as presented in Court appears to be heavily frowned upon on this forum, to the point where you are vilified.

Cold and clinical is not our way. Not on this victim-friendly website.

 

[sosocurious]

“I asked not to release the audio tape yet I was overruled by the judge,” Ms Tagpuno Wright’s statement said. “I did not want to remember her like that.

“I feel my family has been disrespected by the judge’s ruling to release the audio tape to the media.”

Mr Tostee’s lawyer, Nick Dore, defended the release of the recording after the trial, telling Channel Ten’s The Project it ensured his client received a fair trial.

“Obviously luckily it was recorded. Otherwise if it wasn’t … no one would have believed what transpired that night,” Mr Dore said ............

It also emerged after the trial that Mr Tostee has dropped a $150,000 lawsuit against the Nine Network’s A Current Affair program..............

Mr Tostee was suing the program and producer Stephanie Angus over what he alleged were defamatory comments broadcast on August 12, 2014 before he was charged with Ms Wright’s murder.

A Current Affair executive producer Grant Williams told AAP the case was no longer in court and that Mr Tostee agreed to make “a financial contribution” to the program’s costs.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2016/10/20/wright-family-tostee/

 

[LozDa]

BBM. Sorry, no I don't, and I saw no facetiousness in what you posted, but let's leave it at that.

BBM

arty: