Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

Bruce if it is established that Gabe:

1) pressured Tina into learning to dive
2) picked the Yongala site when he reasonably should have known it was out of Tina's skill level
3) influenced Tina to decline the "orientation dive"
4) knowingly exaggerated his commitment and ability to assist Tina should she get into trouble.

Would those factors support a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter finding? I think all of those factors were discussed when UnderExposed was posting on the subject. It seems to me there was some discussion that Gabe's contribution to Tina's decision to dive and to waive the orientation dive made the finding in Queensland less likely to set a precedent for the role of the average Dive buddy pairing.

I personally do not think this would support a negligent homicide conviction. One would, IMHO, need to at least add that he did these things with the expectation of her dying on the dive. Lots of divers are pressured into learning to dive and then go on "trust me" dives that are beyond their ability, without any ill-effects at all.

However, if a prosecutor were arguing for premeditated murder and then offered to let the defendant plead to negligent homicide, I could see a judge accepting the plea. It is rare that a judge will say "I don't think you are guilty of the crime to which you are willing to plead guilty and therefore will require you to go to trial on a greater charge."

 

[ItsBruce]

However, "evidence of no foul play with the suspect no where near the decedent" is not the situation in this case. [/quote[

There is a difference between "evidence of no foul play" and "no evidence of foul play." There is also a difference between "evidence the suspect was nowhere near" and "no evidence the suspect was near."

Motive alone is not proof of guilt.

Agreed. Does anyone disagree?

The defense would put forth the panic defense as a reason for leaving, not the reason for turning off her air as they would not admit that he deliberately deprived her of air. But I see what you are saying - the insanity defense admits that they killed someone in the physical manner alleged. The similarity between the the panic and insanity arguments would be that the perpetrator did not understand the consequences of their actions. I think that is an argument the prosecution can put forth. Whether or not they win - don't know. However, I think they can successfully argue any panic defense put forth on the basis of Watson's statements.

The defense would have to argue something in light of Watson's statement that he thought Tina would be lost and that is why he did not want to leave her. The only thing I can think of that they can argue is panic. I think both the prosecution and defense will need experts on panic. If I were a juror, I would want to know more about panic other than my own experience. I personally can understand self-preservation panic that obscures all thought processes and makes someone bolt to the surface. I don't understand an argument of panic in this case, especially in light of the Australian judge's sentencing remarks and the manslaughter conviction.

The lack of panic is just one of many elements that brings high suspicion in this case. If you isolate all of the issues and statements in this case, and look at only one issue at a time, you can probably bring doubt to each individual issue. However, if you look at the case in total, there is a case that can at least be brought to trial.

I think panic is really a distraction. If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, the case is pretty much over. If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, then it is unlikely the prosecutor could show that abandoning her directly led to her death, i.e. that she would have lived but for having been abandoned.

Panic is relevant only to explain Watson's apparently bizarre behavior and seemingly inconsistent statements and to negate those as evidence of intent to kill.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Thanks Kgirl for the link. I seem to have run out of thanks.

I remember reading the Judge's statements and I believe you were also involved in discussing their relevance with Under Exposed at the time.
I have been busy with family stuff and diving so having trouble keeping up with things here.

 

[K_girl]

I have taken the rescue course. I was taught how to rescue another person. But, just because you and I were taught how to rescue someone, that does not mean Watson was. I find it hard to believe he wasn't taught how to rescue someone. But, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure of what he was or wasn't taught. (See "Schrodinger's Cat.)

Moreover, even if Watson was taught how to rescue someone and was able to demonstrate the skill during the class, that does not mean he could do so at the time of Tina's death. Nor does it mean he recalls having been taught how to do it. For example, I know that I took statistics in college and that I passed the class. However, I do not recall having been taught what standard deviation means or what it does. (Note: Despite the fact I don't recall it, if I were a betting man, I'd bet I was and simply do not recall having been taught it.)

Thanks for the many observations you made and I think they were all very good ones. However, I would say with respect to this particular comparison. If your class was called the "Standard Deviation" class and that was what the class was all about, you probably would not say that you were never taught how to calculate it, even if you didn't remember how to do it. That is the difference I was talking about here.

 

[K_girl]

I think panic is really a distraction. If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, the case is pretty much over. If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, then it is unlikely the prosecutor could show that abandoning her directly led to her death, i.e. that she would have lived but for having been abandoned.

Panic is relevant only to explain Watson's apparently bizarre behavior and seemingly inconsistent statements and to negate those as evidence of intent to kill.

Sorry - but Watson basically already pled guilty and served time for abandoning his wife and letting her die. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Here is an excerpt from the Australian prosecutor's sentencing appeal:

"..He virtually extinguished any chance of survival by allowing her to sink to the sea bed. This case is therefore quite different from those cases where there is a small risk which an offender had not appreciated or hoped would not eventuate … at no point did the offender change his mind and go back to Mrs Watson and attempt to bring her back to the surface. His breach of duty was not merely a momentary one … it is almost inexplicable that he made the decision to leave her...”

"..the respondent undertook, in potentially serious circumstances, to shield from harm an inexperienced diver, whose inexperience had been declared before him, on the basis he would undertake a duty which a professional would otherwise discharge; the one thing he was called upon to do, to bring Mrs Watson to the surface, was simple to accomplish, and his failure to carry it out is unexplained; and there is no circumstance disclosed, eg panic, which would have explained it.."

Source: Tina Watson Dies While Scuba Diving with Her Husband - Sentencing Appeal - Sep 18, 2009 - Part 1

In addition, there were questions of this being criminally negligent homicide. That was the finding in the Australia case. Here is a section from the prosecutor's appeal:

“..“One must be careful in assessing the applicant’s crime not to excuse the result as accidental, because obviously to do that would be inconsistent with the verdict. He is to be sentenced for a criminally negligent killing, not an accident..

..A criminally negligent killing of a human being should, in general, warrant a substantial period of imprisonment. A head sentence of four and a half years does not adequately reflect the community’s justified revulsion at conduct admitted to be criminally culpable and by which the respondent killed a young woman.”

This is what Watson pleaded guilty to and spent 18 months in prision for. I don't think he can pretend in Alabama that this was not the case.

Other previously asked questions are also contained in this sentencing appeal, which was submitted by the Australian prosecutor:

“Christina clearly trusted the offender as husband and buddy. He had much greater diving experience than her. The respondent took on the responsibility of being her buddy on this dive despite the recommendation that she undertake an orientation dive with a dive master. It was the respondent’s level of experience that led the dive operators to allow her to participate in the dive with the respondent.”

 

[Ayisha]

Excellent points, K-girl. Something that will plague Watson is that he identified himself as a capable rescue diver and that is how he got out of the orientation dive for both of them. He apparently also assured Tina that she was in good hands. After her death, he claimed to have never been taught to rescue anyone.

He can't have it both ways.

 

[Kern]

Or he could have just been wrong about both claims.

"The incompetent often end up "grossly overestimating" their own competency because the skills people need to recognize competence (or incompetence) are the same skills they need to be competent in the first place."

The Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Ayisha]

deleted

 

[ItsBruce]

When I said: "If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, the case is pretty much over," I was referring to the murder case. Maybe the prosecutor could still get a negligent homicide conviction. However, if the prosecutor includes that as a possible outcome, and gives the jury a choice of something other than "guilty of murder" and "not guilty of murder," it is less likely the jury will go with "guilty of murder." It is a basic dilemma of whether to charge lesser included offenses.

As far as the Australian prosecutor's arguments, all they are is arguments. They are not evidence. They are not binding. They are not the law. What a prosecutor said in Australia is no more significant than what one says here.

As far as Watson pleading guilty to the charge in Australia, it hurts my head to even think about the ramifications. Recall that he was not found guilty after a contested trial. Rather, it was a plea deal.

Ordinarily, offers of compromises or of plea deals are not admissible against a party. It is a matter of public policy. Simply put, the system wants to encourage settlements and plea deals because otherwise, the system would be so bogged down that it would grind to a halt. So, to encourage settlements and plea deals, they are not admissible. Of course, a plea deal in a criminal case generally does not pose a problem because of the double jeopardy rules. Thus, ordinarily, there is nowhere the plea deal would be admissible. Here, however, double jeopardy does not bar a second trial, so there can be a trial on the same charge and admissibility does become an issue.

I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that a judge will not even let he plea deal in Australia come into evidence. The danger to the system of discouraging plea deals is just too great.

Going one step further, recall the number of divers who were unhappy with the notion that a diver could be sentenced for negligent homicide when his buddy dies on a dive because he did not do the right things to save the buddy? I would think that a judge would have the same kinds of problems. In fact, when I read the Australian ruling, I got the sense that the judge had a real problem with the plea, but was not willing to nix the deal if both the prosecutor and Watson were happy with it.

I could see an American judge having problems with the plea deal and, combining that with public policy issues of favoring plea deals, ruling that the whole thing is inadmissible. I would not be a bit surprised.

 

[ItsBruce]

Some further thoughts:

I previously noted: "If the prosecutor can't show Watson turned off Tina's air or removed her reg, then it is unlikely the prosecutor could show that abandoning her directly led to her death, i.e. that she would have lived but for having been abandoned."

K_girl responded: "Sorry - but Watson basically already pled guilty and served time for abandoning his wife and letting her die. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Here is an excerpt from the Australian prosecutor's sentencing appeal: ..."

I do not think that the plea deal or outcome will come into evidence.

Beyond what I said in my last post, if evidence of the plea deal is admitted, then Watson would have the right to have his Australian attorney explain how the deal came about, i.e. that the Australian prosecutor concluded that he was unlikely to be able to prove murder and made a deal to at least get something. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, but you get the idea.) Few judges would want to open this can of worms, and as a result a judge will be unlikely to do so.

So, assuming that the plea deal does not come into evidence ... is there admissible evidence that Watson's failure to render aid was the legal cause of Tina's death?

I do not think so. Here is why:

If there is evidence that Watson turned Tina's air off or pulled her reg out of her mouth, then he will be convicted of murder, i.e. the intentional killing of another. In that event, his failure to render aid is pretty much irrelevant.

Therefore, to reach a posture where the failure to render aid might be relevant, we have to conclude that the prosecution was unable to prove Watson turned Tina's air off or pulled her reg. And, if the prosecution is unable to prove those, that leads to the inference that something other than Watson created a situation in which Tina was in distress and needed aid and which ultimately killed her.

Then, the question is: Had Watson done a perfect rescue, would it have been enough to save Tina?

I'm no medical expert, but my guess is that no medical expert would truthfully testify that to a reasonable scientific certainty (the applicable legal standard), prompt intervention would have saved Tina.

If whatever caused Tina's death would have caused her death regardless of whether Watson tried to save her or not, then his failure to do so, while certainly not a nobel thing, will not support a negligent homicide charge.