Oh I think it did that several arrests ago.
Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #10
- Thread starter MsAnais
- Start date
- Status
Oh I think it did that several arrests ago.
Could you please explain TIA
it's how it is, Mys.. every death that is unexplained goes to the coroner, Warriena's death would have waited for a pronouncement from the coroner until this trial was over. . He can now pronounce her death 'accidental'.. instead of 'murder'.. ..
I doubt, regardless of the persistent attempt to try and paint a picture of suicide by the Mens Rights Activists that the coroner will go down that road. There is no grounds for that conclusion either.
Flinders
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 42
I must be really dumb here Bo. I watched the full music video but I couldn't make the connection. If you have time, can you explain this a bit clearer for me. Thanks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Bohemian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,370
- Reaction score
- 16,624
Yes, I was reading that the other day. The reasons are their traditional songs and stories.
As for the others it's a given, followed closely behind by their pakeha brothers. This verdict may just turn out to be the right one after all. At least there is protective custody at Arthur Gorrie.
Amee
Active Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,197
- Reaction score
- 6
[h=1]'I will pin you up against the wall': Revealed - the sordid online world of Gable Tostee, the private-school lothario who boasted of 260 Tinder conquests before he met tragic Warriena Wright[/h]
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 69,719
- Reaction score
- 266,757
Does the pronouncement by the Coroner's Court change anything?
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,174
- Reaction score
- 9,736
So Trooper, will that be an automatic thing or is there an avenue for police to pursue it? Sorry if that is a silly question, but I know scant about the law and its workings.
I just wondered, because when the detective said about id going to coroner, he also said, "But I won't say any more about that now.'
I guess I was hoping it was another avenue , but perhaps he was just being protective of her mother.
I just wondered, because when the detective said about id going to coroner, he also said, "But I won't say any more about that now.'
I guess I was hoping it was another avenue , but perhaps he was just being protective of her mother.
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,174
- Reaction score
- 9,736
Hey Amee,in that first photo he reminds me a bit of Trent Thorburn. What a shame all of this wasn't admissible in court.
There are lots of them in Brisbane too last time i was there.
a good question.. there is plenty of leeway in a coroners pronouncement on the death of someone.. anyone.. ..
but in this case, specifically, the court has found she was not murdered.. so that conclusion by the coroner is now not possible, or reasonable..
the coroner has these options.. to call her death an accident.
................................................... to call her death a suicide..
....................................................to make an open finding on the cause of her death.
The actual technical reason for her death, regardless of motive or method was the striking of her body on the pavement, caused by falling 14 floors above the pavement. those are the bald facts..
But the coroner can go into the why of her death, to a certain extent. Murder is not an option.. but all the others are, suicide, accident, or open. An Open finding is when the coroner is not going to say one way or the other as to causation, whether murder , suicide accident or natural but unexplained death. An Open finding covers all these aspects, but does give an open door to further investigation, whereas a finding of suicide or accident would require a repudiation of the coroners finding if any more investigation was found to be needed..
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 2,705
I am actually belly laughing. You should publish your comments, not only are they intelligent, honest, raw and very special. A pleasure to read them.
CleverKnot
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 0
One last thought...
I wonder if a forum of people piling on, mocking, and criticizing someone online unfairly to the point of driving them to suicide, would agree that they should then be held responsible for causing that suicide.
Karma indeed.
I wonder if a forum of people piling on, mocking, and criticizing someone online unfairly to the point of driving them to suicide, would agree that they should then be held responsible for causing that suicide.
Karma indeed.
He may very well have been protective of Warriena's mother,, indeed that would not be an outlandish proposition. I would say he was , certainly, but also it wasn't really the time to bring up the matter of the coroner, .. just out of appropriateness, I suppose.. ...
the automatic thing, this rests on the finding the coroner gives. see other post, sorry, dog is beside herself, back soon.
Just a few observations now that the jury has returned their verdict, I'll try to be brief as possible.
This was a line ball case (at best) from the start and one of the first indications was when Gable was granted bail. In QLD, there is a presumption against bail for those accused of murder. What this means is that rather than the prosecution having to make a case against bail, the burden is reversed and the accused must show case as to why he or she should be released on bail. There must be truly exceptional circumstances for a person accused of murder to be released on bail and most commonly this is in relation to possibe inadequacies in the Crown case. I can recall only a handful of accused murderers who were granted bail and those that I can immediately recall were all ultimately acquitted or the charges were downgraded or withdrawn entirely before trial. There are no doubt cases where an accused who has been granted bail was ultimately convicted, but overwhelmingly it (the granting of bail) favours acquittal.
The second major tell was when the defence elected for what is called a full hand up committal. There are a number of reasons that an accused and their legal team choose this path as opposed to a committal hearing but most commonly it is when there is a belief that the Crown case is either very strong (in that it would be a formality that it would ultimately proceed to trial) or if the Crown case is seen to be deficient in some manner. Committal proceedings happen earlier along the timeline than trials in the superior courts so if a case is thought to be deficient it can be a tactic to have a committal hearing, particularly when an accused has been refused bail and has been in custody for some time, in an attempt to expedite the process and have the accused released from custody should the committal find the Crown case inadequate. However Gable was on bail and proceeding straight to trial was a sign of confidence on the part of the defence team and it also didn't allow the prosecution a second bite at the cherry if the charge was dismissed at this stage.
The final indication was the line of questions from the jury once they had begun deliberating and their approach to Justice Byrne less than a day after they began when they suggested that they could not reach a verdict. This is only speculation on my part obviously but it seemed as though there were a small number of jurors, perhaps only 1, that were hanging onto the flimsiest of pretexts in holding out against the remainder of the jury. The nature of the questions seemed, to me at least, to indicate that the majority may have been favouring a finding of not guilty very early on, perhaps even as early as Monday afternoon. Of course I may be totally wrong and we will never know for certain, but if I were part of the defence team I would have been more and more confident of acquittal as each question came in.
This was a high profile case and many people had opinions which to describe them as differing, would be a gross understatement, so it's not surprising that there is a great deal of emotion which may range from relief all the way through to abject horror. While I've made it perfectly clear that my personal opinion is that the ODPP should not have proceeded to trial or at the very least, discontinued their prosecution for murder at the end of their case, it's important to remember back to the Gerard Baden-Clay case. This was another highly emotive case and one which was terribly difficult to prosecute (and was ultimately successful, something that many legal professionals did not predict) and that very trial was presided over by the same Supreme Court Justice, the Crown Prosecutor in this case assisted in the GBC case and even some of the same investigating police were involved in both cases. There was universal praise among supporters of the manner in which the GBC case was investigated and ultimately successfully prosecuted but I'm seeing a lot of angst on here. There are a lot of common links between the 2 cases (as there always are in matters of this nature) and it's important to remember that all of the people involved in this case are the best of the best in their particular fields. It's unlikely evidence of any significance was missed, there is absolutely no suggestion of corruption or judicial interference as some might have you believe, this was just a bloody hard case, to the point where a successful prosecution would have been next to impossible, even if the jury had convicted on either charge. Evidence that seems relevant to laypeople (and I'll include myself in that category as I certainly wasn't privy to any part of the investigation or prosecution) would been pored over by countless experts in their selected fields and was dismissed for whatever (undoubtedly valid) reason.
I've seen calls for an appeal on here but this is not possible, jury acquittals are absolute. There are only a very limited number of scenarios in which a jury verdict may potentially be overturned (which are not appeals) and neither are likely to apply here -
1. A tainted acquittal. For an acquittal to be overturned on this basis, someone involved in the trial (witness/lawyer from either side/judge/juror) must be convicted of an offence that materially affected the trial. This is referred to by law as an "administration of justice offence" and can include charges such as perjury, corruption and so on. There will probably be an investigation into the conduct of the juror who was the subject of this afternoon's legal discussions but one of the requirements for a tainted acquittal is that (after conviction of the relevant person obviously), it must be demonstrated that the conduct of that person was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. Given that it was presumably restricted to 1 juror out of 12, the fact that the other 11 were unanimous in their decision clearly demonstrates that it's not likely to have affected the outcome. I'm not even sure if any potential (unlikely) charges would fall under the banner of an administration of justice offence, it would be something I'd have to look into further.
2. In very serious cases (murder obviously being one of those) there is a fairly new development where if "fresh and compelling evidence" is uncovered at some point in the future, an application can be made to set aside the conviction and order a retrial. The word "fresh" is important, it cannot be evidence that should have been uncovered during the investigation with reasonable diligence (for instance, forgetting to interview a neighbour who saw or heard something of relevance). It also cannot be evidence that was available at the time of the trial and was excluded due to tactical reasons. The word compelling is also of great importance obviously, evidence is only compelling if (among other things) it is highly probative of the case against the acquitted person. In other words, very likely to result in a conviction when viewed with the rest of the evidence as a whole. There's no 50/50 here, if the evidence is only of moderate value, an application will never be granted. To the best of my knowledge this relatively new law has not yet been tested in QLD and it's highly unlikely it will be anytime soon. It was clearly intended to apply only in the most exceptional of cases.
Effectively this means that the case can never proceed any further. Gable is not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.
As for a civil claim, this is unlikely for a number of reasons. While the standard of proof is obviously lower in a civil court than a criminal court, civil courts are extremely reluctant to reach a finding contrary to one reached by a criminal court. Civil litigation is expensive and while there are lawyers who will act on a no win, no fee basis (and pro bono), it's extremely unlikely that anyone would touch a case like this without a substantial deposit into their trust account. And who knows what Gable's financial position may be, it may well be the case that the legal costs of the applicant would exceed Gable's net worth, nevermind any amount awarded for damages. In civil cases like this you need 2 things, a high chance of success and a respondent (the person or entity you are suing) of sufficient worth to cover the likely costs incurred during proceedings and the anticipated settlement amount.
I want to extend my sympathies to Warriena's family and friends who have suffered tremendously with both Warriena's death and subsequent protracted legal proceedings (and media attention). As for Gable, he has undoubtedly shown signs of an anti social side given his numerous prior interactions with police and now that the tremendous strain of these most recent of proceedings is behind him, let's hope he takes this opportunity to address whatever underlying issues may exist (if any) so that he may remain a functioning, contributing and law abiding member of our community.
This was a line ball case (at best) from the start and one of the first indications was when Gable was granted bail. In QLD, there is a presumption against bail for those accused of murder. What this means is that rather than the prosecution having to make a case against bail, the burden is reversed and the accused must show case as to why he or she should be released on bail. There must be truly exceptional circumstances for a person accused of murder to be released on bail and most commonly this is in relation to possibe inadequacies in the Crown case. I can recall only a handful of accused murderers who were granted bail and those that I can immediately recall were all ultimately acquitted or the charges were downgraded or withdrawn entirely before trial. There are no doubt cases where an accused who has been granted bail was ultimately convicted, but overwhelmingly it (the granting of bail) favours acquittal.
The second major tell was when the defence elected for what is called a full hand up committal. There are a number of reasons that an accused and their legal team choose this path as opposed to a committal hearing but most commonly it is when there is a belief that the Crown case is either very strong (in that it would be a formality that it would ultimately proceed to trial) or if the Crown case is seen to be deficient in some manner. Committal proceedings happen earlier along the timeline than trials in the superior courts so if a case is thought to be deficient it can be a tactic to have a committal hearing, particularly when an accused has been refused bail and has been in custody for some time, in an attempt to expedite the process and have the accused released from custody should the committal find the Crown case inadequate. However Gable was on bail and proceeding straight to trial was a sign of confidence on the part of the defence team and it also didn't allow the prosecution a second bite at the cherry if the charge was dismissed at this stage.
The final indication was the line of questions from the jury once they had begun deliberating and their approach to Justice Byrne less than a day after they began when they suggested that they could not reach a verdict. This is only speculation on my part obviously but it seemed as though there were a small number of jurors, perhaps only 1, that were hanging onto the flimsiest of pretexts in holding out against the remainder of the jury. The nature of the questions seemed, to me at least, to indicate that the majority may have been favouring a finding of not guilty very early on, perhaps even as early as Monday afternoon. Of course I may be totally wrong and we will never know for certain, but if I were part of the defence team I would have been more and more confident of acquittal as each question came in.
This was a high profile case and many people had opinions which to describe them as differing, would be a gross understatement, so it's not surprising that there is a great deal of emotion which may range from relief all the way through to abject horror. While I've made it perfectly clear that my personal opinion is that the ODPP should not have proceeded to trial or at the very least, discontinued their prosecution for murder at the end of their case, it's important to remember back to the Gerard Baden-Clay case. This was another highly emotive case and one which was terribly difficult to prosecute (and was ultimately successful, something that many legal professionals did not predict) and that very trial was presided over by the same Supreme Court Justice, the Crown Prosecutor in this case assisted in the GBC case and even some of the same investigating police were involved in both cases. There was universal praise among supporters of the manner in which the GBC case was investigated and ultimately successfully prosecuted but I'm seeing a lot of angst on here. There are a lot of common links between the 2 cases (as there always are in matters of this nature) and it's important to remember that all of the people involved in this case are the best of the best in their particular fields. It's unlikely evidence of any significance was missed, there is absolutely no suggestion of corruption or judicial interference as some might have you believe, this was just a bloody hard case, to the point where a successful prosecution would have been next to impossible, even if the jury had convicted on either charge. Evidence that seems relevant to laypeople (and I'll include myself in that category as I certainly wasn't privy to any part of the investigation or prosecution) would been pored over by countless experts in their selected fields and was dismissed for whatever (undoubtedly valid) reason.
I've seen calls for an appeal on here but this is not possible, jury acquittals are absolute. There are only a very limited number of scenarios in which a jury verdict may potentially be overturned (which are not appeals) and neither are likely to apply here -
1. A tainted acquittal. For an acquittal to be overturned on this basis, someone involved in the trial (witness/lawyer from either side/judge/juror) must be convicted of an offence that materially affected the trial. This is referred to by law as an "administration of justice offence" and can include charges such as perjury, corruption and so on. There will probably be an investigation into the conduct of the juror who was the subject of this afternoon's legal discussions but one of the requirements for a tainted acquittal is that (after conviction of the relevant person obviously), it must be demonstrated that the conduct of that person was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. Given that it was presumably restricted to 1 juror out of 12, the fact that the other 11 were unanimous in their decision clearly demonstrates that it's not likely to have affected the outcome. I'm not even sure if any potential (unlikely) charges would fall under the banner of an administration of justice offence, it would be something I'd have to look into further.
2. In very serious cases (murder obviously being one of those) there is a fairly new development where if "fresh and compelling evidence" is uncovered at some point in the future, an application can be made to set aside the conviction and order a retrial. The word "fresh" is important, it cannot be evidence that should have been uncovered during the investigation with reasonable diligence (for instance, forgetting to interview a neighbour who saw or heard something of relevance). It also cannot be evidence that was available at the time of the trial and was excluded due to tactical reasons. The word compelling is also of great importance obviously, evidence is only compelling if (among other things) it is highly probative of the case against the acquitted person. In other words, very likely to result in a conviction when viewed with the rest of the evidence as a whole. There's no 50/50 here, if the evidence is only of moderate value, an application will never be granted. To the best of my knowledge this relatively new law has not yet been tested in QLD and it's highly unlikely it will be anytime soon. It was clearly intended to apply only in the most exceptional of cases.
Effectively this means that the case can never proceed any further. Gable is not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.
As for a civil claim, this is unlikely for a number of reasons. While the standard of proof is obviously lower in a civil court than a criminal court, civil courts are extremely reluctant to reach a finding contrary to one reached by a criminal court. Civil litigation is expensive and while there are lawyers who will act on a no win, no fee basis (and pro bono), it's extremely unlikely that anyone would touch a case like this without a substantial deposit into their trust account. And who knows what Gable's financial position may be, it may well be the case that the legal costs of the applicant would exceed Gable's net worth, nevermind any amount awarded for damages. In civil cases like this you need 2 things, a high chance of success and a respondent (the person or entity you are suing) of sufficient worth to cover the likely costs incurred during proceedings and the anticipated settlement amount.
I want to extend my sympathies to Warriena's family and friends who have suffered tremendously with both Warriena's death and subsequent protracted legal proceedings (and media attention). As for Gable, he has undoubtedly shown signs of an anti social side given his numerous prior interactions with police and now that the tremendous strain of these most recent of proceedings is behind him, let's hope he takes this opportunity to address whatever underlying issues may exist (if any) so that he may remain a functioning, contributing and law abiding member of our community.
matey
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 2
After today, I am wondering if there will be a change of address for "someone" to move back into the family home for a while, so "Daddy" can try to keep him out of trouble.... &.... all you ladies planning a Gold Coast holiday at Surfers Paradise, my advice to you, is be very aware & steer clear of a certain high-rise block of units with unsafe balconies & devices for taping activities.... &....(most importantly).... stay away from "home brew", as you don't know what the after effects might bring....MOO.:bigfight:
Fluffykins
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 654
Probably will be ruled an accident caused by her attempting, while under the influence of moonshine, to escape from GT's property. Or, rather, not his property.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 187
- Guests online
- 523
- Total visitors
- 710