Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #11

[Deleted member 83851]

This is one of the hundred times I feel the loss of Dominick Dunne---he of the Power, Privilege, and Justice series.

 

[possumheart]

This is one of the hundred times I feel the loss of Dominick Dunne---he of the Power, Privilege, and Justice series.

I totally get you.

 

[Bohemian]

Why on earth would anyone do that? Hope? Planning?
Are there any coincidences with this guy?

Fantasising? Same with the spotting scope, etc. He seems to be the embodiment of James Thurber's fictional character Walter Mitty although not so benign.

There were/are so many red flags, Ooohm. Why wasn't/isn't anyone paying attention? Watching this debacle unfold is like being in the audience of a tragic Greek play. Nothing augurs well for this young man if there is no opportunity for him to take responsibility for his actions. Heartbreaking.

 

[Ausgirl]

Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence

Woohoo! :great:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This is one of the hundred times I feel the loss of Dominick Dunne---he of the Power, Privilege, and Justice series.

Fascinating man!

 

[shultz]

Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence

Yes, because he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[SouthAussie]

Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence

Sounds to me that he will have to get a 'character waiver' as he has been "convicted of an offence for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment" and he has been "convicted in the last five years of an offence involving: dangerous driving / drunk driving / driving after consuming drugs.

And a character waiver involves getting police certificates, and multiple character references from people of good standing, along with other paperwork. Then they'll decide if a person can be there or not.

http://queencitylaw.co.nz/what-is-a-character-waiver-immigration-to-nz/

Not that I think he really is going to go there. His girlfriend may think he is really going to go there. But he'd be an idiot to do so, which I would think his parents or someone will point out somewhere along the line.

And that is if his current girlfriend lasts that long. I recall a post of his on the bodybuilding forum where he stated he just can't stay interested in just one girl, no matter who they are or how great they seem.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Yay! I can. Hello, Silly Billy. You say that Tostee was not found innocent. That is correct as a matter of Law in Australia. So far as I know, only Scotland allows for a Jury to deliver a verdict of "Innocent." What you have not acknowledged is this, and it would really be appreciated if you could be so kind as to admit. Step One: Everyone is innocent of every crime committed. Innocent. Step Two: Whenever anyone is charged, they remain innocent of the crime until either (a) a plea of guilty, or (b) a finding beyond reasonable doubt that they are guiity Step Three: That finding about reasonable doubt must be based on admissible evidence presented at the Trial. What is 'reasonable doubt?' Again, you are wrong Silly Billy in the Australian context. This is how it is defined:

A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as you, the jury, consider to be reasonable on a consideration of the evidence. It is therefore for you, and each of you, to say whether you have a doubt you consider reasonable. If at the end of your deliberation you, as reasonable persons, have such a doubt about the guilt of the defendant, the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not a scientific term or even one of art. It has an ordinary meaning as each Juror approaches that ultimate question. Every Juror will have their own idea of what is "reasonable." "Has the Crown proven guilt to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I have." End of the day, here in Australia, all 12 have to agree what that reasonable doubt is, not the Judge, or anyone else.

 

[Bohemian]

Well I got up to go get me a cold pop...

 

[Bohemian]

This may interesting to the scholars amomng us:


'LSPEAKING TO THE MODERN JURY - NEW CHALLENGES FOR JUDGES & ADVOCATES
A reflection on changes in the occupational, ethnic and age make-up of the jury today and their implications for communication with jurors from generation-X
The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_genx.htm

 

[LozDa]

Question: If I steal a car and there is not enough evidence to convinct me of stealing the car, am I innocent of stealing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bohemian]

According to this MSM article:

'Legally speaking, there is not a lot else that can be done now that the jury has reached its verdict, and Tostee is a free man. Queensland's double jeopardy laws mean that he cannot be tried again, and Attorney-General Yvette D'ath cannot appeal his acquittal, although she may appeal any point of law raised in the trial, which could have implications for murder cases in the future.'

IMO the above would be true in the absence of any evidence that the verdict was arrived at unlawfully. Highly unlikely but not entirely impossible. **** does happen...

 

[SouthAussie]

Question: If I steal a car and there is not enough evidence to convinct me of stealing the car, am I innocent of stealing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. You are presumed innocent. Then you are either guilty or not guilty, once you have been tried. Never are you actually just plain old 'innocent'.

The law recognises that a person charged cannot be called 'innocent'. There has been a police investigation, and multiple law enforcement persons have decided that there is enough evidence to charge you, before it even gets to any kind of trial or plea-bargain.

 

[LozDa]

No. You are presumed innocent. Then you are either guilty or not guilty, once you have been tried. Never are you actually just plain old 'innocent'.

Exactly.

Why some people don't get this, I'll never know.

 

[Deleted member 83851]

Ain't nobody got time for that! Ain't that the truth!
Double jeopardy laws seem like they come from another time and place. When you consider forensic evidence can be retroactively applied as new techniques are developed, and the possibility of previously reluctant witnesses coming forward years later...it seems old-fashioned. People change and want to come clean. Look at that case in Kalangur, Queensland. Real cold case. One or two people who went through a complete change of heart over time and were finally ready to talk.
Nobody wants to go through another trial. It's expensive, that's the main thing. That OJ trial. What a farce.

 

[Bohemian]

Ain't nobody got time for that! Ain't that the truth!
Double jeopardy laws seem like they come from another time and place. When you consider forensic evidence can be retroactively applied as new techniques are developed, and the possibility of previously reluctant witnesses coming forward years later...it seems old-fashioned. People change and want to come clean. Look at that case in Kalangur, Queensland. Real cold case. One or two people who went through a complete change of heart over time and were finally ready to talk.
Nobody wants to go through another trial. It's expensive, that's the main thing. That OJ trial. What a farce.

Yes, at times the legal definition of what constitutes justice seems to be out of step with not only the advances in the forensic sciences but our societal mores.

I hope the verdict in this trial doesn't reflect the attitudes of modern Australian society. If so, I can envision Justitia hanging her head in shame.

 

[Bohemian]

Exactly.

Why some people don't get this, I'll never know.

I suspect they do but unlike us they're not interested in post-trial analysis and they don't understand our motivation for doing so. Two words: To learn.*

*ETA. Strike that. Three words: To gain wisdom.

 

[Phil E Buster]

If I steal a car and there is not enough evidence to convinct me of stealing the car, am I innocent of stealing it?

If you flip that to this - If you do not steal a car, and you are charged and then found not guilty, are you not as innocent as you were before you were charged?

 

[Bohemian]

Queensland Consolidated Acts

Criminal Code 1899

Chapter 68--Exceptions to double jeopardy ruleshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/

678. Definitions
678A. Application of ch 68
678B. Court may order retrial for murder—fresh and compelling evidence
678C. Court may order retrial for 25 year offence—tainted acquittal
678D. Fresh and compelling evidence—meaning
678E. Tainted acquittal—meaning
678F. Interests of justice—matters for consideration
678G. Application for retrial—procedure
678H. Retrial
678I. Authorisation of police investigations
678J. Bail
678K. Restrictions on publication

Queensland Numbered Acts

CRIMINAL CODE (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) AMENDMENT ACT 2007 No. 49 - SECT 4

4 Insertion of new ch 68