Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #7

[SouthAussie]

I just want to say how much I admire and appreciate everyone standing up in this thread for Rrie.

:grouphug:

Personally, I feel that murder is the right charge but I'd be satisfied with a manslaughter verdict. The important thing is that this man doesn't have the opportunity to continue his predatory ways.

Ditto everything you said, TheOtherChristina. :loveyou:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855536/I-completely-ashamed-Gable-Tostee-s-handwritten-note-bid-freedom-balcony-fall-death-says-s-wittier-started-binge-drinking-Schoolies-17.html

All the hallmarks of a manipulative person. The actions don't match the words.

 

[possumheart]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852758/Please-help-nail-Gable-Tostee-Australian-Police-s-plea-dating-app-Tinder-aid-prosecution-alleged-balcony-murder.html

 

[Kitsune]

All the hallmarks of a manipulative person. The actions don't match the words.

Also reminds me of something my 16yr old son would write to get his butt out of trouble for doing something dumb, teenage dumb trouble, to try and convince me that he is sorry and that I should not ban him from electronic devices. Not what a grown adult would write, in a serious situation.

 

[Estelle]

I think it is telling that the defense did not have any expert witnesses suggesting that Rrie's obstructed breathing was anything other than Gabe trying cause her harm.

Why was the telescope in two pieces .... I wonder?
imo

These points are very significant IMO.

 

[JCB]

Have just finished reading the past couple of days worth of posts and there has certainly been some spirited discussion! I'd just like to (re)clarify a number of things in the interests of a balanced and legally accurate argument.

The Crown has proceeded on the charge of murder. As with any charge, to satisfy a charge of a murder, a number of not negotiable elements must individually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case case we have the element of intent (in some criminal matters the element of intent need not be satisfied before a finding of guilt, there are known as strict liability of absolute liability offences). To be found guilty of murder it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either intended to kill the victim or inflict grievous bodily harm, that is an injury which, if left untreated, would be life threatening for the victim.

As I've previously referred to, many rejoiced with the GBC murder conviction being reinstated however a consequence of this High Court decision, perhaps unintentional, is that it very much narrows the confines of speculation outside of the evidence admitted in a criminal trial. It will also mean less defendants will give evidence on their behalf or even call any witnesses at all. Both are an impediment to the Crown and will see an increase in acquittals over time.

Turning to the element of intent. The Crown contends that the alleged act of choking or strangulation constitutes GBH and is the sole basis of the murder charge, there has been no other evidence led that could satisfy this particular element. The Crown has NOT alleged that Gable intended to kill Warriena at any time. The problem with this choking allegation is that it is contrary to much of the findings of the pathologist who conducted the post mortem.

Dr Little gave evidence that there was absolutely no signs of trauma either to the skin or the neck muscles which would be apparent in a typical case of strangulation or choking. When pressed, Dr Little gave evidence that there is a particular form of choking which was referred to as an 'arm lock' which was capable of leaving no marks on the skin however the possibility of there being no muscular trauma was, in her words, less common. Throughout the first few days, the Crown made no reference to an arm lock or similar method of strangulation being employed until Dr Little raised it as the only possibility (albeit unlikely).

Given that intent to inflict GBH is an element of this charge, Gable must be acquitted as even if the prosecution case was taken at it's strongest, it cannot be proved that Warriena was choked, in fact the physical evidence suggests that she probably wasn't. On the recording there was certainly evidence of some laboured breathing however this could have been caused by a number of factors (being held against the ground etc.), however the problem that the Crown now face is that they've thrown all of their eggs into the choking basket, they have led no evidence to suggest it could have been anything else that caused the laboured breathing. Thanks to the GBC decision, it would be impermissible for the jury to speculate on any reasons that Warriena was not breathing normally, they either must accept that she was being strangled or they must reject it and evidence from Dr Little, who we must remember was called by the Crown, suggests that the altercation simply did not play out the way the Crown suggests. There may be other possibilities but the jury is unable to speculate, given the way the case was run by the Crown. On this basis, the murder allegation is doomed to fail, if not at the trial stage, certainly during any potential appeal. Ultimately Gable cannot be found guilty of murder.

The Crown have also fallen short of proving intent as during whatever altercation occurred, there was no suggestion from the Crown that whatever Gable was doing he did not stop stop of his own volition. Choking someone obviously is an horrendous act however if the act was voluntarily ceased prior to any danger to the victims health, it becomes an assault (albeit a serious one) as opposed to GBH which as you recall means there must have been a life threatening injury sustained. Again, the murder charge fails at this point (and it only gets to this point if the jury inexplicably accepts that Warriena was choked beyond a reasonable doubt).

Finding Gable guilty of manslaughter is an option to the jury and does not require that the Crown proves that Gable intended to kill of inflict GBH upon Warriena. The pertinent element here is that they must prove that Gable's actions on that night were responsible for Warriena's death in that the possibility of death was foreseeable to a reasonable person and that the actions taken by the victim were proportionate to the level of the threat.

There is no medical evidence that Warriena was choked and no other explanation was offered as to the reason for her laboured breathing so then the jury would then ask themselves, could Gable have reasonably foreseen the possibility that Warriena would climb over the balcony and while there was obviously an altercation of some type, was it sufficiently serious that climbing over a 14th story balcony could be viewed as proportionate to the threat imposed.

For Warriena's actions to be proportionate, there MUST have been an imminent threat to her life simply because the actions she chose were so risky, to the point where death was almost certain. The problem the Crown has is that choking cannot be proved, and medical evidence suggests that it did not occur, at least in the manner that the Crown asserts and the Crown made the following (perhaps slightly paraphrased) admission, "The Crown does not contend that Gable intended to harm or kill Warriena when he isolated her on the balcony". So she was not fleeing GBH, which by definition is life threatening, and the Crown asserts that there was no intention for Gable to harm her after the altercation.

So for manslaughter to be proved in this situation, the fact that Warriena's actions were so risky and dangerous means that for it to be proportionate, there had to a real, and imminent threat to her life and by the Crown's own admission, there was not. It matters not that she was intoxicated, the test is not a "a reasonable person, having mind to their level of impairment", it is "a reasonable person". Her level of intoxication is not relevant here and was not relied upon by the Crown in their arguments anyway. She consumed the alcohol of her own free will, she was perfectly entitled to stop at any point she wished, she was at no point forced to consume more alcohol than she was comfortable with. Likewise even if the alcohol she consumed was illegally brewed, this was not in any way relied upon by the Crown so cannot be considered by the jury. The Crown does not contend that there was an imminent risk to her life so therefore the manslaughter charge must also fail.

Parallels are being drawn between the current case and the Royall case but it's largely irrelevant. In Royall, it was beyond dispute that GBH had occurred and as such, met the criteria for murder. It's also irrelevant at the trial stage as the jury will (should) have no knowledge of this case and may only be relied upon during any subsequent appeals. It's a sideshow, interesting to the us as observers but the decision has absolutely no legal bearing on this case, at least at this point.

This is a tragedy of tremendous proportions, a young person has needlessly lost their life, Warriena's family have suffered tremendously and it's something that Gable will have to live with for the rest of his life. There are no winners here and I am in no way trying to trivialise Warriena's incredibly untimely death but it simply is not murder or manslaughter.

The following recurring topics, while we are free to discuss them here, cannot have any bearing over the decision of the jury due to the way the case was run by the Crown -

- The level of Warriena's intoxication.
- The level of Gable's intoxication.
- The source of the intoxication.
- The "mystery basement item".
- Gable's behaviour both online and during previous interactions with other women.

 

[Estelle]

What would the likelihood of a verdict tomorrow be I wonder? Also is the recording in full what the Jury will be listening too? There seems so much missing that they weren't shown...If he gets off can the Crown retrial him with all the evidence?

My prediction is that it will be a hung jury. What do others think?

 

[possumheart]

Thank you for your mammoth typing effort JCB, but even a thesis could not convince me that GT is not an incredibly flawed and DANGEROUS human being. And I have no doubt that his actions convinced Warriena that he is. And her reaction to this realisation resulted in her ultimate tragic end.
Just my opinion, of course.

 

[possumheart]

My prediction is that it will be a hung jury. What do others think?

Could well be.

 

[Estelle]

"The reality is, she then tries something. She picks up the metal clamp and hits him.
"She is clearly on the table holding that object. It's clearly the object being referred to when he's saying 'let go, let go, let go'."
"He was hit, probably in the head, with a telescope clamp.
"Those are absolutely critical points. Tostee was plainly acting in self-defence, if hit in the head, or even if an attempt to hit in the head, with a heavy metal object.
"When it drops, that's when she gets hysterical, all of the, 'no, no, no, no' and the screaming happens from that point onwards.
"She hits him in the head and at that point he puts her outside."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11729965

:fishy:

The media seem to be making things up. Tostee said himself that SHE TRIED TO HIT ME. Did she unscrew it herself? Why was it in pieces?

 

[Fluffykins]

Finding Gable guilty of manslaughter is an option to the jury and does not require that the Crown proves that Gable intended to kill of inflict GBH upon Warriena. The pertinent element here is that they must prove that Gable's actions on that night were responsible for Warriena's death in that the possibility of death was foreseeable to a reasonable person and that the actions taken by the victim were proportionate to the level of the threat.

Definitely manslaughter then. I was outlining the case to someone who knew nothing about it, and he recapped my outline by saying "so he locked a blind drunk chick out on a highrise balcony at 2am and now she's dead. No surprises there."

The possibility of her death should have been foreseeable to anyone.

 

[emirates1957]

Exactly. A good man would of taken care of her, and it's IMO a parental job for mother's to teach their son's respect for women from a young age. I have raised three boys to adulthood and they know about that, and have had females tell me what lovely young men i have raised. I am very proud of that too. And drinking alcohol when the young people socialise together doesn't change that either because that is when a young man should have a girl's back even more because she is more vulnerable after drinking alcohol. All IMO anyway.

Couldn't agree more. At the age of 5 I tried to teach my children right from wrong and to treat people with respect. Fortunately they have grown into wonderful young adults whom I love and adore. It is not unusual for us to have at least 6 teenage friends over nightly......this tape has been played over and over to worn some of these young folk of the sort of predators that exist out there. All of whom who had listened to this were horrified ... that was from both male and female. I do hope he serves time........if not I believe there is a chance we will be talking about him again in the not too distant future. I know we have talked about his IQ of 150, prisons are full of people with extremely high IQ (from various books I have)....just imagine what these high IQ individuals could achieve. Tostee's IQ is wasted within his shell of a human being.

 

[Kitsune]

JCB, thank you very much for taking the time to write that post

 

[Fluffykins]

I know we have talked about his IQ of 150, prisons are full of people with extremely high IQ (from various books I have)....just imagine what these high IQ individuals could achieve. Tostee's IQ is wasted within his shell of a human being.

It appears that IQ figure is something he plucked out of thin air to boost his alpha male thing, impress the girls - "bigger is better." In reality, nobody with an IQ that high could cope with spending their days laying carpets.

 

[sosocurious]

But Cash explains they need to exclude all scenarios consistent with innocence to find this. #tostee
— Kate Kyriacou (@KateKyriacou) October 14, 2016

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t/news-story/955bf66cf27b2af466ac9eb1e15835df

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

Have just finished reading the past couple of days worth of posts and there has certainly been some spirited discussion! I'd just like to (re)clarify a number of things in the interests of a balanced and legally accurate argument.

The Crown has proceeded on the charge of murder. As with any charge, to satisfy a charge of a murder, a number of not negotiable elements must individually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case case we have the element of intent (in some criminal matters the element of intent need not be satisfied before a finding of guilt, there are known as strict liability of absolute liability offences). To be found guilty of murder it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either intended to kill the victim or inflict grievous bodily harm, that is an injury which, if left untreated, would be life threatening for the victim.

As I've previously referred to, many rejoiced with the GBC murder conviction being reinstated however a consequence of this High Court decision, perhaps unintentional, is that it very much narrows the confines of speculation outside of the evidence admitted in a criminal trial. It will also mean less defendants will give evidence on their behalf or even call any witnesses at all. Both are an impediment to the Crown and will see an increase in acquittals over time.

Turning to the element of intent. The Crown contends that the alleged act of choking or strangulation constitutes GBH and is the sole basis of the murder charge, there has been no other evidence led that could satisfy this particular element. The Crown has NOT alleged that Gable intended to kill Warriena at any time. The problem with this choking allegation is that it is contrary to much of the findings of the pathologist who conducted the post mortem.

Dr Little gave evidence that there was absolutely no signs of trauma either to the skin or the neck muscles which would be apparent in a typical case of strangulation or choking. When pressed, Dr Little gave evidence that there is a particular form of choking which was referred to as an 'arm lock' which was capable of leaving no marks on the skin however the possibility of there being no muscular trauma was, in her words, less common. Throughout the first few days, the Crown made no reference to an arm lock or similar method of strangulation being employed until Dr Little raised it as the only possibility (albeit unlikely).

Given that intent to inflict GBH is an element of this charge, Gable must be acquitted as even if the prosecution case was taken at it's strongest, it cannot be proved that Warriena was choked, in fact the physical evidence suggests that she probably wasn't. On the recording there was certainly evidence of some laboured breathing however this could have been caused by a number of factors (being held against the ground etc.), however the problem that the Crown now face is that they've thrown all of their eggs into the choking basket, they have led no evidence to suggest it could have been anything else that caused the laboured breathing. Thanks to the GBC decision, it would be impermissible for the jury to speculate on any reasons that Warriena was not breathing normally, they either must accept that she was being strangled or they must reject it and evidence from Dr Little, who we must remember was called by the Crown, suggests that the altercation simply did not play out the way the Crown suggests. There may be other possibilities but the jury is unable to speculate, given the way the case was run by the Crown. On this basis, the murder allegation is doomed to fail, if not at the trial stage, certainly during any potential appeal. Ultimately Gable cannot be found guilty of murder.

The Crown have also fallen short of proving intent as during whatever altercation occurred, there was no suggestion from the Crown that whatever Gable was doing he did not stop stop of his own volition. Choking someone obviously is an horrendous act however if the act was voluntarily ceased prior to any danger to the victims health, it becomes an assault (albeit a serious one) as opposed to GBH which as you recall means there must have been a life threatening injury sustained. Again, the murder charge fails at this point (and it only gets to this point if the jury inexplicably accepts that Warriena was choked beyond a reasonable doubt).

Finding Gable guilty of manslaughter is an option to the jury and does not require that the Crown proves that Gable intended to kill of inflict GBH upon Warriena. The pertinent element here is that they must prove that Gable's actions on that night were responsible for Warriena's death in that the possibility of death was foreseeable to a reasonable person and that the actions taken by the victim were proportionate to the level of the threat.

There is no medical evidence that Warriena was choked and no other explanation was offered as to the reason for her laboured breathing so then the jury would then ask themselves, could Gable have reasonably foreseen the possibility that Warriena would climb over the balcony and while there was obviously an altercation of some type, was it sufficiently serious that climbing over a 14th story balcony could be viewed as proportionate to the threat imposed.

For Warriena's actions to be proportionate, there MUST have been an imminent threat to her life simply because the actions she chose were so risky, to the point where death was almost certain. The problem the Crown has is that choking cannot be proved, and medical evidence suggests that it did not occur, at least in the manner that the Crown asserts and the Crown made the following (perhaps slightly paraphrased) admission, "The Crown does not contend that Gable intended to harm or kill Warriena when he isolated her on the balcony". So she was not fleeing GBH, which by definition is life threatening, and the Crown asserts that there was no intention for Gable to harm her after the altercation.

So for manslaughter to be proved in this situation, the fact that Warriena's actions were so risky and dangerous means that for it to be proportionate, there had to a real, and imminent threat to her life and by the Crown's own admission, there was not. It matters not that she was intoxicated, the test is not a "a reasonable person, having mind to their level of impairment", it is "a reasonable person". Her level of intoxication is not relevant here and was not relied upon by the Crown in their arguments anyway. She consumed the alcohol of her own free will, she was perfectly entitled to stop at any point she wished, she was at no point forced to consume more alcohol than she was comfortable with. Likewise even if the alcohol she consumed was illegally brewed, this was not in any way relied upon by the Crown so cannot be considered by the jury. The Crown does not contend that there was an imminent risk to her life so therefore the manslaughter charge must also fail.

Parallels are being drawn between the current case and the Royall case but it's largely irrelevant. In Royall, it was beyond dispute that GBH had occurred and as such, met the criteria for murder. It's also irrelevant at the trial stage as the jury will (should) have no knowledge of this case and may only be relied upon during any subsequent appeals. It's a sideshow, interesting to the us as observers but the decision has absolutely no legal bearing on this case, at least at this point.

This is a tragedy of tremendous proportions, a young person has needlessly lost their life, Warriena's family have suffered tremendously and it's something that Gable will have to live with for the rest of his life. There are no winners here and I am in no way trying to trivialise Warriena's incredibly untimely death but it simply is not murder or manslaughter.

The following recurring topics, while we are free to discuss them here, cannot have any bearing over the decision of the jury due to the way the case was run by the Crown -

- The level of Warriena's intoxication.
- The level of Gable's intoxication.
- The source of the intoxication.
- The "mystery basement item".
- Gable's behaviour both online and during previous interactions with other women.

:goodpost:

 

[Estelle]

Just listened to the final 6 minutes of the tape on you tube...'W' should have refused to have any more vodka, as she was out of control & frightened of him overpowering her, holding her by the throat, as she was having trouble breathing...He said he would knock her out as she was a 'bad girl'.....His behaviour also got out of control....He sounds to me like a 'manipulative psycho & control freak' in full control of 'W' in her vulnerable state, the drunker she became the worse he got...A neighbour had heard them fighting on & off alll night into the early hours of the morning.....It sounds as though there were 2 neighbours who were witnesses

For 'W,s' feet to be facing outwards, HE must have put her in that position over the balcony....The only way of escaping (in her mind) was to lower herself onto the balcony below, even though a neighbour told her she would not be able to escape that way
& to go back inside.....She then obviously slipped or couldn't hang onto the balconcy any longer & fell to her death...GT should never have left her on the balcony in her drunken & vulnerable state & only being semi clothed, as earlier he told her that she would have to leave without her possessions, including her phone....She was so so terrified of him & his actions towards her.

I have read that he has mental health issues including OCD.....I feel that he is responsible for her death & should be charged with Manslaughter....How long was he planning to leave her locked out on that balcony, undressed on that cold August night at 2am, without her phone.

I believe that her drunken state & erratic behaviour could unfortunately go against her in the jury's summing up, as it can't be proved that he actually threw her over the balcony, as the neighbour was the witness who saw her feet dangling from the balcony & he told her to go back inside.....She then slipped or let go & fell to her death....From listening to the tape, it cannot be proved that he pushed her over the balcony causing her to fall to her death.....I hope I am wrong but I feel that he may be found Not Guilty, even though I feel that he is guilty of Manslaughter.

This is my opinion only.

BBM1 - She did refuse the last drink Tostee offered. A previous poster outlined everything about the sequence of drinks he poured. I hindsight, she should have refused all the drinks he offered. But often when you are nervous and anxious (which I think she was even though her behaviour came over otherwise), you often feel that a drink will calm you down. She could have been thirsty and as vodka is colourless, drank that instead of water. She was probably dehydrated and drinking on an empty stomach would not have helped.

BBM2 The prosecution said that after he choked her/restricted her breathing, and locked her out on the balcony and she tried to escape from him, it was the same as throwing her over the balcony himself as she had no other means of escape. This was a causal reaction with no break between the choking and the death. As she feared for her life, this is MURDER BY FEAR. SHE SAID NO 33 TIMES! AND HER SCREAMS WERE FRIGHTENINGLY PIERCING. Several times during the night, Tostee mentioned the balcony and that he would toss her over it so he implanted in her mind that that was what he was going to do to her - whether it was then or later when he came back through that balcony door again. Picking up that metal object was done in self-defence.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Also reminds me of something my 16yr old son would write to get his butt out of trouble for doing something dumb, teenage dumb trouble, to try and convince me that he is sorry and that I should not ban him from electronic devices. Not what a grown adult would write, in a serious situation.

So true, my son was the same and for the threat of electronic games time out.

GT has learnt through the years how to express remorse in writing, he might even parrot his parent's expressions/words. Not a scrap of remorse in reality though. He will continue to break the law, he can't help himself. JMO

 

[Estelle]

very dodgy
How can you clearly hear someone standing on a coffee table?

It is the Defence Barrister saying all of this:

"The reality is, she then tries something. She picks up the metal clamp and hits him.

"She is clearly on the table holding that object. It's clearly the object being referred to when he's saying 'let go, let go, let go'."

"He was hit, probably in the head, with a telescope clamp.

"Those are absolutely critical points. Tostee was plainly acting in self-defence, if hit in the head, or even if an attempt to hit in the head, with a heavy metal object.

"When it drops, that's when she gets hysterical, all of the, 'no, no, no, no' and the screaming happens from that point onwards.

"She hits him in the head and at that point he puts her outside."

He is lying IMO on behalf of Tostee.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11729965

People are believing Holt's lies now and the Prosecution does not have the opportunity to rebuff them which IMO they should have had.

 

[sosocurious]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7927026-3x2-700x467.jpg
It is odd there just does not seem to be much disturbed other than a few rocks scattered and others positioned in the bowl.
Everything seems in order on the table.
Though, Rrie's bag open and a single key a little further over.
It does look as though it could be her shoes are on the other side of the table near the lounge.
imo