Some comments on Australian law after reading back a little in this thread:
Watson is to be tried in Australia, so points of law and legal cases cited from a US perspective are not really relevant; our legal system is in many respects different from the US system. Also if Watson cannot afford a defence counsel one will be appointed for him. The National Legal Aid service through the Queensland Law Society can utilise the services of private legal practitioners ( ie, a barrister, who is an expert in courtroom defence) to represent him in court in a criminal trial even though he is a US citizen. His case will therefore not be compromised by use of a less skilled solicitor or a US attorney not familiar with the Australian legal system, although his present attorney may act as an advisor to the barrister.
Jurors here are chosen at random from electoral roles (we have compulsory voting) and may be challenged for cause during empanelling, for example if a person is not qualified to serve as a juror or if they are seen as being biased. That may be difficult in Townsville due to the amount of publicity Watson has already received and the role the media has played. The outcome of any challenge for cause is decided by the judge. In a criminal trial in Queensland the prosecution and defence are also each entitled to 8 peremptory challenges (challenge without cause). So it remains to be seen if any divers will serve on the jury.
And some further comments:
In my humble opinion most of the arguments put forward on here are mostly hearsay and supposition. The links K-girl has provided are in most cases from the media, and therefore necessarily unreliable. To quote the post in Watson Murder Case - Issues, Statements & Sources: "The primary source for most of these posts are MSNBC", "The Coroner's Report", and the "Transcript of Watson's 10/27/07 interview, 5 days after Tina's death"
We cannot and should not rely on the media to be unbiased. And we are all aware of sensationalism in reporting; as someone once said, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story". I prefer to believe that Watson is innocent until proven guilty, the basic tenet of both our legal systems, so I'll leave the ultimate judgment up to the courts here in Australia and not depend on various media speculation. It is pointless to make judgments based on an incomplete knowledge of the evidence.
The Coroner's published findings that you make reference to are also incomplete; the whole record can only be obtained via an application to the Queensland Coroner's Court once an investigation has been closed. However, "Access to coronial documents is regulated...most of the material contained on a coronial file is highly sensitive and may be graphic and distressing in nature. Therefore, information is only made available to those who have sufficient interest in the investigation, such as the immediate family of the deceased" So the general public is also only privy to some of the Coroner's findings and as you can see by reference to those, we are not able to access the detailed explanations of the various "Exhibits" alluded to within the public document or the autopsy report. The sources are therefore lacking in this respect, and following from that, I rather think the points made are merely supposition. Also, we have no way of knowing if the transcripts of the police investigation have been published in their entirety despite the Townsville Bulletin stating that, or if they have been edited in any way. I would be very surprised if Watson's lawyer would have allowed them to be published in full, as both he and Watson would have had first access to the transcripts under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act (2000). In my opinion then none of us have all the facts of this case and another "Trial by media" serves no purpose.
K_girl, you have also said that you believe Watson is guilty. If you think he is guilty, perhaps you need to ask yourself then if your reasoning is sound or if you are being naturally inclined towards a "guilty verdict"; bias is often a difficult thing to ascertain when examining your own motives. You also said to one poster that you have to be "careful about conjuring up stories" and yet I believe that is what you are doing with your conjectures, suppositions and "potential arguments". I believe the scenarios you use for both the defence and the prosecution arguments are based on a false premise, ie, incomplete information garnered mostly from the media, as Dadvocate has also said. And facts are not facts just because they appear in the media (including the internet). As this case has yet to go to trial, the truth of the "facts" you have mentioned has not been tested in a court of law, and the police transcript has also yet to be examined in this manner. All the speculation in the world about what Watson said or did not say, or did or did not do, or why, does not matter, because it is at trial that he will be found innocent or guilty. In my opinion a court is the only place for the facts to be fully examined and a judgment made as to the veracity of all the evidence available.
