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

[Mystique75]

That was pretty flowery! A 71 word sentence, yikes!

Anyone else feel a bit baffled by it?

I get the sense that each response to each question has been either too brief, or rather baffling. Where is the attempt to communicate in a way that's easy to understand? The jury are laymen (& women lol), afterall. But it's as if they are having to do double the work, understand the instruction and follow the instructions. It just seems odd IMO

 

[zedz]

BBM: Of course it does. :no:

From his perspective it certainly does!

 

[zedz]

Anyone else feel a bit baffled by it?

I get the sense that each response to each question has been either too brief, or rather baffling. Where is the attempt to communicate in a way that's easy to understand? The jury are laymen (& women lol), afterall. But it's as if they are having to do double the work, understand the instruction and follow the instructions. It just seems odd IMO

It seems they want a conviction, but can't find a way of doing it.

 

[fruity]

The latest question (well ... its answer) makes me think they're not going to find him guilty. Gah this is ridiculous.

 

[fruity]

It seems they want a conviction, but can't find a way of doing it.

Yep.

Imo they know she is dead because of him.

 

[Strangeworld]

I wonder if the prosecution ever considered emphasising Tostee's threats as part of the assault? Not knowing everything that was presented in court makes it hard to know exactly what the jury are able to consider. Obviously they can be heard on the recording, but did the prosecution highlight this as a separate and distinct type of assault to the choking?

(anyone else didn't get done what they intended today because they didn't want to miss out on sharing a verdict on here lol - its GBC all over again!)

 

[BasTyra]

You understand just because a woman is throwing the rocks doesn't mean he can't be injured. See my earlier post. Have 7 separate scars on my body from "harmless" women hitting and throwing things at me whilst working as a bouncer and event security. If she threw rocks at me or hit me or attacked me with a telescope without provocation I would put her down on the ground hard and take her to the nearest exit whether that's the front door or a balcony door. Forget her possessions and forget her well-being that comes a poor second. Then I would call the police, GT's biggest error.

"Without provocation" are you trying to imply she attacked GT with that telescope piece for no reason? Just randomly decided to try and knock him out for *****s and giggles?

You have to throw a pebble sized rock pretty damn hard for it to really hurt someone. The only time a small rock has hurt me is when it's flicked off my lawn mower and struck my leg at insane speeds. Also the only time I've had a small rock draw blood.

 

[Elde Fruit]

Physical force? Throwing decorative "rocks" is NOT physical force. Holding her down is.

There are many people who have had small rocks (even rotten tomatos and eggs) thrown at them who will readily claim they were the victims of physical force. It really cannot be whimsically dismissed as though it did not happen, or was just innocuous. It did, and not even the Crown claims it was innocuous.

 

[Fluffykins]

Anyone else feel a bit baffled by it?

I get the sense that each response to each question has been either too brief, or rather baffling. Where is the attempt to communicate in a way that's easy to understand? The jury are laymen (& women lol), afterall. But it's as if they are having to do double the work, understand the instruction and follow the instructions. It just seems odd IMO

I read it through once and thought, they're going to have to break that up into manageable chunks and get each chunk sorted out, and then they'll have to try and reassemble them into a whole, which they may or may not understand.

 

[CleverKnot]

You understand just because a woman is throwing the rocks doesn't mean he can't be injured. See my earlier post. Have 7 separate scars on my body from "harmless" women hitting and throwing things at me whilst working as a bouncer and event security. If she threw rocks at me or hit me or attacked me with a telescope without provocation I would put her down on the ground hard and take her to the nearest exit whether that's the front door or a balcony door. Forget her possessions and forget her well-being that comes a poor second. Then I would call the police, GT's biggest error.

If you bruise her or mark her in any way while doing so, who goes to jail?

Russel Crow is currently discovering the joys of taking action.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Probably be time for the jury to go home for the night soon, so looks like no verdict today.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Kate KyriacouVerified account ‏@KateKyriacou [video=twitter;788621033192484866]https://twitter.com/KateKyriacou/status/788621033192484866[/video]
This was Justice Byrne's longer answer to the jury's question: #tostee

The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

The concern the use of force by the accused in reliance of what he said, as distinct from what he did, in the three particularised episodes - that is, the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused in the three acts particularised not with any menace that might have been presented by the words the accused used that accompanied the use of force used by him.


Does anyone care to explain this, I'm as thick as some of the jury, obviously.

What I can gather, did Tostee act on his threats? eg: I'll throw you off the balcony. I'll knock you out!
There are four defences used that we at home are not aware of? There is a breakdown of 3 particular episodes, we're not privy too also?

 

[Strangeworld]

I read it through once and thought, they're going to have to break that up into manageable chunks and get each chunk sorted out, and then they'll have to try and reassemble them into a whole, which they may or may not understand.

Yep, the opportunity for misunderstanding and a potential error in judgement because of this misunderstanding by the jurors is going through the roof now.

 

[zedz]

"Without provocation" are you trying to imply she attacked GT with that telescope piece for no reason? Just randomly decided to try and knock him out for *****s and giggles?

Nope. Not saying that - If she threw rocks at me or hit me or attacked me with a telescope without provocation

You have to throw a pebble sized rock pretty damn hard for it to really hurt someone. .

Well I disagree, you get someone in the eye, you're going to do some damage. I don't really know what went on in the flat, the recording is ambiguous. If a woman threw a drink at me or threw some food at me or something I'm not going to get physical, if it's rocks, ashtrays, shoes then I am. As I said earlier I had a stiletto shoe go through my lip and take out two teeth, when it comes to disabling a threat, men and women are treated equally. The latter are typically weaker and in theory can't do as much damage, but I have the scars that shows this is not always the case, hence my attitude.

 

[Mrs Bennett]

There are many people who have had small rocks (even rotten tomatos and eggs) thrown at them who will readily claim they were the victims of physical force. It really cannot be whimsically dismissed as though it did not happen, or was just innocuous. It did, and not even the Crown claims it was innocuous.

.... and forcibly holding her down is what then? Fun?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I actually took the "it's all good" comments from Warriena to be her trying to calm GT down.
She says it when they first start arguing after she says she needs to poo. She's obviously already being restrained at that point because she can't get to a toilet.
He tells her she's not his kind of girl and has to leave and she goes "ok, it's all good" twice as he repeats she has to leave. She's struggling to breathe. I got the vibe her words were more to stop him escalating because he was making it hard for her to breathe at this point.
She didn't stay and start trashing the apartment after that point, he was already restraining her. He's restraining her throughout this entire section. It's only after he totally cracks it that he tells her to get up and that's when she grabs whatever it is and swings it at him. Then he loses it and throws her on the balcony and refuses to let her go home cos she's been a bad girl.

I totally agree. The look on his face probably scared her!

 

[Elde Fruit]

The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

The concern the use of force by the accused in reliance of what he said, as distinct from what he did, in the three particularised episodes - that is, the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused in the three acts particularised not with any menace that might have been presented by the words the accused used that accompanied the use of force used by him.


Does anyone care to explain this, I'm as thick as some of the jury, obviously.

What I can gather, did Tostee act on his threats? eg: I'll throw you off the balcony. I'll knock you out!
There are four defences used that we at home are not aware of? There is a breakdown of 3 particular episodes, we're not privy too also?

I certainly cannot explain it, especially the first sentence.

The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

That cannot be an accurate report of what the Judge said. If it is.....why are we still discussing the matter? If the Crown cannot exclude even one available defence, verdict has to be 'Not Guilty.' I seriously suggest the report of what he said is not accurate.

 

[Fluffykins]

The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

The concern the use of force by the accused in reliance of what he said, as distinct from what he did, in the three particularised episodes - that is, the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused in the three acts particularised not with any menace that might have been presented by the words the accused used that accompanied the use of force used by him.


Does anyone care to explain this, I'm as thick as some of the jury, obviously.

I also would appreciate a shorter English explanation. Just this bit alone:

... the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused ...

- makes no sense to me at all. :waitasec:

 

[SouthAussie]

The prosecution does not suggest that it can exclude any of the four defences raised for your consideration.

The concern the use of force by the accused in reliance of what he said, as distinct from what he did, in the three particularised episodes - that is, the potential availability of the defences concerned with the physical force used by the accused in the three acts particularised not with any menace that might have been presented by the words the accused used that accompanied the use of force used by him.


Does anyone care to explain this, I'm as thick as some of the jury, obviously.

What I can gather, did Tostee act on his threats? eg: I'll throw you off the balcony. I'll knock you out!
There are four defences used that we at home are not aware of? There is a breakdown of 3 particular episodes, we're not privy too also?

"three particularised episodes"

Sounds as though there are three identified acts of physical force by Tostee. Choking, tackling, forcing onto the balcony?

 

[BasTyra]

Nope. Not saying that - If she threw rocks at me or hit me or attacked me with a telescope without provocation



Well I disagree, you get someone in the eye, you're going to do some damage. I don't really know what went on in the flat, the recording is ambiguous. If a woman threw a drink at me or threw some food at me or something I'm not going to get physical, if it's rocks, ashtrays, shoes then I am. As I said earlier I had a stiletto shoe go through my lip and take out two teeth, when it comes to disabling a threat, men and women are treated equally. The latter are typically weaker and in theory can't do as much damage, but I have the scars that shows this is not always the case, hence my attitude.

I'm questioning your use of the words "without provocation". By using those words in your comparison you are implying that she attacked him out of nowhere.

If someone attacked me with a telescope piece without provocation I'd probably scream at them or run away.
But that's not what happened here. She was provoked. She was restrained. She was choked. She was struggling to breathe. She was likely scared. She grabbed something near her and swung it at him the moment her hands were free.
She also didn't have stilettos on. Or a knife. Or a gun. Or knuckle dusters. She had some pebbles and some kind of metal object that she grabbed AFTER he's scared the living **** out of her.