Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #9

[Cleaver Greene]

I have spoken to 12 lawyers over the past few days about this trial. Every single one thought that a jury, following the Judge's directions and only considering the evidence tendered in court, could not possibly convict of either charge. They also agreed that if a jury did convict, it would inevitably be overturned on appeal.

 

[Tortoise]

I have spoken to 12 lawyers over the past few days about this trial. Every single one thought that a jury, following the Judge's directions and only considering the evidence tendered in court, could not possibly convict of either charge. They also agreed that if a jury did convict, it would inevitably be overturned on appeal.

did they say why? It's all been weighted in his favour as far as I can tell.

 

[SouthAussie]

Must be the talk of the legal fraternity right now. We'll have to see how it goes.
Could be a precedent in the making.

 

[possumheart]

Must be the talk of the legal fraternity right now. We'll have to see how it goes.
Could be a precedent in the making.

And so it should ffs.

 

[ak19861981]

I would imagine it would be the opposite. Grounds for an appeal if they DON'T find him guilty... It seemed very restrictive what the judge was telling the jury to consider...

 

[possumheart]

I would imagine it would be the opposite. Grounds for an appeal if they DON'T find him guilty... It seemed very restrictive what the judge was telling the jury to consider...

If only the world was that kind ...

 

[Cleaver Greene]

did they say why? It's all been weighted in his favour as far as I can tell.

Same reasons as expressed on this forum by Elde Fruit, JCB and CleverKnot. Prosecution have to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. There can't be speculation. They can't speculate that she was choked, or that he put her on the ledge or that he may have held a gun or a knife to her. They can't speculate about what he was holding in his hand, or that he was hiding evidence. It is an agreed fact that WR assaulted GT and that he was entitled to take steps to defend himself. There is no point suggesting otherwise. The issues are only whether the force he used was excessive. And the judge told the jury today that they can only consider physical force.

 

[EyeSeeYou]

I keep coming back to the point where the whole thing escalated. I'm only going by the transcript cos I can't find the audio with the whole thing.

2.09am: Male states she is a 'woos' and offers her food. Says that if she 'was going to go all kung fu on me then I will kick your *advertiser censored**'. Calm conversation.
2.10am: Sound of a struggle. Female: 'That really hurt my vagina.' Male laughing and female replies: 'You sound like a *advertiser censored****'.
Obviously he's not going to like being called a ****** after being called one a million times by his fellow brahs, but I don't think this is what flips him.
2.12am: Male states, she is insane. Male say: 'Alright I give up what do you want' There is a loud bang and he says, 'oww'.
2.12.31am: Male say: 'I will do what you want. I will be your sex slave (possibly having rocks thrown)'.
2.13am: Male says: 'Alright, that is enough, That is enough.' ...female says, 'no seriously, I have to have a ****.'
She can't go to the toilet. She's restrained. The way she says "no, seriously, I have to have a ****" she's reiterating the fact she needs to poo. Does she say it more than once in the actual audio or has she been partially restrained the whole time and is throwing pebbles at him obstinately because she wants to leave/go to the toilet? She was tied up earlier in the night. Anyhoo, he is annoyed at this point.
2.14AM: Male says, 'You are not my kind of girl. You have worn out your welcome. You have to leave. Female says. 'ok, it is all good.' Female out of breath. Male states, 'you have to leave'. Female replies 'OK. It's all good'. He says, 'I thought you were a nice girl.'
She's agreeing to leave here. He's restraining her. She isn't breathing properly.
2.14.51am: Male says, you are *advertiser censored**ing insane'.
2.15am: Male states I think you are kidding but you are not. Go on right now. Male states — I do need a sample of DNA.
He's talking about her need to poo here. He thinks she's kidding, just trying to trick him into letting her go from however he's restraining her, which is what I wondered as well, if she thought telling him she needed to poo would make him let her go. But he calls her bluff - go on right now (poo), and makes his stupid joke about dna.
2.15.31am: Male says, 'I thought you were kidding and I have taken enough. This is *advertiser censored**ing bull**** ... you are lucky I haven't chucked you off my balcony you god damn psycho little b**** ... who the *advertiser censored** do you think you ..'.
What happened here?? It's a matter of moments after he's joking about needing her dna and calling her bluff about needing to poo. Something happens that escalates the situation. I thought you were kidding about what? Needing to poo?? What happened here?
2.16am: 'What. What - got something to say- say it.' Female breathing heavily. Female states '(unintelligible) sexist'. Male replies, 'yeah right. I am the one who is injured. You don't have a god damn scratch on you'.
He's obviously restricting her ability to speak. The "what? what? got something to say? say it" is a taunt. He's taunting her because he knows she's not in a position where she can reply easily. Probably gagging her or choking her. The response from her is intriguing. It's not your usual run of the mill insult. She insulted him with fa**ot earlier, something a lot of people say because it's supposed to be insulting to men. This time, though, she calls him a sexist which is interesting.
2.16.51am: Male states: 'I thought that you were just playing around but I am *advertiser censored**ing sick of this s***. You're a god damn psycho. I am going to let you go. I am going to walk you out of this apartment just the way you are.
'You are not going to collect any of your belongings, you are just going to walk out and I am going to slam the door on you, do you understand. If you try and pull anything. I'll knock you out, I'll knock you the *advertiser censored** out. Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand?
This is also weird. "just the way you are". I don't think this is just about her belongings. I think there was something about her appearance that he thought would humiliate her if he was to walk her out just the way she was in that moment.

reading this break down it has occurred to me that maybe it's not his hands or forearms that is choking or gagging her - could this possibly be a rough oral sex game? Could there be another part of his appendage in her mouth and she has no way of moving away? Given why they were meeting for sex in the first place doesn't make this unfathomible imo

 

[Elde Fruit]

I would imagine it would be the opposite. Grounds for an appeal if they DON'T find him guilty... It seemed very restrictive what the judge was telling the jury to consider...

No-one can appeal a 'not guilty' decision.

 

[CleverKnot]

reading this break down it has occurred to me that maybe it's not his hands or forearms that is choking or gagging her - could this possibly be a rough oral sex game? Could there be another part of his appendage in her mouth and she has no way of moving away? Given why they were meeting for sex in the first place doesn't make this unfathomible imo

It would be foolhardy in the middle of an altercation, to place anything in your opponent's mouth that could immediately immobilize you with one simple bite.

 

[Tortoise]

Same reasons as expressed on this forum by Elde Fruit, JCB and CleverKnot. Prosecution have to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. There can't be speculation. They can't speculate that she was choked, or that he put her on the ledge or that he may have held a gun or a knife to her. They can't speculate about what he was holding in his hand, or that he was hiding evidence. It is an agreed fact that WR assaulted GT and that he was entitled to take steps to defend himself. There is no point suggesting otherwise. The issues are only whether the force he used was excessive. And the judge told the jury today that they can only consider physical force.

And the noises on the tape followed by NO! (x32) and not being allowed to just go home, are what in your view (and those lawyers' views), speculation?

Pleased I asked. Now I know there was no substantiation to those views.

 

[SouthAussie]

The trial is continuing as big news in NZ. It would be good if we could show some respect for their girl by bringing in a good and correct verdict.
Thank goodness they use plain English to describe what is going on.


He told the jury it should only be concerned about the "physical force" used by Mr Tostee, and whether or not it was more than reasonably necessary.
The use of physical force included restraining Ms Wright and locking her on the balcony of his Gold Coast apartment.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/316063/tostee-trial-jury-asks-judge-for-more-advice

 

[possumheart]

I. have. learned. from. this.
Stay. away. from. wannabe. alphas.
Never. ever. throw. pebbles. at. them.
I nearly did, two Christmases ago. (sister's step-son) So I caught a cab to a safe house.

 

[zoran]

If it's a hung jury can the judge impose a not guilty verdict or does it go back to the public prosecutor

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

 

[Elde Fruit]

And the noises on the tape followed by NO! (x32) and not being allowed to just go home, are what in your view (and those lawyers' views), speculation?

Pleased I asked. Now I know there was no substantiation to those views.

No need to speculate. W did not want to be removed to the balcony. Hence the repetitive 'No's.' She made that very clear, but, she had just unlawfully assaulted Tostee with that metal object (and that could have killed him or caused GBH) and he acted completely reasonably and with great restraint in just removing her to the balcony. He could have punched her as often as was required to neutralise her in that way. He didn't. He took the least aggressive solution. Isolate her where she can do no further harm to him or damage to his Unit. Yet, in taking that minimal option, he is vilified because W then acted completely irrationally. Not guilty.

 

[Elde Fruit]

If it's a hung jury can the judge impose a not guilty verdict or does it go back to the public prosecutor

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

Back to the DPP.

 

[Bohemian]

Must be the talk of the legal fraternity right now. We'll have to see how it goes.
Could be a precedent in the making.

A few in NSW are watching with interest.

 

[Estelle]

The darn balcony in the Avalon building has been clearly advertised on many occasions as being part of the property.

$460
03/4 Wahroonga Pl, Surfers Paradise QLD 4217
1 Bed
1 Bath
1 Parking
Available from Friday, 14 October 2016 Bond $1840
RELAX HOME IN SURFERS CENTRE

Luxury 1 Bedroom + study - 1 bathroom Fully furnished unit situated right by the river and just a few minutes’ walk to Surfers Paradise beach, shopping, dining and entertainment venues that the Gold Coast is renowned for, fabulous views of the Nerang river, Surfer Paradise skyline, north to the Broadwater and out to the hinterland – also one block to the new light rail.

Avalon Apartments offer 3 lifts, Residents enjoy access to a heated pool and spa, steam and sauna rooms, gym and BBQ area, as well as a Resident’s lounge and cinema room. Underground secure parking is also provided.

The interior of the apartment features modern streamlined kitchen with gas cooking, luxury bathroom with spa bath, ample storage space, neutral décor and quality finishes throughout. The open plan kitchen, dining, lounge area that opens to a balcony with lovely river & city scape views providing for outdoor living.

http://www.domain.com.au/03-4-wahro...ntent=dynamic-listing&utm_campaign=c-all-rent

This is more than a bit frustrating. :banghead:

The problem is that according to the Strata title, it owns the balcony and event the balcony doors and front door. You only own from the paint of the inside walls. The balcony is common property. But IMO that is for the owners. However, when renting, you have exclusive access to the balcony as it is included in the cost of the rent for your apartment. So, IMO, it is a borderline case of how one thinks about it. We would describe our apartment as having it own balcony as part of your home. So I would have argued that what Strata title laws say is not relevant here. It is about how we use English to describe our home. Our balconies are part of our homes.

Also the apartment has its own burglar alarm. I have never had a burglar alarm but can a person activate it themselves in they are in danger in their own home? Some activate the fire brigade or police, I think, but is it only when there is an actual fire or burglary (when you are not home) when it activates itself? i am thinking of the Oscar Pistorius case when he could have activated an alarm. Please excuse my ignorance but I know some "go back to base" but not all do and would like to know if you can activate yourself. Mine is a simple one which I cannot activate but there used to be one which alerts the police/fire brigade here but it stopped working and I did not replace it due to costs.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

And the noises on the tape followed by NO! (x32) and not being allowed to just go home, are what in your view (and those lawyers' views), speculation?

Pleased I asked. Now I know there was no substantiation to those views.

All speculation (which is probably causing the jury difficulty because some of them probably want to speculate). Beyond reasonable doubt. There is no doubt she was terrified. But it is just speculation that she was terrified that he was going to hurt her.

There is a very good reason no experts were called to analyse the audio: because they would all just be speculating. Clearly her voice was restricted. But even prosecution can only go as far as "possibly" choked. Reasonable doubt right there.

 

[Karinna]

No need to speculate. W did not want to be removed to the balcony. Hence the repetitive 'No's.' She made that very clear, but, she had just unlawfully assaulted Tostee with that metal object (and that could have killed him or caused GBH) and he acted completely reasonably and with great restraint in just removing her to the balcony. He could have punched her as often as was required to neutralise her in that way. He didn't. He took the least aggressive solution. Isolate her where she can do no further harm to him or damage to his Unit. Yet, in taking that minimal option, he is vilified because W then acted completely irrationally. Not guilty.

Awww, what a guy eh. If my son's were so intimidated so terribly by a 50 something kg. female i think it would be houston we have a problem. Unless said female was pointing a loaded gun at them.
And people that have been plied with a substance they have never had before by someone that didn't tell them what exactly they were drinking could very well act irrationally i would think? GT was the problem. What about that? And thats not speculation either.