I've no idea what is going on any more. Trooper, have you started a band, or perhaps a pizza parlour? Or have you started a cult? If the quotes are anything to go by, you've changed. :laughing:
I have been afflicted with quotebrokeus.. .. :boohoo:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've no idea what is going on any more. Trooper, have you started a band, or perhaps a pizza parlour? Or have you started a cult? If the quotes are anything to go by, you've changed. :laughing:
no one has suggested the COroner would do any such of a thing. But the coroner still has the last word. He/she could rule her death as an Open Finding, not being satisfied that she fell to her death due to accident. He/she could find that her death resulted in a desire to commit suicide. The coroner could also rule it an accidental death, .. but no coroner is obligated to structure their Manner of Death certificate predicated on the trial or verdict of a jury. The Coroner cant say that she was murdered by Gabe but the coroner if she/he so finds it, after consultation and investigation , that she was murdered but NOT by Gabe, then that is the ruling that will be made.
The Coroners office is entirely independent, and it's a bit worrying that anyone who claims to be a 'highly trained legal operative' doesn't know this .
sorry
I have been afflicted with quotebrokeus.. .. :boohoo:
Isn't there some WS Rule about not discussing each other?
A Coroner is not going to contradict a decision by a Supreme Court Jury. The Coroner's findings are completely predictable. They will easily identify the cause of death. They will not be able to come to a conclusion regarding all the circumstances which lead up to it.
Awesome, thanks SouthAussie
No worries. Just try to save the file, okay? It is 3 hours long and if you can't listen to it all in one hit (it is a bit upsetting to listen to, to say the least) the link will probably not be there to go back to.
No worries. Just try to save the file, okay? It is 3 hours long and if you can't listen to it all in one hit (it is a bit upsetting to listen to, to say the least) the link will probably not be there to go back to.
You can re-open the saved file in Windows Media player or another audio program. There is a better one to listen to it through, I just can't remember what it is called. Ausgirl mentioned it before, and that is how I initially listened to it, a couple of years ago.
The free progam is Audacity. http://www.audacityteam.org/ Brilliant program, I've been using it for years.
yea.. what Makara said.. ditto from me.
And me too. Today is not a good day to upset people and we need to vent.
yea.. what Makara said.. ditto from me.
Yes, we do. If these so-called legal buffs cannot explain to us, with any specific accuracy, the answers to this previous post of mine, I am just not interested.
"I think we are all still struggling to understand why ALL of the evidence was not allowed. How many times we have heard the judge instruct the jury to consider all of the evidence.
It is very difficult to understand why that was not the case in this trial.
We have heard that it is because of 'legal arguments'. But what legal arguments? What precedences (or whatever) can dictate such a thing? And why has this not happened before?"
And me too. Today is not a good day to upset people and we need to vent.
If people wish to vent, fine, but I really would ask they not 'vent' at me personally with outbursts I can make no sense of. My posts do not address individual Members here. They do address the facts, the issues under discussion and my views on them. Is that not what any Forum is fundamentally about?
yes, and it's an interesting procedure.
What the Coroner is starting off with is the fact that Gabe Tostee has been found not guilty of her murder, or her manslaughter, but it isn't within the Coroners remit to say WHO killer Warriena..
The Coroner isn't bound by any jury verdict at all, and it isn't the reason why the Coroner has been waiting to perform his./her coronial duties, it is because this is the normal and gazetted procedure for a Coroner. In any death in which the coroner is involved. Once the police become involved in their investigations the coroner , under who's protection and jurisdiction the body of Warriena has been all this time, stands aside and prepares to do his/her job after this court matter is resolved.
No one is arguing the cause of her death.. There is an old joke around coroners offices, 'what did he die of? ' and the standard answer is 'lack of oxygen' which is what we all die of , in the end. Basically.
Qld and VIc and NSW and South Australia, Tas and WA and ACT , I don't know about the NT, all have a Coroners website, and anyone who wishes can look up any death, by murder, or accident or misadventure going back years, year by year, and all the recommendations the Coroner makes that are obligated to be pursued by various govt offices...
here is the website for the QLD coroners office.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/coroners-court/findings