Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #8

[BreakingNews]

Yes, you would think that she would have had a lot more to say about it, to him. "You can't lock me out here, let me in, give me my stuff, you jerk". She didn't sound like a person who would hold back her thoughts, all throughout that recording. And yet, apparently, she did not even try to get back in.
There is something more to this story. Something Tostee is not revealing, and is invisible in the recording. imo

Sure has heck I wouldn't want to go back inside if I was scared of him! No matter how much I usually stand my ground. She was terrified. And I am still confused about the witness who stated that her feet were pointing out at first. That to me would suggest someone was dangling her over the edge.

 

[SouthAussie]

Is anyone doing the tweets for us today ??.

I'm sorry that I can't help. About to walk out the door. But will log on from time to time to see what is happening.

Thanks in advance for those that I know will be helping. :loveyou:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm certain that GT also mourned the loss of her life. He will live with it for the rest of his life. No one here knows him. No one can say he doesn't regret locking her out that night.

I don't think the crown cares about WW's family. They didn't ask them permission to prosecute this joke of a charge and deny them closure for years.

They also deny them the possibility of hearing an apology from GT.

This is about the crown running a test case. If they'd treated it like it was, a horrible tradgedy, WW's family could have moved on by now.

GT is only concerned for himself and his freedom. He placed himself in this predicament because he doesn't value the life and liberty of people, especially women.

Other things that make him tetchy are references to Warriena's beauty, his lack of patio furniture, the cheap tanning bed and the damning reasons for taking Warriena's phone. Mind you, these other things are pure speculation.

The DPP want justice for Warriena and her family. They're not doing this to torture them and suggesting this is insulting.

GT needs to feed off people, play with women's vulnerability while intoxicated, a long stint in jail with street smart prisoners may be challenging for him. Tough!

JMO

 

[Oz Jen]

Thanks once again Sleep! :tyou:

 

[possumheart]

He placed himself in this predicament because he doesn't value the life and liberty of people, especially women.

(Respectfully snipped)
...and he placed his parents and direct family in this predicament, because I see them as enablers who are now secondary victims.

 

[BreakingNews]

GT is only concerned for himself and his freedom. He placed himself in this predicament because he doesn't value the life and liberty of people, especially women.

Other things that make him tetchy are references to Warriena's beauty, his lack of patio furniture, the cheap tanning bed and the damning reasons for taking Warriena's phone. Mind you, these other things are pure speculation.

The DPP want justice for Warriena and her family. They're not doing this to torture them and suggesting this is insulting.

GT needs to feed off people, play with women's vulnerability while intoxicated, a long stint in jail with street smart prisoners may be challenging for him. Tough!

JMO

Around Surfers Paradise GT is known as a serial pest by the police. He has many charges. He shows no emotion - ever. He might not be capable of it. I doubt that he is remorseful. Wouldn't you think he'd go and look for her to help. But no, he rings his lawyer, changes clothes, walks out his door and goes for pizza.

 

[Puja]

GT is only concerned for himself and his freedom. He placed himself in this predicament because he doesn't value the life and liberty of people, especially women.

Other things that make him tetchy are references to Warriena's beauty, his lack of patio furniture, the cheap tanning bed and the damning reasons for taking Warriena's phone. Mind you, these other things are pure speculation.

The DPP want justice for Warriena and her family. They're not doing this to torture them and suggesting this is insulting.

GT needs to feed off people, play with women's vulnerability while intoxicated, a long stint in jail with street smart prisoners may be challenging for him. Tough!

JMO

He also seems to hate any reference to her loving animals, too.

 

[possumheart]

He also seems to hate any reference to her loving animals, too.

Is that why he posed with a Llama?

 

[JCB]

What is “Causation” in Criminal Law?

In criminal law, causation essentially describes a ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered by the alleged victim.

In order to establish a defendant’s guilt, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that his or her actions were a ‘substantial and significant cause’ of the harm. This means that although other factors may have contributed to the harm suffered, the defendant can in certain circumstances still be found criminally responsible. Homicide cases are often useful to illustrate the law relating to causation.

In the important case of Royall v R [1991] HCA 27, Kelly Louise Healey died after falling from the window of a sixth floor apartment. It was alleged that prior to her death, she had been engaged in a violent argument with her boyfriend, Mr Royall.

At trial, the prosecution put forward three possible explanations for her death:

1. That Mr Royall had pushed her out of the window,

2. That she had fallen whilst attempting to avoid an attack by Mr Royall, and

3. That she died whilst trying to escape ‘life-threatening violence.’

It was held that even though Ms Healey may have directly brought about her own death by jumping out the window, Mr Royall was ultimately responsible for her death as he created a ‘well founded apprehension that she would be subjected to further violence’ if she remained in the apartment.

Accordingly, the court found that Royall’s actions were the ‘substantial or significant cause’ of Ms Healey’s death.

In criminal cases, the question of whether the defendant’s conduct ‘substantially or significantly’ brought about the deceased’s death is left to the jury. Where there are several different possibilities for the death, as was the case in Royall, the jury is not required to determine the exact cause of death – but rather, they should simply focus on whether the defendant’s actions substantially contributed towards the death.

http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/what-is-causation-in-criminal-law/

There are other cases on this link too.

As per Brennan J in Royall -


On the other hand, where the victim's attempt at self-preservation is not reasonable (or proportionate), the chain of causation is broken and the victim's death is not treated as having been caused by the accused's conduct. Subject to a qualification presently to be mentioned, the question whether the chain of causation is broken by the victim's taking of the final fatal step is a question of fact to be answered by reference to the objective circumstances. Nevertheless, an accused cannot be held criminally responsible for a death that has been caused in fact by his conduct if the final fatal step taken by the victim was neither foreseen nor reasonably foreseeable. Foresight or reasonable foreseeability marks the limit of the consequences of conduct for which an accused may be held criminally responsible.

The proportionate test is not a subjective test, it's an objective test.

I don't think there is a reasonable person on the planet that would not concede that Warriena's attempt to descend either to the balcony below, or indeed the entire building, was almost certain to end fatally. The chances of successfully performing such an act were so small as to be virtually non existent.

What this means is for her actions to be proportionate to any threat she faced, the threat must have been so severe that a reasonable person (remembering that intoxication can't be taken into account) must have believe that virtually certain death awaited them should they not attempt the ultimately fatal act. The fact that the Crown conceded that Gable intended Warriena no harm when placing her on the balcony ends their case for manslaughter there and then. There was no imminent risk to her life that was so severe that warranted an act that would obviously end in death during virtually any attempt. She may have been frightened, yes, but the test is very clear and the prosecution have failed.

I wonder if the defence is more than a little concerned about how the jury will decide. Hence, the legal argument. Maybe he is realising how the general public (so, potentially, the jury) feel about this case and Warriena's obvious terror. So he'd like to stop the trial before it goes to the jury.

I obviously can't go into specifics as I'm not present in court (and even if I was I'd be prohibited from reporting on it) but I can assure you this will not be a legal argument founded by desperation. From experience I can anticipate what the argument is but unfortunately we will have to wait until the jury have returned from their deliberations before I can comment further.

 

[BreakingNews]

Because this is a legally complex case, I suspect that the judge will give the jury a lengthy talk. In the Baden-Clay trial the judge took nearly all day to sum up.
Hope you all have your knitting.

 

[possumheart]

I would anticipate that they would be arguing definitions of murder and manslaughter. It must be so boring for them. Case after case. How could you even invest empathy in the accused when tomorrow there will just be another one.

 

[JCB]

I would anticipate that they would be arguing definitions of murder and manslaughter. It must be so boring for them. Case after case. How could you even invest empathy in the accused when tomorrow there will just be another one.

The Benchbook which is issued to and relied upon by all sitting judges (and is freely available to anyone who might be interested) sets out the manner in which the jury is to be addressed in murder/manslaughter cases. It's not deviated from, except to insert particulars from the case at hand.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/inform...ulletin/supreme-and-district-courts-benchbook

 

[Makara]

Talia Shadwell ‏@TaliaShadwell [video=twitter;787817325739200512]https://twitter.com/TaliaShadwell/status/787817325739200512[/video]
Join @NZStuff at 2pm as we return to the #tostee trial. I'm reporting from Brisbane where the judge is set to resume summing up for the jury

 

[possumheart]

The Benchbook which is issued to and relied upon by all sitting judges (and is freely available to anyone who might be interested) sets out the manner in which the jury is to be addressed in murder/manslaughter cases. It's not deviated from, except to insert particulars from the case at hand.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/inform...ulletin/supreme-and-district-courts-benchbook

So, a mundane process, every time, to tick all the boxes. Swiping left or right is so much easier. I'll bet Gabe can't wait to get his chubby little fingers back on Tinder.

 

[sosocurious]

As per Brennan J in Royall -


On the other hand, where the victim's attempt at self-preservation is not reasonable (or proportionate), the chain of causation is broken and the victim's death is not treated as having been caused by the accused's conduct. Subject to a qualification presently to be mentioned, the question whether the chain of causation is broken by the victim's taking of the final fatal step is a question of fact to be answered by reference to the objective circumstances. Nevertheless, an accused cannot be held criminally responsible for a death that has been caused in fact by his conduct if the final fatal step taken by the victim was neither foreseen nor reasonably foreseeable. Foresight or reasonable foreseeability marks the limit of the consequences of conduct for which an accused may be held criminally responsible.

The proportionate test is not a subjective test, it's an objective test.

I don't think there is a reasonable person on the planet that would not concede that Warriena's attempt to descend either to the balcony below, or indeed the entire building, was almost certain to end fatally. The chances of successfully performing such an act were so small as to be virtually non existent.

What this means is for her actions to be proportionate to any threat she faced, the threat must have been so severe that a reasonable person (remembering that intoxication can't be taken into account) must have believe that virtually certain death awaited them should they not attempt the ultimately fatal act. The fact that the Crown conceded that Gable intended Warriena no harm when placing her on the balcony ends their case for manslaughter there and then. There was no imminent risk to her life that was so severe that warranted an act that would obviously end in death during virtually any attempt. She may have been frightened, yes, but the test is very clear and the prosecution have failed.



I obviously can't go into specifics as I'm not present in court (and even if I was I'd be prohibited from reporting on it) but I can assure you this will not be a legal argument founded by desperation. From experience I can anticipate what the argument is but unfortunately we will have to wait until the jury have returned from their deliberations before I can comment further.

BBM

Prosecutor Glen Cash QC told the Supreme court in Brisbane there was "terror bordering on hysteria" in Ms Wright's voice as Tostee forced her onto his balcony.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...shed-warriena-wright-prosecution-says/7932652

 

[sleepinoz]

Talia Shadwell ‏@TaliaShadwell [video=twitter;787817325739200512]https://twitter.com/TaliaShadwell/status/787817325739200512[/video]
Join @NZStuff at 2pm as we return to the #tostee trial. I'm reporting from Brisbane where the judge is set to resume summing up for the jury

I think that's 2pm NZ time which is now

 

[sleepinoz]

Alexandria Utting Verified account ‏@alexutting

The jury are now being brought in. #tostee @GCBulletin


12:04 PM - 17 Oct 2016

 

[Makara]

Talia Shadwell ‏@TaliaShadwell [video=twitter;787821437675409408]https://twitter.com/TaliaShadwell/status/787821437675409408[/video]
The jury is back in court. #tostee

 

[emirates1957]

I your avatar a pigs bottom, emirates?

You will love this - it's my british bulldogs bottie BASIL. "They will get you" had a pig's bottom and soon as it was put up - I thought of Basil's arse. I guess I should switch if for his face which is not much better than his bum.

 

[sleepinoz]