Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #5

[sleepinoz]

Gable Tostee court 9 8:30am @ 9:00am

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/daily-law-lists

Shouldn't this be in his new name?

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

http://m.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/n...a-wrights-murder/story-fnje8bkv-1227261140831

September 30th 2015 at best for hearing.

 

[Amee]

ACCUSED Gold Coast balcony killer Gable Tostee is behind bars over a high-speed police chase but the murder case against him is progressing in court.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eed-police-chase/story-fnn8dlfs-1227261229528

 

[SouthAussie]

So what about the other charges in Queensland from the high speed chase? No information about them anywhere, that I can find.


ETA:
Tostee was sentenced to 10 months' jail earlier this week in NSW after a high-speed police pursuit in his father's car in July last year.

Tostee will face Southport Magistrates Court in March on the drink-driving charge as the reading was taken in Queensland.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-reportedly-changes-name-20150204-135xrf.html

 

[sleepinoz]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eed-police-chase/story-fnn8dlfs-1227261229528

He was jailed for 10 months and is due for release on parole in August.

Setting court dates based on the hope that he gets parole when due - only if he behaves :thinking:

Good luck with that :laughing:

 

[Ausgirl]

And what about the assault police thing?

 

[they'll get you]

THE defence team for accused murderer Gable Tostee have paved the way to cross-examine witnesses in the case against him as early as September.

In the Southport Magistrates Court this morning solicitor Nick Dore applied for a hearing date of September 30 to stop any delays in the case as a result of Tostee’s incarceration in NSW.

If the prosecution do not oppose an application for cross-examination, witnesses could be cross examined during the hearing in September.
Mr Dore said he was yet to take instructions from Tostee while he was in prison and said if they decided to make no application to cross-examine witnesses, the case would be moved up to the Supreme Court in September.

Murder accused Gable Tostee to face committal hearing over Warriena Wright’s murder
MEAGAN WEYMES GOLD COAST BULLETIN MARCH 13, 2015 10:28AM

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...a-wrights-murder/story-fnje8bkv-1227261140831

 

[Fuskier]

Thank you Marlywings for keeping us within the WS rules on the threads. Wishing you well for your future endeavors.

 

[factfindar]

Interesting result in that ^^^ murder trial. So now we have two opposing precedents. The guilty finding in Kym Royall's trial, and the not guilty verdict in Cairns and Pydde's trial.

I wonder if it will make any difference that Rrie was a woman fleeing from violence (as Kelly Healey was), that it was not a dispute over criminal activity, and that Rrie was locked out, thereby being deprived of her liberty, and thereby leaving her no other means of removing herself from her attacker than trying to scale the balcony to another floor.

The jury in Royall had three alternatives fact scenarios - he was bashing down the door; or he burst through the door and she jumped; or he threw her out.

The jury was directed that if even on his best case scenario (bashing on the door) he could be found guilty. The court said "Where in a case of that kind the charge is murder, the prosecution must not only prove that the accused caused the death by inducing a well-founded fear or apprehension on the part of the deceased such as to make it a natural consequence that he or she should take steps to flee or escape, but it must also prove that the words or conduct which induced that fear or apprehension were accompanied by the intent which is a necessary ingredient of the crime of murder."

But the court then went on to say:

If, in a case of fright or self-preservation, the victim over-reacts to the threatening acts or words of the accused, that may be sufficient to break the chain of causation. That proposition is sometimes put in terms of reasonable foreseeability: when the act done in self-preservation is “unreasonable” it negatives causal connection.

Royall was brutally attacking the victim - blood was splashed throughout the flat. He admitted to punching her and pulling her hair at trial. There was evidence he was bashing her with an astray, or trying to. The attack was brutal.

McHugh J later qualified the 'reasonableness' or remoteness of the victims 'escape:'

"Consequently, in a case such as the present, an accused should not be held to be guilty unless his or her conduct induced the victim to take action which resulted in harm to him or her and that harm was either intended by the accused or was of a type which a reasonable person could have foreseen as a consequence of the accused's conduct. In determining whether a reasonable person could have foreseen the harm suffered by the victim, any irrational or unreasonable conduct of the victim will be a variable factor to be weighed according to all the circumstances of the case."

So, emerges a two step process (in a vaccuum aside from whether or not Royall was on Tinder that night) :

1. Was there intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm?
2. Could a reasonable person have foreseen the harm suffered by the victim?

 

[cadenza]

Sorry but you don't understand the fundamentals of these cases if you are trying to make a comparison of Royall, or even Gittany with this case as those two are nothing like this one.

Royall was proven to have committed bodily harm on the victim, and was in effect directly assaulting her when she jumped to her death.

Gittany had also assaulted his victim to some extent, but it was primarily him being witnessed throwing that victim off his balcony that led to his conviction.

This case has none of those elements.

It is inconceivable how the prosecution are going to hold the accused responsible for the thought processes of the deceased that led to her scaling the building. The accused wasn't even near the victim when she decided to scale down the building. These charges should never have been brought as they seem unable to be sustained in any regard,and I think the defence with have them withdrawn fairly quickly.

Just my opinion from what I've read.

 

[possumheart]

I don't think the prosecution will have forgotten that he choked her. For a lot of seconds, as can be attributed to his own handcrafted evidence.

 

[FigTree]

It is inconceivable how the prosecution are going to hold the accused responsible for the thought processes of the deceased that led to her scaling the building. The accused wasn't even near the victim when she decided to scale down the building. These charges should never have been brought as they seem unable to be sustained in any regard,and I think the defence with have them withdrawn fairly quickly.

Just my opinion from what I've read.

RSBM...
IIRC -
Maybe when she mentioned the word 'help' & 'murder' and tried to appease GT & diffuse the situation before she was found deceased.

 

[cadenza]

I don't think the prosecution will have forgotten that he choked her. For a lot of seconds, as can be attributed to his own handcrafted evidence.

Yes, and that evidence shows that an assault was committed on the accused priot to that. It does not strengthen your argument to leave that important fact out.

RSBM...
IIRC -
Maybe when she mentioned the word 'help' & 'murder' and tried to appease GT & diffuse the situation before she was found deceased.

I think you are creating your own reality when you are claiming to know the word uttered. There is no way of knowing what it is. As for the appeasement, it's a bit hard to claim that when an assault took place again after that on the accused. Gladiatorial might be a more accurate word.

A lawyer friend of mine tells me there is not a hope of the accused being convicted. He also socialises with a lot of other Brisbane lawyers and the general consensus from them is the same.You seem to be convinced the accused is guilty of murder on this forum for some unknown reason, but a misadventure is what this seems to be. The altercation that occurred on the balcony may be a causative factor in the death, but even if it is deemed to be, it is unlikely the accused is liable to any substantive degree. Not from the evidence as it has been reported in the media anyway.

 

[Ausgirl]

here we go.... again

 

[Ausgirl]

Yes, and that evidence shows that an assault was committed on the accused priot to that. It does not strengthen your argument to leave that important fact out.

I think we've all seen the argument that Tostee was "assaulted" before - numerous times, and from the same source.

At worst, she was being annoying. She certainly did not pin Tostee to the floor and choke him for several minutes, while verbally assaulting him.. oh well, the picture's pretty clear. The "she assaulted him/self defense" argument doesn't wash, the end.

 

[possumheart]

You seem to be convinced the accused is guilty of murder on this forum for some unknown reason, but a misadventure is what this seems to be.

respectfully snipped. BBM

I take it that this is a collective you in this context?

We are individuals having a discussion, backed up by media snippets and interrupted by the odd sock puppet or troll.
There is no unknown reason, except of course if you haven't read the thread. Heresay/rumor is not allowed on the forum. Your lawyer friend's opinion and his friend's opinions are just that — opinions. They arent contributing anything.
:winkkiss:

 

[they'll get you]

I don't think the prosecution will have forgotten that he choked her. For a lot of seconds, as can be attributed to his own handcrafted evidence.

:ditto:

 

[they'll get you]

Victim-blaming is hindering the fight against domestic violence

CAROLINE MARCUS THE SUNDAY MAIL (QLD) APRIL 05, 2015 12:00AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...omestic-violence/story-fnihsr9v-1227291362158

 

[Deleted member 83851]

Sheeesh. So a bunch of lawyers I have never met state a personal opinion to which I am supposed to fall down and capitulate all my opinions? Or did I miss the polite "In *their* opinion" mea culpa? Maybe I did. :thinking:

 

[SouthAussie]

Sheeesh. So a bunch of lawyers I have never met state a personal opinion to which I am supposed to fall down and capitulate all my opinions? Or did I miss the polite "In *their* opinion" mea culpa? Maybe I did. :thinking:

I think it may be classified as a rumour here, Ooohm. Because it is attributed to an unknown someone(s) other than the poster and it is not verifiable.