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

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by MsAnais, Aug 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cleaver Greene

    Cleaver Greene Verified Attorney - Australia

    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     


  2. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    11,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  3. jessicalouise

    jessicalouise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  4. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl ...

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  5. Cleaver Greene

    Cleaver Greene Verified Attorney - Australia

    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  6. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    11,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. And good post.
     
  7. SouthAussie

    SouthAussie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,047
    Likes Received:
    122,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! JCB's 'legal' opinions have been well respected because we were not talked down to or told we were nonsensical.
     
  8. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    11,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But judicial systems etc. can be very corrupt and that is a fact.
     
  9. insidecircle

    insidecircle New Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How are members then surprised by a verdict that has been reached by only examining the evidence before the court?
     
  10. TootsieFootsie

    TootsieFootsie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,191
    Likes Received:
    37,534
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Exactly !!
     
  11. SouthAussie

    SouthAussie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,047
    Likes Received:
    122,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  12. Elde Fruit

    Elde Fruit Former Member

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. jessicalouise

    jessicalouise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
  14. LozDa

    LozDa New Member

    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are not surprised! We are disappointed.
     
  15. Elde Fruit

    Elde Fruit Former Member

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And he too was made subject to attack upon his debut here, as he himself has posted.
     
  16. Karinna

    Karinna Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    11,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  17. PainExpress

    PainExpress Active Member

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That can't be it for Rrie. I won't let it be.

    Never forget. Never forgive.





    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
     
  18. Cleaver Greene

    Cleaver Greene Verified Attorney - Australia

    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Trophy Points:
    93

    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?
     
  19. meticulously

    meticulously Former smartphone blogger

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
  20. jessicalouise

    jessicalouise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Trophy Points:
    93
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice