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

[otto]

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.

I'm not ready to believe that everyone who has been charged with an offence is guilty regardless of the outcome of the trial. When someone is found not guilty, that person is for all intents and purposes innocent.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not ready to believe that everyone who has been charged with an offence is guilty regardless of the outcome of the trial. When someone is found not guilty, that person is for all intents and purposes innocent.

That is fair enough, otto.
But many of us question this whole thing. And that is fair enough, too.

 

[LozDa]

I'm not ready to believe that everyone who has been charged with an offence is guilty regardless of the outcome of the trial. When someone is found not guilty, that person is for all intents and purposes innocent.

I don't believe that everyone who has been charged is guilty. I believe that Gable Tostee is guilty. Very clear distinction.

Not guilty is not the same as, or all intents and purposes innocent - see the links and definitions provided by Sillybilly previously.

Edited to correct attributation of definitions to Sillybilly.

 

[fairydust]

<modsnip>

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.

Is there any reason why you think all that will happen?

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.

No , its not a perfectly reasonable suspicion at all. You can exercise your own right to prejudice and sack that employee you suspect of stealing, but when it comes to jailing people, we need something better than our own prejudices in a court f law. That's how the legal system works and rightly so. You can't convict on a suspicion. Half the population would be in jail if that were allowed.

In the hypothetical case you mentioned it could well have been the upstanding citizen who stole the money. Without hard proof though, you will never really know. Everyone is a fine upstanding citizen, until they commit their first offence. You see this a lot with embezzlement cases - people with unblemished records stealing huge amounts of money that they didn't really need.

You hope people you know don't steal, beat their dog, or their spouse, their children, etc. But you don't really know they are innocent of these things.

Everyone has the presumption of innocence, and none of us are innocent of anything. You could be proved to be innocent of one event in the past, usually by an alibi, but it doesn't make you innocent of any future events. When you understand this concept, you might finally get some closure for this case.

 

[fairydust]

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.

And one needs to remember, 6 men and 6 women decided so. GT was judged equally by his peers.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm not ready to believe that everyone who has been charged with an offence is guilty regardless of the outcome of the trial. When someone is found not guilty, that person is for all intents and purposes innocent.

There are those found guilty who are innocent, works both ways.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Otto, please listen to the recording.

 

[fairydust]

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 !!

You cant quantify it numerically. Conviction can only occur when their is no doubt. If doubt exists, it is not guilty. Always. American law is not Australian 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.

Must be, I've never heard of them. But even if you had one, it would be fairly pointless and useless, for the very reason I gave in my post above. Innocent of one event in your life, doesn't make you automatically innocent of any future events.

 

[LozDa]

<snipped by me for brevity and clarity>

No , its not a perfectly reasonable suspicion at all. You can exercise your own right to prejudice and sack that employee you suspect of stealing, but when it comes to jailing people, we need something better than our own prejudices in a court f law. That's how the legal system works and rightly so. You can't convict on a suspicion. Half the population would be in jail if that were allowed.

In the hypothetical case you mentioned it could well have been the upstanding citizen who stole the money. Without hard proof though, you will never really know. Everyone is a fine upstanding citizen, until they commit their first offence. You see this a lot with embezzlement cases - people with unblemished records stealing huge amounts of money that they didn't really need.

You hope people you know don't steal, beat their dog, or their spouse, their children, etc. But you don't really know they are innocent of these things.

Everyone has the presumption of innocence, and none of us are innocent of anything. You could be proved to be innocent of one event in the past, usually by an alibi, but it doesn't make you innocent of any future events. When you understand this concept, you might finally get some closure for this case.

I'm not quite sure if you're disagreeing with me, as much of this is what I'm saying. There's no clear cut. That's what suspicion is. It's the inability to have complete clarity over the situation. My hypothetical presents the idea that your suspicion is biased due to past events. Apparently, you would overlook this. I commend you, I doubt many people would be so entirely open minded when presented with past behaviours that match the current scenario so entirely.

"it could well have been the upstanding citizen who stole the money. "
Exactly. But who are we most suspicious of?

"But you don't really know they are innocent of these things."
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. We don't know. Even if they're found not guilty. We. Don't. Know. But we can have suspicions!

"You could be proved to be innocent of one event in the past, usually by an alibi, but it doesn't make you innocent of any future events."
Exactly....!

"You can't convict on a suspicion."
Exactly....!

GT wasn't convicted. But some of us still suspect him. I don't know what you're arguing against?

 

[Bohemian]

Loving but leaving you yet again. Pilates, heavy bag, swimming and brunch are calling (as well as an afternoon of housework and errands *sigh*). Thought for the day:



'The principle of Yin and Yang is a fundamental concept in Chinese philosophy and culture in general dating from the third century BCE or even earlier. This principle is that all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites, for example female-male, dark-light and old-young. The two opposites attract and complement each other and, as their symbol illustrates, each side has at its core an element of the other (represented by the small dots). Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony.'

'In Chinese mythology yin and yang were born from chaos when the universe was first created and they are believed to exist in harmony at the centre of the Earth.'

'As expressed in the I Ching, the ever-changing relationship between the two poles is responsible for the constant flux of the universe and life in general. When there is too great an imbalance between yin and yang, catastrophes can occur such as floods, droughts and plagues.'

Yin and Yang

 

[fairydust]

I'm not quite sure if you're disagreeing with me, as much of this is what I'm saying. There's no clear cut. That's what suspicion is. It's the inability to have complete clarity over the situation. My hypothetical presents the idea that your suspicion is biased due to past events. Apparently, you would overlook this. I commend you, I doubt many people would be so entirely open minded when presented with past behaviours that match the current scenario so entirely.

"it could well have been the upstanding citizen who stole the money. "
Exactly. But who are we most suspicious of?

"But you don't really know they are innocent of these things."
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. We don't know. Even if they're found not guilty. We. Don't. Know. But we can have suspicions!

"You could be proved to be innocent of one event in the past, usually by an alibi, but it doesn't make you innocent of any future events."
Exactly....!

"You can't convict on a suspicion."
Exactly....!

GT wasn't convicted. But some of us still suspect him. I don't know what you're arguing against?

I was trying to get across that suspicion is subjective, and insufficient to convict anyone. <modsnip>

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think anyone here is still hoping for a criminal conviction. A wrongful death lawsuit maybe.
We are all very aware that if Tostee testifies at any coronial inquest that may be held, his testimony cannot be held against him.

Interesting that another poster is still here claiming 'innocence', seeing that the case is done and dusted.

 

[Safeguard]

I was trying to get across that suspicion is subjective, and insufficient to convict anyone. That does not seem to be a deterrent to many WSers who seem to still hope for a conviction. Their emotional investment in their suspicious beliefs has generated almost 1000 pages of postings about it. Last week they had a meltdown over the verdict. Probably another one when the Coroner rubber stamps and files this away. By all means have your suspicions, but they aren't going to achieve anything. This case is done and dusted.

Perhaps this is not an "emotional" case for some people, (you know who you are!), for others it is. As far as I know, no one is obligated, by law, to be here. Just sayin...

Oh, and... This case in court, may be, "Done and dusted" as you so cleverly put it. But *Whats His Name Now* will screw up again soon, and we will be free to discuss that here too, over however many pages we like. :seeya:

(It's not over till the fat pervert sings!). JMO

 

[Whatson]

Hate him or hate him more, rest assured, Tootleberg now has to carry with him the life sentence of being "that guy". I don't think there is any where in the world that offers the quality of life he is used to in Australia that will allow him to live a peaceful and happy/carefree life again, yet moving abroad seems like the only sensible option he will have now (except for his girlfriends brilliant idea of moving to New Zealand?!).

In his own country he will be harassed and treated poorly for the rest of his entire life. In his mind people will always be staring and talking, whispering while he spends the rest of his life waiting to become the next weeks "slow news day" story.

He hasn't gotten off entirely free.

 

[Safeguard]

True! Wherever he goes, there he is...That's a life sentence right there!
"Tootleberg" :floorlaugh:
:cautionDrunk: :liar:

 

[Bohemian]

I don't think anyone here is still hoping for a criminal conviction. A wrongful death lawsuit maybe.
We are all very aware that if Tostee testifies at any coronial inquest that may be held, his testimony cannot be held against him.

Interesting that another poster is still here claiming 'innocence', seeing that the case is done and dusted.

The exception being a proceeding for perjury, SA? See below:

'38 Incriminating evidence

(1)This section applies if a witness refuses to give oral evidence at an inquest because the evidence would tend to incriminate the person.​

(2) The coroner may require the witness to give evidence that would tend to incriminate the witness if the coroner is satisfied that it is in the public interest for the witness to do so.​

(3) The evidence is not admissible against the witness in any other proceeding, other than a proceeding for perjury.'​

CORONERS BILL 2002 Queensland

Would he have a reasonable excuse not to comply with the requirement (below), ie; if he would tend to incriminate himself in a proceeding for perjury?

"16 Duty to help investigation 16 Duty to help investigation

(1) This section applies if&#8212;​

(a) a coroner is investigating a death; and​

(b) the coroner reasonably believes a person may be able to give the coroner information, a document or anything else that is relevant to the investigation.​

(2) The coroner may require the person to give the coroner information, a document or anything else that is relevant to the investigation.​

(3) The requirement may be made orally or in writing.​

(4) When making the requirement, the coroner must warn the person it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement unless the person has a reasonable excuse.​

(5) The person must comply with the requirement, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.​

Maximum penalty&#8212;30 penalty units.​

(6) It is, for example, a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to comply with the requirement if complying with the requirement would tend to incriminate the person.'​

Coroners Act 2003 Queensland - SECT 16

I wonder how an inquest would impact another trial under Queensland's double jeopardy laws?

We need a verified lawyer.

It is interesting that someone 'doth protest too much' his innocence. I'm sure those repeated protestations pique the curiousity of WS members (and non-members) who are following this thread.

 

[SouthAussie]

The exception being a proceeding for perjury, SA? See below:

'38 Incriminating evidence

(1)This section applies if a witness refuses to give oral evidence at an inquest because the evidence would tend to incriminate the person.​

RSBM

Well, that is interesting, isn't it? Haven't seen that before. Thanks!

 

[SouthAussie]

Hate him or hate him more, rest assured, Tootleberg now has to carry with him the life sentence of being "that guy". I don't think there is any where in the world that offers the quality of life he is used to in Australia that will allow him to live a peaceful and happy/carefree life again, yet moving abroad seems like the only sensible option he will have now (except for his girlfriends brilliant idea of moving to New Zealand?!).

In his own country he will be harassed and treated poorly for the rest of his entire life. In his mind people will always be staring and talking, whispering while he spends the rest of his life waiting to become the next weeks "slow news day" story.

He hasn't gotten off entirely free.

I can see this having a trickle-down effect, too. Like when Eric Thomas' future children want other children to come over for a play. Wonder how the other parents will feel about that ... if he couldn't keep a drunk girl safe in his home (and placed her in a position of potential jeopardy), or place her safely into the hands of the police, in years gone by? Would you take that chance with your own children? That he may snap because they were chucking pebbles around, despite being asked to stop?

Yes, it will take many years, if at all, before this shadow stops following him around.

 

[Bohemian]

RSBM

Well, that is interesting, isn't it? Haven't seen that before. Thanks!

Yes, it is and thank you. Now I'm wondering who's going to be the 'scapegoat'. In the absence of all emotion and if the circumstances weren't so tragic, this case would be fascinating.

 

[Bohemian]

I can see this having a trickle-down effect, too. Like when Eric Thomas' future children want other children to come over for a play. Wonder how the other parents will feel about that ... if he couldn't keep a drunk girl safe in his home (and placed her in a position of potential jeopardy), or place her safely into the hands of the police, in years gone by? Would you take that chance with your own children? That he may snap because they were chucking pebbles around, despite being asked to stop?

Yes, it will take many years, if at all, before this shadow stops following him around.

'Newton&#8217;s third law of motion tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.'

'The law of Karma generalizes this rule to all areas of life, beyond just physical motion.'

Understanding Karma - The Law of Cause and Effect