Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[thanksforallthefish]

So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal.

Sounds like to me that the prosecution did not consult Tina's family when making the deal:

Since when has Tinas family been part of the Australian Legal System and needs to be consulted on legal matters.

Sorry but in my opinion some of you folks are overreacting.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

THAT was what I was waiting for people to see.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on NEGLIGENCE.

So we now have precedence, at least in Australia, that a DM/Rescue Diver CAN be prosecuted for failure to render aid.

Scary stuff.....

Hang on folks... everybody is so fixated on certain words. Gabe was her Dive Buddy that knew her skill level and fear level, booked to do the dives here knowing that info, encouraged her to dive with full knowledge of her skill after reassuring her and her family he was Qualified to take care of her as Rescue Diver! The way I see it, his negligence started before they got on that boat! That is a whole lot different from someone who just happens to be a Rescue diver or DM going on a dive, getting buddied with someone!

I would suggest that the Laws in Australia and what establishes a precedence, how that will play out is not necessarily the way it is in the USA. Our Justice System is based on the BRITISH SYSTEM not the AMERICAN SYSTEM. There are some pretty big differences from the DEATH PENALTY (which we don't allow) on down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff_H
.......This would make me very wary of diving in a cattle boat in Australia.

However, this is not what he pled guilty to - he pled guilty to not doing his duty as a rescue diver - and the court accepted that plea and that explanation. That is the dangerous precedent we are talking about. Almitywife - you are right in what you said that was the prosecution's original case, however, it has been thrown completely out the window, and now all rescue divers are on the hook because of it. Gabe Watson has received a slap on the wrist and Tina's parents have received a slap on the face for their six years of diligence with the Australian authorities trying to get justice for Tina.

I'm with Geoff_H, I'm a rescue diver and this makes me wary of any diving in Australia. I always intended to go dive in Australia, but now I have scratched that destination off the list. So, if the one of the reasons the prosecution offered this plea is because they are playing politics by trying to protect the scuba industry by avoiding the bad publicity - I would say they did not think this through. They could have actually caused more damage to the scuba industry with this horrible, horrible plea.

I can't help but think the prosecution did not thoroughly think through the precedent they are setting and repercussions of this plea. In just two weeks, they decided they didn't have a case worth going to trial for? I don't think so. The faster they settled, the less time, money and effort they have to spend.

So, a close friend of mine believes that Gabe's plea was arranged ahead of time and that is why he flew back to Australia. Even though Watson's lawyer said the following:

"Gabe Watson's US lawyer Bob Austin said Watson, 31, felt he should not have been charged and wanted the case closed and his name cleared. 'He has gone to Australia to say 'I am here to answer the charges and I am not guilty of those charges',' Mr Austin said. 'He wants to get it over with,' he said. 'It has been going on for five years and it was either fight extradition or go voluntarily.'"

The prosecution says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Watson's return. So my friend's theory still seems possible. It is actually more believable that he came back to get a good deal rather than wanting to plead not-guilty, face trial, clear his name, but still possibly end-up with a life sentence.

Tina's family was "shocked" at Gabe's sudden return:

"Tina Watson's family had publicly appealed for Watson to return to Australia and progress the stalled case. Her father in the US Tommy was stunned by the development. 'We had no idea that this was coming,' Mr Thomas told The Courier-Mail. 'It came as a total surprise,' he said. 'I am shocked but I am glad that he's there. I just hope that they don't let him leave again.'"

Source: Gabe Watson returns to face trial over wife&squo;s diving death | The Courier-Mail

So if my friend's theory is true - this means that the prosecution did not consult with Tina's family before they made the deal. If that is the case - shame on them! However, if the circumstances are as what was reported, that Watson returned to plead not guilty and clear his name, then the prosecution gave up on this case before they even got started - in just two weeks since his return - and I say still, shame on them!

This conspiracy theory is astounding! Sure the authorities are going to make an illegal deal with someone and that person is going to trust that deal and come to a country where they could spend a lot of time in goal if the deal that they can't prove existed is breached? Come on I'd love to know how people have figured out what motivated the Australian Authorities to do this

In today's modern scuba era, just like schools, in many cases you are passed to the next grade or in the diving world given a C-Card even when you don't meet the criteria. We have all seen AOW divers that really are not and we have all seen rescue divers that are not qualified. This is a perfect case of that. If you look at the picture in most news stories dealing with this accident, yes I said accident, you will notice that he is holding his console in his left hand checking his air or depth and in his right hand he is holding his octopus. Must of had it out for some reason. We have all read post on the board about rescues where the rescue diver forgot to remove the victims weight belt. The guy was an incompetent arrogant A%%, who panicked, let his poor wife drown and then lied about it all later to cover his butt. For the diving public the down side is the precedence that has been set because of this incident. I'm thinking if I go to Australia I am leaving my Rescue and DM cards at home.

The diver in the picture is NOT Gabe Watson. It is another diver on their honeymoon. The person is a new diver and the shot just happened to catch Tina and her rescuer in the background.

 

[K_girl]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process here since you are from Australia. We have injustices that happen in the U.S. as well. We are by no means, perfect.

After watching the Dateline show tonight, I realized that there were many Australian law enforcement who have dedicated years of their lives to this case who must be devastated about this as well. And.. it must be gut-wrenching for them not to be able to speak-out.

The trial was moved from Townsville to another city 700 miles away because of all the publicity. It makes me wonder if a different prosecutor was assigned to the case. If that's the case, maybe the original prosecutor was ready to go to trial and the new one, had a whole different "take" on the case.

I'm just not cold-hearted enough to watch a grown man cry after almost six long years of trying to get justice for his daughter and not react at all. If at least, there had been a trial and a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge, at least you could say real justice was done, but I just can't feel that way about this plea.

 

[almitywife]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process .......

i am not unhappy about you "unleashing" on our govt - trust me, the average aussie couldnt give 2 hoots about an american bitching about our processes. i do think you are way too obsessive about this case though..... so your message gets lost in your posts for me

cheers

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Sounds like to me that the prosecution did not consult Tina's family when making the deal:

Are you asserting that the USA does consult the victim's family? The decision is supposed to be made by someone who is impartial... the family is hardly that!

So some here said, wait for the details about the charge. Well, here it is, now we know what any of us, as rescue divers are expected to do:

Prosecutor Brendan Campbell told the court the manslaughter plea was accepted on the basis that Watson had failed in his duty as Tina's dive buddy by not giving her emergency oxygen. Mr Campbell said Watson also allowed Tina to sink to the ocean floor without making any serious attempt to retrieve her, and that he did not inflate her buoyancy vest or remove weights from her belt. "He virtually extinguished any chance of her survival,'' Mr Campbell said.

These are all basic OW skills and I don't see anything in your quote about his Rescue Diver Certification!

Why did the Coroner bother making the judgment that they did have a case for murder last year if they really didn't? They should have just said they didn't have a case a year ago so Tina's parents could try and move on with their lives. The Australian government led Tina's parents to believe that they were going to persue this case as a murder case. They didn't just let them down, they basically tore these people's heart out once again after six years of fighting for justice for Tina and made the deal without consulting them. Shame.. shame.. shame..

I think this is a huge assumption that there was no case. I feel terribly sorry for Tina's family but telling them there was no case last year would not have ended their campaign to seek what they feel is justice for their daughter's death. What "tore these people's heart out" was Tina's death! K_girl you claim some familiarity with the law and I don't know of any country that consults the victims or their families about how to apply their laws:shocked2:

I believe that in any country that applies case law (eg. The US and the UK), this case would be of persuasive precedence and possibily affect the outcome of any case sufficiently similar. However, in Australia the precedence would be binding and the outcome of a sufficiently similar case would be certain

There are a massive list of factors that make this case unique including but not limited to Gabe's role in Tina's life, Tina's decisions to get certified, where when and how to to dive as well as his assertions of his intent and ability to "take care of her". He made no real attempt to help her and he did not claim panic or that he felt he was in danger at the time... he took his sweet time going to the surface.

If your buddy gets in trouble and you can't help because of danger to yourself and you immediately seek help and advise people of those factor.. the case is already significantly dissimilar and especially if you aren't married to the diver in question and didn't convince them to do the dive. I fail to see justification for the paranoia about legal liability in Australia

 

[thanksforallthefish]

thanksforallthefish - I can understand you being unhappy about the criticism I am unleashing on the Australian legal process here since you are from Australia. We have injustices that happen in the U.S. as well. We are by no means, perfect.

After watching the Dateline show tonight, I realized that there were many Australian law enforcement who have dedicated years of their lives to this case who must be devastated about this as well. And.. it must be gut-wrenching for them not to be able to speak-out.

The trial was moved from Townsville to another city 700 miles away because of all the publicity. It makes me wonder if a different prosecutor was assigned to the case. If that's the case, maybe the original prosecutor was ready to go to trial and the new one, had a whole different "take" on the case.

I'm just not cold-hearted enough to watch a grown man cry after almost six long years of trying to get justice for his daughter and not react at all. If at least, there had been a trial and a jury found him guilty of a lesser charge, at least you could say real justice was done, but I just can't feel that way about this plea.

Unleash away ... does not worry me in the least.

I am glad that I live in Australia where the legal system is administered by qualified and impartial professionals unlike as it would appear from your posts by bleeding hearts in the US

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Unleash away ... does not worry me in the least.

I am glad that I live in Australia where the legal system is administered by qualified and impartial professionals unlike as it would appear from your posts by bleeding hearts in the US

Nope they aren't bleeding hearts... we are ....they Kill the people they think are guilty ... ends those incessant appeals for justice from people trying to prove their system failed and they are innocent. We put people in prison and if they manage to prove our system failed and they are innocent.. they are alive to re-enter society

 

[livinoz]

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.

 

[deepstops]

So I guess this change of events raises a question: Since he didn't "kill" her, he only failed to save her, does he get to keep the life insurance money??

 

[Dadvocate]

Bowl of…

Davocate maybe your name should be Devils'Advocate... love playing that role don't you?

You know you may be onto something here, but then you may have it all wrong as well.

I tried to respond to this a few hours ago but my internet dropped out when I tried to send. I said it much better the first time…Check the time of the posts.... my response was to IB post not yours. My slightly twisted sense of humour gets me in trouble.

I see… I tend not to check the posting times before trying to sound clever, so I’ll chalk that one up to my childish need for attention. I’m sure others have already done that anyway. And I can empathize with your disposition in this regard entirely. I suffer the same affliction, as my namesake suggests.

On the recent trend regarding the outcome of this case and possible future litigation:

I am a bit blown away by the suggestion that the US and Australia are covertly in cahoots in this outcome, or that the Australian prosecutors (noting somehow that they were wholly incompetent juxtaposed to the learned professionals of the legal apparatus in the USA) would bend over prostrate and hand out a flimsy manslaughter charge in the hopes that the mighty US judicial system would come riding along later on and charge Gabe with murder when he gets home. I have to admit that I don’t know if this is possible or not given the spirit of what double jeopardy is supposed to imply, though I sincerely hope this is not the case and that this is merely another example of the Larry King show peddling its usual portion of tripe.

I’m also troubled by the implications of this suggestion as well. Does this essentially mean that one is more likely to be convicted of murder (or other crimes) in the US on patchy circumstantial evidence than one is in Australia or elsewhere?

Though some of you might find this potentiality appealing given the desire stated on this board to see Gabe realize some “other” form of justice, I’m personally saddened at the implication that 1) double jeopardy could so easily be thwarted in this day and age in the US and 2) that vendettas are presumably more easily realized in the US than they are in other democratic countries.

If those suggesting this crafty scheme to get Gabe to take a lesser sentence on the likelihood that he will be convicted in the USA are right, then I say my compatriots and I have a whole lot to be concerned about in the larger scheme of things.

Anyone well versed in US criminal law in this case, please clarify if this is true or not.

Cheers!