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

[LozDa]

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?

If there was enough evidence to charge you and absolute innocence has not been established, then you have been found Not Guilty and suspicion from those in a forum outside a court room is absolutely valid.

Until I see a video of WW abusing GT horribly to the point that all of his actions were self defence and where I can see that putting her on the balcony was an act of cooling the situation etc etc then I will suspect him. Unless you have a video you can produce of his absolute innocence, then I will suspect him.

So... Stalemate, then.

 

[Bohemian]

If there was enough evidence to charge you and absolute innocence has not been established, then you have been found Not Guilty and suspicion from those in a forum outside a court room is absolutely valid.

Until I see a video of WW abusing GT horribly to the point that all of his actions were self defence and where I can see that putting her on the balcony was an act of cooling the situation etc etc then I will suspect him. Unless you have a video you can produce of his absolute innocence, then I will suspect him.

So... Stalemate, then.

I'd say you just called 'Check', LozDa.

 

[Phil E Buster]

If there was enough evidence to charge you and absolute innocence has not been established, then you have been found Not Guilty and suspicion from those in a forum outside a court room is absolutely valid.

Sticking with your analogy and my flip of it: You never stole the car at all, you had nothing to do with stealing the car. An eye witness swore that they saw you stealing the car. You are charged. You have good legal representation, and your Barrister cross examines the eye witness well enough to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the (pretend) Jury, which finds you not guilty. Would you agree your innocence is confirmed by the Jury's verdict? You know you did not steal the car, yet others, after the verdict, seek to double guess your innocence.

 

[Karinna]

If there was enough evidence to charge you and absolute innocence has not been established, then you have been found Not Guilty and suspicion from those in a forum outside a court room is absolutely valid.

Until I see the video of WW abusing GT horribly to the point that all of his actions were self defence and where I can see that putting her on the balcony was an act of cooling the situation etc etc then I will suspect him. Unless you have a video you can produce of his absolute innocence, then I will suspect him.

So... Stalemate, then.

I totally agree. There will always be suspicion surrounding him. We have no way of knowing Why a 26 year old female felt her only form of escape from him was to try and climb over a high rise balcony. What did he actually do after he locked her out there? Was that ever determined? Did he just lock her out there and sit down and watch t.v. or sit on his sofa and pretend she wasn't there or what?
What if after he "chucked" her out there he grabbed a knife from his kitchen and was showing that to her and she felt so threatened knowing her only way of escape was to do what she did? I am about sure he intimidated her in some way as to make it really dangerous for her to re enter that apartment. JMO.
Some people might believe him, but the majority don't, so he will have this looming over his head for a long time to come.
The jury have acquitted him but society hasn't.

 

[Karinna]

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?

Probably not for obvious reasons, IMO. Once a cloud of suspicion has been placed upon someone to the point it is a legal matter that goes to court with a jury trial & consequent verdict, then there will always be doubt unless someone comes and confesses to the crime.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Some people might believe him, but the majority don't, ..........

I cannot speak for the majority any more than anyone else can. All I can say is that all 12 Jurors found him 'Not Guilty.' I think 100% of the Community know that is the case.

 

[Karinna]

I cannot speak for the majority any more than anyone else can. All I can say is that all 12 Jurors found him 'Not Guilty.' I think 100% of the Community know that is the case.

Yes and just because a jury finds someone NG doesn't really mean much, with society knowing juries don't always get it right. A jury can only go on evidence presented to them, and sometimes evidence is deemed inadmissable, so with juries being lay people with no knowledge of legalities in most cases, i think there is always room for misinterpretation and error in a verdict. I can think of some of the trials i have followed where a jury didn't really understand what was being asked of them, and erred on the side of caution.
We also know this from the Innocence project where new evidence is presented and a new trial ensures, and innocent people have been found guilty and wrongfully imprisoned and likewise guilty people have walked, so it's not an infallible system. It's not that black and white in reality.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Yes and just because a jury finds someone NG doesn't really mean much, with society knowing juries don't always get it right. A jury can only go on evidence presented to them, and sometimes evidence is deemed inadmissable, so with juries being lay people with no knowledge of legalities in most cases, i think there is always room for misinterpretation and error in a verdict. I can think of some of the trials i have followed where a jury didn't really understand what was being asked of them, and erred on the side of caution. We also know this from the Innocence project where new evidence is presented and a new trial ensures, and innocent people have been found guilty and wrongfully imprisoned and likewise guilty people have walked, so it's not an infallible system. It's not that black and white in reality.

Yes, 'evidence' is often found to be inadmissible. Juries never get to hear about any evidence ruled inadmissible, There are always sound historical legal reasons for that, and it is never done on an arbitrary basis. The job of the Jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Legal niceties are not for them to worry about. I am unsure how you know why any Jury 'erred on the side of caution,' but in any event, that seems to be fairly close to the 'reasonable doubt' concept. You are absolutely right, it is not an infallible system, but it's the best (and only) one we have.

 

[Karinna]

Yes, 'evidence' is often found to be inadmissible. Juries never get to hear about any evidence ruled inadmissible, There are always sound historical legal reasons for that, and it is never done on an arbitrary basis. The job of the Jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Legal niceties are not for them to worry about. I am unsure how you know why any Jury 'erred on the side of caution,' but in any event, that seems to be fairly close to the 'reasonable doubt' concept. You are absolutely right, it is not an infallible system, but it's the best (and only) one we have.

BBM, That is in my opinion. I would imagine juries take their job seriously most of the time, and i don't think it would be an easy job knowing that someone's life is on the line, so if they are in any way doubtful then they would err on the side of caution if they are really not sure, that's all i meant by that. And sometimes i think some jurors aren't really sure the interpretation of BRD exactly either. All IMO.

 

[LozDa]

Yes, 'evidence' is often found to be inadmissible. Juries never get to hear about any evidence ruled inadmissible, There are always sound historical legal reasons for that, and it is never done on an arbitrary basis. The job of the Jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Legal niceties are not for them to worry about. I am unsure how you know why any Jury 'erred on the side of caution,' but in any event, that seems to be fairly close to the 'reasonable doubt' concept. You are absolutely right, it is not an infallible system, but it's the best (and only) one we have.

Are you of the opinion that ALL cases have been built and put before a jury to the best of all ability?

Are you of the opinion that there is no corruption or pay-offs or bias within the law?

Do you genuinely think there's a "historical" reason why the object that GT was trying to obscure, then carrying and then discarded of within moments of leaving his apartment where a woman just moments before had fallen to her death, was not submitted as evidence by the prosecution?

Do you think that the things that weren't submitted in court, but yet we are privvy to (being that we are not in the jury), makes us more or less able to form a non-legal opinion in our minds?

The law is, in a sense, robotic and precise. Because it needs to be. But, as humans, we are different. We can come to our own conclusions. Had Oscar Pistorious been found Not Guilty, there would always have been suspicion surrounding his guilt. There will always be suspicion surrounding JonBenét Ramsey's family... Etc etc.

I will always suspect GT. We can argue this all day and all night. I'm human so I have more opinions based on suspicion than the law.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Are you of the opinion that ALL cases have been built and put before a jury to the best of all ability?

There are always levels of competence and experience within the DPP, but in this case, the best was prosecuting.

Are you of the opinion that there is no corruption or pay-offs or bias within the law?

Within the Australian Criminal Justice System.....yes, I am of that opinion. There is no evidence or even suggestion here to the contrary.

Do you genuinely think there's a "historical" reason why the object that GT was trying to obscure, then carrying and then discarded of within moments of leaving his apartment where a woman just moments before had fallen to her death, was not submitted as evidence by the prosecution?

Yes. For all we know the Police found it and it was completely benign, If the Crown regarded it as relevant, they would have argued so at the Trial. Speculation is not part of how it happens in Trials and in fact, it is specifically to be excluded and ignored.

Do you think that the things that weren't submitted in court, but yet we are privvy to (being that we are not in the jury), makes us more or less able to form a non-legal opinion in our minds?

Of course "us" know more of the complete irrelevancies to a murder Trial. 'We' are privy to information which is not probative in a murder Trial.

The law is, in a sense, robotic and precise. Because it needs to be. But, as humans, we are different. We can come to our own conclusions. Had Oscar Pistorious been found Not Guilty, there would always have been suspicion surrounding his guilt. There will always be suspicion surrounding JonBenét Ramsey's family... Etc etc. I will always suspect GT. We can argue this all day and all night. I'm human so I have more opinions based on suspicion than the law.

And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Karinna]

My question in this case is "what did Police find to arouse their suspicions that GT had committed murder"? GT was charged with murder, therefore there must of been incriminating evidence against him for those charges to stick.
There was also a pre trial hearing to determine if this case was enough for it to go to a trial, which it did. So in lieu of all that what happened that the jury found him not guilty? By not admitting a lot of the evidence found by police into the trial, how could the jurors get a complete picture of the circumstances leading up to WW's death? All they got was a very partial piece of the puzzle, IMO. They also had to repeatedly ask the judge questions of what was okay to deliberate. I would think the jury in this case was a confused jury.
And consequently there was no justice for Warriena and her family.

 

[SouthAussie]

My question in this case is "what did Police find to arouse their suspicions that GT had committed murder"? GT was charged with murder, therefore there must of been incriminating evidence against him for those charges to stick.
There was also a pre trial hearing to determine if this case was enough for it to go to a trial, which it did. So in lieu of all that what happened that the jury found him not guilty? By not admitting a lot of the evidence found by police into the trial, how could the jurors get a complete picture of the circumstances leading up to WW's death? All they got was a very partial piece of the puzzle, IMO. They also had to repeatedly ask the judge questions of what was okay to deliberate. I would think the jury in this case was a confused jury.
And consequently there was no justice for Warriena and her family.

BBM: I think the neighbours' reports of Warriena screaming no, no, no over and over, then so obviously fleeing from a very dangerous height (along with Tostee fleeing the scene) may have been enough to initially get their hinky meters going.
Then they got a search warrant and found the recording on a phone in the car.

As we all know, listening to that entire recording can really change your perspective about this being some kind of accidental death.

But I wonder what they were looking for? Could Warriena's sister have told police that Warriena had sent her pics of a guy she was with that she met on Tinder, and they wanted to see that Tinder exchange?

 

[emirates1957]

I have just finished reading an interesting book in regards to forensic hand writing and language. There appears to be a number of "users" take that anyway you want with a cocktail of names. One or two posts ..... yeah this could be somebody with a relevant point of view after 6 to 7 posts bingo they become totally transparent again !!!! Their mode of writing takes them back to anger/frustration and a desperate need for validation and justification. So why pose as 20 different people on various forums? Personally I find that scary. So GT, Broer, Fairy, Purlin, Buster amongst a dozen others help me understand why come back to Websleuths? Why pretend to be somebody else?

 

[Phil E Buster]

I wonder if Tostee fleeing the scene and neighbours' reports of bangs and bumps and screaming and Warriena so obviously fleeing were the triggers that spurred the police to get a search warrant (to look for a potential weapon?), and then they discover the recording on a phone hidden in the car.

I think it is an over-reach to say he fled the scene, but no matter really. There is every reason the neighbours heard loud noises, as there were loud noises to hear, as the recording reveals. I was unaware a search warrant was issued. Is that your opinion, or is it fact? I don't think the phone was hidden in the car. Was it not in the 'map compartment' (or whatever the right descriptor is) in the Dad's car? That is exactly where I put my mobile when I am driving, so I can't see anything in that. As for why Tostee was charged with murder. Well, given the circumstances, and the aftermath of the Baden-Clay case, I think the Police had no option. Easiest way out. Just pass the buck to the Criminal Justice System. Yes, there was a Preliminary Hearing. That was done by way of hand-up Brief to the Magistrate with a concession that there was a prima facie case. (All over in less than five minutes. I also suspect that was a very wise tactical move by Defence. I can explain that if anyone is interested. Although I am now guessing, I suspect that at the end of the Crown case, Defence made a submission of 'no case to answer.' Obviously, if there was such a submission, it was overruled by the Judge, and the matter went to the Jury. Yes, there were (I think) four separate questions which came from the Jury to the Judge. My read of that differs from Karinna's. It suggests to me that probably one Juror was playing Sherlock Holmes and going beyond the evidence to sustain their own view. The questions were quite bizarre, and indicative of someone doing exactly that. Each time, the Judge basically slapped them down. Honestly, there really was only one probable outcome in this matter and I have never heard one Lawyer who thinks otherwise. The death of that young woman was quite tragic, and probably, if she and he had the opportunity to turn back the clock, it would have had a better conclusion. She lost her life, her Family lost her. He lost his life as well. His will never be the same. His Family also have lost him. Everyone is a loser in this.

 

[Karinna]

BBM: I think the neighbours' reports of Warriena screaming no, no, no over and over, then so obviously fleeing from a very dangerous height (along with Tostee fleeing the scene) may have been enough to initially get their hinky meters going.
Then they got a search warrant and found the recording on a phone in the car.

As we all know, listening to that entire recording can really change your perspective about this being some kind of accidental death.

But I wonder what they were looking for? Could Warriena's sister have told police that Warriena had sent her pics of a guy she was with that she met on Tinder, and they wanted to see that Tinder exchange?

Yeah i wonder if the police had other evidence on GT apart from what we have heard about in msm that we didn't get to hear about?

 

[Phil E Buster]

Hi Emirates. Thanks for the warm welcome. I am none of those you are referring to.

 

[Phil E Buster]

Yeah i wonder if the police had other evidence on GT apart from what we have heard about in msm that we didn't get to hear about?

All I can offer in response to that is....if they had any such evidence, and it was admissible, we all would know about it.

 

[Karinna]

All I can offer in response to that is....if they had any such evidence, and it was admissible, we all would know about it.

I think the whole thing was skewed in Tostee's favor, IMO. It can happen you know.

 

[Phil E Buster]

I think the whole thing was skewed in Tostee's favor, IMO. It can happen you know.

The word 'skewed' suggests you have a continuing notion of corruption of some sort. The outcome of the Trial was a verdict of 'Not Guilty.' The Crown ran its case, the Defence did not even run a case in the sense that they called zero evidence. The Jury unanimously concluded he was 'Not Guilty.' Nothing, other than new and compelling evidence, will ever change that.