Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #3

[possumheart]

I’ve been having a look at O’Gorman’s track record, and this is not the first case where he has complained about the media coverage prior to trial, and I'm sure that it won’t be the last. He complains about it a lot. But I think in this day of social media and rapid delivery of information, it is something he will need to adjust to .. or not. He'd really like us to be in the dark about everything, in every case, until after the trial - which we all know can take a couple of years.

What can journalists, journalism educators and media producers do?
• Consider the impact on the community of the way in which crime is reported;
• report on the underlying causes of crime;
• be responsible in reporting crimes committed by those who are mentally ill;
• balance the need to report crime with the privacy and dignity of the victims of crime;
• consider the public health perspective not just the "newsworthiness" of the item;
• include best-practice examples in journalism education; and
• make professional development courses available for currently practising journalists.

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/media_portrayals_of_crime.pdf

 

[possumheart]

So he titled the recording....... I wonder what the preceding 23 sessions consist of??!!:thinking::

Tostee was making an audio recording of the meeting, called Session 24, now vital evidence in a murder trial.

http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/3rd-...hlights-tinder-risks-2014101520#ixzz3GHiZmGjN

I'm hoping this means they have the other 23 'sessions' and can find a thread/theme that ties them together. Having heard that other recording on the bb forum (with the tourist) - I suspect they will be drunken late night/early morning ramblings at women he has brought home, with overtones of arrogance and humiliation.

He has self-proclaimed (on the forum) that he turns the device on when he is at blackout stage of intoxication.

He has self-proclaimed (on the forum) that he has done this in some form ('bra bringing da sloot home') over 100 times, so he must have a good idea of when to switch the recorder on ... and he is obviously a creature of habit if not OCD.

A Queensland man's self-declared obsession with recording everything may have led to his arrest.

Police claim to have a "compelling" case against Gable Tostee, after seizing secret audio files from his Gold Coast apartment, where a woman he met online plunged to her death.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...-led-to-tostee-arrest-6pm#FzuiqyZWj8TCYAf2.99

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-19/mcculkin-murder-trial-prejudice/5825022

Just read this on the news. It highlights how passionate Terry O'Gorman is about upholding the basic civil right of every human being and his assertion that anyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial. This article reports his views on how again, the police has crossed the line by revealing more than they should about a case to the media.

Lawyer Terry O'Gorman, who represents O'Dempsey, said it was up to the courts not Detective Supt Holahan to determine the strength of the case.

Mr O'Gorman was also critical of police revealing that the Crime and Corruption Commission conducted 31 days of closed hearings his year.

"This is highly prejudicial commentary and if I had made such comments I would be at risk of criminal charges for breaching the secrecy provision of the law relating to CCC Star Chamber hearings," Mr O'Gorman said.

"I am not going to sit idly by and see in the O'Dempsey case a repeat of the police prejudicial media tactics which reached its heights in the Baden-Clay case and continued with the recent Tostee murder arrest.

"If Detective Superintendent Holahan or other senior police continue to make prejudicial comments about the O'Dempsey case while it is before the courts I will take every step available to bring this unacceptable police tactic to an end so as to ensure Mr O'Dempsey can obtain a fair trial."

 

[SouthAussie]

Fortunately, the press has rights and freedoms, designed to keep us a free and open society …

Australia is committed to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Declaration provides: "Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/charter-of-press-freedom/

And juries have a specific role …

The jury’s role is to decide the case based on the evidence called at the trial. Evidence may be submitted as oral evidence from witnesses and/or physical evidence that takes the form of exhibits in the trial. The judge will tell (or “direct”) the jury everything it needs to know about the law to be applied in the case. The task of the jury is to:
- decide the facts of a case;
- apply the law as the judge directs; and
- bring in a verdict.

http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch01s02s05.php

And this is what makes O’Gorman’s continual laments about trial by media invalid in our society, and why his complaints generally fall on deaf ears.

If a defendant feels that he/she has been slighted or scandalised, they too have rights .. the right to sue for defamation and libel.

And the victims deserve a voice … and that is why I am glad that we have freedom of the press and police that are passionate about following a trail, often with the help of an informed public, to bring guilty parties to account. We all know that media coverage frequently brings in more tips and more info than police currently have, and that can help a successful prosecution.

It all operates in conjunction, and it works.

 

[Ausgirl]

Of course, we are all aware of who Dennis Ferguson is, right? "pilloried"?? FFS, I'd like to see him hung, drawn and quartered. In the most literal and historical senses of the phrase. Making that monster out to be a 'victim' of the media was unforgivable IMO. The media 'hounding' he got is the ONLY reason that many families unfortunate enough to live within a 50Km radius of this revolting child rapist *knew* he was footloose and fancy free in their area.

Boo, O'Gorman. A thousand pristine deeds won't wash that stain off.


If you don't know who Ferguson is, let me fill you in on O'Gorman's "media victim":

According to court records, Ferguson's pre-1987 criminal history contains "many convictions for false pretences, various assaults on children and indecent assaults on females",[2] including five convictions for child molestation.[7] In 1987 Ferguson was imprisoned in Long Bay Jail after being convicted on multiple fraud charges.[2]

After being released from Long Bay Jail in July 1987, Ferguson, then aged 39, and his 23-year-old male lover, Alexandria George Brookes, abducted three children, two boys and a girl, from Sydney aged six, seven and eight. Ferguson had previously got to know the children's father, who was a fellow inmate in Long Bay Jail, and Ferguson was told that the children had previously been sexually abused. Ferguson and Brookes flew the children to Brisbane, and sexually assaulted them in a house in the Brisbane suburb of Kedron. The following night, Ferguson and Brookes moved the three children to a motel in the suburb of Ascot, where they again abused the children. Police arrested Ferguson and Brookes at the motel, where they found Ferguson naked with the children. Ferguson told police, "I can help you. Pornography. Kiddy porn, I can get you kiddy porn."[2] Ferguson claimed he was innocent, accusing one of the boys he molested of committing the crimes..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ferguson

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

Let it be clear that I am on the same page as you Ausgirl in terms of my sentiments towards paedophiles. They are sick, disgusting vile monsters who do not deserve an iota of sympathy from any one. Unfortunately though, in the eyes of the law, they are still classified as human beings, and thus deserve to have their day in Court and right to a fair trial. :doh: Mr O'Gorman, in his capacity as president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties is pushing the point that at the heart of the Australian Justice system is the whole principle of Presumption of Innocence. And I get that.

However, justice also demands that the media be free and able to report fairly and accurately on court proceedings in an "open" court system. There are numerous articles out there discussing the merits of Fair Trial vs Open Justice. These two principles can be at odds at each other but there is a balance point. Sometimes that elusive point can be hard to reach, and until then, the views on how far the Media can go in their reporting will continue to be polarised.

This article here talks about Australian courts having the power to stay an indictment permanently on the grounds of prejudicial publicity rendering a fair trial at any time to be impossible. Essentially it means that if it can be successfully shown to the court that the prejudicial publicity is so extensive that the defendant cannot possibly receive a fair trial, the defendant can then apply for a permanent stay of proceedings and be granted exactly that. It has only happened once ever in Australia, and that was in the 1930s in the case of Tuckier vs the King. Up to the point of this article being written, the closest another case came to that was the Ferguson case. Scary to think that Ferguson could have potentially walked free due to what the Court viewed as that exceptional case having been reached where prejudicial media publicity had been so excessive that a fair trial was impossible.

http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/SecondarySourceonCaseStudy2.pdf
QUOTING THE ARTICLE -

District Court Judge Hugh Botting ruled that a notorious sex offender, Dennis Raymond Ferguson, would have charges against him permanently stayed because of a combination of pre-trial publicity and a weak prosecution case. It would be no exaggeration to describe the damaging type of prejudicial publicity that attended Ferguson before and after the trial as unprecedented in recent Queensland and possibly Australian legal history. However, within six weeks of Judge Botting's ruling the permanent stay was overturned by the Queensland Court of Appeal.....
...There is no doubt that in Australia the bar is set exceedingly high for an application for a permanent stay of proceedings based on prejudicial publicity either pre-trial or in-trial....
...But also given the fact that Australian courts do recognise the possibility that media publicity may create a situation in which an accused will not be able to have a fair trial the question must be asked; when, if ever, will prejudicial media publicity lead a superior court to confidently permanently stay a trial on these grounds?...END OF QUOTE

And really, at the moment with Tostee's case, it is only a select few media cowboys that are being irresponsible, and it is the tabloid types like Courier Mail and the Daily Mail. The more respectable Media organisations seemed to have pulled back a bit, and are mostly responsible in their reporting, discerning and professional in their approach. The Media should be reporting only verified facts to keep the public informed and taking care to not jeapordise court proceedings.

 

[SouthAussie]

It is important to note that the jury must consider only the evidence placed before them. Not the media print that has gone before, or anything else other than the evidence that is placed before them. If they cannot do that, they must exclude themselves.

The fact that a legally purchased partial transcript of Tostee’s own voice recording and copies of his own postings on the body building forum (and O'Gorman's complaints, and Tostee's mate's claims of Tostee's innocence) have been published does not exempt the jury from considering only the evidence that is placed before them.

Jurors take their job seriously. Which is why guilty people sometimes walk free.

That is what keeps a trial fair.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

It is important to note that the jury must consider only the evidence placed before them. Not the media print that has gone before, or anything else other than the evidence that is placed before them. If they cannot do that, they must exclude themselves.

The fact that a legally purchased partial transcript of Tostee’s own voice recording and copies of his own postings on the body building forum have been published does not exempt the jury from considering only the evidence that is placed before them.

Jurors take their job seriously. Which is why guilty people sometimes walk free.

That is what keeps a trial fair.

Yes, at least we have that. But the job of a jury is getting harder, and harder, don't you think? Compared to let's say 50 years ago, the effects of the Media are so much far reaching and complex. If a voir dire were to be conducted at Tostee's trial today, and I got called in to be a juror, I will have put my hand up and ask to be excluded and admit to being biased. I would struggle having read what I have read so far on the case.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, at least we have that. But the job of a jury is getting harder, and harder, don't you think? Compared to let's say 50 years ago, the effects of the Media are so much far reaching and complex. If a voir dire were to be conducted at Tostee's trial today, and I got called in to be a juror, I will have put my hand up and ask to be excluded and admit to being biased. I would struggle having read what I have read so far on the case.

Yes, I agree. It is not an easy task being a juror. Many people exempt themselves, and many people are declined by the prosecutor or the defence. But the ones that are left standing (or sitting, as the case may be :giggle do take their role very seriously. And I think we need to have faith in their intelligence and diligence. They mostly get it right. And they do just consider the evidence that is laid before them. If it is thought otherwise, a mistrial can be called.

We have a pretty good form of justice here. The laws could use some updating, but that is always a very slow process, and justice generally prevails in its fairest form.

(Which is why I think O'Gorman is very unfair in his claims of trial by media ... and wish he would stick to uncovering corruption in other areas, and helping those that are truly innocent and need protection. But I guess he needs clients so he can pay his bills, just like everyone else.)

Now, if we could work on some of those lenient sentencing laws .....

 

[Ausgirl]

IMO it's as simple as this: Tostee crapped his pants when it finally dawned on him that he *might* be actually held responsible for his abysmal behaviour this time, and that he did a LOT with his own fat mouth to incriminate himself -- so he and good ole "trial by media" O'Gorman have glommed onto each other as client and laywer so both can advance their own agendas.

Neither of which have anything to do with wanting justice for the dead girl.

 

[MsAnais]

IMO it's as simple as this: Tostee crapped his pants when it finally dawned on him that he *might* be actually held responsible for his abysmal behaviour this time, and that he did a LOT with his own fat mouth to incriminate himself -- so he and good ole "trial by media" O'Gorman have glommed onto each other as client and laywer so both can advance their own agendas.

Neither of which have anything to do with wanting justice for the dead girl.

:yes: I think VERY little here has to do with justice for Warriena...........

 

[MsAnais]

Of course, we are all aware of who Dennis Ferguson is, right? "pilloried"?? FFS, I'd like to see him hung, drawn and quartered. In the most literal and historical senses of the phrase. Making that monster out to be a 'victim' of the media was unforgivable IMO. The media 'hounding' he got is the ONLY reason that many families unfortunate enough to live within a 50Km radius of this revolting child rapist *knew* he was footloose and fancy free in their area.

Boo, O'Gorman. A thousand pristine deeds won't wash that stain off.


If you don't know who Ferguson is, let me fill you in on O'Gorman's "media victim":

According to court records, Ferguson's pre-1987 criminal history contains "many convictions for false pretences, various assaults on children and indecent assaults on females",[2] including five convictions for child molestation.[7] In 1987 Ferguson was imprisoned in Long Bay Jail after being convicted on multiple fraud charges.[2]

After being released from Long Bay Jail in July 1987, Ferguson, then aged 39, and his 23-year-old male lover, Alexandria George Brookes, abducted three children, two boys and a girl, from Sydney aged six, seven and eight. Ferguson had previously got to know the children's father, who was a fellow inmate in Long Bay Jail, and Ferguson was told that the children had previously been sexually abused. Ferguson and Brookes flew the children to Brisbane, and sexually assaulted them in a house in the Brisbane suburb of Kedron. The following night, Ferguson and Brookes moved the three children to a motel in the suburb of Ascot, where they again abused the children. Police arrested Ferguson and Brookes at the motel, where they found Ferguson naked with the children. Ferguson told police, "I can help you. Pornography. Kiddy porn, I can get you kiddy porn."[2] Ferguson claimed he was innocent, accusing one of the boys he molested of committing the crimes..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ferguson

Thank you for this info, Ausgirl.

I didn't know who Dennis Ferguson was. And as someone who has worked endlessly with the child victims of paedophiles, reading about him was absolutely sickening.

I used to sit in court in Child Protection cases I had to testify at - testifying on behalf of the child, attempting to keep them safely away from their abusers (who were typically their parents or grandparents) - and just boggle over the defence lawyers.

I understand that they are upholding the strictures of a 'just' society where everyone is entitled to a fair trial and legal representation - I honestly get all of that - but then when it came down to it, I had so much trouble accepting that the defence lawyer was vehemently arguing (and often lying) against the child's testimony, with the aim being to keep a child in an abusive situation.

There was no interest in justice being displayed in any of those cases. All I saw was a 'doing the job for my client' attitude, regardless of the cost to the innocent child.

What kind of person defends a paedophile when they KNOW what that person has done to children?

That's where my empathy/understanding/levelheadedness evaporates. I've met WAYYYY too many defence lawyers in court, arguing their case without any true interest in justice.

Thankfully, in all of the cases that I was involved in, the defence never won. But I shudder to think what would have happened to all of those children if they had :facepalm:

 

[marlywings]

And really, at the moment with Tostee's case, it is only a select few media cowboys that are being irresponsible, and it is the tabloid types like Courier Mail and the Daily Mail. The more respectable Media organisations seemed to have pulled back a bit, and are mostly responsible in their reporting, discerning and professional in their approach. The Media should be reporting only verified facts to keep the public informed and taking care to not jeapordise court proceedings.

I just wanted to comment on your last paragraph. How is the media being irresponsible when they're entitled to publish information from the courts in which a judge has granted permission for that information to be released to the public?? Plus all the media outlets have their own lawyers who vet the info prior to its publication.

I wouldn't label CourierMail a tabloid at all. Sure they have some junk on site since their update last year but they do have some of the finest crime case/court reporters. Daily Mail mostly publishes info gleaned from Australian news agencies. The only reason they've all gone quiet is because the case is in sub-judice and there's basically nothing to report until the next chapter begins.

And let's face it....where would we be without them?? Completely in the dark in my opinion.

 

[marlywings]

IMO it's as simple as this: Tostee crapped his pants when it finally dawned on him that he *might* be actually held responsible for his abysmal behaviour this time, and that he did a LOT with his own fat mouth to incriminate himself -- so he and good ole "trial by media" O'Gorman have glommed onto each other as client and laywer so both can advance their own agendas.

Neither of which have anything to do with wanting justice for the dead girl.

I agree Ausgirl. In his pursuit of liberties for criminals he loses sight of the victims.

He's just doing a bit of grandstanding for his client as well as himself so I wouldn't be taking too much notice of him. I much prefer his brother's work....lol.

I'll also add, police don't pass out evidence to all and sundry. They're very well schooled on what they're allowed to comment on as they, 100% know, how vital evidence is in court cases.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

I just wanted to comment on your last paragraph. How is the media being irresponsible when they're entitled to publish information from the courts in which a judge has granted permission for that information to be released to the public?? Plus all the media outlets have their own lawyers who vet the info prior to its publication.

I wouldn't label CourierMail a tabloid at all. Sure they have some junk on site since their update last year but they do have some of the finest crime case/court reporters. Daily Mail mostly publishes info gleaned from Australian news agencies. The only reason they've all gone quiet is because the case is in sub-judice and there's basically nothing to report until the next chapter begins.

And let's face it....where would we be without them?? Completely in the dark in my opinion.

Well, I label Courier Mail a tabloid because of stunts they pull like this
http://mumbrella.com.au/press-council-confirms-complaint-courier-mail-male-front-page-25536

 

[they'll get you]

Thanks for clarifying - I thought I missed something!

PS just call me Isis :seeya:

OK Isis

My little niece is named Isis. A beautiful old fashion name for a beautiful little girl. Let's not forget that.

 

[possumheart]

:hiding:

:candle:​

 

[marlywings]

Well, I label Courier Mail a tabloid because of stunts they pull like this
http://mumbrella.com.au/press-council-confirms-complaint-courier-mail-male-front-page-25536

Of course that shouldn't have been published. And all the media outlets kept on spreading it around. But really, with all the cases they cover, how often does something like that happen??

ABC is also known to pull "stunts" as well....

ABC stands by Q & A tweets about Group Captain Cate McGregor that outraged viewers

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...outraged-viewers/story-e6frfmyi-1227089615723

 

[SouthAussie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fall-death-Kiwi-tourist-Warriena-Wright.html

Thank you everyone.

Justice for Rrie and her family ... the innocent victims.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

http://www.mygc.com.au/news/tostee-bail-date-set/

Bail hearing date set down for November 18.
Can someone confirm this? It seems to be the only report out about this and cannot find any other sources to verify this fact.

http://www.pressreader.com/search?query=tostee