Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[bowlofpetunias]

As far as scuba divers serving on a jury. Anyone with much experience with the issues in a jury trial cannot serve on a jury. That is because they can influence the other jurors and replace their own expertise with the testimony of the experts on the case and that would produce an unfair result. I believe that this is correct and no scuba diver should serve on the jury. It makes it a challenge for the prosecutor to educate the jurors about the issues involved, but our judicial system has functioned very well with this procedure. If I were asked to serve on a case like this, even if I didn't know anything about the specifics of the case, I would have to recuse myself.

Sorry .. I ran out of thanks. Gotta agree with you here. I wouldn't do for other people on the jury to be influenced by someone who could be no more than a "self obsessed know it all" Not saying anyone here is like that but the jury needs to start with a clean slate and the lawyers on both sides need to have the ability to ensure that they can cross examine and challenge "testimony" as needed. Can't do that when the conversation is going on with the jury sequestered somewhere!

 

[K_girl]

ItsBruce - the mechanics are: 1) the vast majority of what Watson said happened does not make any sense in terms of: visibility, currents, drift diving, wreck diving, location, bouyancy, rescue dive training, Tina's history of panic, and his admitted knowledge of the potential dangers and consequences of his actions at the time of the incident; 2) eye witness, Dr. Stutz observed him in a bear-hug with Tina and he let her go and swam away - this does not match his description of him kicking down after Tina before leaving her; 3) the dive computer may not show that he did not kick down for Tina nor have a rapid ascent as he claimed (we have not seen that evidence yet).

As you and I have discussed many times before, Dr. Stutz did not observe Watson turning off her air. This is a circumstantial case that will be built mostly off of Watson's statements, some of which are lies and some of which could not possibly be true. I know, I know, you say he should have never talked to the police. But the fact is, he did and that is something that he and his lawyer will have to live with if this case makes it to trial. It's not possible to take it back and make it go away and discuss it without those statements. I would have very little to say without them.

 

[ItsBruce]

All sounds like someone who wasn't thinking clearly and not coping with a bad situation in a very effective way trying to explain their failure to do what should have been done.

Anyone who has done something awful or failed miserably to do "the right thing" naturally starts creating excuses in their minds. In many cases I believe those excuses are an attempt to regain their self esteem!

Did he fail miserably... yep.... doesn't make him a murderer! I still say that while we would like to think we would react in the right way... nobody can guarantee it! I have seen some pretty amazing /experienced emergency responders stuff things up in ways no one would have believed possible. Training kicks in but mind set, stress level, emotional involvement, even physical and mental health can impact even those who have coped well in the past!

Don't get me wrong... this guy will never be on my buddy list, he will never make my Christmas card list, I wouldn't walk across the street to meet him but I can't condemn the guy at this point either.

My thoughts exactly and I could not have said it better myself.

 

[K_girl]

All sounds like someone who wasn't thinking clearly and not coping with a bad situation in a very effective way trying to explain their failure to do what should have been done.

Anyone who has done something awful or failed miserably to do "the right thing" naturally starts creating excuses in their minds. In many cases I believe those excuses are an attempt to regain their self esteem!

Did he fail miserably... yep.... doesn't make him a murderer! I still say that while we would like to think we would react in the right way... nobody can guarantee it! I have seen some pretty amazing /experienced emergency responders stuff things up in ways no one would have believed possible. Training kicks in but mind set, stress level, emotional involvement, even physical and mental health can impact even those who have coped well in the past!

Don't get me wrong... this guy will never be on my buddy list, he will never make my Christmas card list, I wouldn't walk across the street to meet him but I can't condemn the guy at this point either.

I just have to say I think that Watson came up with some pretty miserable "excuses." Too much of it was lies and that really does bother me. It was like he was making-up everything as he was going along, nothing was the truth. And it kept changing on top of it. He also gave significantly different versions to other witnesses. Sure, you can make a series of wrong decisions, but why lie about it and change the story so many times to the degree that he has? One thing is for certain, and I think many people would agree, Watson has very little, if any, credibility. For me, excuses and lies are not the same thing.

Can he honestly be compared to emergency personnel who may have done something wrong or incorrect? If they have a bad outcome, they will examine their actions. Do they lie about it? Do they change their stories? If they did, I think would cause for a firing. This is a major difference here. In this case, he is lying to the police. People are going to wonder why.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I just have to say I think that Watson came up with some pretty miserable "excuses." Too much of it was lies and that really does bother me. It was like he was making-up everything as he was going along, nothing was the truth. And it kept changing on top of it. He also gave significantly different versions to other witnesses. Sure, you can make a series of wrong decisions, but why lie about it and change the story so many times to the degree that he has? One thing is for certain, and I think many people would agree, Watson has very little, if any, credibility.

lies to get yourself out of trouble are too common a human failure. I think someone impacted by the death of their new spouse, someone who has promised to "take care of her" would be doing a lot of self examining and rationalization of their actions. If one could entertain the idea for a moment that this was not premeditated murder (since that hasn't been proven) and he did love TINA which nobody can prove he didn't.. think what emotions would be twisting his heart and mind. I'd be shocked if he didn't change his story as he in a human attempt to fogive himself he reprocessed info and reexamined his reaction and perceptions!

Can he honestly be compared to emergency personnel who may have done something wrong or incorrect? If they have a bad outcome, they will examine their actions. Do they lie about it? Do they change their stories? If they did, I think would cause for a firing. This is a major difference here. In this case, he is lying to the police. People are going to wonder why.

Yep.. I can and I will. I can do that with authority as I personally had to investigate a couple of those situations in my previous job. Sorry to say yes they also lied and changed their stories as the investigation progressed. Some of it for the human reasons I have stated.... trying to exonerate themselves in their own eyes and regain their own self worth and unfortunately some of it was to deny responsibility and evade just consequences of their actions:blinking:

 

[ItsBruce]

K_girl: There is no question that the whole thing smells bad. It also looks bad. It was all of the inconsistencies that led the police to take a closer look at Tina's death. And, rightly so.

When I asked about mechanics, I meant: Is the theory that Watson turned Tina's air off, kept her from trying to surface, then turned it back on after she died and then let her sink? Or is it that he pulled her regulator out of her mouth so that she inhaled water and drowned, replaced it and then let her sink?

I cannot fathom a jury finding guilt when the prosecution cannot offer a plausible explanation of what actually transpired. The fact that there was motive and opportunity will probably not be enough to overcome the absence of a plausible explanation of what actually transpired.

I'll go one step further, I would expect that unless the prosecution can offer a plausible explanation of what transpired with at least some evidence in support of that -- and that does not mean just motive and opportunity -- a judge might well refuse to even let the case go to a jury and will enter a judgment of not guilty. But, that's just me.

In terms of circumstantial evidence, there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and inferences pulled from thin air. I recall one civil case in California where a woman was assaulted while in the parking area of the apartment building where she lived. She sued the owner for negligence. She presented evidence that the security door was broken and provided an expert opinion to the effect that the broken door was the kind of thing that would have attracted a criminal to the parking area. The court held that this was not enough evidence to even warrant letting a jury decide if the landlord was negligent. It noted that there was no evidence that the assailant could only have gained access to the parking area through the broken door and that for the woman's expert to opine that that is how the assailant entered the parking area was to improperly pull inferences from thin air.

 

[Kern]

Being a coward doesn't make you a murderer. Being a coward that panics, doesn't make you a murderer. Being a coward that panics & then tells lies to save face, doesn't make you a murderer. Murdering someone is the only thing that makes you a murderer.

The only thing I know for sure is, often, I can't know the truth. Of course, I may be a Chardonnay quaffing liberal, who's probably not in their right mind.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Being a coward doesn't make you a murderer. Being a coward that panics, doesn't make you a murderer. Being a coward that panics & then tells lies to save face, doesn't make you a murderer. Murdering someone is the only thing that makes you a murderer.

The only thing I know for sure is, often, I can't know the truth. Of course, I may be a Chardonnay quaffing liberal, who's probably not in their right mind.

You.. I would definitely walk across the street to meet
I have already had the great good fortune of meeting ItsBruce

 

[ACES50]

K-girl
Would you "copy and paste" the text you have that quotes Dr. Stutz saying he has seen Gabe with Tina in a "bear-hug", please? In everything I have read, I haven't read that and am anxious to see it.
Thank you and Merry Christmas to all.

 

[mike_s]

As far as scuba divers serving on a jury. Anyone with much experience with the issues in a jury trial cannot serve on a jury. That is because they can influence the other jurors and replace their own expertise with the testimony of the experts on the case and that would produce an unfair result. I believe that this is correct and no scuba diver should serve on the jury. It makes it a challenge for the prosecutor to educate the jurors about the issues involved, but our judicial system has functioned very well with this procedure. If I were asked to serve on a case like this, even if I didn't know anything about the specifics of the case, I would have to recuse myself.

I don't know if I'd say our judicial system functioned well with this procedure.

Both prosecution and defense lawyers don't want an educated juror that can think for themselves and "have reason". They want a jury that can be swayed completely by the testimony in the court, in which both sides want you to believe them, so they are asking you to believe 50% lies to start with.

For example, the last jury pool I was on, one of the lawyers asked if there were any engineers in the pool. Several people raised their hands. They were all struck down from the pool. Why? because they didn't want anyone thinking for themselves and trying to "break down what happened" in a logical way.


Yes you're only supposed to believe what is presented in court.... but you have to remember that there is a lot of false or inaccurate information presented in court... or lies. so most of the time if there is no hard evidence, it purely becomes a case of who the jury believes more.

This could be one of those cases.