Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[boulderjohn]

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 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.

You are both assuming the diver on the jury will have real expertise.

Do any of you know any "know-it-all" divers who really don't know it all? I do.

I was once picking up a drink at a beachside bar in Belize and listened to someone pontificating to the other patrons about the details of diving in response to a question. I thought I was quietly minding my own business, but when the blowhard left, one of the other patrons said he could tell from my facial expressions that I thought he was wrong, and he himself had enough technical expertise to know that some of what the guy had said made no sense. I stayed a while and straightened things out.

When an expert is put on the stand, he or she is subject to cross examination, and the other side can place an expert witness on the stand to rebut as well. If the "expert" shows up in the jury room, there is no way to contest that supposed expertise.

 

[Ayisha]

Issue of Watson leaving Tina due to "panic". I've heard many people make the point that Watson left his wife because he "panicked." We all understand panic underwater. Something goes wrong and you bolt to the surface in self-preservation. Panic obstructs all thought processes.

Bolting to the surface is something that is considered to go hand in hand with panicking. However, didn't Watson head all the way back to his ascent line, where he claims he tried to get the attention of two Asian-looking divers, and then went up the line anywhere from relatively slowly to painstakingly slowly according to the reports? He did not bolt to the surface or bolt in any direction. From the photograph of the instructor diving down after entering the water from his boat to save Tina, the other boat was extremely close. Watson could have ascended straight to that boat very quickly from 45 feet, but he did not. A bolting diver could have surfaced right by the other boat. Watson, however, had the presence of mind to navigate his way back to his own line and boat.

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?

The prosecution said it was the first theory that you mentioned above. The second theory does not fit with the evidence that she had no water in her lungs - she asphyxiated.

 

[DandyDon]

I hope it does go to trial. I'd like to the evidence never presented other than by questionable media.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

You are both assuming the diver on the jury will have real expertise.

Do any of you know any "know-it-all" divers who really don't know it all? I do.

I was once picking up a drink at a beachside bar in Belize and listened to someone pontificating to the other patrons about the details of diving in response to a question. I thought I was quietly minding my own business, but when the blowhard left, one of the other patrons said he could tell from my facial expressions that I thought he was wrong, and he himself had enough technical expertise to know that some of what the guy had said made no sense. I stayed a while and straightened things out.

When an expert is put on the stand, he or she is subject to cross examination, and the other side can place an expert witness on the stand to rebut as well. If the "expert" shows up in the jury room, there is no way to contest that supposed expertise.

Exactly my point and the point of concern for the judicial system. It is too dangerous to allow someone who may be nothing more than A Legend in their Own Minds and very persuasive influence the jury!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I hope it does go to trial. I'd like to the evidence never presented other than by questionable media.

I have to say I honestly have mixed feelings on this. I don't feel the general public has a right or need to know .. other than curiosity all the evidence.

I would like to feel some assurance that a reasonable investigation has been conducted to determine if it is appropriate to take it to court! Lawyers, court costs and all the trimmings are very expensive. All we have to do it look at the funds being raised for the SB response to that suit which IMHO is a waste of time and stress. If the guy is innocent or even if the case is not likely to get a guilty verdict.. why waste court time, tax dollars and the money to prosecute/defend?

 

[ItsBruce]

1. John is dead-on as far as the problem with people with specific knowledge being on the jury. I generally want intelligent people on my juries. They can make sense out of what my witnesses and experts say and out of the way I tie it together in argument. If I have to dismiss them in order to ensure that the jury does not come into the case with preconceptions, I will do so, but only to avoid bias.

2. I am aware that the prosecution in Australia had suggested that Watson turned Tina's air off, etc. Other than that that would explain asphyxiation, is there any actual evidence of this other than the inference that Watson had an alleged motive? Is there some evidence that would preclude asphyxiation unless Tina's air was turned off, such that the air being turned off is the only explanation for her death? (If there was some other credible explanation for her death, would that raise a reasonable doubt in anyone's mind here?)

3. Panic in diving does not always entail bolting for the surface. I have seen many instances in which someone under the pressure of an emergency and forgets their training and forgets simple things which they know. As such, I could easily see Watson completely dropping the ball without bolting for the surface or freezing.

Please do not tell me that he needed more training, etc. That much is probably self-evident. The point is that a screw-up is not murder.

4. I would like to see a trial if for no other reason than to let the scuba community have access to the actual evidence. Is it any of our business? Maybe not. However, one of the things that gives society confidence in our judicial system is that, except in unusual circumstances, such things are made public. When people think there was something unfair, they lose confidence in the system and in this case, experience with the plea bargain in Australia demonstrates how a plea bargain is perceived as being unfair.

 

[FL-Jack]

FL JACK

I'm not a diver but have followed this case closely. What, in your opinion with the evidence you have knowledge of, actually happened to cause her death?

Drowning.

 

[FL-Jack]

Perhaps I rambled so much that the real point of my post got lost. Perhaps I was not adequately clear: Do you have an explanation of the mechanics of how Watson killed Tina? Do you have any evidence that would support this?

"DET. SNR. CONST. KEVIN GEHRINGER: We then were able to establish that the only two divers that could have been were Tina and Gabe.

DR STANLEY STUTZ, WITNESS (from police video): She looked in distress and fearful and moving her arms and legs and then I saw him come into the picture and came sort of on top of her, ah, put his arms around her.

DET. SNR. CONST. KEVIN GEHRINGER: He observed Gabe embrace Tina
in the middle section of her back.

DR STANLEY STUTZ, WITNESS (from police video): I recall his hands being around her back and they were together, ah, for ah, probably what seemed like maybe thirty seconds.

DET. SNR. CONST. KEVIN GEHRINGER: He said that he saw the two divers separate with the larger diver Gabe ascending and Tina sinking to the bottom."


Australian Story - Unfathomable Part Two - Transcript

The mechanics? Seems rather obvious what took place.

 

[FL-Jack]

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.

How is someone that is a diver an 'expert' on SCUBA diving?

 

[boulderjohn]

How is someone that is a diver an 'expert' on SCUBA diving?

It's in the eye of the beholder. To a non-scuba-diving juror, anyone who presents himself as a diver will be perceived as an expert. People who are not themselves experts in a subject cannot accurately gauge the degree to which someone else is an expert.