NOTGUILTY Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #12

[fairydust]

I remain unconvinced that Warrina was on the safe side of the railing when he locked that balcony door.

However, even if his accounting of events is gospel (It's not!),
It is beyond ludacris for him to claim it never crossed his mind that she might be in danger out there. There is much evidence that it crossed his mind constantly that someone was going to fall from that balcony.

Just seems a little too much of a "coincidence" for a guy who has a mock drawing of a body outline, at the foot of his building on his phone, and all the many references he made with respect to said balcony and people going over it (one way or another), even to the point of terrifying other young women by lifting them in the air while out on said balcony. I am just not buying his BS about inoccently trying to calm the situation. No Way.

Just to correct you, there was only one known instance of a woman being scared whilst being lifted up. No multiples as you infer.

And could you divulge this evidence that you claim crossed his mind? I dont see how a forensic body outline is evidence of anything? Perhaps you or someone else could explain?

 

[fairydust]

Yes, the jury DID get it wrong. Firstly because the judge wouldn't accept a hung jury and made them keep going and going,,, until some got sick of being there and went along with the others to put an end to it. And secondly, because the jury wasn't given ALL of the evidence. IMO

1. Judge Byrnes may have accepted a hung jury after substantial deliberation (a week or more) but not just after a few days. He has significant experience and therefor insight into how juries ultimately resolve issues.
2. Any juror who fails to do their duty by just capitulating as you claim, is guilty of an offence. It would be unconscionable conduct as well.
3. Evidence must be admissable. That what you allude to was not admissable. It was not admissable because it was irrelevant. Irrelevant matters are not evidence. The court was presented with ALL the evidence.

So in fact the court got it all right .

 

[purpleandgreen]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Might be worth going back and re-reading about all of the evidence, including the audio, that WASN'T allowed.

Yes, those particular jurors should be guilty of an offence, but how does one prove what they did. We know at least one wasn't playing by the rules and posted on social media.

1. Judge Byrnes may have accepted a hung jury after substantial deliberation (a week or more) but not just after a few days. He has significant experience and therefor insight into how juries ultimately resolve issues.
2. Any juror who fails to do their duty by just capitulating as you claim, is guilty of an offence. It would be unconscionable conduct as well.
3. Evidence must be admissable. That what you allude to was not admissable. It was not admissable because it was irrelevant. Irrelevant matters are not evidence. The court was presented with ALL the evidence.

So in fact the court got it all right .

 

[fairydust]

So, let's say for example that Tostee simply "chucked" Warriena out onto his balcony, as he stated to his father. You would have to concede that she must have been in mortal fear of Tostee to climb over that balcony within a period of 12 seconds. I concede that she was in mortal fear of Tostee but I also believe that he placed her on the outer ledge of his balcony. She didn't climb over the rail at all.

Warriena was drunk and disorientated. In that state her physical movements would have been sluggish and a lot slower than a sober person in the same position than Warrieana found herself in. Warriena's mood had swung from fieriness to fear in a matter of 27 seconds as is evidenced by her 33 screams of "No." and "Let me go home." as she was lifted out onto the balcony. She had nowhere to go but down.

Is it physically possible to scale a balcony in 12 seconds? Yes it probably is but in Warriena's case she had a great deal of help from Tostee in doing so.

You claimed to have heard the audio. Is that the truth, or did you just listen to it once? I ask because studying the recording plainly shows

1:24:25 "you've been a bad girl"
1:24:26 door lock clicking as he goes inside. Whilst this is going on, Warriena says "just let me go home" three times .

If she was out on the ledge as you claim, would she be saying "just let me go home" repeatedly? No. She would be screaming "help! help!", screaming her head off in abject terror,or something like that. You only have to think of yourself in such a situation to know you wouldn't be saying "Just let me go home". This 14 storeys up!

You seem to validate his statement that he didnt want to be seen out on the balcony after her fall so as not to incriminate himself, so how then do you reconcile this with him placing himself near the ledge and man-handling her over , in possible full view of any number of people to the side or above who might also be out on their balconies trying to see what the ruckus is about? The answer is it doesn't reconcile.

Furthermore, if she was on the ledge she would be gripping on to the railing for dear life, not climbing down. Yet climbing down is exactly what she was witnessed doing by the people below..

All of this points to exactly why the verdict came to its conclusion - that she was in the balcony area, and for some inexplicable reason immediately decided to hot foot it over the railing, seemingly without any spatial awareness. If you think the coroner will mount an enquiry to investigate why she had this lack of spatial awareness, then I wish you luck, but I do not believe paranormal psychology is within their ambit, although I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, but this "he put her over" nonsense should stop ,it is so far left field its out of the ball park. It simply doesn't marry up with whats on the recording at all, nor with what was seen. And those two things are the evidence in this case.

I'm all for speculation and after all, that's what Websleuths is all about, but unless speculation is based on something credible, well, its just ships and giggles to fill in time between doing the dished or woteva.

 

[sosocurious]

You claimed to have heard the audio. Is that the truth, or did you just listen to it once? I ask because studying the recording plainly shows

1:24:25 "you've been a bad girl"
1:24:26 door lock clicking as he goes inside. Whilst this is going on, Warriena says "just let me go home" three times .

If she was out on the ledge as you claim, would she be saying "just let me go home" repeatedly? No. She would be screaming "help! help!", screaming her head off in abject terror,or something like that. You only have to think of yourself in such a situation to know you wouldn't be saying "Just let me go home". This 14 storeys up!

You seem to validate his statement that he didnt want to be seen out on the balcony after her fall so as not to incriminate himself, so how then do you reconcile this with him placing himself near the ledge and man-handling her over , in possible full view of any number of people to the side or above who might also be out on their balconies trying to see what the ruckus is about? The answer is it doesn't reconcile.

Furthermore, if she was on the ledge she would be gripping on to the railing for dear life, not climbing down. Yet climbing down is exactly what she was witnessed doing by the people below..

All of this points to exactly why the verdict came to its conclusion - that she was in the balcony area, and for some inexplicable reason immediately decided to hot foot it over the railing, seemingly without any spatial awareness. If you think the coroner will mount an enquiry to investigate why she had this lack of spatial awareness, then I wish you luck, but I do not believe paranormal psychology is within their ambit, although I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, but this "he put her over" nonsense should stop ,it is so far left field its out of the ball park. It simply doesn't marry up with whats on the recording at all, nor with what was seen. And those two things are the evidence in this case.

I'm all for speculation and after all, that's what Websleuths is all about, but unless speculation is based on something credible, well, its just ships and giggles to fill in time between doing the dished or woteva.

Just let me go home as you say.
I am not sure anyone other than GT himself was able to help R'rie, she was locked on the 14 floor balcony of his apartment.
33 terrified screams of no, no ,no . No to what?
He had told her he would let her go home. But she have been a bad girl. So he was indeed responding to her begging to go home, before he locked the door ...right?
imo

Wright: 'No, no, no, no, no. (screaming).'
Tostee: 'It is all on recording you know. It is all being recorded.
Wright: 'No no no no no no no no no no no no. Just let me go home.'
Tostee: 'I would but you have been a bad girl.' Sound of door sliding shut.
2.20am: Wright: 'Just let me go home. Just let me go home.' Last words of 'just let me go home'. Tostee- heavy breathing. Faint scream detected.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11733463

 

[TheOtherChristina]

This has been pointed out many many times previously in prior threads, but it appears that this fact is unpopular, and unwilling to be conceded by the "core thread regulars", so Ksks, there is probably little use pointing out this fact any more. The court got it wrong, you see.

Just because something is agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense doesn't make it irrefutable factual truth. I actually just finished reading a book yesterday about Lacey Spears, who was found guilty of murdering her son Garnett by poisoning him with salt. It's a sad story. The Spears case is generally agreee to be an instance of Münchausen by proxy, but neither the prosecution nor the defense chose to introduce evidence of this at trial. Accordingly, the judge routinely shut down any testimony that seemed to veer towards mental illness and instructed the jury not to consider any testimony in that regard. He actually instructed them specifically that there was no evidence at hand to indicate MSBP.

Accordingly, she was convicted without any mention of Munchausen, factitious disorders, or medical abuse. In fact, she had been investigated by CPS/DFS multiple times on allegations of child abuse. None of the reports against her were ever substantiated and all cases were closed.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that she abused her child, or that she made him ill for attention. Those things absolutely happened, and this is borne out by the guilty verdict. However, I submit that those things would be equally true if the jury had returned a verdict of not guilty.

There are some other interesting parallels to this case, including a recording that is extremely suspicious but requires synthesis of the evidence to interpret, but I don't intend to derail the discussion.

I'm open to opinions in this case that differ from my own, but I don't care to be condescended to and I'm tired of the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with this stipulation is willfully ignorant. The prosecution in any given case may agree to stipulate any number of things, but that doesn't automatically make them rock-solid facts.

 

[Karinna]

Just because something is agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense doesn't make it irrefutable factual truth. I actually just finished reading a book yesterday about Lacey Spears, who was found guilty of murdering her son Garnett by poisoning him with salt. It's a sad story. The Spears case is generally agreee to be an instance of Münchausen by proxy, but neither the prosecution nor the defense chose to introduce evidence of this at trial. Accordingly, the judge routinely shut down any testimony that seemed to veer towards mental illness and instructed the jury not to consider any testimony in that regard. He actually instructed them specifically that there was no evidence at hand to indicate MSBP.

Accordingly, she was convicted without any mention of Munchausen, factitious disorders, or medical abuse. In fact, she had been investigated by CPS/DFS multiple times on allegations of child abuse. None of the reports against her were ever substantiated and all cases were closed.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that she abused her child, or that she made him ill for attention. Those things absolutely happened, and this is borne out by the guilty verdict. However, I submit that those things would be equally true if the jury had returned a verdict of not guilty.

There are some other interesting parallels to this case, including a recording that is extremely suspicious but requires synthesis of the evidence to interpret, but I don't intend to derail the discussion.

I'm open to opinions in this case that differ from my own, but I don't care to be condescended to and I'm tired of the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with this stipulation is willfully ignorant. The prosecution in any given case may agree to stipulate any number of things, but that doesn't automatically make them rock-solid facts.

I agree with this, and if people want to support Tostee maybe they could start a support thread for him instead, just a suggestion.

 

[sosocurious]

I agree with this, and if people want to support Tosser maybe they could start a support thread for him instead, just a suggestion.

Great idea Karinna

 

[Bohemian]

Just because something is agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense doesn't make it irrefutable factual truth. I actually just finished reading a book yesterday about Lacey Spears, who was found guilty of murdering her son Garnett by poisoning him with salt. It's a sad story. The Spears case is generally agreee to be an instance of Münchausen by proxy, but neither the prosecution nor the defense chose to introduce evidence of this at trial. Accordingly, the judge routinely shut down any testimony that seemed to veer towards mental illness and instructed the jury not to consider any testimony in that regard. He actually instructed them specifically that there was no evidence at hand to indicate MSBP.

Accordingly, she was convicted without any mention of Munchausen, factitious disorders, or medical abuse. In fact, she had been investigated by CPS/DFS multiple times on allegations of child abuse. None of the reports against her were ever substantiated and all cases were closed.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that she abused her child, or that she made him ill for attention. Those things absolutely happened, and this is borne out by the guilty verdict. However, I submit that those things would be equally true if the jury had returned a verdict of not guilty.

There are some other interesting parallels to this case, including a recording that is extremely suspicious but requires synthesis of the evidence to interpret, but I don't intend to derail the discussion.

I'm open to opinions in this case that differ from my own, but I don't care to be condescended to and I'm tired of the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with this stipulation is willfully ignorant. The prosecution in any given case may agree to stipulate any number of things, but that doesn't automatically make them rock-solid facts.

You tell 'em sister :applause: but don't expect 'em to listen.

 

[Bohemian]

Great idea Karinna

Not on WS though.

 

[Karinna]

Not on WS though.

Why not LOL? I am following the Steven Avery case and they started a different thread for people that think Avery & Dassey are guilty. As i said just a suggestion.
OT, but great news that Brendan will be released from prison any day now after having his conviction overturned after 10 years.

 

[Karinna]

This has been pointed out many many times previously in prior threads, but it appears that this fact is unpopular, and unwilling to be conceded by the "core thread regulars", so Ksks, there is probably little use pointing out this fact any more. The court got it wrong, you see.

Not sure why you're surprised about that? Courts do get it wrong unfortunately for the victims of crime. There are plenty of cases like that for you to research on that topic if you care to. They do exist you know.

 

[Bohemian]

Why not LOL? I am following the Steven Avery case and they started a different thread for people that think Avery & Dassey are guilty. As i said just a suggestion.
OT, but great news that Brendan will be released from prison any day now after having his conviction overturned after 10 years.

Because they bore me :dramaqueen:

__________

Yeah poor old Brendan. Though they ain't finished with him yet, I'll wager. State's appealing his release last I read.

 

[Karinna]

Because they bore me :dramaqueen:

Yeh poor old Brendan. Though they ain't finished with him yet, I'll wager

Haha, fair enough. Yeah Brendan's case is awful, but i think he will be okay with lots of support. There was absolutely no evidence on him having been involved, so i can't even see how they would have a retrial.

 

[Bohemian]

I tried to put it in the nicest possible way so that I wouldn't be in trouble with the Mods, Bo..:giggle::doorhide:
As it was stated, it seemed to be Number 1 on Tostee's priority list for the night, apart from the booze...MOO

Yes, I kniw tiddles. Just making a general point

 

[Bohemian]

Link to substantiate please.

Oops! I completely missed this. Understandable as I live a pretty full-on home and work life. Hardly enough hours in the day sometimes, is there dust? Anyhoo, I see soso has very kindly replied on my behalf. As you seem to be soooo interested in the law in jurisdictions other than Queensland, I thought I'd post this:

Use carriage service to menace, harrass, offend

The corresponding Federal legislation keeps me entertained for hours.

Happy reading!

 

[tiddles24]

Hi fairydust.....I would be interested in your interpretation of only one handprint on the balcony railing.....also, why Rie's body was seen dangling facing outwards away from the building with her back against the building..:tyou:

 

[tiddles24]

I am so glad that I am well past the "dating stage" of my life.....Surely there has to be a nicer way to spend a date than just getting drunk & having sex with someone you don't even know.

I have been thinking about Rie in this situation, that audio tape didn't paint a very nice picture of her behaviour with all the "F" words, threatening Tostee to break his jaw, throwing the pebbles around everywhere & being so very drunk.

I am wondering how much these actions reflected on the jury's decision....Very sad really, because that is not the manner in which she would have liked to be portrayed in reflection on that ONE night only.

She was employed in the banking sector in NZ & was living with & caring for her younger sister.

It would have been very embarrassing for her friends & family listening to that audio tape, because that was not how they knew her....So very sad...She should still be alive today...MOO

 

[Karinna]

I am so glad that I am well past the "dating stage" of my life.....Surely there has to be a nicer way to spend a date than just getting drunk & having sex with someone you don't even know.

I have been thinking about Rie in this situation, that audio tape didn't paint a very nice picture of her behaviour with all the "F" words, threatening Tostee to break his jaw, throwing the pebbles around everywhere & being so very drunk.

I am wondering how much these actions reflected on the jury's decision....Very sad really, because that is not the manner in which she would have liked to be portrayed in reflection on that ONE night only.

She was employed in the banking sector in NZ & was living with & caring for her younger sister.

It would have been very embarrassing for her friends & family listening to that audio tape, because that was not how they knew her....So very sad...She should still be alive today...MOO

Hi tiddles, even though i agree to an extent with your post i think there are factors about Warriena's behaviour that night that we just don't know. A big one for me is if he did in fact serve her some type of home made alcohol of which Warriena was not used to ingesting and thinking it was vodka instead, what did that have to do with her behaviour? Perhaps it made her aggressive where a few drinks out and about with her friends normally wouldn't have affected her to that extent? Only her friends would know that though. In other words only certain people in Warriena's life knew what she was like socially. And unlike GT, there is nothing to say WW ever got in trouble with the law, and was just a good girl that was working hard and helping others and getting on with her life. Her family and friends attest to the beautiful girl she was and the sad and awful part for me is that she ever met GT.

 

[purpleandgreen]

And as well Karinna, who knows what else happened to have been put into those drinks?

Hi tiddles, even though i agree to an extent with your post i think there are factors about Warriena's behaviour that night that we just don't know. A big one for me is if he did in fact serve her some type of home made alcohol of which Warriena was not used to ingesting and thinking it was vodka instead, what did that have to do with her behaviour? Perhaps it made her aggressive where a few drinks out and about with her friends normally wouldn't have affected her to that extent? Only her friends would know that though. In other words only certain people in Warriena's life knew what she was like socially. And unlike GT, there is nothing to say WW ever got in trouble with the law, and was just a good girl that was working hard and helping others and getting on with her life. Her family and friends attest to the beautiful girl she was and the sad and awful part for me is that she ever met GT.