By Sharnie Kim
A forensic pathologist has detailed the horrific injuries suffered by New Zealand woman Warriena Wright, who fell 14 floors from a Gold Coast high-rise apartment in 2014.
Dr Dianne Little was the final crown witness in the Supreme Court trial in Brisbane of Gable Tostee, who is accused of murdering the 26-year-old.
The pair met through the online dating app Tinder while Ms Wright was holidaying in Queensland.
She fell from Tostee’s 14th floor balcony in the early hours of August 8, 2014 after the two were involved in a drunken altercation.
The prosecution has not suggested Tostee pushed or threw Ms Wright off the balcony, rather he locked her outside and intimidated her so much she felt her only means of escape was climbing down.
Dr Little, employed by the Gold Coast University Hospital, testified via video link on the fourth day of Tostee’s trial.
She conducted a post-mortem examination on Ms Wright’s body three days after her fatal fall.
Dr Little recorded 80 separate injuries on Ms Wright’s body, including severe trauma to her head and body, which caused her death.
She tested fluid in Ms Wright’s eye to estimate her blood-alcohol concentration at the time she died was 0.156 per cent.
Dr Little said Ms Wright had areas of reddening around her neck, but they were more likely caused by the fall rather than prior injury, such as strangulation.
She said there was no evidence of internal injuries to the neck.
The prosecution had previously alleged Tostee tried to strangle or choke Ms Wright during their fight, but the defence disputed this.
Dr Little also noted multiple scars on Ms Wright’s wrists, thigh and upper chest which appeared to have been self-inflicted.
She said the scars were not recent and probably more than weeks or months’ old.
The prosecution concluded its case at the end of Dr Little’s evidence.
The trial has been adjourned until Friday.
This post originally appeared on ABC News.
© 2016 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Read the ABC Disclaimer here.
Top Comments
'The prosecution had previously alleged Tostee tried to strangle or choke Ms Wright during their fight, but the defence disputed this.'
Why, is the prosecution going against their own expert witness, Dr Dianne Little, a forensic pathologist who said,
'Ms Wright had areas of reddening around her neck, but they were more likely caused by the fall rather than prior injury, such as strangulation.
She said there was no evidence of internal injuries to the neck.'
Why is Tostee being tried for murder?
'The prosecution has not suggested Tostee pushed or threw Ms Wright off the balcony, rather he locked her outside and intimidated her so much she felt her only means of escape was climbing down.'
Let's say we give you all of this, for the sake of the argument, where is the element of murder? Where is the intent?
Where is the accountability?
Based on what I have read so far I tend to agree with you, but I guess though they have to rule out whether the woman was so terrified of him that she felt her only way to escape him was to climb or jump from the balcony. There is a precedent to this, a number of years ago a rapist break into an apartment and I seem to recall that the young couple jumped from the balcony to get away from him and one died.
So I guess the question with this case is whether she felt she had to flee impending violence/possible murder from this man, or whether he was locked her out to protect himself from her violence.
I have read conflicting reports of the court case, on Mamamia it seems from the transcript that they published to be that the woman was violent to him and he locked her out as he didn't want any more violence from her. Yet on another site the story read in a more damning way towards him so I don't know what to believe, though I do find it interesting that Mamamia's story seemed to be showing him in a more sympathetic light considering that as a feminist site they would be usually more inclined to take the woman's point of view, so it is making me think that he may be innocent, but I guess unless we are in court and are hearing the full story it is difficult to tell.
There was a similar case to this many years ago. A woman was being terrorized by her very violent ex who she believed would kill her during the assault, so she threw herself out the window to escape him.
The prosecution argued that because he intended to cause her serious harm, that formed the 'mens rea', and because he was physically committed the violence, that formed the 'actus reas'. The jury agreed that her death was a foreseeable consequence of his deliberate violence, so he was convicted of murder.
I imagine that's the same angle the prosecution is going for here. But it doesn't sound like they should succeed (from the limited info in the media reports).
The novus actus interveniens test from Royall? It'll be interesting to see if it is successful won't it?
It's pretty much on the record from recordings, that she was quite violent and he may in fact have been afraid of her. Let's just see how the trial proceeds - the accused was certainly tried and found guilty by media immediately after the death. Hardly fair.
You'd be violent too if a creep was trying to hold you captive.
I still don't get why he locked her out on the balcony instead of pushing her out the front door. If she was really aggressive, she would have smashed the door in.
He told her to leave and go home. She didn't and threw something at him.