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

[fairydust]

Catching up here.

Can someone please tell me how the media has defamed GT? IMO, he is not an "innocent man falsely accused" ... he was legitimately accused based in large part on his own recording of the events that led to Warriena's death, he was tried in a court of law based on bona fide evidence available, and he happened to be found "Not Guilty" according to law.

One example is where papers were still accusing him in 2015 of actually throwing Warriena off the balcony, when the police had acknowledged in late 2014 that wasn't the case at all.

A verdict of NG is absolutely NOT a declaration of innocence ..

It is. The jury of 6 men and 6 women have decided he is innocent. that is the process of law.

it simply means that the Crown was not able to convince all members of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly, which in legal terms, is innocent.

Thank you sillybilly. The vast majority of Australia and New Zealand fully agree.

Well said, I've personally canvassed all 26 million people in Australia and NZ, and can confirm you are correct. Phew, I'm tired

Exactly! Why is this so hard for some people to understand??

Lol

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urrent-Affair.html?ito=email_share_mobile-top

http://www.denipt.com.au/national/2016/10/20/56800/tostee-halts-legal-action-against-nine

http://www.australianherald.com/index.php/sid/248715057

http://cool.com.ng/gold-coast-man-g...wsuit-against-channel-nines-a-current-affair/

There are lots more links to suggest the case was dropped. I suspect GT would contribute to costs if there was in fact more damaging information regarding his contact with Stephanie Angus... It would seem that GT would only drop this so quickly if there was a reason it wasn't wise to proceed... IMO.

It's just he same article (identical text), not three different reports. GT would have spent considerable money getting his lawyer to shore this up, and I dont believe it would be dropped so quickly out of court, there is more to this than meets the eye. GT would not be contributing anything to their costs, as without it going to court they wouldn't be able to enforce a cost order against him. Sounds like BS to me.

Cant see much in the way of damages either. It's not like he was a Hollywood star and the articles destroyed his career.

You don't need to be famous, anyone's personal reputation is a commodity that you have to pay dearly for if you tarnish it publicly and unfairly. For eg, slander someone, and they get can $30K out of you quite easily.

 

[NatalieJones]

I think we should all wait for the Coroner's report. The Coroner will consider all of the evidence.

 

[NatalieJones]

The Coroner will listen to the whole recording, consider the evidence of a single handprint on the balcony rail, the evidence of Warriena's dangling feet facing outwards, the image of a chalk outline of a body below the balcony created before the accident, the mystery object in the CCTV and draw his/her own conclusions.

 

[LozDa]

One example is where papers were still accusing him in 2015 of actually throwing Warriena off the balcony, when the police had acknowledged in late 2014 that wasn't the case at all.

It is. The jury of 6 men and 6 women have decided he is innocent. that is the process of law.

Exactly, which in legal terms, is innocent.

Well said, I've personally canvassed all 26 million people in Australia and NZ, and can confirm you are correct. Phew, I'm tired

Lol

It's just he same article (identical text), not three different reports. GT would have spent considerable money getting his lawyer to shore this up, and I dont believe it would be dropped so quickly out of court, there is more to this than meets the eye. GT would not be contributing anything to their costs, as without it going to court they wouldn't be able to enforce a cost order against him. Sounds like BS to me.

You don't need to be famous, anyone's personal reputation is a commodity that you have to pay dearly for if you tarnish it publicly and unfairly. For eg, slander someone, and they get can $30K out of you quite easily.

BBM to reference part replied to me...

That's how the press works on most stories where a press release has been given or there's no additional info. I don't see that as being proof of it being false.

IMO.

 

[fairydust]

BBM to reference part replied to me... That's how the press works on most stories where a press release has been given or there's no additional info. I don't see that as being proof of it being false.
IMO.

That isnt what I said or even implied. You said "There are lots more links to suggest the case was dropped.". My point was lots more links are really not lots, but one article duplicated. Hence 3+ duplications of the same article dont trump one instance of the article I gave you. <modsnip>

Also the article I showed you was from Nine News itself, the outfit being sued. So my point is, who can you believe? I also stated that dropping the case so quickly in that manner was unlikely. GT wouldn't have a single reason to give them a cent, so I think the whole article is a furphy. Too many red herrings. IMHO

 

[LozDa]

That isnt what I said or even implied. You said "There are lots more links to suggest the case was dropped.". My point was lots more links are really not lots, but one article duplicated. Hence 3+ duplications of the same article dont trump one instance of the article I gave you. <modsnip>

Also the article I showed you was from Nine News itself, the outfit being sued. So my point is, who can you believe? I also stated that dropping the case so quickly in that manner was unlikely. GT wouldn't have a single reason to give them a cent, so I think the whole article is a furphy. Too many red herrings. IMHO

<modsnip>

I have read the article you linked a few times now and can't see the bit where Nine News says that the case is ongoing. Could you clarify?

GT's arguably sycophantic girlfriend claims he has enough cause and collated evidence to sue on defamation but doesn't mention that particular case or if in fact there is an ongoing defamation case. They are quoting her, not reporting that the case is ongoing. Subtle, yet important distinction.

If you could link an article that shows the particular defamation case being discussed is ongoing, without it being a vague quote from GT's girlfriend about defamation cases in general, then I'm more than prepared to discard the multiple, duplicated articles appearing all over news outlets.

Edit: BBM 2: Except for the reason I gave in my post a while back.

 

[Sillybilly]

It is. The jury of 6 men and 6 women have decided he is innocent. that is the process of law.

Exactly, which in legal terms, is innocent.

No, the jury decided he was Not Guilty.

This isn't our first rodeo. There is a legal difference between Not Guilty and Innocent. Again, a finding of NG does NOT indicate the person is innocent. The Crown must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That standard is not definitively established in legal circles, but is estimated to be approx. 95% (see http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutlaw.html) IOW, the jurors may have been 75% convinced or even 85% convinced of his guilt, but could not come in with a verdict of Guilty under the law !!

Unless Australia is much different from other countries in their common law, in order for a person to be declared innocent, they must apply to the courts for an actual "Declaration of Innocence" (or "Certificate of Innocence" in some jurisdictions; not sure what it is called in Australia). Such declarations/certificates are exceptionally difficult to get and are almost always denied.

I'll side with the Cornell University Law School on this one

from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent.

ETA: Just found this from criminal law lectures in Australia:
http://netk.net.au/CrimJustice/CrimJustice.asp

... If the verdict is &#8216;not guilty&#8217;, the accused will be acquitted by the court and cannot be recharged with the same or a similar offence that arises from the same circumstances, even if fresh evidence later comes to light. However, an acquittal does not mean that the person has been proved innocent. It means that the person has not been proved guilty and therefore retains the presumption of innocence ...

 

[Estelle]

I think we should all wait for the Coroner's report. The Coroner will consider all of the evidence.

When I read about this case below yesterday, I started wondering about the inquest for this case so I have bolded and put in italics the relevant parts. However, I doubt whether Warriena's family would do what Matt Leveson's father will be doing but it would be great to see Tostee being forced to answer questions for the first time.

Matthew Leveson vanished in the early hours of 23 September 2007. Amid a lover's tiff, he was last seen leaving gay nightclub ARQ in Darlinghurst with Mr Atkins, his much older boyfriend. Mr Atkins was arrested and charged with murder. There was a 2009 trial, lots of circumstantial evidence and the acquittal. Matt's body has never been found.

The coronial inquest has so far revealed new insight into the police investigation and the murder case they tried to build against Mr Atkins. Evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the 2009 trial has now been publicly aired at the inquest.

A person acquitted of murder compelled to give evidence under questioning from the dead man&#8217;s father? "This is almost precedent-setting," Mr Leveson told nine.com.au about the inquest.

Each session at the inquest, which began in December last year, Mr Leveson, an accountant, takes a position front and centre in the courtroom. Matthew&#8217;s father sits alongside a panel of three lawyers, including counsel for Mr Atkins.

Throughout the inquest Mr Leveson has always maintained the family want answers.

"The role of the inquest is to find the manner and cause of Matt's death, which we know won't occur because there is no body," Mr Leveson explained. "But we can delve into grey areas of the investigation, which is what we are doing. We're looking at the evidence that was available at the time of trial in a different way to see what else we can find.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ded-for-dramatic-showdown#y73ryaxWhVePdG4D.99

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip>

I have read the article you linked a few times now and can't see the bit where Nine News says that the case is ongoing. Could you clarify?

GT's arguably sycophantic girlfriend claims he has enough cause and collated evidence to sue on defamation but doesn't mention that particular case or if in fact there is an ongoing defamation case. They are quoting her, not reporting that the case is ongoing. Subtle, yet important distinction.

If you could link an article that shows the particular defamation case being discussed is ongoing, without it being a vague quote from GT's girlfriend about defamation cases in general, then I'm more than prepared to discard the multiple, duplicated articles appearing all over news outlets.

Edit: BBM 2: Except for the reason I gave in my post a while back.

I agree. The defamation case is not ongoing, LozDa. The case never had a chance. If Tostee did not want Stephanie Angus to publicly speak of the Tinder message that he sent to her, then perhaps he should not have sent it.
(AND he agreed to pay toward Ch 9's costs regarding the attempted defamation case - not because they would have sued him for their costs - no, not at all - but because he is one heck of a nice guy :hilarious: )


Gable Tostee has dropped a $150,000 lawsuit against Nine Network program A Current Affair.

Tostee, 30, was suing the Australian program and producer Stephanie Angus over what he alleged were defamatory comments broadcast on August 12, 2014 before he was charged with Warriena Wright's murder.

A Current Affair executive producer Grant Williams said the case was no longer in court.

'Mr Tostee dropped all proceedings against Nine and the producer who appeared in the story and agreed to make a financial contribution to our costs,' Mr Williams said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-against-Channel-Nine-s-Current-Affair.html

 

[Bohemian]

I met up with a friend, who is also a criminal Defence barrister* and this trial came up as a topic of conversation. Before I could tell him my [lay] opinion on the verdict he offered his own, ie; 'He is legally 'Not Guilty' but that doesn't mean he is not morally guilty for her [Warriena's] death.'.

He is very busy as the courts are 'clearing their books' before the end of the calendar year so there was no time available to ask him for a legal definition of a 'Not Guilty' verdict. Although I will see him over the weekend, I'll ask him about it during the coming week. [I'm sure even Darth Vader needed a little R&R.]
__________

*Yes I have chided him for 'going over to the Dark Side'.

 

[otto]

It's rather a sad day when someone is found not guilty of murder and still that is not enough to lift the cloud of suspicion.

 

[LozDa]

It's rather a sad day when someone is found not guilty of murder and still that is not enough to lift the cloud of suspicion.

Why is it? Imagine you have a staff of three. Money is taken from the petty cash. One was away, one is known for being an upstanding citizen who is well respected and trusted and one has a history of petty crime and theft... You might not have enough proof that that particular member of staff took the money and by law they would probably be found not guilty. However, that certainly wouldn't lift your suspicion. And it's a perfectly reasonable suspicion. As it is in this case.

Once more a little louder: Not Guilty does not mean innocent.

 

[Bohemian]

It's rather a sad day when someone is found not guilty of murder and still that is not enough to lift the cloud of suspicion.

Otto, with all due respect, it is an even sadder day when a traumatised and vulnerable young woman loses her life because an equally traumatised and aggressive young man uses restrictive practices severe enough to constrict her breathing to the point where it triggers in her a 'fight or flight' response so intense that she tries to escape via the only route left open to her and risks an inevitable fall.

A young, beautiful, compassionate woman was quite literally 'scared to death'. A handsome, intelligent and privileged young man has not been afforded the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions.

No, this outcome is 'not [justice] enough' for either Warriena nor Gable. I find this fact rather sad, not for one day but every day.

 

[otto]

Why is it? Imagine you have a staff of three. Money is taken from the petty cash. One was away, one is known for being an upstanding citizen who is well respected and trusted and one has a history of petty crime and theft... You might not have enough proof that that particular member of staff took the money and by law they would probably be found not guilty. However, that certainly wouldn't lift your suspicion. And it's a perfectly reasonable suspicion. As it is in this case.

Once more a little louder: Not Guilty does not mean innocent.

The purpose of a trial is not solely to convict people, but rather to identify the truth. Whether we like it or not, the truth here is that he is not responsible for her death.

 

[Bohemian]

'Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.'

William Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Prologue)

When Doves Cry

 

[SouthAussie]

The purpose of a trial is not solely to convict people, but rather to identify the truth. Whether we like it or not, the truth here is that he is not responsible for her death.

I think we all know that the truth does not necessarily come out in a trial. Sure, it is the intention, but not always the result. OJ Simpson?

Unfortunately, when one party is deceased, only one side gets to tell their story. In this case, the story was told through a recording engineered by the defendant. And later, in a closing statement by his very high-priced lawyer who blatantly fabricated events to instill that 'reasonable doubt' into a jury who had already had its hands tied by MOST of the other evidence being disallowed by the judge. The reason for that, we will probably never know. 'Legal arguments' is the only answer we can seem to get.

 

[otto]

I think we all know that the truth does not necessarily come out in a trial. Sure, it is the intention, but not always the result. OJ Simpson?

Unfortunately, when one party is deceased, only one side gets to tell their story. In this case, the story was told through a recording engineered by the defendant. And later, in a closing statement by his very high-priced lawyer who blatantly fabricated events to instill that 'reasonable doubt' into a jury who had already had its hands tied by MOST of the other evidence being disallowed by the judge. The reason for that, we will probably never know. 'Legal arguments' is the only answer we can seem to get.

There's a complete transcript of what was said between them leading up to, and after, the murder. My impression is that she was on the balcony and he was in the apartment at the time she fell.

 

[SouthAussie]

There's a complete transcript of what was said between them leading up to, and after, the murder. My impression is that she was on the balcony and he was in the apartment at the time she fell.

Your impression is fine for you. But those of us who have listened to the whole 199 min recording have our own feelings about this case.

The Crown's case is that she was choked (she was), tackled to the ground (she was), manhandled out onto the balcony (she was), locked out on the balcony with no means of escape (she was), terrified (she was), deprived of her belongings (she was), not allowed to leave (also true), and tried to escape to a lower balcony to get away from her attacker.

Despite the simple facts like Tostee depriving Warriena of her liberty and continuously pouring her his (illegal) home-brewed 'white' liquor, he also had a duty of care to this invited guest to his apartment. A duty of care that did not include undue, over-the-top assault and deprivation of liberty.

As we have said many, many times .... call a taxi and bundle her into it, call the police, put her out the front door of the apartment a few metres away ... there were many other options available to Tostee.

BUT, Tostee was already up on high range drunk dangerous driving charges, involving a police chase and road spikes to stop him, trial pending. He did not need Warriena going to the police.

^^ His 4th or 5th drunk driving charge.

 

[Bohemian]

There's a complete transcript of what was said between them leading up to, and after, the murder*. My impression is that she was on the balcony and he was in the apartment at the time she fell.

The transcript was not the evidence. The complete recording is. The question left unanswered post-trial is not what, who, when, when, or possibly how but why? Listen to the recording, such as it was when found and entered into evidence. Then look deeper into the life of its producer. See if your perspective changes as others' have.

* The Crown prosecuted a case predicated on a murder charge but IMO it was not. It was similar to a lesser crime with 'mitigating circumstances'.

 

[LozDa]

There's a complete transcript of what was said between them leading up to, and after, the murder. My impression is that she was on the balcony and he was in the apartment at the time she fell.

There's no argument from me that you are entitled to believe he is innocent, but saying he was found innocent and therefore we can't believe in his guilt is not correct.

He was found not guilty and in my opinion this was the only decision the jury could have reached with the evidence they were allowed to consider, but I also believe it was a disappointing outcome and that he is, in fact, guilty. I can tell you the reasons I think that, just as you can tell me the reasons you think he's innocent.

But essentially, it's all conjecture. GT is the only one who knows the truth and we either trust what he says, or we don't.

I don't. You do. That's life, I guess.