Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[peterbj7]

I find it interesting that he remarried so soon after Tina's death. I wonder when he and his current wife met, and what their relationship was during his brief marriage to Tina?

The court of public opinion is a harsh court, and doesn't follow the mantra of "innocent till proven guilty". Nonetheless, the facts all seem to point in the same direction.....

 

[K_girl]

Should he decline to accept the house? I don't know. That would depend on who bought it. They were only married 11 days. If her parents bought it for her then the kind thing to do would be to turn the house over to the parents.

But thats not the issue for me. For me the issue is that none of these things alone are enough to convict anyone of anything, but together they paint a very dark picture.

I don't think we can predict what is appropriate behavior after any death. However, the issue in terms of a trial will focus on the premise that Gabe Watson did expect a large gain, but did not receive it because he was not changed to be the beneficiary as he had ordered Tina to do and he expected that it had been done. I find it interesting that after he learned he would not benefit as much as he thought, he began desecrating Tina's grave. There are four sources for the information that Gabe had expected that the life insurance had been changed. Tina's father, her best friend (Mrs. Phillips),a co-worker and the life insurance company (which indicated that Gabe did try to collect, but was unsuccessful because he was not named the beneficiary). This potential fact has not been reported about or discussed very much, but I think it will be key. Gabe's lawyer argued at the Coroner's hearing that because Gabe was not the beneficiary, that he had no motive. Gabe's lawyer also tried to argue at the Coroner's hearing that Gabe knew that he was not the beneficiary before the trip. On a separate insurance issue, Gabe Watson did try to collect a large sum on the travel insurance. When the travel insurance company refused to pay because of the questionable circumstances of Tina's death, Gabe tried to sue for an even bigger amount because of his pain and suffering, but dropped it for the reason that he did not want to incriminate himself. I think that the travel insurance case pretty much negates Gabe's lawyer from arguing a lack of motive. Gabe's lawyer cannot even open his mouth about lack of motive, or all this stuff can come into the trial, which would not be good for his client. In the U.S., the prosecution does not have to prove motive, but they know that juries want to know why someone was murdered and it becomes important. Showing motive is not evidence, but is usually provided for the jury to understand the potential reasons why the defendant may have murdered the victim.

Here is everything I could find about insurance issues as a potential motive on this case:

-----------
Watson did file a claim after TinaÃÔ death, but did not collect because he was not named as a beneficiary on the policy.

Source: Gabe Watson was Abusive says Mother in Law - Diving News

-------------
From the original MSNBC news story:

MSNBC: After months of secret planning and negotiation with counterparts in the FBI and the Alabama police force, two senior Queensland detectives swooped on Gabe Watson's house in the town of Hoover...

A life insurance policy, reputedly worth more than $US1 million ($1.2 million) and the subject of legal action to prevent a payout, has been a key factor in the investigation, according to Cindy Thomas. The question of life insurance has been controversial since Mr Watson's lawyer publicly denied the husband stood to gain financially.

"It is a large, large sum," Mrs Thomas said yesterday.
------------

Mrs Phillips said Mr Watson told her he and Tina had talked a month before the wedding about changing her life insurance policy at work, and that at the time they had laughed that for an extra $10, Tina could have had a million-dollar policy.

Sonja Jordan, a former workmate of Tina's, also testified that a month prior to Tina's wedding, she had initiated a discussion about Tina having house insurance, and that Tina had said she and Gabe had `just taken a huge life insurance policy'.

Mr Thomas, an insurance management consultant for more than 30 years, confirmed that several weeks before the wedding, Tina had told him Gabe had asked her to increase her work life insurance from the basic level of $34,000 to the maximum level of five times its value, to $170,000.

Mr Thomas said he had told his daughter there was plenty of time to do that after they returned from their honeymoon, and to tell Mr Watson it had been taken care of.

Source: Scuba dive panic

----------

Gabe Watson was suing a travel insurance company after it refused a payout on the cost of his honeymoon trip to Australia... Mr Watson, an expert diver from Hoover, Alabama, was seeking more than $US45,000 plus unspecified punitive damages and damages for mental anguish...

In court filings Mr Watson referred to the Australian investigation into his wife's death, which caused him "to reasonably apprehend that he risks self-incrimination in this case". Mr Watson's US-based lawyer, Bob Austin, yesterday confirmed the case had been dropped...
Source: Gabe Watson drops action, fearing 'self-incrimination' | World News | News.com.au

 

[ItsBruce]

Thanks for the additional information.

The absence of a motive makes it very hard to get a conviction. Therefore, the existence of one must make getting a conviction easier. Monetary gain is certainly a possible motive for a murder. But, there is the possibility of monetary gain in many accidental deaths in which the one who stands to gain is a participant.

The information you added can certainly be used to paint an ugly picture for Gabe. However, each element could be just an unfortunate coincidence.

I do not think that it is relevant that Tina did not change the beneficiary on her insurance. Had she actually done so, that would not reduce the possibility Gabe killed her for the money. So, the fact she did not do so does not increase the possibility–unless the theory is that he killed her in anger over the fact she did not change it.

The claim to the travel insurance company does not impress me a bit. If you had travel insurance and your honeymoon was cut short by your new spouse's death in a scuba accident, you would be entitled to payment. So the question is would you seek payment or forego it? Would you consider that if you sought payment, an aggressive prosecutor would suggest that it shows you committed murder for the insurance money? Would you consider that if you did not seek payment, that same prosecutor would suggest that you passed on the money in recognition of your guilt? What would you do?

In terms of Gabe dropping the lawsuit against the travel insurance company, there are plenty of reasons he might do so, apart from his being guilty. Consider that in a civil suit, a plaintiff is obligated to testify. Consider that if I can get enough testimony, even if perfectly truthful and innocent, I stand a good chance of making the person look bad. I may find innocent variances between the testimony and what other people say to let me at least suggest to the jury that the witness has lied. I may find innocent errors that let me make the same argument. I may be able to point to things that the person knew that I can argue he or she should not have known unless he or she was the perpetrator. (The person would be able to testify that he or she learned the things from me, but it still becomes a "liars contest" which he or she could lose.) The general rule is WHEN THE AUTHORITIES ARE EVEN LOOKING IN YOUR DIRECTION, EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. (Remember the bit about "Anything you say can be used against you"?)

Since Gabe was looking at being prosecuted for murder, he may have concluded that the risk of having something he said in the civil suit come back to haunt him outweighed the value of what he might get from the insurer.

Do not get me wrong. From what I've read and heard, it think it is more likely than not that Gabe either killed Tina or intentionally let her die. I do not, however, know if it is to a reasonable certainty.

* * * * *

NOW: Let's try a test. Remember where, earlier in this post I asked: "So the question is would you seek payment or forego it?" What was your answer?

If your answer was that you would seek payment read this paragraph; if not skip it. ... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you heard testimony that K_girl would have sought payment from the travel insurance company. I submit that a truly bereaved spouse, would not have sought payment and that only one who committed murder would have done so. I submit that K_girl did it."

If your answer was that you would forego payment read this paragraph; if not skip it. ... ""Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you heard testimony that K_girl would have passed on payment from the travel insurance company. I submit that only one with a guilty conscience would have done so. I submit that K_girl did it."

Now, go back and read both of the last two paragraphs. True, it is a bit thin, but there is a risk that a jury will buy it. (Please not point out that there is conduct distinct from the testimony as this was just for the sake of example and done on the spur of the moment.)

Respectfully,
Bruce

 

[K_girl]

Thanks for the additional information.

The absence of a motive makes it very hard to get a conviction. Therefore, the existence of one must make getting a conviction easier. Monetary gain is certainly a possible motive for a murder. But, there is the possibility of monetary gain in many accidental deaths in which the one who stands to gain is a participant.

* * * * *

NOW: Let's try a test. Remember where, earlier in this post I asked: "So the question is would you seek payment or forego it?" What was your answer?

If your answer was that you would seek payment read this paragraph; if not skip it. ... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you heard testimony that K_girl would have sought payment from the travel insurance company. I submit that a truly bereaved spouse, would not have sought payment and that only one who committed murder would have done so. I submit that K_girl did it."

If your answer was that you would forego payment read this paragraph; if not skip it. ... ""Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you heard testimony that K_girl would have passed on payment from the travel insurance company. I submit that only one with a guilty conscience would have done so. I submit that K_girl did it."

Respectfully,
Bruce

You are asking me to defend a position I did not take. Motive is not evidence of guilt and I said so in my last post. In the first paragraph, you recognize that showing motive is important, but in the next two quoted paragraphs, you try to interpret motive as being evidence of guilt. The prosecution would be making a tactical error to argue as you stated above and I would not advocate it. The defense will try to argue that there was no motive because Gabe did not receive any benefit from her death. The correct prosecution tactic would be to save the motive argument in rebuttal to the defense's probable argument of no motive, which the defense attorney has already made that argument to the press. As to how all of that interprets to evidence of guilt, the prosecution should and probably will stay away from trying to do that for the jury. They will let the jury do that for themselves.

If I were in the jury, I would say, each of these instances, in and of themselves are not evidence of guilt. But you put them all together and you most certainly do have motive. You cannot come to the conclusion that he had no reason to kill her. We don't know all of the evidence regarding insurance. But let's say, the prosecution is able to establish with multiple witnesses that Gabe was under the impression that there was a large sum of money he was entitled to and let's say that the sum of insurance money available to him was much greater than available for Tina, should something happen to him. Let's say other evidence shows that Gabe was persistent and insistent upon it and gave it a very high priority before their trip. There were 3 witnesses regarding this, Tina's father, Tina's co-worker and Tina's best friend. As a juror, I would probably take that into higher account as evidence of guilt. This is all just supposition, mind you, but considering what has been reported so far, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. I would love to have the entire transcript of the Coroner's hearing. There were some 65 witnesses.

Karen

 

[ItsBruce]

I'm sorry if I came across as asking you to defend a position. I am, however, curious why you you would not take each instance in and of itself as evidence of guilt, but would find motive by putting them all together. (I am curious because the answer may help me better understand issues with which I am faced in my cases.) Aren't the different things just cumulative evidence of financial gain?

It seems to me that if there was evidence of possible financial gain AND evidence of a specific need for money, that would make the motive for murder stronger than if there was simply a lot of evidence of possible financial gain.

GTG

Respectfully
Bruce

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Interesting observation Bruce. I think what would be significant gain for some would not be for others. Person with a low income and lacking good prospects for advancement may consider a house sufficient, (don't know if the mortgage was paid or insured to be paid on Tina's death). Some would think a house and cash... but how much cash???

I guess perspectives of the jury will have an impact. If I was on the jury and I was presented with the motive being based only on what he would gain financially that might not sway me a lot. If they presented significant evidence to show that Gabe did not place a lot of value on Tina and his relationship with her.... that would put a lot of weight on the for gain motive. That is just me tho.

 

[NudeDiver]

I am, however, curious why you you would not take each instance in and of itself as evidence of guilt, but would find motive by putting them all together.

One hundred 1% chances of something happen do not equal a 100% chance of that something happening.

Things that make you LOOK guilty are not things that prove you ARE guilty.

 

[K_girl]

I'm sorry if I came across as asking you to defend a position. I am, however, curious why you you would not take each instance in and of itself as evidence of guilt, but would find motive by putting them all together. (I am curious because the answer may help me better understand issues with which I am faced in my cases.) Aren't the different things just cumulative evidence of financial gain?

It seems to me that if there was evidence of possible financial gain AND evidence of a specific need for money, that would make the motive for murder stronger than if there was simply a lot of evidence of possible financial gain.

GTG

Respectfully
Bruce

BowlofPetunias makes an excellent point. What is significant financial gain to one may not be to another. Gabe Watson's financial position at the time could be important.

So I think I've established that if I were a prosecutor, I would not attempt to establish guilt by each individual instance of the existence of insurance. The tactic to sever and diminish the meaning of each individual existence of insurance is a better tactic for the defense. If I were the defense, this is exactly what I would do. As a juror, if we had trouble agreeing on just our mental preponderence of the evidence, I would suggest to the jury that we set-up separate charts, one for evidence of guilt, the other for evidence of motive with a clear understanding about the difference between motive and guilt. I would suggest that we consider where each issue falls, towards guilt or towards motive only and probably some kind of weighting system. There may be some things that help him, there may be some things that hurt him.

I don't think you can necessarily add-up the points and say "guilty" or "not guilty", but this exercise could help a jury to communicate and find common ground to make progress. I would think that some kind of visual representation of the evidence can help the jury come to a verdict if they are having difficulties, although I have never served on a jury.

 

[ItsBruce]

In terms of financial motive, let me present something on a very practical level for your consideration: A homeowners' insurance policy covers the peril of fire. Thus, if as a result of your negligence, even if gross, your house burns down, it is covered. However, if you set a fire so your house burns down, it is not. Now, imagine that you light a few candles, pour yourself a glass of wine and relax for the evening. To your surprise and horror, you awaken to the sound of the smoke detectors alerting you to a fire. You grab the family photos and flee the burning house. When you make an insurance claim, the insurance company accuses you of arson and denies the claim. It points out that you were in the house at the time and could easily have lit the candle and just waited for it to get low and ignite something else. It also points out that you had a motive to burn your house, It notes that because of the damage, you will be entitled to a significant sum of money. It also points out that rather than trying to put out the fire, you took the photos and fled. And, it presents evidence that you made a claim for the money and further that you bought fire insurance when you bought the house.

Is this good enough motive to support a denial of the claim ... let alone a conviction of arson?

Now suppose that in response to the accusation of arson, you decide that you don't want to make any statements because you fear someone twisting your words against you.

Is this good enough motive to support a conviction of arson?

I would think not. But, it is not a lot different from what is going on with Gabe (or at least to the extent of what I've heard of the evidence). Given what I've heard, my impression is that it is more probable than not that he either killed Tina or intentionally let her die. Do I think that beyond a reasonable doubt? Not based on what I've heard.

 

[K_girl]

ItsBruce - You are presenting a case of gross negligence and confusing that with with a criminal act of arson. It appears in your story, that the insurance company has accepted the story of the accused, but has decided, illegally, to call it criminal arson rather than what it was - gross negligence. Criminal arson would have to include intent. There is nothing in your story that indicates that the insurance company has any evidence of intent. The insurance company could not successfully argue that the existence of insurance equals intent.

Certainly, if you have fear of being accused of something criminal in an insurance case, you probably ought not to bring a law suit against the insurance company in the first place and Gabe Watson should not have talked to the police. Problem is - he did both of these things - and that's a problem - a big problem for him and it is not going to go away. My guess here is that Waton's attorney who brought the civil law suit against the insurance company for Gabe Watson screwed-up big time.

It is possible that a jury may find that Gabe Watson was negligent, which could result in a conviction of manslaughter. However, unlike in your story, where the accused involved has admitted negligence, Gabe Watson has not admitted anything, including negligence. He has suggested that the entire accident should be blamed on Tina. In fact, he has been caught in numerous lies and there are many statements by Gabe Watson and other witnesses that could be interpreted as intent. Evidence of intent is the ingredient missing in your supposedly analogous story.

Therefore, I don't see the correlation between the two cases you are trying to draw. I also believe that it is highly likely that Gabe killed Tina. However, it needs to be proven in a court of law and any jurors must keep an open mind. I've spent a great deal of time going over every bit of information I can find on this case and have done in-depth analysis most especially on Gabe's interview with the police as well as the Coroner's Findings. If you have not read my entire thread on the Watson case on this forum, you should, see: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...on-murder-case-issues-statements-sources.html Going on the analysis I've done thus far, I personally lean heavily towards no reasonable doubt that he did kill her. However, I do want to see Gabe Watson receive a fair trial with a virgorous defense.