Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Interesting thought bsee65. Your hypothesis follows the events.

The question now is - is it going to be voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter? And is there a distinction between the two as there is in the U.S.? If so, it would seem that voluntary manslaughter would make more sense as it is something that is committed in the heat of passion:

"Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances or state of mind. The common example is killing which occurred in passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover."

Source: Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, there was plenty to indicate that it was pre-meditated long before the dive. But, when deals are struck, the facts of the case - don't matter. This was going to be a big, expensive case for Australia. The motive for the government offering the plea was more than likely, to save the taxpayers of Australia a huge amount of money to try an American-on-American crime that happened to take place in their country.

 

[K_girl]

News Report:

Senior prosecutor Brendan Campbell asked that Watson be sentenced to five years jail, to serve 18 months. Watson's defence team has asked for a jail term of four years, to serve 16 months.

He said Watson’s actions represented a gross breach of duty in his role as Tina’s dive buddy and as a certified rescue diver.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590201.htm

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting? I understand that deals are made by lessening the offense - but to say this was a breach of duty as a rescue diver? This should have been voluntary manslaughter at a minimum - and what they are saying sounds like a description of an even lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. If they wanted to make a deal, it should have been - he killed her in the heat of passion, at a higher charge of voluntary manslaughter.

The prosecution is not giving Tina the justice she deserved. I want to know more about the prosecution's reasoning behind this and I want to know if they consulted with Tina's family before making this deal. I want to know how the family feels about the deal.

Was the prosecution trying to save time, resources and money? Or, did they not have the evidence? If they didn't have the evidence - why would Watson agree to spend even 16-18 months in jail? I'm sorry - but I think its about the money, as well as avoiding bad publicity for scuba diving - a major industry in that area. Let's face it, this trial is not good for scuba.

I don't think we will ever know the real story behind this deal. I think it stinks.

 

[almitywife]

Gabe Watson guilty of manslaughter for wife&squo;s dive death | The Courier-Mail

MAN charged with the murder of his new wife on a Barrier Reef diving holiday has been jailed for four and a half years after pleading guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter

of course he will be out sooner with parole

 

[JB]

He will only spend 12 months in jail. The four and a half year sentence, is suspended after 12 months.
David Watson jailed after killing wife | National Breaking News | News.com.au

 

[Dadvocate]

Bsee

My speculation would be that he went to Australia thinking they didn't have enough to convict him. All the talk was of him going there to plead innocent and clear his name. Once there and in custody, maybe he was confronted with some additional evidence or other factors that led him and his solicitor to believe his chances weren't as good as he thought. At that point, some kind of deal would have been his best bet. This could have been the case whether he were guilty or not.

K-Girl

Interesting thought bsee65. Your hypothesis follows the events.

Agreed, this could be how it played out. It could also be that this deal was struck before Gabe ever got on that airplane in the US. Knowing you have a 5 year stint versus facing the unknown could be a big motivator, I imagine. It is possible that the prosecution could have made this deal ahead of time and then feigned deniability in the press because they did not want to have to face the general public who might have found the deal distasteful.

It is entirely possible that both parties looked at the financial realities in this case, Gabe for the extradition costs and the prosecution for the same and then the trial to follow. It all fits together quite nicely, so much so that it might well have been scripted beforehand.

Cheers!

 

[burna]

Short answer is ... you cannot profit from any crime you have committed.

So, this means that after he is out of jail, he still cannot profit from TinaÃÔ death. How is this guaranteed? Are there loopholes to this, ...

Cheers!

Would the Australian law preventing him from profiting from his crime be enforceable if he moved back to the U.S?

I feel sorry for Tina's family. After fighting for so long they must feel very let down with what amounts to not much more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[ljdiver]

sorry if this was already mentioned (I did a quick look through the thread and didn't see it) but BBC has a little more info:

"Prosecutor Brendan Campbell accepted the plea on the basis that Mr Watson had failed in his duty as her dive buddy by failing to give her emergency oxygen when she needed it.

Mr Watson allowed Tina to sink to the ocean floor without making any serious attempt to rescue her and also failed to inflate her buoyancy vest or remove weights from her belt to allow her to surface, Mr Campbell said. "

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Scuba man jailed for wife's death

 

[CameraFish]

Hey All,

This is my first post to the forums... I actually signed up so that I could jump into this discussion. I'm an Aussie DM and have dived the Yongala a few times, so I've followed this one with interest.

The Townsville Bulletin have a link on their website to the Police interview transcripts and they make very interesting reading. Unfortunately, this forum wont allow me to post the direct link URL until I've made 5 posts, but if you google "Townsville Bulletin Gabe Watson" you should find it.

The difference between murder and manslaughter as I understand it is that murder is a pre-meditated killing. By pleading guilty to manslaughter he is accepting responsibility for her death. If you read the transcripts you will quickly become aware that this guy was totally incompetent as a diver despite his rescue certification. The transcript reveals a worrying ignorance of diving fundamentals. His failing in leaving her for dead (or possibly having panicked, struggled with her and then leaving her for dead as seems likely to me) makes him responsible not only as a certified rescue diver but as a human being.

One can only hope that it is his own recognition of these realities that led him to enter the guilty plea.

 

[almitywife]

Thanks CameraFish!... dont be a stranger here on :sblogo:

transcript links: Gabe Watson's police interview

 

[Dadvocate]

Welcome to SB, Camera Fish!

I'll be in your neck of the woods very soon! I can't wait!

K-Girl

Anyone here thinks this is crazy? So now, if you have a rescue certification and you panic, or you are low on air or have any other reason you can't help someone - you are now liable? Isn't this a dangerous precedent the prosecution is setting?

This is a very good point. If you can argue that you felt a diver in duress exhibited behavior that you deemed made a rescue unsafe, thus under PADI stipulations not a good rescue situation to engage in, can it now be said that others after the fact can second guess that decision and hold you liable?

I wouldn’t like that all too much if that ended up being the case.

Cheers!