NOT GUILTY Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #12

[Karinna]

You do see the word ~ 'driver' there, yes? It is limited to motor vehicle incidents.

I realise that, but couldn't find much on Aus. law in leaving the scene on any other type of accident which in Warriena's case was falling from a building. It doesn't matter anyway it still doesn't exonerate GT's callous indifference to what happened. He could of at least called an ambulance. IMO that makes him a monster.

 

[Sheerlock Homes]

This is all there is Karinna:

Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 285 285 Duty to provide necessaries 285 Duty to provide necessaries It is the duty of every person having charge of another who is unable by reason of age, sickness, unsoundness of mind, detention, or any other cause, to withdraw himself or herself from such charge, and who is unable to provide himself or herself with the necessaries of life, whether the charge is undertaken under a contract, or is imposed by law, or arises by reason of any act, whether lawful or unlawful, of the person who has such charge, to provide for that other person the necessaries of life; and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of the other person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.

 

[fairydust]

]I think you are taking that out of context,[/B] IMO. I think the general consensus is that GT showed gross indifference to the wellbeing of the young woman that he invited back to his apartmnt., plied her with some type of alcohol and whatever else he did to her, and then after being placed out on that balcony falling to her death just carried on as if nothing had happened. And i don't care if he was eating pizza or playing tiddly winks. He shows consciousness of guilt, also IMO.

Umm, the bolded bit - absolutely nothing ambiguous about it all (post #1188 refers). A few if us have requested to see a link to substantiate this claim. I personally know of no such law. If a link cannot be supplied to support it, then it was just wishful thinking again.

 

[tiddles24]

I thought that Liam handled the interview well (even though I dont like 60 Minutes journalism in general).
I didn't realise that Rie's last scream was recorded as well.
Regarding the parents' responses, I felt that the father showed "some emotion".
Glad to see that the threat of GT saying he ought to throw her off the balcony, was mentioned.
After he locked her out on the balcony, it was only 26 seconds until she fell to her death.
I am still wondering if GT placed Rie onto the railing of the balcony with her facing away from the building & she couldnt hang on any longer than the 26 seconds, as her arms were placed behind the railing & she couldn't manoever her body to get to the balcony below for escape.
It's a pity that she was so drunk because I feel that her swearing with all the "F?#CK's" didn't paint a very good picture for her, unfortunately, as well as throwing all the ornamental pebbles everywhere (not a good look).
I have noticed in the media in the past week that TINDER has been mentioned a lot....I do hope that more women will think twice before getting involved with TINDER dates, after seeing what happened to Rie.
It is such a pity that he didn't just give Rie her phone & belongings & let her out the front door, like any normal person would do, as she would still be alive today.....MOO.

 

[Karinna]

This is all there is Karinna:

Could you please post a link to that statute thanks.

 

[emirates1957]

I haven't listened to 60 minutes and will get around to it in due course. I have been in a position to work predominately with men for over 38 years....(even been known to marry a few). When I arrived in the crew room this morning I heard one of them say "I'm embarrassed to be a bloke".....naturally I asked why. Several of them had watched 60 minutes and were disgusted by WW screaming NO 33.....they were truly shocked.

There are a number of users that try their utmost to justify his behaviour. They all sound very, very angry which in my experience comes from deep seated fear and frustration.

My partner has an IQ of 142 and it is a joy to revel in his wit, intelligence and gusto for life. Pity Rie's life was cut to short to enjoy a decent man.

 

[Karinna]

Umm, the bolded bit - absolutely nothing ambiguous about it all (post #1188 refers). A few if us have requested to see a link to substantiate this claim. I personally know of no such law. If a link cannot be supplied to support it, then it was just wishful thinking again.

A link to substantiate what claim? Are you talking about the fact that he didn't seek medical assistance, as any decent human being would do after the young woman in his company fell to her death from his balcony?
Maybe there is no case law in Australia pertaining to that kind of thing, because i can't think of any other case that has happened in, unless someone has been murdered and then of course the perp. isn't going to obtain any medical assistance for the victim. If this was truly an accident as Tostee claims then why didn't he call for an ambulance? He could of even given first responders a fake name if he was in CYA mode.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I thought that Liam handled the interview well (even though I dont like 60 Minutes journalism in general).
I didn't realise that Rie's last scream was recorded as well.
Regarding the parents' responses, I felt that the father showed "some emotion".
Glad to see that the threat of GT saying he ought to throw her off the balcony, was mentioned.
After he locked her out on the balcony, it was only 26 seconds until she fell to her death.
I am still wondering if GT placed Rie onto the railing of the balcony with her facing away from the building & she couldnt hang on any longer than the 26 seconds, as her arms were placed behind the railing & she couldn't manoever her body to get to the balcony below for escape.
It's a pity that she was so drunk because I feel that her swearing with all the "F?#CK's" didn't paint a very good picture for her, unfortunately, as well as throwing all the ornamental pebbles everywhere (not a good look).
I have noticed in the media in the past week that TINDER has been mentioned a lot....I do hope that more women will think twice before getting involved with TINDER dates, after seeing what happened to Rie.
It is such a pity that he didn't just give Rie her phone & belongings & let her out the front door, like any normal person would do, as she would still be alive today.....MOO.

I agree with you. GT said he didn't look over the railing for fear of being seen which gives an insight to his mentality on that night. If he did sit Rie on the railing, he was fully aware of his surroundings and not to be seen. His intention might have been to scare the hell out of her while not giving a thought that she would proceed to try and climb down. So with that, he knew he was guilty of knowingly placing her in danger but then went into self protection mode, it's not his fault. He seems the type that would dangle a baby over a balcony for similar reasons, &^*% and giggles.
All the ****s didn't go over well with many people but even a high court judge is known to loosen his/her tongue while inebriated.
The last bit is right on point, Rie took the risk and he happened to be not normal. Not in the sense of unable to distinguish right from wrong but as described in Bohemian's posts about personality disorders and the like, he views women as objects, he thinks he's above the law and has superior intelligence and he blames everyone but himself. JMO

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Could you please post a link to that statute thanks.

Google Criminal Code 1899

 

[Karinna]

I thought that Liam handled the interview well (even though I dont like 60 Minutes journalism in general).
I didn't realise that Rie's last scream was recorded as well.
Regarding the parents' responses, I felt that the father showed "some emotion".
Glad to see that the threat of GT saying he ought to throw her off the balcony, was mentioned.
After he locked her out on the balcony, it was only 26 seconds until she fell to her death.
I am still wondering if GT placed Rie onto the railing of the balcony with her facing away from the building & she couldnt hang on any longer than the 26 seconds, as her arms were placed behind the railing & she couldn't manoever her body to get to the balcony below for escape.
It's a pity that she was so drunk because I feel that her swearing with all the "F?#CK's" didn't paint a very good picture for her, unfortunately, as well as throwing all the ornamental pebbles everywhere (not a good look).
I have noticed in the media in the past week that TINDER has been mentioned a lot....I do hope that more women will think twice before getting involved with TINDER dates, after seeing what happened to Rie.
It is such a pity that he didn't just give Rie her phone & belongings & let her out the front door, like any normal person would do, as she would still be alive today.....MOO.

BBM, Yes, and it is a crime to falsely imprison someone as GT did to Warriena. She stated she wanted to go home and he blatantly refused to let her do so. He therefore committed a crime. Wonder why that was not addressed at Trial? Was it even a part of the murder charge?

 

[Karinna]

Google Criminal Code 1899

Which section is relevent?

 

[Bohemian]

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...-to-checkpoint
Wonder what Saul thought of the tell all interview?
4:52 "Clearly the level of hope all be it a vain hope. That HE wasn't ...that she had managed to get to safety on another balcony."
and ........... my job is over. It is the job of his family and friends to get him through what will be a very difficult transition.

'[...] That he wasn't [...]' What Saul? A murderer? Responsible for Warriena's fatal 'fall'? He stopped himself just in time. Mr Holt's unfinished sentence 'says' more to me than anything else he said during that particular interview.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

[/B]

BBM, Yes, and it is a crime to falsely imprison someone as GT did to Warriena. She stated she wanted to go home and he blatantly refused to let her do so. He therefore committed a crime. Wonder why that was not addressed at Trial? Was it even a part of the murder charge?

It was, kind of. prosecution and defence agreed that she assaulted him so he was legally entitled to act in self defence. No need to get bogged down in whether we think she assaulted him. The prosecutor conceded that she did. That's step one.

Step two: If his actions in defending himself, by removing her to the balcony were not excessive, then it wasn't an unlawful act. That is, it wasn't false imprisonment. If his actions were excessive, then they were unlawful, possibly false imprisonment.

Step 3: Lastly, if he did falsely imprison her, then were her actions in climbing over the balcony reasonable. If they were, GT could have been convicted. If not then he was not guilty of either offence.

The jury couldn't get over the hurdle of step two or three. We will never know which one.

 

[Sheerlock Homes]

Karrina, as is set out in the relevant Post....it is Section 285 of the Queensland Criminal Code.

 

[Karinna]

It was, kind of. prosecution and defence agreed that she assaulted him so he was legally entitled to act in self defence. No need to get bogged down in whether we think she assaulted him. The prosecutor conceded that she did. That's step one.

Step two: If his actions in defending himself, by removing her to the balcony were not excessive, then it wasn't an unlawful act. That is, it wasn't false imprisonment. If his actions were excessive, then they were unlawful, possibly false imprisonment.

Step 3: Lastly, if he did falsely imprison her, then were her actions in climbing over the balcony reasonable. If they were, GT could have been convicted. If not then he was not guilty of either offence.

The jury couldn't get over the hurdle of step two or three. We will never know which one.

Where then was the evidence of an assault on GT? Where is the evidence that he didn't assault Warriena and she was acting in SD? She died so that is an assumption/speculation on their part.
The jurors had 6 mins. worth of tape as evidence to deliberate with, no wonder they couldn't come to the right decision. What's to say GT didn't edit the recording and omit some of what really happened?
I know courts, lawyers, judges etc. have to work within the confines of their profession, but we the public don't have to agree.

 

[Karinna]

Karrina, as is set out in the relevant Post....it is Section 285 of the Queensland Criminal Code.

Thanks, so the "Duty To Provide Necessaries"?

 

[meticulously]

Where then was the evidence of an assault on GT? Where is the evidence that he didn't assault Warriena and she was acting in SD? She died so that is an assumption/speculation on their part.
The jurors had 6 mins. worth of tape as evidence to deliberate with, no wonder they couldn't come to the right decision. What's to say GT didn't edit the recording and omit some of what really happened?
I know courts, lawyers, judges etc. have to work within the confines of their profession, but we the public don't have to agree.

Yes I thought that gt edited the tape hes an expert at such things
layout app for photos

 

[Karinna]

Yes I thought that gt edited the tape hes an expert at such things
layout app for photos

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. He also removed and got rid of something from his apartment too. He is sneaky/sleazy for sure.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

Which section is relevent?

Section 365

 

[Karinna]

Section 365

Section 365 is listed as "Criminal Defamation".
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCode.pdf

So how do you figure that is relevent?