Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #5

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
possumheart said:
I don't think the prosecution will have forgotten that he choked her. For a lot of seconds, as can be attributed to his own handcrafted evidence.
Click to expand...

He's where he belongs right now.
Leave him in gaol where he can't do any more damage.

What's his name today?
 
So if your date:

-- gets you hyper drunk by insisting you drink his home-made illegally distilled liquor, while staying relatively sober himself
-- records you without your knowledge or consent
-- hurts your vagina
-- whines about your drunk behaviour, while insisting you stay
-- reacts violently to a mild insult/your need to go to the toilet
-- assaults you physically by tackling you to the floor
-- threatens you/your life
-- chokes you for several minutes
-- deprives you of liberty, while putting you in a potentially lethal situation

.. AND you survive it ... don't go to a Brisbane lawyer? ;)
 
Ausgirl said:
So if your date:

-- gets you hyper drunk by insisting you drink his home-made illegally distilled liquor, while staying relatively sober himself
-- records you without your knowledge or consent
-- hurts your vagina
-- whines about your drunk behaviour, while insisting you stay
-- reacts violently to a mild insult/your need to go to the toilet
-- assaults you physically by tackling you to the floor
-- threatens you/your life
-- chokes you for several minutes
-- deprives you of liberty, while putting you in a potentially lethal situation

.. AND you survive it ... don't go to a Brisbane lawyer? ;)
Click to expand...

AND runs from the scene without offering any assistance to Warriena, ambulance or police but rings daddy who whisks him away because she was, what, jealous?
Oh but wait, he must attend to his pathetic growling stomach first. = alpaccapizza to go!

Ah c'mon! I won't be swung on my views here.
 
Everything he did that night is against all that's reasonable and good.

Warriena was in a rude shock the night she met with this selfish disgusting human-being who knowingly primed her with homemade rocket fuel and because of his actions left her vulnerable. Big mistake!
The actions of him and his father was sub human that night.
At this moment I'm not speaking of murder, just their filthy animal instinct.
He should have done everything possible to care for her safety.

He could have easily called the police to remove her. Why didn't he? Because he was **it-scared of the police BECAUSE OF HIS PRIORS.
Selfish b*stards.

All MOO.
 
cadenza said:
Yes, and that evidence shows that an assault was committed on the accused priot to that. It does not strengthen your argument to leave that important fact out.


I think you are creating your own reality when you are claiming to know the word uttered. There is no way of knowing what it is. As for the appeasement, it's a bit hard to claim that when an assault took place again after that on the accused. Gladiatorial might be a more accurate word.

A lawyer friend of mine tells me there is not a hope of the accused being convicted. He also socialises with a lot of other Brisbane lawyers and the general consensus from them is the same. You seem to be convinced the accused is guilty of murder on this forum for some unknown reason, but a misadventure is what this seems to be. The altercation that occurred on the balcony may be a causative factor in the death, but even if it is deemed to be, it is unlikely the accused is liable to any substantive degree. Not from the evidence as it has been reported in the media anyway.
Click to expand...

SouthAussie said:
I think it may be classified as a rumour here, Ooohm. Because it is attributed to an unknown someone(s) other than the poster and it is not verifiable.
Click to expand...

SA, I think if someone knows a smert person that socializes with other smert people that automatically makes them a credible source. It's like a super smert impenetrable credible cell.
 
cadenza said:
Briefly
1. He did not insist she drink anything
2. He did not require her consent to record her - and there is no evidence of him visually recording her.
3. Vaginas and penises get hurt in many ways - and it didn't hurt enough for her to be subdued - obviously. The point is meaningless.
4. there was no whining as you claim, just another sensational point you are pushing.
5. violent reaction? He was very calm under the circumstances. Most guys would not have been so restrained.
6. Tackling? Restraining someone because they are vandalizing your home is legal.
7. Threatens your life? That is a lie - nothing of the sort was done.
8. Choked for just over a minute because she was holding an item with which she intended to strike the accused. She was breathing quite well through that time, so it was only a light restraint , and he obviously went very easy on her. She had plenty of fight left when he released her, as she went on the offensive again. Funny how you continually omit this?
9. Being on a balcony with a an approved safety railing is not a lethal situation, particularly since she had been out there before and knew the area.

Your assertions there are one sided untruths ideas you have concocted to fit your own scenario, made in isolation of other relevant facts. You have spouted them so repetitively, you actually seem to believe them. Which is fine for this forum, but perhaps point to why there is no vigorous debate here. I certainly do not intend to discuss this any further in view of what you have said. I suggest you look outside of this forum, you'll see there are many people who do not share your views.

As I have said you can dream up all these fake assertions, but none of them will wash in a court of law. I think you should prepare for that, because it's obvious you have some sort of dog in this fight, and it's going to be a bitter disappointment if the case doesn't go your way. Good luck.
Click to expand...

1) That is incorrect.
2) You don't know that.
3) You don't know that.
4) That is incorrect.
5) That is incorrect.
6) That is incorrect.
7) That is incorrect.
8) That is incorrect.
9) That is incorrect.

Your assertions of one sided untruths you repetitively sprout and contort to fit your own twisted narrative has failed again. Your unrelenting pounding of biased falsehoods concerning this case on this and other forums (until they get shut down because of it) has quickly quelled intelligent and vigorous debate everywhere.

You seem to have a lot invested in this case, and unfortunately the dog YOU picked in this fight only beats up girls. We have a little saying here in Texas: "If you want to run with the big dogs, you can't pee like a puppy."
 
Snoods said:
1) That is incorrect.
2) You don't know that.
3) You don't know that.
4) That is incorrect.
5) That is incorrect.
6) That is incorrect.
7) That is incorrect.
8) That is incorrect.
9) That is incorrect.

Your assertions of one sided untruths you repetitively sprout and contort to fit your own twisted narrative has failed again. Your unrelenting pounding of biased falsehoods concerning this case on this and other forums (until they get shut down because of it) has quickly quelled intelligent and vigorous debate everywhere.

You seem to have a lot invested in this case, and unfortunately the dog YOU picked in this fight only beats up girls. We have a little saying here in Texas: "If you want to run with the big dogs, you can't pee like a puppy."
Click to expand...

Brilliant Snoods! "If you want to run with the big dogs, you can't pee like a puppy."

Did ya hear that Jools?
Jools doesn't lift her leg, she just lays those puppies down on the pavement.

Jeeze Jools.
 
cadenza said:
it's obvious you have some sort of dog in this fight, and it's going to be a bitter disappointment if the case doesn't go your way. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Part time psychic?

Don't give up your day job.
 
Snoods said:
1) That is incorrect.
2) You don't know that.
3) You don't know that.
4) That is incorrect.
5) That is incorrect.
6) That is incorrect.
7) That is incorrect.
8) That is incorrect.
9) That is incorrect.

Your assertions of one sided untruths you repetitively sprout and contort to fit your own twisted narrative has failed again. Your unrelenting pounding of biased falsehoods concerning this case on this and other forums (until they get shut down because of it) has quickly quelled intelligent and vigorous debate everywhere.

You seem to have a lot invested in this case, and unfortunately the dog YOU picked in this fight only beats up girls. We have a little saying here in Texas: "If you want to run with the big dogs, you can't pee like a puppy."
Click to expand...

And that just about says it all. Thank you, Snoods. :tyou:

I am sure that many people on this and other forums thank you, too. Enough of the relentless browbeating everywhere where people gather to chat and discuss. It achieves nothing. Let the chips fall where they may, for Mr Tostee/Thomas. And let us discuss it without being harangued.
 
they'll get you said:
Brilliant Snoods! "If you want to run with the big dogs, you can't pee like a puppy."

Did ya hear that Jools?
Jools doesn't lift her leg, she just lays those puppies down on the pavement.

Jeeze Jools.
Click to expand...

Good enough reason to dust off these pics again.

zn97q9.jpg


205lb5.jpg


http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...for-her-troubles/story-fnje8bkv-1227154349533
 
People, People, People, People,

Come on. Let's disagree but not attack each other.

I swear I am going to invent a way to reach through your computer screen and smack your hand if need be. I'm working on that invention now. Almost have it done so watch out.

Tricia
 
Tricia said:
People, People, People, People,

Come on. Let's disagree but not attack each other.

I swear I am going to invent a way to reach through your computer screen and smack your hand if need be. I'm working on that invention now. Almost have it done so watch out.

Tricia
Click to expand...

Tricia's here! Everyone scatter in different directions! :giggle: Point taken, I'm guilty and I heed your warning. :couch:
 
Our wonderful boyz in blue can take only so much.

GAAAAAA. DIG OUT MY EYES!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 125
They'll Get You, look how far she drove her car up on the sidewalk! She just haphazardly plowed her car along the footpath where people were walking because something wasn't to her liking. So entitled.

zn97q9.jpg


But at least when LE questioned her about it she handled it an adult, mature manner by petulantly throwing self on the concrete and writhing all over the sidewalk for a while, causing wardrobe malfunctions that nobody should have been forced to bear witness to.

205lb5.jpg


http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...for-her-troubles/story-fnje8bkv-1227154349533[/QUOTE]
 
Did anyone get around to answering my question? How soon after the door was closed did she fall?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 1,564 (members: 124, guests: 1,440)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,440
Total visitors
1,564
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,775
Messages
18,192,058
Members
233,541
Latest member
beanut
Back
Top