Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #6

[Elde Fruit]

BBM - can you explain for me please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

It is an exception to the 'hearsay' Rule of Evidence. Normally, unless it is part of what is cutely called 'res gestae,' in all cases, what a victim of alleged rape says to a third person (not being part of a complaint to Police) following the event is inadmissible. So, say, a fortnight after an alleged rape, a female says to her friend, 'Bill raped me.' That might not be admissible in a Trial because the allegation was not made at the first opportunity, assuming she had opportunities open to her in that fortnight. However, if a complainant says to a friend within minutes (okay, there is elasticity there) and hysterically, 'Bill raped me,' it is admissible under the 'recent complaint' exception, and adds to credibility. Of course, that leaves open for the defence to validly question a complainant why they did not, for example, complain to Mum when they got home on the night of an alleged rape ~ why she did not tell Mum she had been raped. My point here is that this evidence of what he said to his Dad is clearly (and obviously) admissible, and he says what would be expected of him. If he rang Dad and discussed how great it was to get a pizza at that time of night and not mention the incident, the Prosecutor would have a field day. But, fact is, he did tell Dad what happened. Clear as mud?

 

[nowvoyager]

And re the question of GT taking the stand, very interesting. Esp in light of what came out of G B-C appeal, where he kind of hung himself with his lies.
I can only think that the choking allegation can only be overcome by (a) some sort of PM/ forensic evidence or (b) his version of events being able to explain the tape.
Obviously there are lots of dangers here in saying something that can lead to cross-exam going into areas he's not prepared for/can't remember. And again, his attitude may just alienate jurors if it is all justifying and defence, rather than a genuine sorrow and compassion.

 

[Trooper]

I think ordering that pizza, and actually waiting for it, then eating it, is going to go to the heart of how the prosecution is going depict Gabe and his murderous antics on that night... along with the shifty exit from his building, the pizza is the nail in the coffin....

 

[Elde Fruit]

with respect, it is usual, for the defence, and particularly in a murder trial to call witnesses on behalf of the accused to testify to the good character of the accused, before , naturally , the jury goes out to meditate on a verdict. And there appears to be none for Gabe as far as I can tell from the witness list.

It is not usual at all. If you do it, you better make sure your client is absolutely spotless, as the instant you do that, you allow the Crown to expose all and everything it knows adverse to good character, including, but not limited to, previous convictions. Further, assuming it has been determined that the client will not be giving evidence themself, calling any witness, including character witnesses, hands to the Crown the right to address the Jury last......(before the Judge 'sums up.')

 

[nowvoyager]

with respect, it is usual, for the defence, and particularly in a murder trial to call witnesses on behalf of the accused to testify to the good character of the accused, before , naturally , the jury goes out to meditate on a verdict. And there appears to be none for Gabe as far as I can tell from the witness list.

No, Trooper, it's NOT "usual". It very much depends on the case and its circumstances. This is a MURDER trial, and very specific in detail. Going into character at this point would be irrelevant. Get to sentencing, different.

 

[Strangeworld]

Addressing those who commented on GT's choice of words to his father... about not pushing her. I don't think you can hang anything special on that as there is little information on the family interaction or dynamics. All we know is that GT had had some trouble with the police on previous occasions, one a rather serious traffic incident. I am only guessing, that he rang his parents when he was in strife like that. I can also only guess, that the parents of an adult child could manifest all sorts of emotions both at the time and later, when they were called on to come to the rescue in other ways. There are many young men who, at GT's age, have climbed a few rungs on the ladder that I expect their parents hoped for... maybe started a family of their own, taking responsibility. So this may be a repeat of a long history of misguided actions, thoughtlessness, peer pressure, general trouble.... and in anticipation perhaps of a question... like... what did you do (this time)?.... he had to say that first.... I didn't push her (it wasn't my fault... this time)

BBM
Maybe not a lot of information available regarding family interaction or dynamics, but there is a heck of a lot of information on Tostee's psyche and personality....as kindly provided by him in his online musings. And that is what is at the core of my views on what he said to his Dad.

 

[Trooper]

It is not usual at all. If you do it, you better make sure your client is absolutely spotless, as the instant you do that, you allow the Crown to expose all and everything it knows adverse to good character, including, but not limited to, previous convictions. Further, assuming it has been determined that the client will not be giving evidence themself, calling any witness, including character witnesses, hands to the Crown the right to address the Jury last......(before the Judge 'sums up.')

with respect, you are mistaken. .....it is common, and goes to the heart of the accused presentation , his employer for example would , could testify to his punctuality and general honesty, perhaps a former girlfriend.. it is not at all unusual, as anyone who attends court on a regular basis would themselves attest to.

I once asked a court reporter how one could tell who was the witness for the accused character, and he said, his infallible rule was to check their shoes out. Always inappropriate footwear.

 

[Strangeworld]

It is an exception to the 'hearsay' Rule of Evidence. Normally, unless it is part of what is cutely called 'res gestae,' in all cases, what a victim of alleged rape says to a third person (not being part of a complaint to Police) following the event is inadmissible. So, say, a fortnight after an alleged rape, a female says to her friend, 'Bill raped me.' That might not be admissible in a Trial because the allegation was not made at the first opportunity, assuming she had opportunities open to her in that fortnight. However, if a complainant says to a friend within minutes (okay, there is elasticity there) and hysterically, 'Bill raped me,' it is admissible under the 'recent complaint' exception. Of course, that leaves open for the defence to validly question a complainant why they did not, for example, complain to Mum when they got home on the night of an alleged rape ~ why she did not tell Mum she had been raped. My point here is that this evidence of whay he said to his Dad is clearly (and obviously) admissible, and he says what would be expected of him. If he rang Dad and discussed how great it was to get a pizza at that time of night and not mention the incident, the Prosecutor would have a field day. But, fact is, he did tell Dad what happened. Clear as mud?

BBM
Thank you for explaining, Elde Fruit. Thank goodness there are plenty of rape cases where this logic has been shot down. I mean, how dare a woman not be open and honest about a rape occurring at the 'first opportunity', because there just couldn't be any reason why a woman wouldn't do that, right? But we do digress, given rape hasn't been raised as a charge for Tostee.....

BBM
'what would be expected of him'....expected by some, not all, IMO of course.

BBM
'he did tell Dad what happened'...what, that he didn't throw her off the balcony? Sure, but I didn't hear him tell his Dad about the recording, how he punished her by isolating/confining her to the balcony, etc etc etc etc etc

 

[Trooper]

No, Trooper, it's NOT "usual". It very much depends on the case and its circumstances. This is a MURDER trial, and very specific in detail. Going into character at this point would be irrelevant. Get to sentencing, different.

yes it is usual. of course it depends on the case and the circumstances, and this case and these circumstances are where a plethora of witnesses attesting to the accused good character could reasonably be expected, and certainly long before the sentencing stage, that's far too late, although there is a place for character witnesess there, also. But now, at trial, at one's trial for MURDER ,there is an expectation that someone or some one's will testify to the good character of Gabe Tostee before the jury goes out to cogitate on a verdict.

 

[Amee]

<modsnip>

[h=2]Professional Posters & Verified Insiders[/h]We ask that members not post with expert information in any area unless you have been verified-especially in those areas where questions are posed specifically to experts.

The following are current members in good standing that have been authenticated by Admin and are free to post professionally or as an insider to a case.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?191641-Professional-Posters-amp-Verified-Insiders

 

[Elde Fruit]

with respect, you are mistaken. .....it is common, and goes to the heart of the accused presentation , his employer for example would , could testify to his punctuality and general honesty, perhaps a former girlfriend.. it is not at all unusual, as anyone who attends court on a regular basis would themselves attest to.

I once asked a court reporter how one could tell who was the witness for the accused character, and he said, his infallible rule was to check their shoes out. Always inappropriate footwear.

<modsnip>It is always open to present evidence during the course of a Trial that the accused's alleged conduct was out of character. I have explained the consequences. If an accused is being sentenced after conviction, the Crown get to dump all it has about character and the Defence can do the same. It is highly unusual for Defence to try it as part of the Trial and I have explained why. <modsnip>

 

[Trooper]

<modsnip>It is always open to present evidence during the course of a Trial that the accused's alleged conduct was out of character. I have explained the consequences. If an accused is being sentenced after conviction, the Crown get to dump all it has about character and the Defence can do the same. It is highly unusual for Defence to try it as part of the Trial and I have explained why. <modsnip>

not always.. a defendant can choose to enter the witness box after all his witnesses have been presented by his defence barrister.... it happens.. As a matter of fact, it happened in QLD.. dear old Gerard, Our Boy from Brookie decided to take the stand AFTER his own witnesses ( including character witnesses ) testified at his trial for murder in the Supreme court..

 

[Makara]

<modsnip>

 

[Elde Fruit]

not always.. a defendant can choose to enter the witness box after all his witnesses have been presented by his defence barrister.... it happens.. As a matter of fact, it happened in QLD.. dear old Gerard, Our Boy from Brookie decided to take the stand AFTER his own witnesses ( including character witnesses ) testified at his trial for murder in the Supreme court..

Sir, that is completely incorrect. He was the first witness called by the Defence, and that is what is required. If an accused decides they will get in the Box, they go first before any other Defence witnesses.

 

[Elde Fruit]

Becoming verified will not disclose who you are, it will not tell us anymore than you already have. If you want to be taken seriously, without the snarky comments, it would be best for all concerned.

It will....to the Administrator, and I am not going there either. I have no need to prove any credential. Just look at what is posted and address that. I do not expect anything beyond that.

 

[Sillybilly]

It will....to the Administrator, and I am not going there either. I have no need to prove any credential. Just look at what is posted and address that. I do not expect anything beyond that.

If you do not wish to be verified, then all your comments stated as fact without supporting links must be stated as your OPINION only, otherwise they will be treated as rumor and subject to removal.

 

[Ooohm]

Tostee has never spoken publically about anything to do with this case. But we know he has attempted to sway opinions via the internet. His way is to hide behind a screen.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Once Toastee is found guilty. I will probably have to smile and dance all night.

 

[Trooper]

would it be a fair conclusion to come to, that this was the usual method of dating for both Gabe and Warriena?... I got the impression that Gabe was keen on dating strangers to the Gold Coast, as opposed to locals, and that makes a bit of sense in regard to his process with women, generally..

It would be risky to put recordings of local girls on his bodybuilding web thingy, but visitors, that cuts the risk down them identifying themselves.. .. and naturally, complaining about it. ..

It was a long long way into the nights activities, before Gabe told Warriena that she was being recorded, and she was way past registering that.. he, on the other hand, is remarkably sober, and by intent, I reckon. Not by accident.

 

[Trooper]

Once Toastee is found guilty. I will probably have to smile and dance all night.

View attachment 102824

I'm with Dexter.