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

[Elde Fruit]

Elde, we don't know the context of the rock fight. They could've been throwing them at each other playfully. This is why I've said the audio file presents 50% of the story and is a flawed source for two reasons a) Tostee recorded the conversation knowing it was recorded and could thus phrase accordingly b) we don't know what actions they were perpetrating.

We can't state with 100% certainty what happened in terms of physical actions. This has actually been your argument in regards to choking.

Re telescope - when is the telescope actually mentioned on the audio? The rocks were the only objects mentioned.

The telescope is his allegation (not mentioned on recording), and only hair was found on the object with no blood.

I'm curious as to your opinion, was the injuries that Tostee presented at the doctors consistent with such an injury? Do we know where exactly she is alleged to hit him as yet?

Hard to answer all that accurately. I recall (I hope honestly) that there was evidence that his blood and DNA were found on the telescope. Am I wrong about that?

 

[Trooper]

Sorry, I have no access to a link to a TV Stations New Bulletins. All I can do is (hopefully) faithfully repeat what it contained. The Journalist may well have been in the Court Room. I'd hope so. People ought consider why there has been no comment about what it was the Judge wanted to discuss with the Lawyers in the absence of the Jury. That discussion would have occurred in open (to the public) Court. I am speculating (far from wildly) and neither (very obviously) is the other Poster, WBJ (or similar name.)

there would be no comment about that because it is forbidden to comment about it. You should know this. Everyone else does.. no comment outside of the jury being present , is allowed, in the public domain, .. in fact, a young woman is currently undergoing prosecution for doing just that in a court case in Melbourne, as a blogger for a website.. and news paper, too, I think.

 

[Elde Fruit]

I thought everyone knew that once the prosecution put its case to the bench and before the defence began, all parties were consulted as to whether there was still a case to answer... there was no such of a mention of there being no case to answer in this matter, R v Tostee.. it is merely the form of the proceedings.. .

Totally incorrect Sir/Madam.

 

[SouthAussie]

Hard to answer all that accurately. I recall (I hope honestly) that there was evidence that his blood and DNA were found on the telescope. Am I wrong about that?

No, you are not wrong. But it is not a clear reflection that Warriena caused that blood to be there. Maybe she did, she was certainly drunk and disorderly. And maybe she didn't. She is no longer with us to tell her side of the story.

Tostee’s blood was found on a small, white rock Ms Wright threw at him as well as a telescope she hit him with after he restrained her, forensic experts have testified.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t/news-story/f76ef536cd6f8db60e491cbc9e67b00a

 

[Elde Fruit]

there would be no comment about that because it is forbidden to comment about it. You should know this. Everyone else does.. no comment outside of the jury being present , is allowed, in the public domain, .. in fact, a young woman is currently undergoing prosecution for doing just that in a court case in Melbourne, as a blogger for a website.. and news paper, too, I think.

You are quite correct this time. You passed that little test. Channel Nine sailed very close to contempt in what it did report, suggesting, as it did, that the Defence would be called upon tomorrow.

 

[Makara]

Sorry, I have no access to a link to a TV Stations New Bulletins. All I can do is (hopefully) faithfully repeat what it contained. The Journalist may well have been in the Court Room. I'd hope so. People ought consider why there has been no comment about what it was the Judge wanted to discuss with the Lawyers in the absence of the Jury. That discussion would have occurred in open (to the public) Court. I am speculating (far from wildly) and neither (very obviously) is the other Poster, WBJ (or similar name.)

I'm not referring to the Channel Nine link. I can find that myself. you stated That is inconsistent with the Judge having the decided view there is no case to answer.....Nolle Prosequi....or directed verdict.

This is your opinion yes? That wasn't part of the Channel Nine report was it?

 

[Trooper]

and that young lady who did comment is being prosecuted because the trial itself had to be aborted , at terrific cost, not just to witnesses who had to fly in from hither and yon, so any comment made about what the judge spoke to with the legal representatives of the crown and the defence is absolutely forbidden to be broadcast.... this is always explained very clearly to all present at the time and it is expected to be followed to the letter of the law.

 

[MZD]

Hard to answer all that accurately. I recall (I hope honestly) that there was evidence that his blood and DNA were found on the telescope. Am I wrong about that?

DNA was found on the telescope and rocks; there's mixed reports in the newspapers on whether or not both the telescope and the rocks had blood, or just the rocks. I remember reading the telescope was just hair in terms of DNA; however I could be wrong.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...fter-tinder-dates-death/ar-BBxivdk?li=AAgfLCP

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...t/news-story/91fbb0b8b03ae325479ff789f17bfef8

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ena-wrights-balcony-fall-20161012-gs0fmv.html

 

[Elde Fruit]

TRIAL UPDATE: The jury has heard there was no sign Warriena Wright was strangled before falling from Gable Tostee's balcony.
#9News | http://9News.com.au

https://www.facebook.com/9NewsGoldCoast/


Nine News Gold Coast ‏@9NewsGoldCoast [video=twitter;786477331443359744]https://twitter.com/9NewsGoldCoast/status/786477331443359744[/video] More major evidence has emerged from the Gable Tostee murder trial. @TessaHardy9 #9News

And there it is. "The Defence will get an opportunity to give or call evidence." That is the normal situation. Given the context of the Jury being sent away because the Judge wanted to discuss matters with the Lawyers, it is indicative (to those who know the procedure) that I was wrong (over-read the position) as was the other Poster who seems very well versed in this.

 

[Strangeworld]

And there it is. "The Defence will get an opportunity to give or call evidence." That is the normal situation. Given the context of the Jury being sent away because the Judge wanted to discuss matters with the Lawyers, it is indicative (to those who know the procedure) that I was wrong (over-read the position) as was the other Poster who seems very well versed in this.

Respect you acknowledging you jumped the gun, Elde

 

[SouthAussie]

DNA was found on the telescope and rocks; there's mixed reports in the newspapers on whether or not both the telescope and the rocks had blood, or just the rocks. I remember reading the telescope was just hair in terms of DNA; however I could be wrong.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...fter-tinder-dates-death/ar-BBxivdk?li=AAgfLCP

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...t/news-story/91fbb0b8b03ae325479ff789f17bfef8

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ena-wrights-balcony-fall-20161012-gs0fmv.html

And blood was actually found on 'a' small rock. He could have knelt on a rock and opened up one of his (presumable) carpet-laying injury scabs, as the rocks were evidently scattered on the floor.

He could have transferred blood to the telescope leg when unscrewing it or moving it, at any recent time (if the telescope blood is correct).

I am just not seeing any injuries on his body that were definitely caused by violence toward him. Just old scabs and some red marks/scratches that could have been caused by anything at all.
Just as it cannot be identified if any of Warriena's 80 injuries :cry: were caused by him.


BBM
Forensic medical officer Nelle Van Buuren told the court Tostee had abrasions on his cheek, nose, shoulder and knee when he was examined on the afternoon of August 8 but was not able to say what caused them or how old they were.
What is thought to be Tostee's blood was also found on a small, white decorative rock he claims Ms Wright threw at him, the court heard.

http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/ga...-ate-pizza-phoned-lawyer-20161012-gs0y5m.html

 

[sosocurious]

Great post!!

And the rocks bother me too. For all we know, they were having a little flirty play rock fight between them, or she was tossing them and the one with both of their DNA on it could have been thrown a little too hard. There is not enough evidence to be 100% certain how the rock situation unfolded and the intention of both parties (i.e. was Warriena throwing them playfully or was she throwing them intending to hurt Tostee, etc).

The court heard tests on a small telescope the defence argues Ms Wright use to hit Tostee showed it had Ms Wright’s hair on it.
Her handprint was also found on the railing of Tostee’s 14th-floor balcony, the court was told.
Several ornamental rocks that were positioned in a bowl in Tostee’s apartment tested positive for blood. The court previously heard Ms Wright threw the rocks at Tostee.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...t/news-story/91fbb0b8b03ae325479ff789f17bfef8

Were the rocks that tested positive for blood really positioned in a bowl. How odd.


imo

 

[sosocurious]

Yes, I agree, not. It is entirely acceptable that a Guest in your House gets to toss rocks at you and hit you on the head with a telescope. I really do understand that.

:thinking:

Especially when it is her hair that is on the telescope. Not the hair of the person she was hitting on the head.
imo

 

[SouthAussie]

I actually believe that Tosser likely got his abrasions and red marks when he tackled Warriena to the ground and struggled to drag/push her outside. THAT was the violence that went on that night.
The rest of the little crapola was Warriena seeking more attention in a drunk and unruly fashion. imo

 

[Elde Fruit]

Especially when it is her hair that is on the telescope. Not the hair of the person she was hitting on the head.
imo

What is your source for that? I've not read/heard that anywhere.

 

[SouthAussie]

I also hope that the Crown has an expert ready to testify in rebuttal if the defence try to claim that Warriena's presumed self-cutting is a sign of a violent or suicidal nature.

My DD has a dear friend who went through a cutting phase, after she was raped as a young girl by a random hanging around a playground. Cutting is a sign of low self esteem and trying to rid the horror from your body, and a cry for help.

 

[sosocurious]

What is your source for that? I've not read/heard that anywhere.

The court heard tests on a small telescope the defence argues Ms Wright use to hit Tostee showed it had Ms Wright’s hair on it.
Link 4 posts back # 693

 

[SouthAussie]

What is your source for that? I've not read/heard that anywhere.

If a person googles "Tostee hair on telescope" the relevant links appear.

 

[barcode]

I actually believe that Tosser likely got his abrasions and red marks when he tackled Warriena to the ground and struggled to drag/push her outside. THAT was the violence that went on that night.
The rest of the little crapola was Warriena seeking more attention in a drunk and unruly fashion. imo

If I was to take a pic of my left hand as I type this, it would show a small abrasion between my pointer and middle finger between knuckles. I have no idea how I got it, usually I do know.

His injuries/abrasions were minor at best and did not seem out of the ordinary for a man to have.

Yesterday I did mention that his choice to put her on the balcony was not logical or a wise one and I may have been misunderstood when I also stated that putting her in the hallway was not an option.

To clarify, the victim was three times the legal limit, not sure as to his inebriation, but he was surely not stone cold sober. That being said, decisions made while drinking most often are not wise ones, truly calling a cab in hindsight would have been better. Basically you have two drunk individuals who both did stupid things and one lost her life but that is not murder and manslaughter even seems a stretch.

 

[shultz]

I think the discussion is a little bit misguided. I would go as far as saying a lot more than a little bit and completely misguided. I think it's focusing a bit much on refuting that GT's 'life wasn't threatened' by Ms Wright. It probably wasn't.. he was a big man and she was tiny. The evidence led so far suggests he wasn't really injured that much. Zero relevance.

The recording does suggest she was doing something, at least, to him, which might have caused him minor injury. This is all that is relevant. If she was using only the smallest smidgeon of force against him, this is an assault and what is relevant.

I think the overwhelming opinion here is that that yes, a smidgeon of force was being used against him by Ms Wright.

It does not matter that Ms Wright died in a very sad and horrible way. What matters is Tostee did not actually apply to her the force that killed her. The force he used was just enough to flick the latch on a door.

The reason this is so important is because GT is relying on s 271 of the Queensland Criminal Code, which reads as follows:

271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault 271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault

(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s271.html

Lets break it down into the elements:

1. When a person is unlawfully assualted?

I think the evidence can be viewed in such a way to suggest that force was used against GT without his consent. We'll tick a yes on this one.

2. Has not provoked? The jury could be out on this one. (See s 272) -

I think the evidence and audio so far suggests she just got a bit drunk and started being a bit physical with him without him really doing much to provoke her.

3. it is lawful for the person to use such force. -

This makes the force used a legal act.

4. Was the force used reasonably necessary to make an effectual defense against the assault?

This is the kicker. This is why he walks free. All GT did was push her out onto the balcony and lock the door. He didn't really feel overtly threatened, evidence by his 'bad girl remark' but she was going at him enough for him to warrant doing something to prevent the stone throwing or whatever was occurring. And the extremely relevant fact is that all he did was push her out onto the balcony. The force used could have been much worse - he could have brought the full front of his size advantage and hurt her badly. He reacted in a minor way to a minor attack by merely pushing a door closed and locking it. This is why the defence is not really pushing to prove he was mortally injured. It's not a flaw in his case it's not relevant.

5. Was the force used intended to cause death or GBH?

Interested... this comes down to foreseeability and causation and also, importantly, Ms Wrights free will. The audio recording suggests she was locked out and climbed over in a very short period of time. Between the door slamming and the scream is very brief. The short period of time elapsing erodes away the argument any reasonable person could have seen it coming. The evidence could support the theory GT was even turned around and not looking, given he appears he didn't know if she was dead or not (but strongly suspected it) later on.

His strongest argument is that the force used was only intended to close and lock a door.

The second argument here is her free will. Assuming she just chose to do it so suddenly out of drunken bravado, a person exercising an independent act will always interrupt the chain of causation unless it's a given they'll react that way. This is why it's not manslaughter either.

Standard of Proof

The thing about raising a defence is, you don't need to prove it on the same standard of proof as the crown.

They're on beyond reasonable doubt. If you can raise a defence on the balance of probabilities (50/50) (which I suggest I have given my points on the evidence above) - the prosecution job is to then negative that defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not only do they have to prove the elements of murder, beyond any reasonable doubt, they have to prove that self defence doesn't apply beyond a reasonable doubt also.

This is where the crown case fails. The best case has been put forward by the crown already - now it's just flavour text. Not one piece of evidence yet has really buried the possibility of self-defence. And that's what the crown can't do.

Conclusion

Absolute tragedy though. Absolutely terrible accident to happen.

**edited so as not to detract from being right**

*opinion only