This is a semantics quandary, I would say. I wouldnÃÕ really agree that this is a statement of outright truth, hardly proof of anything other than the distinction that a particular legal system places on such labels. What this conviction means in ÅÓeality using any number of other criteria for any number of people is completely unclear, not the least of whom are TinaÃÔ parents no doubt.
If the press is a mitigating factor in GabeÃÔ decision to plead out and he is innocent or if he actually did murder Tina and knew this was a far better deal than the risk of a conviction, then he isnÃÕ guilty of manslaughter, he is either innocent entirely and took a lesser sentence because he was scared or he actually is guilty of murder and got off easy with this slap on the wrist. And frankly there could even be some in between ground that doesnÃÕ fall into these neat legal distinctions of guilty or innocent. I suppose one could argue that manslaughter is one of these distinctions.
The only thing we can say for sure is he is ÅÄonvicted of manslaughter, an entirely different ÅÓeality if you will, one bent on honoring the process of law more than anything else. People can assume whatever labels they like where Gabe is concerned, just as many of us were doing before this closure of a kind came along. I doubt weÃÍl ever know much more than that, though I wish we could for a lot of reasons, again TinaÃÔ parents come to mind.
Just out of curiosity. Does Australia have legal limitations on people making money off of a wrongful death case related to a conviction for manslaughter or murder? In other words, if Gabe writes one of those tell all books later on knowing he is projected under double jeopardy laws, will he be allowed to profit from it in Australia after he is out of prison?
This case seems to end just like it started, with a lot of unanswered questions and I am sure miserable people reeling from the ambiguity and the lack of any real and final answers.
And my thoughts go to TinaÃÔ parents one more time.
Cheers!
