Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

Sorry but the way I read the bolded bits and especially the parts I have highlighted in red. They are not saying they will accept anything but their idea of what is justice they are talking about a sentence which to me says they will not accept anything but a guilty verdict since people found innocent are not sent to prison for long or short terms, death penalties or life in prison!

Mr. Thomas was referring to the two possible sentences in a capital murder charge, one is the death penalty and the other is life in prison. What he was saying was - which potential sentence is imposed in accordance with the charge does not matter. All he wants is a trial and for Watson to answer to the evidence. If Watson were convicted of a capital murder charge, the judge could not impose a lesser sentence. You are misinterpreting the entire thing. It has nothing to do with what Tina's family thinks the sentence should be and that was the point Mr. Thomas was trying to make - you missed it.

You also deliberately missed and glossed over Mr. Thomas' statement that if Watson stood trial where the evidence is heard by a jury, whatever happened - that would be justice, which would include a possible "not guilty" outcome.

MR. THOMAS: "What we want is for him to stand before a jury for the very first time, before that evidence and answer to it. Whatever a judge and jury decide as the outcome of that trial should be true justice. And it doesn't matter to us the sentencing [if he were found guilty has to follow the statement above], what that sentence would be as long as it is a just sentence.."

I don't blame either family for feeling what they feel and both families should have the right to their feelings, no matter what the outcome. If you were to switch these people in these families, you would have one family who would still be seeking justice for their daughter and the other family who wants to protect their son and feel that he has been unjustly treated. I just personally feel that Watson's behavior before and just after Tina's death warrants the feelings and suspicions Tina's family has, as well as warrants their actions to try and find out what happened to their daughter.

And.. if I had a son-in-law who forced my daughter into doing something she really did not want to do, finding out that the dive instructor tried to talk her out of diving while Watson was in the water with her during her class - screaming at her for what he thought she was doing wrong, finding out that no one should pressure another person into diving, assuring me he was capable of "taking care of her" and then she died because he left her when he when he had plenty of air, and finding out that he actually thought about the consequences of leaving her, but he left her anyway, knowing how stupid it is to say that she could sink faster than he can kick with big fins, knowing he told her to change her insurance before the wedding and that my daughter was stressed out about it, and then he tried to unsuccessfully collect insurance on her life, and then called me into his lawyer's office to tell me to turn-over everything she owned because it now belonged to him - it would take every ounce of my being to keep from trying to smash his face into the wall because he was ultimately responsible for killing my child. How could any parent go through all that and not feel that way? They are showing more restraint than I could.

 

[Under-Exposed]

I think all of those things (assuming they're true and in context) make him an arse. But they don't make him a murderer.

Anyway, I have seen (I will try and dig them up) other comments that Tina's father has made that are not so measured, but I think it is easy for him to be measured at present, I have grave doubts he will be so measured in the event of a dismissal (especially) or an acquittal.

 

[ItsBruce]

I’m not going to quote prior posts, but I’ll add my perceptions:

1. Judges rarely, if ever, act based on the cost to the state or city of a trial.

2. Tina’s family is unlikely to be privy to any evidence that is not available to everyone else. They may “know” things and have perceptions that won’t be admissible because the law does not deemed them to be reliable. But, in the big scheme of things, they don’t know anything the rest of us don’t.

3. Had Watson not taken Tina diving, she would probably still be alive. That does not mean he is guilty of any crime. It does not mean he is not guilty either. In any event, rightly or wrongly, Tina’s family blames Watson. I can certainly see why. And, even if they KNEW it wasn’t his fault, there is bound to be some resentment. Resentment leads to biased recollections and perceptions.

4. My reading of the various statements is that Tina’s family wants Watson to get a fair trial before he is hanged. To me, that is not getting a fair trial.

5. Tina’s family should start preparing themselves for the possibility that Watson will be found not guilty, i.e. that the jury will find that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that Watson either turned Tina’s air off or took the regulator from her mouth such that she ended up as she did.

6. I am not in the camp that thinks Watson is not guilty. I have my own camp. It is the one that thinks that there is insufficient evidence upon which to find him guilty of murder, i.e. the intentional killing of another without justification, excuse or mitigation.

7. Watson’s behavior before and after Tina’s death was bizarre when we view it through the prism of our own experiences and the way we hope we would have behaved. If nothing else, it triggered the investigation that led to him being charged, as well it should have.

 

[DandyDon]

Very good appraisal Bruce.

A murder trial can have a big impact on a local governing entity's budget for years. Some counties in Texas have entered into Regional sharing of such expenses I've read. I'm sure a judge would avoid considering that, even tho it's a real issue at some level that cannot be avoided - and shouldn't affect any actions, but who knows. And why are there always a couple of quests reading this thread when I do?

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Mr. Thomas was referring to the two possible sentences in a capital murder charge, one is the death penalty and the other is life in prison. What he was saying was - which potential sentence is imposed in accordance with the charge does not matter. All he wants is a trial and for Watson to answer to the evidence. If Watson were convicted of a capital murder charge, the judge could not impose a lesser sentence. You are misinterpreting the entire thing. It has nothing to do with what Tina's family thinks the sentence should be and that was the point Mr. Thomas was trying to make - you missed it.

You also deliberately missed and glossed over Mr. Thomas' statement that if Watson stood trial where the evidence is heard by a jury, whatever happened - that would be justice, which would include a possible "not guilty" outcome.

MR. THOMAS: "What we want is for him to stand before a jury for the very first time, before that evidence and answer to it. Whatever a judge and jury decide as the outcome of that trial should be true justice. And it doesn't matter to us the sentencing [if he were found guilty has to follow the statement above], what that sentence would be as long as it is a just sentence.."

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. Perhaps we are both "reading something into" Thomas's words

I didn't deliberately miss or gloss over the part of your post I have bolded in red because it wasn't in the quote in the post I responded to.

I don't blame either family for feeling what they feel and both families should have the right to their feelings, no matter what the outcome.

Totally agree here! IMHO both sides have gone too far and done things that do not look very good in my eyes.

I agree with Bruce and UnderExposed here (as usual).

Ultimately.. I don't know who to believe so I choose not to believe anyone. That means I don't accept either side's version of the "facts".

Here are the two facts I accept:

1)In Australia Watson is guilty of Manslaughter.

2)In the US he is innocent until the court examines whatever evidence it feels is appropriate and finds him guilty. I don't personally have enough evidence to come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence.

Knock Knock... Bruce.. I am camping in the tent beside you.. I'd love that cup of coffee you offered me a while back:blinking:

6. I am not in the camp that thinks Watson is not guilty. I have my own camp. It is the one that thinks that there is insufficient evidence upon which to find him guilty of murder, i.e. the intentional killing of another without justification, excuse or mitigation.

 

[ItsBruce]

And.. if I had a son-in-law who forced my daughter into doing something she really did not want to do, finding out that the dive instructor tried to talk her out of diving while Watson was in the water with her during her class - screaming at her for what he thought she was doing wrong, finding out that no one should pressure another person into diving, assuring me he was capable of "taking care of her" and then she died because he left her when he when he had plenty of air, and finding out that he actually thought about the consequences of leaving her, but he left her anyway, knowing how stupid it is to say that she could sink faster than he can kick with big fins, knowing he told her to change her insurance before the wedding and that my daughter was stressed out about it, and then he tried to unsuccessfully collect insurance on her life, and then called me into his lawyer's office to tell me to turn-over everything she owned because it now belonged to him - it would take every ounce of my being to keep from trying to smash his face into the wall because he was ultimately responsible for killing my child. How could any parent go through all that and not feel that way? They are showing more restraint than I could.

If that was the case, would you exercise the same restraint in terms of being truthful?

I hope that if it was me, I would use every ounce of my being to be truthful. However, the truth is that I cannot predict whether I might color the truth.

Is it possible that I might recall conversations that didn't actually happen if (1) there was no one who could contradict me, and (2) the conversations were likely to ensure my version of justice (a fair trial before the hanging)?

Is it possible that I might interpret actions and gestures in a manner that was likely to ensure my version of justice (a fair trial before the hanging)?

Is it possible that I might forget details that might give others doubts about the culprit's culpability?

 

[K_girl]

I didn't deliberately miss or gloss over the part of your post I have bolded in red because it wasn't in the quote in the post I responded to.

It most certainly was!!! Go back and look.

 

[K_girl]

If that was the case, would you exercise the same restraint in terms of being truthful?

I hope that if it was me, I would use every ounce of my being to be truthful. However, the truth is that I cannot predict whether I might color the truth.

Is it possible that I might recall conversations that didn't actually happen if (1) there was no one who could contradict me, and (2) the conversations were likely to ensure my version of justice (a fair trial before the hanging)?

Is it possible that I might interpret actions and gestures in a manner that was likely to ensure my version of justice (a fair trial before the hanging)?

Is it possible that I might forget details that might give others doubts about the culprit's culpability?

Neither myself nor Tina's family mentioned anything about hanging either literally or figuratively. I did say that I would want to smash his face in the wall, if I was her parent, and if I was that close to it and knew what I knew. I don't care what anyone here says - none of us know as much as Tina's parents know. I mentioned one piece of testimony you can expect if there is trial that no one reported in the papers and yet, no one noticed.

I can agree that what Tina's parents know may not be admissible in a court of law and may not be used to convict him. I'm not arguing that point. They will have to accept a not-guilty verdict if it is taken to trial and move with their lives. I'm not arguing that point. I did argue that Tina's parents do not have to accept that he is not guilty in their hearts if there is no trial and he never had to answer for all of the evidence. They would still have to find a way to move on with their lives. The only thing they could do at that point is just know that they did the best they could. In their place, I would have fought just as hard. The point I am trying to make is, that any parent in Tina's parents place, would have done the same, so why are some posters so hard on them? It is impossible to argue that Watson was above-board and above suspicion and did not exhibit some pretty slimy behavior.

 

[Ayisha]

I mentioned one piece of testimony you can expect if there is trial that no one reported in the papers and yet, no one noticed.

Sorry, which one was that?

 

[ItsBruce]

My prior post addresses the concept of bias. Bias is one of the ways that a witness's credibility can be attacked at a trial. I think that certain statements could be used to argue that Mr. Thomas is biased and that as a result, anything he says should be viewed with a degree of suspicion. In the hands of a good attorney, the statement about wanting justice and not caring whether the sentence is death or life without parole, could be used to persuade a jury Mr. Thomas is biased.

At the same time, a good lawyer could explain away the statements as being made under pressure and taken out of context.

Of course, the best way to deflect an attack for bias is to "own" it. For example: "Of course, I am biased. But, I have a good reason to be. The things Tina said to me before the wedding about insurance and the things Watson did after Tina's death lead me to think he killed her. And, even if he didn't kill her, he made her learn to dive and took her on an advanced dive and said she'd be safe with him. So, sure, I'm biased. But, Tina loved him and married him. And, I would be betraying her memory if I made up something just so he gets convicted."

(Pretty cool how I got the bit about insurance in there!)