STEFAN Schmidt has been found guilty of murdering Andrew Marshall, who was pushed to his death from a window at the Ocean Beach Hotel.
The WA Supreme Court jury convicted Schmidt, 26, late yesterday after deliberating for more than five hours.
Schmidt, a 152kg former bouncer, was on trial for the murder of Mr Marshall, 29, a New Zealand musician who fell to his death on May 8, 2011.
He appeared surprised by the verdict, holding his head in his hands and crying as the jury left the court.
Schmidt did not deny pushing Andrew Marshall, 29, through the window of the Ocean Beach Hotel in Perth's upmarket Cottesloe in May 2011, but pleaded not guilty, saying the death was an accident.
Mr Marshall's father Alan said he and wife Wendy travelled to Perth to get answers about their son's final hours and death, and honour their treasured family member.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Recommended Coverage
Nine News - Accused murderer testifies
Nine News - Guilty of murder End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"There is no other place that we could be today,'' he told reporters outside the court.
"It has been heartbreaking and difficult to listen to.
"We knew it was going to be tough attending the trial and we weren't mistaken.
"It has been gruelling and harrowing, at times more than we could bear.''
He said they had found little relief and comfort in what they had heard.
"We didn't come seeking closure or even justice," Mr Marshall said.
"The truth for us is that there is no verdict or outcome that will bring Andy back to us.
"We don't want to be bitter and waste our energy with regrets and grudges - that would be just punishing ourselves over and over - but we do want to send a strong message that violence is unacceptable and intolerable.''
In his closing address to the Perth jury yesterday, defence lawyer Tom Percy conceded Schmidt should not have fled the pub as Mr Marshall lay dying on the footpath outside.
Mr Marshall had been talking to two girls with his back to the window when Schmidt approached and told the women - whom he knew - to go home.
He also told Mr Marshall to ''f... off'' and then pushed him after Mr Marshall allegedly said something in reply.
Mr Percy said both the victim and the accused were desperately unlucky.
If Schmidt had ''intended any serious harm'' to Mr Marshall, "he would have smashed him'', Mr Percy said.
He also said that if the window had been safety glass "we wouldn't be here today''.
Mr Percy conceded Schmidt should not have fled the pub as Mr Marshall lay dying on the footpath outside but he was "not on trial for showing a lack of compassion on the night''.
Prosecutor Amanda Forrester, in her own address to the jury, had described Schmidt as "like a coil, ready to spring'' when he "sprung on Mr Marshall''.
She said any reasonable person - not to mention a former crowd controller with fight experience - would have known the dangers of pushing a man standing in front of a second-storey window.
"The accused didn't just push (Mr Marshall) towards the window, he pushed him at it, through it,'' she said.
Schmidt faces a life jail sentence. Sentencing is scheduled for September.http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/stefan-pahia-schmidt-not-on-trial-for-lack-of-compassion-says-lawyer/story-e6frg13u-1226403137258
Thanks Seabreeze News!
On March 23, 1994, a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, one Ronald Opus, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
I must be dumb, I read that three times and I dont get what you are getting at Panda. Please explain 
Bit of a case of glass houses dogboy,
I believe you chastise the copy pasters the most...
So now, hopefully the bouncers will be charged for allowing him to go. Party to the offence / accessaries for helping him leave by way of their inaction?
Wankers.
Just heard on the radio that the court had supressed the fact that he was a member of the rock machine.
Seems to me that the jury may have got this one right.
My deepest sympathy goes to the Marshall family of NZ , their son died way too early in life.
Sidenote: It seems his cousin also died in tragic circumstances and there may also be another muder trial underway in NZ regarding that - hard luck for that family for mine.
RIP both of you guys
Heard he is going to appeal!
"I did not mean to kill him..... was a friendly push and I did not kicked that bloke on the way out was just a big cuddle............ did not mean to hurt him"
Stefan Wanker ....... I hope you will rot in jail and get your bum hole rammed, after all they will not try to kill you............ just a bit of loving![}:)]
I dont sympathise with Shidt at all......but, doesnt murder have to be pre-meditated in some way to convict.
Most of us would have hit/pushed someone in anger at some stage in our life without meaning to kill/murder them. I am sure this bloke wouldnt have thought(i doubt this is a capability Stefan posses)"theres a window i am going to push him through it and kill him". I doubt very much he actually meant it.
The sentence is right, but isnt this the law contradicting itself.
Numerous people have one punched killed someone, most get commited of manslaughter at best, is this murder ? am i wrong ? can someone explain ?
from the wa crim code-
murder: s279(1) If a person unlawfully kills another person and —
(b) the person intends to cause a bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, the life of the person killed or another person.
