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

[Cleaver Greene]

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?

I wasn't suggesting that my position had anything to do with not being verified.<modsnip>

I take a legal position and look at the evidence objectively. On this forum an objective analysis has been unwelcome in favour of wild, speculative and often nonsensical assumptions. Unfortunately, the lack of balancing posts remaining on the thread has given more weight to the speculation flying in the face of the evidence and has resulted in the spectacular meltdown of several members that we have witnessed tonight.

 

[Karinna]

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.

That is disrespectful to WS members that have been here for a very long time following criminal cases and their trials IMO. There are quite a lot of very knowledgeable posters on here that understand the system very well and FWIW what acquittals mean.

 

[jessicalouise]

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.

We are not examining evidence. You realise that right? We are not lawyers presenting a case. Nor are we jurors who are only allowed acess to certain predetermined evidence. Therefore our scope is a lot wider. We also bring to the discussion our personal experiences, our genders and other things that have nothing to do with "the law'.

I always said he would be found Not Guilty. Does that mean i personally think he isn't responsible for her death? No. As a woman and as a woman who can put herself in WW's place, i believe he is responsible for her death. But that has nothing to do with "the law". They are not one and the same.

 

[Ausgirl]

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.

JCB got many words of thanks throughout this thread, though he did not concur.

Perhaps a lot depends on how one communicates here, as well as what.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

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 with what you are saying. I don't frown on talking about what isn't admissible in court. I'm very happy to explain why something isn't admissible.

But I do get very defensive at the suggestion that evidence isn't admitted because the lawyers/judges are incompetent or corrupt.

 

[Karinna]

We are not examining evidence. You realise that right? We are not lawyers presenting a case. Nor are we jurors who are only allowed acess to certain predetermined evidence. Therefore our scope is a lot wider. We also bring to the discussion our personal experiences, our genders and other things that have nothing to do with "the law'.

I always said he would be found Not Guilty. Does that mean i personally think he isn't responsible for her death? No. As a woman and as a woman who can put herself in WW's place, i believe he is responsible for her death. But that has nothing to do with "the law". They are not one and the same.

Exactly. And good post.

 

[SouthAussie]

JCB got many words of thanks throughout this thread, though he did not concur.

Perhaps a lot depends n how one communicates here, as well as what.

Exactly! JCB's 'legal' opinions have been well respected because we were not talked down to or told we were nonsensical.

 

[Karinna]

I agree with what you are saying. I don't frown on talking about what isn't admissible in court. I'm very happy to explain why something isn't admissible.

But I do get very defensive at the suggestion that evidence isn't admitted because the lawyers/judges are incompetent or corrupt.

But judicial systems etc. can be very corrupt and that is a fact.

 

[insidecircle]

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

How are members then surprised by a verdict that has been reached by only examining the evidence before the court?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Exactly! JCB's 'legal' opinions have been well respected because we were not talked down to or told we were nonsensical.

Exactly !!

 

[SouthAussie]

But judicial systems etc. can be very corrupt and that is a fact.

And there are certainly incompetent lawyers ... and incompetent bankers ... and incompetent politicians ... and incompetent people in every profession. Just being a lawyer (or any other professional/worker) does not necessarily make one competent.

 

[Elde Fruit]

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.

I do not understand how anyone can read a 'tone' or 'talking people down' into words on a screen. They are but a collection of letters on your monitor and you can see them. I have been very careful never to refer to a Member personally, and to limit myself to the facts and issues of this case. I am sorry if that dispassionate approach to a Trial where someone is facing Life in prison has upset anyone, but I assume it is not precluded on a site like this.

If you want to take that one step further....quite clearly the majority here considered Tostee had to be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. Guess what? They were wrong as the decision of the Jury establishes. As it turned out, the vast majority view was incorrect, and the bludgeoned, vilified small minority were correct. None of that small majority are gloating about that, but the grumbles of a few of that majority continue and that has lead to personal attack on me.

 

[jessicalouise]

I agree with what you are saying. I don't frown on talking about what isn't admissible in court. I'm very happy to explain why something isn't admissible.

But I do get very defensive at the suggestion that evidence isn't admitted because the lawyers/judges are incompetent or corrupt.

I respect what you're saying and i understand what you're saying, but i would have thought those in the legal industry would have a thicker skin when it comes to their profession. I don't see why it should be taken personally, it's a public forum. Besides, judges and lawyers have a voice. Victims do not.

 

[LozDa]

How are members then surprised by a verdict that has been reached by only examining the evidence before the court?

We are not surprised! We are disappointed.

 

[Elde Fruit]

Exactly! JCB's 'legal' opinions have been well respected because we were not talked down to or told we were nonsensical.

And he too was made subject to attack upon his debut here, as he himself has posted.

 

[Karinna]

In an Independent Australia exclusive, five time Walkley Award winning journalist Evan Whitton explains why our legal system is fabulous &#8212; for lawyers and rich criminals.

Taxpayers pay the wages of judges, police, prosecutors, legal aid lawyers etc. They are entitled to know that a truth-seeking system, as in France, would cost less and deliver more justice than the adversary system which England bequeathed to its colonies, e.g. Ireland, India, the US, Australia. Thus:
Cost

In France, trained judges question witnesses and have no incentive to prolong the process. Most trials take a day or so.

In the adversary system, lawyers question witnesses, and at $10+ a minute, have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take months. Untrained judges do the decent thing: they try to stay awake.
Justice
Justice Russell Fox researched the law for 11 years after he retired from the Federal Court. He concluded that justice means fairness; fairness to everyone [including victims and taxpayers] requires a search for the truth; truth means reality; and the search for truth gives a system its morality, otherwise the winner is likely to be the one with more money and cleverer lawyers.

The adversary system does not seek the truth, and hence fails all Justice Fox&#8217;s tests: it is unfair, unreal, immoral, and unjust.
https://independentaustralia.net/li...only-benefits-lawyers-and-rich-criminals,3821

 

[PainExpress]

That can't be it for Rrie. I won't let it be.

Never forget. Never forgive.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Cleaver Greene]

See. There we go again. 'Nonsensical'. The language used goes a long way to contributions being looked at favourably or not. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the content.

Your posts would not have been deleted just because they were reported. They would have been deleted (reported or unreported) because they either breached TOS or were seen as bashing the victim.

Probably because my posts were not victim friendly. But the term "victim bashing" has somehow been interpreted as ascribing any blame to the victim. Yet that is exactly what this case was about! Did he force her or did she go over herself? The very suggestion that her death was the consequence of her own actions has been criticised on this forum, yet that was exactly what the verdict was.

I will be interested to watch how this case is discussed now. If we can't ascribe blame to the victim, how do you discuss it? Ignore the verdict and assume he was convicted?

 

[meticulously]

A serious case of the law having flaws . I sure hope gt learns to respect girls more from this !

sent from a tiny cheap gadget

 

[jessicalouise]

I do not understand how anyone can read a 'tone' or 'talking people down' into words on a screen. They are but a collection of letters on your monitor and you can see them. I have been very careful never to refer to a Member personally, and to limit myself to the facts and issues of this case. I am sorry if that dispassionate approach to a Trial where someone is facing Life in prison has upset anyone, but I assume it is not precluded on a site like this.

If you want to take that one step further....quite clearly the majority here considered Tostee had to be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. Guess what? They were wrong as the decision of the Jury establishes. As it turned out, the vast majority view was incorrect, and the bludgeoned, vilified small minority were. None of that small majority are gloating about that, but the grumbles of a few of that majority continue and that has lead to personal attack on me.

No, they are not a collection of letters on a screen. They are words and words have meanings. Words combined with grammar and punctuation work together to covey what the writer is trying to express. This is called communication. If i'm being pedantic about it ...

I'm sorry if concerning myself with the victim whose life has actually been lost and not someone who has their life offends anybody.

Once again, just because someone is not legally responsible for someone's death does not mean they aren't morally responsible in some people's eyes.