Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

Regarding Responsibility:

As a general matter, I believe that every diver should take personal responsibility for his or her own self. In fact, I believe every person should take personal responsibility for his or her own self in all things. At the same time, I strongly believe that there will be situations where most everyone will feel compelled to do something he or she would rather not do and knows he or she should not do.

I believe that if Tina's death was an accident, she had some degree of responsibility for it. But, others had a greater degree of responsibility. For example, I believe that once Tina was on the boat heading out of the harbor, it would have been very difficult for her to have said she was going to sit out the dive. Thus, responsibility falls on others, too.

 

[ItsBruce]

Regarding Double Jeopardy:

I think that those who know more than I have established that as a matter of legal principles, double jeopardy does not apply here.

Nonetheless, I have a problem with it: If Watson were convicted in OZ and sentenced to 25 years for second degree murder (not premeditated) and served that sentence, could Alabama legitimately then try him and convict him and sentence him to additional time?

Additionally, if double jeopardy does not apply as between countries or even different states within the U.S., than no one should EVER enter into a plea deal on any crime. A plea deal means that the defendant will be sentenced pursuant to the plea deal and that another country can claim the right to prosecute him or her and can use the plea deal as evidence of guilt. All that country would need to do is claim some connection no matter how tenuous.

 

[sydney-diver]

Regarding Double Jeopardy:

I think that those who know more than I have established that as a matter of legal principles, double jeopardy does not apply here.

Nonetheless, I have a problem with it: If Watson were convicted in OZ and sentenced to 25 years for second degree murder (not premeditated) and served that sentence, could Alabama legitimately then try him and convict him and sentence him to additional time?

Additionally, if double jeopardy does not apply as between countries or even different states within the U.S., than no one should EVER enter into a plea deal on any crime. A plea deal means that the defendant will be sentenced pursuant to the plea deal and that another country can claim the right to prosecute him or her and can use the plea deal as evidence of guilt. All that country would need to do is claim some connection no matter how tenuous.

I read a very good essay on Double Jeopardy (specifically this case) by an Australian QC (Queen's Counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I cannot find it at the moment, when I do I'll post. He made two points though, firstly there are international human righgts conventions which cover Double Jeopardy of which Australia is a signatory, but the US is not. Secondly, Double Jeopardy prevents a defendent being tried twice for the same crime with the same evidence. It does not prevent a second trial should new material evidence become available.

 

[ItsBruce]

I was working on another case when a thought crossed my mind relative to the charges against Gabe Watson:

There is an assertion that before the wedding, Watson had asked Tina to change her life insurance to make him here beneficiary. There is the assertion that this shows a motive for his having killed her, i.e. for the expected insurance money.

There is the counter assertion that changing one's insurance to reflect one's new spouse as the beneficiary is a reasonable and common practice and that doing so shortly before one's wedding is not inconsistent with getting married and living happily ever after.

So, I started wondering: What, if anything, did Watson do prior to the wedding that might have reflected his expectations of having a long life together with Tina? Or, did he do things that might have indicated he did not expect to return from the honeymoon with her?

Did he name her on his insurance? (Although on homeowners and auto policies this may be automatic.)
Did he put her as a signatory on his bank accounts? Did they open a joint account?
Did he put her on his credit card accounts? Did they open a credit card account together?
Did they get an apartment or house together? Were they on title or a rental agreement together?
Was Tina a member of DAN? Did Watson sign her up or put her on a family plan?

 

[K_girl]

I was working on another case when a thought crossed my mind relative to the charges against Gabe Watson:

There is an assertion that before the wedding, Watson had asked Tina to change her life insurance to make him here beneficiary. There is the assertion that this shows a motive for his having killed her, i.e. for the expected insurance money.

There is the counter assertion that changing one's insurance to reflect one's new spouse as the beneficiary is a reasonable and common practice and that doing so shortly before one's wedding is not inconsistent with getting married and living happily ever after.

So, I started wondering: What, if anything, did Watson do prior to the wedding that might have reflected his expectations of having a long life together with Tina? Or, did he do things that might have indicated he did not expect to return from the honeymoon with her?

Did he name her on his insurance? (Although on homeowners and auto policies this may be automatic.)
Did he put her as a signatory on his bank accounts? Did they open a joint account?
Did he put her on his credit card accounts? Did they open a credit card account together?
Did they get an apartment or house together? Were they on title or a rental agreement together?
Was Tina a member of DAN? Did Watson sign her up or put her on a family plan?

That is a very good perspective and very good questions to ask. We haven't heard anything about the existence of these things or anything like it. Not to say that they don't exist, but they would be compelling for the defense if they did. On the other side, if the prosecution challenges the defense for this kind of evidence, but the defense doesn't have it - couldn't that hurt the defense?

 

[Ayisha]

Great questions, Bruce. It would be interesting to know the answers and see if they're consistent.

Regarding the house: Gabe moved into Tina's house, not sure when. He does own that house.

Regarding the insurance beneficiary request: The problematic aspect wasn't the fact that they wanted to change Tina's beneficiary from her parents to Gabe before the wedding. It was that Tina was concerned enough about being asked to discuss it with her father and that her father told her to not do it and tell Gabe that it was done. If Tina had happily changed her beneficiary and didn't raise a flag about it, there would be no concern. The other problematic behaviour was that Gabe went to Tina's workplace before the wedding to change her beneficiary to himself quite insistently but was not allowed to. It would be interesting to know which came first: Gabe's insurance visit to Tina's office or Gabe's request to Tina to change the beneficiary.

 

[Kern]

Great questions, Bruce. It would be interesting to know the answers and see if they're consistent.

Regarding the house: Gabe moved into Tina's house, not sure when. He does own that house.

Regarding the insurance beneficiary request: The problematic aspect wasn't the fact that they wanted to change Tina's beneficiary from her parents to Gabe before the wedding. It was that Tina was concerned enough about being asked to discuss it with her father and that her father told her to not do it and tell Gabe that it was done. If Tina had happily changed her beneficiary and didn't raise a flag about it, there would be no concern. The other problematic behaviour was that Gabe went to Tina's workplace before the wedding to change her beneficiary to himself quite insistently but was not allowed to. It would be interesting to know which came first: Gabe's insurance visit to Tina's office or Gabe's request to Tina to change the beneficiary.

Not to mention what can be used/proved in a court.

 

[ItsBruce]

Regarding the insurance beneficiary request: The problematic aspect wasn't the fact that they wanted to change Tina's beneficiary from her parents to Gabe before the wedding. It was that Tina was concerned enough about being asked to discuss it with her father and that her father told her to not do it and tell Gabe that it was done. If Tina had happily changed her beneficiary and didn't raise a flag about it, there would be no concern. The other problematic behaviour was that Gabe went to Tina's workplace before the wedding to change her beneficiary to himself quite insistently but was not allowed to. It would be interesting to know which came first: Gabe's insurance visit to Tina's office or Gabe's request to Tina to change the beneficiary.

Either I had forgotten or was unaware of the matter having been phrased quite like this. But a couple of thoughts:

1. Tina can't testify that she was concerned. (She is deceased.)
2. Tina's father can't testify that she said she was concerned. (It is hearsay.)
3. Tina's father can't testify that she appeared to be concerned. (He is not an expert.)

AND:

If "her father told her to not do it and [to] tell Gabe that it was done," that would be evidence that her father did not like/trust Watson and that would support a claim that everything he had to offer as evidence was based on his bias and therefore not worthy of belief. If the issue was that Tina had other things to do before the wedding and didn't have time to change the insurance, then that's what her father ought to have told her to say, not to lie.

 

[Ayisha]

Either I had forgotten or was unaware of the matter having been phrased quite like this.

I think you may have been on holiday around that time, Bruce. Here is an excerpt from post #864:

Something that has always struck me is that (if Mr Thomas' claim that she discussed Gabe's request with him is true) Tina felt the need to discuss the request with her father, which could signal concern and apprehension. Not abiding by that request speaks volumes as well. If she did not do it but told him she did, as was claimed, this lie does not bode well for the impending marriage either. Coupled with the verbal, mental and physical abuse (the engagement ring saga, the throwing pizza in her face, belittling her) cited by Tina's sister and the report of Gabe's anger over an alleged affair she had, she was not walking into what would be expected to be a happy and pleasant marriage. If everything was going beautifully, Tina may not have thought twice about making Gabe the sole beneficiary - and probably wouldn't needed to have been asked.

Post #878 responding to DandyDon:

...Except in this case a beneficiary change was not made. It may have been requested, but she did not follow through. If Tina had changed the beneficiary to Watson, it would be less of an issue than apparently being asked but not changing it.

K_girl's quote from post # 879:

Very interesting point. For some reason, if she had been asked, she did not do it.

We may never know if she consulted with her father or why she consulted with her father regarding making Gabe her beneficiary, but if she did, and if she was asked to change the beneficiary but did not, that is what is unusual about the circumstance. If she had simply done it, nothing would have seemed awry.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that Mr Thomas was an Insurance Agent? That would make him the obvious person to talk to about insurance related issues. There would be nothing ominious in that. If your father is a mechanic you would go to him for confirmation about mechanical issues wouldn't you? Correct me if I am wrong on this please.