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

[shultz]

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.

Although the self inflicted marks could also just as easily be from actual suicide attempts, could they not?

 

[SouthAussie]

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.

BBM: Pardon me? What about the boom .. boom ... tackle to the ground? The struggle with someone struggling to breathe (likely Warriena as she was apparently unable to speak). The dragging/pushing Warriena out onto the balcony? The verbal threats? "I would have let you go, but you have been a bad girl"

 

[SouthAussie]

Although the self inflicted marks could also just as easily be from actual suicide attempts, could they not?

Doubtful the thigh ones would have been. Therefore, I presume that the wrist ones were cutting. These are very common places for people to cut. I might even go so far as to say they are classic. Not deep enough for death. Just deep enough to draw blood.

 

[Elde Fruit]

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

I did that. Here is the outcome. Nothing about his hair on it that I can see.

Link.

 

[sosocurious]

BBM: Pardon me? What about the boom .. boom ... tackle to the ground? The struggle with someone struggling to breathe (likely Warriena as she was apparently unable to speak). The dragging/pushing Warriena out onto the balcony? The verbal threats? "I would have let you go, but you have been a bad girl"

Yes SA ......not to mention the no, no,no, no, 33 time in 75 seconds. Let me go home. Just let me go home.

 

[SouthAussie]

I did that. Here is the outcome. Nothing about his hair on it that I can see.

Link.

Reading the articles might help. Works for the rest of us.

I didn't go to your link. A little tired of the games.

ETA: It is WARRIENA'S hair on it, not Tossers.

 

[shultz]

Pardon me? What about the boom .. boom ... tackle to the ground? The dragging/pushing Warriena out onto the balcony? The verbal threats? "I would have let you go, but you have been a bad girl"

I addressed this already. He didn't punch, hit or kick her. He apparently didn't choke her (according to the pathologist). He wrestled her outside and closed and locked the door. It doesn't matter where she was locked out, or what he said. The suggestion is that he used force that was reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence. He locked her outside to stop the rock throwing. Put her away from the rocks and telescope.. pretty simply stuff.

Read the actual law and my post very carefully, because it pretty much answers the question. If you're 'speculating' about 'possibilities' the evidence might suggest you're already in acquittal territory. If it's arguable either way, you're in acquittal territory.

Even the most vengeful person must be looking at this evidence and having doubts about what exactly occurred.

You only need one single person on the jury and he's free.

 

[Freya1977]

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

There was also the part where he tackled her, pinned her down and did something (most likely choked her). <modsnip>

 

[shultz]

Yes SA ......not to mention the no, no,no, no, 33 time in 75 seconds. Let me go home. Just let me go home.

Again, he took reasonable steps to effectively make a defense. it doesn't matter where he locked her (could have been a cupboard, could have been outside or anywhere) and it doesn't matter if she didn't like it (she clearly didn't).

All the jury needs to really ask is 'is locking someone outside a reasonable defence against stone throwing?

Takes you back to childhood when you'd just go inside when the bullies were throwing things at you.

 

[shultz]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't detract that I'm right about the facts and most likely the law too and you know I am too.

 

[Strangeworld]

I addressed this already. He didn't punch, hit or kick her. He apparently didn't choke her (according to the pathologist). He wrestled her outside and closed and locked the door. It doesn't matter where she was locked out, or what he said. The suggestion is that he used force that was reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence. He locked her outside to stop the rock throwing. Put her away from the rocks and telescope.. pretty simply stuff. Read the actual law and my post very carefully, because it pretty much answers the question. If you're 'speculating' about 'possibilities' the evidence might suggest you're already in acquittal territory. If it's arguable either way, you're in acquittal territory. Even the most vengeful person must be looking at this evidence and having doubts about what exactly occurred.You only need one single person on the jury and he's free.

I didn't realise there was a third person in the apartment prior to Warriena's death...that's the only conclusion I can come to given your certainty as to Tostee's actions that night. Didn't punch, didn't hit, didn't kick. So I'm guessing one of our members will be giving evidence for the defense?:facepalm::facepalm:

 

[shultz]

BBM: Pardon me? What about the boom .. boom ... tackle to the ground? The struggle with someone struggling to breathe (likely Warriena as she was apparently unable to speak). The dragging/pushing Warriena out onto the balcony? The verbal threats? "I would have let you go, but you have been a bad girl"

These things don't matter. He's entitled to use enough force to make an effectual defence.

Ask yourself - was GT being attacked in ANY way?

If so, did what he do result in an effectual defence?

It doesn't matter if he laughed whilst doing it or if she liked it or not.

 

[Strangeworld]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't detract that I'm right about the facts and most likely the law too and you know I am too.

IMO you will find quite a few who are doubtful of a murder conviction, no argument from me there....hope is found in the other consequences that Tostee will face. Life will not go back to normal for him, there are other ways of pursuing someone for their role in contributing to a person's death.

 

[Elde Fruit]

IMO you will find quite a few who are doubtful of a murder conviction, no argument from me there....hope is found in the other consequences that Tostee will face. Life will not go back to normal for him, there are other ways of pursuing someone for their role in contributing to a person's death.

What would those other ways be?

 

[Strangeworld]

What would those other ways be?

legal ways

Edit:
sorry I meant to say legally wegally ways :fence:

 

[Freya1977]

What would those other ways be?

Ask OJ

 

[SouthAussie]

legal ways

Edit:
sorry I meant to say legally wegally ways :fence:

You are too funny, Strangeworld.
You have made me laugh so many times on this thread.

 

[shultz]

I didn't realise there was a third person in the apartment prior to Warriena's death...that's the only conclusion I can come to given your certainty as to Tostee's actions that night. Didn't punch, didn't hit, didn't kick. So I'm guessing one of our members will be giving evidence for the defense?:facepalm::facepalm:

You're missing the point. It's easy to see that the evidence can go either way. That's the problem with the crown case. The evidence can go either way and there's plenty of room to argue this defence. My conclusions are drawn from hearing news reports about the evidence like you.. but the difference is I know I don't need to reach a 100% rock solid conclusion and neither does GT.

 

[Elde Fruit]

No, no he won't be sitting on a gold mine. Really, come on. IMO he will be facing a civil case if he walks free. This won't go away. And who knows what else the police may have, or may still be, uncovering on his laptop and phones. He was a busy bee with his technology from HIS disclosures in social media. With what is out there on forums, etc that has come straight from him, he has no hope of litigation. For those who haven't seen what he put out there, it's a good read and might help with understanding the comments on this thread - opinions formed have not been pulled from the air. They are founded in truth.

(My bolds.) If he is acquitted, he is, and any social media site which has defamed him will be the target. The MSM have been appropriately guarded, as you'd expect. Social media are not exempt from the defamation Laws even sites which are 'victim friendly.'

IMO he will be facing a civil case if he walks free.

So.....who can sue him civilly, for what, and on what basis? (Pssst......there is no-one who can.)

 

[Strangeworld]

OT (well, sort of...) for those who know Everybody Loves Raymond, whenever someone in my life frustrates me, I just imagine Debra and her catchphrase..."idiot", works a treat