Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Dadvocate]

It is with a bit of trepidation that I get involved in this discussion again. I think the ideas expressed on the issue of bias and on what that means for Tina’s family are interesting. I wonder if these pre-trial antics will play a role in the final outcome of this trial.


I do understand K-Girl’s point about seeing Watson as “guilty” given that he had once claimed that Tina would be safe with him. I think she is right (at least in this case) that the family have a pretty grim opinion of Mr. Watson. I think it is a bit incredulous, however , to assume that ALL parents under similar circumstances would 1) draw the same conclusions and 2) become convinced that Watson is guilty and needed to be tried in the US. I am always wary of such sweeping proclamations. She is probably right that a great number of people would do the same, however, especially when faced with Watson’s odd behavior after the fact.


From a legal standpoint, I wonder about one thing. All divers have to sign a waiver form that includes comments to the effect that diving is a dangerous sport and that divers ought to be appropriately certified to participate. There is usually a further disclaimer that asks a participant in diving to recognize that he or she is solely responsible for going into the water while breathing compressed air.


My wife’s family comes from Australia and I have therefore been fortunate enough to do some diving in QLD and NSW. In each case this notion of individual responsibility has been taken quite seriously. For instance, dive guides were not readily available unless paid for in advance, which essentially meant that I needed to stick to the dive profile offered on the boat and I needed to pay closer attention to my surroundings than I might in Thailand for instance. In QLD at least, the diver (not the operator) is fined if an SPG is not used or if a diver’s kit does not include a whistle. This connects well with the ethos of self-responsibility in Oz.

If we extend this understanding of self-reliance and self-responsibility to the dive in question, I don’t see how

Watson can be legally culpable for Tina’s death if she also filled in one of these forms based on the training she would have claimed she had. Of course Watson is responsible if he turned her air off. Leaving this assumption aside for the moment and saying instead that he is guilty primarily of being a lousy dive buddy, where is his “legal” responsibility for Tina’s ultimate decision to go into the water as a certified diver? This is the part that I haven’t been able to get from the arguments so far.


In all the annals of the tragedies that befall a “trust me” dive, the end result always boils down to two significant mistakes: 1) the idiot who tries to convince a diver of something using the phrase “trust me” and 2) the idiot who allows him or herself to be convinced to go beyond what is comfortable based on this “trust me” argument. Like the proverbial chicken and the egg, you can’t have a trust me dive tragedy without both of these component parts. Tragically, it tends to be that the latter person suffers most of the consequences in such cases, primarily because they lack the practical experience in the water. This is the reality of diving.


If it can be clearly established that Watson did turn off Tina’s air and hold her until she died, then of course a murder conviction should be the consequence for his actions, though in my humble opinion that ought to have been done in the country where the alleged crime took place. I am very uncomfortable with the double jeopardy implications in this case.


If in the end the worst that can be established is that Watson convinced his new bride to do something she was not really ready to do, I don’t think that murder or even manslaughter are apt, unless we have now come to the point where we are saying we can shift the responsibility we all have as divers from where it really ought to lie: with ourselves.


Since so many of us have already waxed armchair psychologist where Tina’s family are concerned, I will give it a go also. Perhaps when Tina’s family members searched their various memories for times when the topic of diving came up they were confronted with the fact that they didn’t pay close enough attention to her worries. Maybe they are troubled at the fact that they didn’t try to get her not to do it, or not with enough conviction. Maybe they were party to the conversations where people (including Dave Watson) discussed how safe the sport really is when one gets the proper training. As Its-Bruce said earlier, perhaps the bias we are seeing is the manifestation of a protection mechanism that thrusts all of their own guilt onto one convenient target. K-Girl is absolutely right that none of us can really understand what Tina’s family know, but our ignorance of this in no way negates us understanding that the stress they must be under might very well colour how they are interpreting things.


As Its-Bruce as aptly pointed out, human memory is a fickle beast, and when we are grief stricken, we can contort past events to meet with a judgment we have come to in post hoc fashion. And as much as I can point to this potential in someone else’s tragedy, I could easily find myself doing exactly the same thing if I found myself in Tina’s parents’ shoes with all of the emotional trauma they must be suffering. We are all human after all.

Of course I have no way of knowing if any of this is really true. Until the facts come out more and are appropriately vetted, it is really kind of hard to say anything about Watson’s innocence or guilt. I have a sinking suspicion that the outcome will create even more questions than answers. Given the politics charged in this case, it could ultimately end up being popularity contest with the jury that decides Watson’s fate.


If that ends up being the case, the real convicted parties in this tragedy will be our judicial system and the millions of divers the world over who endeavor to go into the water. If he really is guilty of this, please, please, please let his conviction come with the proverbial smoking gun. Nothing I have seen thus far comes even remotely close to establishing this at all. I hope there is more to this story that can provide some appropriate resolution.


Cheers!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I think it would be too much to ask of Tina's parents to not believe what they believe in light of the fact that they have seen the evidence, seen Watson's behavior first-hand, heard all the testimony at the coroner's inquest, talked to investigators and people involved, as we, the public have not. Tina's father is the one who talked to his daughter about the insurance and has a sense of her feeling on the matter of not only what she said, but how she said it and even though it may not be admissible in a court of law, certainly something I could not dismiss in my own mind if I were her parent. No one who is not privy to all the evidence should tell Tina's family what to believe and most especially if there is to be no trial where the evidence is never heard.

As far as the outcome is concerned and Tina's family reaction, your presumption is incorrect. Here are Tina's father's exact words on the matter:

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, what that sentence would be as long as it is a just sentence.."

Source: Australia 'Honeymoon Killer': Father of Allegedly Murdered Bride Tina Watson Seeks Justice - ABC News

Another quote from Tina's father:

"Whether it be the death penalty or life in prison, without parole, really is immaterial to us," he said. "The fact of the matter...we just want to see justice done by our daughter."

Gabe Watson Headed To Alabama To Face Trial For Killing Wife - DothanFirst.com

It was Valeska making all the noise about Australia holding Alabama hostage over the death penalty, not Tina's family.

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

Here is your post and I don't see it Perhaps it is in the link you posted I don't always have the time or inclination to go to and read all the links people post. I responded to what you put in the post... anyway..

I understand your sympathy for Tina's family/friends and they have my sympathy as well. I am not saying that Tina's family doesn't have the right to feel or believe whatever they want to or need to. That doesn't mean I don't think their pain has created a bias that impacts their actions and reactions. Perhaps the relationship between Tina and Gabe was as bad as they say

I also have sympathy for Gabe's family/friends. I believe they also have a bias that impacts their actions and reactions. Perhaps the relationship between Tina and her folks was as bad as they say

Perhaps Tina's interactions with both sides contributed to their negative impressions of each other? That happens all the time in relationships... someone "vents" their frustration with a loved one.. gets over the issue but the person they have talked to can't "let it go"...

The sad truth is that people allow themselves to be "pressured" into doing things they don't want to all the time. As adults we have to make the decision and are responsible for the outcome of our decision. It is sad indeed that Tina and Gabe have paid so high a price for their decisions but as Dadvocate to eloquently explained.. it still takes two!

Repeating myself here. I don't have a very high opinion of Gabe. I don't consider myself a "supporter" of Gabe or his family. I don't consider myself to be an opponent of Tina's family either.

I think both sides have said and done some nasty things as a result of their own pain. It just seems to me that one side has had more effective use of the media in getting their views across! I am trying to maintain a balanced an no judgmental outlook here.

 

[K_girl]

There are plenty of people willing to put words in the mouths of Tina's parents (i.e., they would accept nothing less than a guilty verdict and what they think the sentence should be).

However, the same people make tons of excuses for Watson's statements - statements that he actually made. Just two examples - where he said he was worried that she could be lost if he left her, but he left her anyway, even though he had plenty of air. Or that she could somehow conceivably sink faster than he could kick down with big fins, spending only about 10 seconds doing so, according to him.

Believe me, I know what the arguments about Watson's statements will be in a court of law, and I know those arguments could possibly prevail. It just seems to me that there is something, from a practical point of view that makes all this completely backwards. Which is - you don't need proof to believe that Tina's parents are going to demand a particular outcome, no matter what, even if they said the opposite. But Watson's statements should be completely discarded because maybe he lied out of guilt. He didn't really understand the consequences of leaving Tina, he just made that up. He didn't really kick down for Tina, her arms outstretched, reaching for him as she sank (faster than him), he just made that up. And the lies just keep piling up.

From what I could see in his video statement to police, he did not look like to me to be under any kind of pressure to provide all the extra, unnecessary "frilly" detailed lies he supplied. So how much weight will these lies have for a jury? I don't know. Will at least one juror require that there should be a picture of Watson turning off Tina's air supply or holding her so tight, she can't breathe as absolute, to establish beyond a "shadow" of a doubt proof? I don't know.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

It is no more wrong to try to interpret the words Tina's family put out there than it is to interpret Gabe's. Anybody who chooses to participate in interviews and speak to the media are inviting people to do just that. That is why Gabe's parents stated they kept their silence for so long (and the seem to have retreated again). I suspect that is why Gabe has not agreed to interviews as well. That leaves pretty one sided information which makes me uncomfortable.

The cost to Tina's family if they say something the wrong way is negligible compared to Gabe. I can't forget someone's life is on the line here! Lots of people talk themselves up, bully people into doing things, get in over their head, take the easy way out when they get into a mess and think only of themselves that makes them low lifes in my book but it doesn't make them murderers! Cold hard evidence and examination by the legal system determine that.

If I wanted to play advocate for Gabe I would start digging back to find the quotes from the Minister who conducted the pre marital counseling and wedding.. quote Gabe's parents statements, statements from his friends and so on. I can't be bothered!

I find this interesting. I am fascinated by people and trying to figure out why they say and do the things they do. Everyone has a right to come to their own conclusions including Tina's Family and Gabe's Family. I see elements of Elizabeth Kubla-Ross's stages of Grief in the people involved.

Elizabeth Kubler Ross Grief Cycle model, five stages of grief in death, dying and bereavement
Also known as the 'grief cycle', it is important to bear in mind that Kübler-Ross did not intend this to be a rigid series of sequential or uniformly timed steps. It's not a process as such, it's a model or a framework. There is a subtle difference: a process implies something quite fixed and consistent; a model is less specific - more of a shape or guide. By way of example, people do not always experience all of the five 'grief cycle' stages. Some stages might be revisited. Some stages might not be experienced at all. Transition between stages can be more of an ebb and flow, rather than a progression. The five stages are not linear; neither are they equal in their experience. People's grief, and other reactions to emotional trauma, are as individual as a fingerprint.
In this sense you might wonder what the purpose of the model is if it can vary so much from person to person. An answer is that the model acknowledges there to be an individual pattern of reactive emotional responses which people feel when coming to terms with death, bereavement, and great loss or trauma, etc. The model recognises that people have to pass through their own individual journey of coming to terms with death and bereavement, etc., after which there is generally an acceptance of reality, which then enables the person to cope.


I honestly don't think there is enough information available to me to make a decision about his guilt or innocence that I could live with! I will say I am intensely uncomfortable with trial by media, "justice" brought about for the sake political careers or by the "Squeaky wheel" Syndrome!

 

[Ayisha]

From a legal standpoint, I wonder about one thing. All divers have to sign a waiver form that includes comments to the effect that diving is a dangerous sport and that divers ought to be appropriately certified to participate. There is usually a further disclaimer that asks a participant in diving to recognize that he or she is solely responsible for going into the water while breathing compressed air. ]

The dive shop was convicted and fined in the situation regarding Tina's death for not living up to their safety policy that was above the code in Queensland. I believe their literature used to state that they would keep their customers safe in addition to the items they were fined for.

My wife’s family comes from Australia and I have therefore been fortunate enough to do some diving in QLD and NSW. In each case this notion of individual responsibility has been taken quite seriously. For instance, dive guides were not readily available unless paid for in advance, which essentially meant that I needed to stick to the dive profile offered on the boat and I needed to pay closer attention to my surroundings than I might in Thailand for instance. In QLD at least, the diver (not the operator) is fined if an SPG is not used or if a diver’s kit does not include a whistle. This connects well with the ethos of self-responsibility in Oz. ]

This is the opposite of Mike Ball Expeditions' Spoilsport, which PROVIDED a dive guide for less experienced divers. They also REQUIRED an orientation dive for unfamiliar divers but allowed the Watson's to opt out of it, against their policy - hence they were fined.

If we extend this understanding of self-reliance and self-responsibility to the dive in question, I don’t see how

Watson can be legally culpable for Tina’s death if she also filled in one of these forms based on the training she would have claimed she had. Of course Watson is responsible if he turned her air off. Leaving this assumption aside for the moment and saying instead that he is guilty primarily of being a lousy dive buddy, where is his “legal” responsibility for Tina’s ultimate decision to go into the water as a certified diver? This is the part that I haven’t been able to get from the arguments so far.]

The Spoilsport staff were aware that Tina had 11 dives total and she did not meet their requirements to dive the Yongala, but they allowed her to dive it anyway when Gabe took responsibility for her safety, hence the liveaboard's fine for not upholding it's policy.

If it can be clearly established that Watson did turn off Tina’s air and hold her until she died, then of course a murder conviction should be the consequence for his actions, though in my humble opinion that ought to have been done in the country where the alleged crime took place. I am very uncomfortable with the double jeopardy implications in this case. ]

There is no double jeopardy. Watson never stood trial for murder nor was he ever convicted of murder.

That leaves pretty one sided information which makes me uncomfortable.

There is unfortunately really only one side of information available since the only other person who knew is deceased. At least there is someone to advocate for Tina!

I hope this does go to trial so that all the evidence can be heard and deliberated on. I also do not believe that all the information available has been released or picked up by the media this far ahead of trial, otherwise there would be little need for trials. The potential "evidence" that gets excluded from a trial gives the rest of us some insight into the whole picture, even if it is prejudicial. As Bruce showed, some of that testimony could be creatively introduced. In other cases I have followed, I have become aware of details during the trial that I had not heard before, so it's certainly possible. The political atmosphere though, does not seem favourable to a trial at this time. I hope the politics get put aside...

 

[ItsBruce]

When I previously commented on bias, I did so because it is relevant to a witness's credibility. I stated that because of what I perceived as bias in Tina's father's statements, I was concerned about his credibility.

Just to be fail, let me share my thoughts on Watson's credibility. I would not believe anything he said to me.

Also, remember that it was because of the contradictions in what he told authorities and his seemingly bizarre behavior that the authorities started digging deeper and deeper into the matter and ultimately decided to prosecute him. Whether he is guilty of murder or not, he deserves some sort of "punishment" for the things he said and for his bizarre behavior. And, he deserves to be beaten for having pushed Tina into learning to dive and then taking her on a dive that she clearly should not have done. Who is it that said that "stupid should be painful"? It applies here.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

YEAH he needs his butt kicked big time IMHO for some of his actions. I think His parents deserve some of our sympathy too! By all reports they cared a great deal about Tina, obviously care about Gabe and are in the middle of a terribly situation not of their making! Anyone who didn't feel some sympathy for Tina's Family and loved ones.. ALL of them would have to be cold hearted indeed!

Man I think back to when my kid brother was killed and the intensity of the emotions we all had to cope with! The person responsible also died. I did not like finding out that I was capable of the kind of anger in my grief that meant I was GLAD of another human being's death!

 

[Dadvocate]

I am not sure if we are in agreement or disagreement in the first part of your post, Ayisha. I’m going to assume for the moment that you don’t agree with my assessment of things. It makes for a more interesting discussion anyway.

The dive shop was convicted and fined in the situation regarding Tina's death for not living up to their safety policy that was above the code in Queensland. I believe their literature used to state that they would keep their customers safe in addition to the items they were fined for.

If I understand your wording correctly here, “above the code” implies that their operational procedures surpassed those required in QLD. Am I reading that correctly?

If so, then I don’t see how this really challenges my premise. The liveaboard company was held to standards it set for itself and advertised as part of the public record, not those necessarily forced on it by QLD. If the wording of their literature implied that they would provide services at this level and they failed to do so, then they essentially played the role of “idiot #1” in my scenario for not following their own safety procedures.

This is the opposite of Mike Ball Expeditions' Spoilsport, which PROVIDED a dive guide for less experienced divers. They also REQUIRED an orientation dive for unfamiliar divers but allowed the Watson's to opt out of it, against their policy - hence they were fined.

Additionally, I think your choice of wording in “opposite” doesn’t quite work. That the dive op was held to its own standards says nothing about what fines Tina might have incurred in QLD for diving on a site that she was not certified to do. Of course you can’t fine a dead woman. I’d be interested to know if she could have been fined had there only been an accident that was not fatal where her decisions relative to her dive experience were concerned. To be honest, I don’t know myself.

The Spoilsport staff were aware that Tina had 11 dives total and she did not meet their requirements to dive the Yongala, but they allowed her to dive it anyway when Gabe took responsibility for her safety, hence the liveaboard's fine for not upholding it's policy.

All legal ramblings aside, the fines the dive op paid in no way mitigate Tina’s own decision to dive on a site that was beyond her skills. Watson’s assurances notwithstanding, she still made the decision to go into the water. And as the typical line goes, in a group of mixed-level divers, always dive to the least experienced level. This is stuff we learn in our first certification course!

The Yongala does not provide the option for a new diver to dive at her level, thus the trust me dive was undertaken by all parties concerned. Watson was not in a place where he should have made such assurances, the dive op was in no place to allow him to take on that responsibility, and Tina should never have allowed this “trust me” scenario to convince her to do a dive that was beyond her skill level. Again, the chicken and the egg…. Or should I say eggs in this case?


Your description of events supports exactly what I am talking about. Choosing to ignore their own policies should make them liable for fines. I have no issue with this at all. Nonetheless, Tina choosing to not do a checkout dive despite ostensibly knowing her own skill level is also her decision, which supports everything I said above.

There is no double jeopardy. Watson never stood trial for murder nor was he ever convicted of murder.

We definitely disagree here!

He was charged with the wrongful death of his wife and he served time for that crime. That he wasn’t actually pronounced guilty by a jury does not evade the fact that he was pronounced guilty by a judge in Australia for her death under the conditions stipulated in the plea agreement. Therein lies the conviction.

When a person serves time in jail for crimes he or she has been actively convicted of by a jury or when he or she is pronounced guilty by a judge after entering a plea agreement, the term applied to them as an individual is “convict”. The reason for this is that they are henceforth presumed guilty of the crime in question.

So for you the fact that Gabe Watson accepted a lesser plea deal for manslaughter and served time for the crime does not constitute a conviction. I could not disagree more. Though I agree with the general implications in your semantics on a technical level, I wonder if this line really holds in practical and ethical terms.

Are you saying that this could happen in the US? Say a guy is accused of murdering his wife, accepts a plea because the prosecution does not have the goods to make a murder conviction stick, and then serves time for a lesser charge. After his release new evidence appears that the prosecution can use and they charge him with murder. Would this constitute double jeopardy in your opinion?

If I understand you correctly this would not be double jeopardy because he was never convicted in the first place.

It seems to me that the claims for there being no double jeopardy in this case are prefaced on the idea that double jeopardy doesn’t apply internationally. That may well be the case, sadly. Despite this technical truth (if indeed it is a truth), the principle of double jeopardy remains the same, not to mention the intent in having such protective rules in the first place. That pundits can find ways to water this essential principle down to suit their needs only goes to show that individual liberty is weakened and the rights of government officials to piss on real justice grows ever stronger year after year in the US. Is this a byproduct of our war on terror, of our need to feel warm and cozy at night in our beds at all costs, of the paradigm created in cookie cutter Hollywood films with black and white characters and plots? That might be fodder for another thread.

That Gabe Watson went through the legal process in the country where the alleged crime took place, served time in that country for the crime and is now being tried for the same incident with even higher stakes is double jeopardy in the truest and most honest reading of what the concept means. There is no way that his acceptance of a manslaughter charge in OZ could be shielded from the jury, which means he is at a huge disadvantage in this upcoming trial. This travesty is real, not hypothetical and therefore all attempts at brushing the compromise in justice aside are window dressing meant to obscure what is really going on.

That said, it is possible that Gabe is guilty of something far worse than the “conviction” he received in Oz. My worry is that “convicting” him again could come at a very high cost further down the line for all of us, this whether he is actually guilty or not.

Cheers!

 

[boulderjohn]

I am not a lawyer, but the idea of double jeopardy has been discussed several times in this thread. Double jeopardy does not apply internationally, and that is not a bad thing considering the potential for problems if it did.

Can you imagine what would happen if, following the Locherbie bombing, Libya had put the bomber on trial, found him guilty, given him a suspended sentence, and then sent him out to greet the adoring crowd? What if after 9/11 the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan had put all the surviving conspirators on trial so that they would have immunity from further prosecution??

 

[Dadvocate]

Boulder John

I understand the point you are trying to make, but there are significant practical differences between Watson's case and the two examples you cite above.

Firstly, the crimes committed in Lockerbie and in NYC were committed on home soil in the countries that were attacked. That means that the true jurisdiction ought to lie in the countries where the crime took place. We know that the alleged crime in Watson’s case took place in Australia, a country that actually has a judicial system not unlike the US. Watson actually served time for his crime and never as far as I know had a tickertape parade in his honor. Other than making sure that Watson would not face a death penalty case in the US, the Australian government was more than willing to hand Watson over at their earliest convenience.

So I suppose using your argument that it would be fine with you that a journalist in say Denmark published images of Mohamed in a comic in a Danish newspaper to subsequently be tried for a hate crime in his own country. After being found innocent and lauded as a hero in the streets of Copenhagen as a defender of free speech he strangely finds himself in a courtroom in Saudi Arabia after a remarkable turn of events facing charges that he defamed Mohamed in publishing these images. I suppose this would work as well with you, would it not?

Secondly, the acts you cite were politically and religiously motivated (not unlike the example above) and thus fall under a completely different context. In at least one case (Libya) we know for sure that the government was behind the attack in question, and an argument could also be made that the Talban had a role to play in September 11 as well. These governments finding the respective culprits innocent would be a travesty of justice on their own. I don’t suppose you are suggesting the Australian government is somehow party to Tina’s death.

Thirdly, it is highly unlikely that either of the accused in these terrorist acts would ever have even faced a trial in their home countries in the first place. They would simply have been paraded out as heroes without the dog and pony show of a trial. The idea that the governments in these cases would have considered going through the expense of a façade trial only to set the accused free is ludicrous to be honest.

Comparing Libya and the Taliban to the Australian government to make your point is really stretching credibility to the limits to be perfectly frank. I'd argue that this is the same type of obfuscation of the tenants of double jeopardy as any of the other justifications we have seen.

Cheers!