Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Jim Lapenta]

I just know that if I ever want to get rid of somebody and get a slap on the wrist then there's one place I know to head for.

And yes in cases like this and even less serious ones at least here in Pennsylvania it is common to consult the victim or victim's family before making any deals. It is also common to have victims and their families testify as to the effect the criminals actions have had on them. THis many times will result in harsher sentences. Scum bags like the husband don't just hurt the victim. And true justice makes them pay for ALL the harm they have done.

I just hope he becomes some big cons "girlfriend" in the joint and gets what's coming to him in other ways. He sounds stupid enough that he will not have an easy time in there God willing.

 

[Missdirected]

... ends those incessant appeals for justice from people trying to prove their system failed and they are innocent.

A lil correction, if ya don't mind You automatically get to appeal if you are sentenced to death here. Actually, it costs us thousands upon thousands more to sentence someone to death than it does to put them away for life. Why? Legal fees/legal process they are entitled to.

 

[Valwood1]

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. .

Actually, that process is plea bargaining, even if Australia doesn't use that term, and it isn't much, if any, different from the process in the US. In the Watson case, one supposes that the prosecution looked at the "facts", found them sufficiently confused and uncertain to insure a guilty verdict of murder at a trial, and decided that "half a loaf is better than none". That's okay.

For me, the only issue is the prosecutor's careless and unnecessary reasoning for accepting the plea bargained lesser charge.

 

[jeepbrew]

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??

So far he has... I talked to his brother yesterday (the family lives near me) and he did get to keep the $$ (but that may change after his plea). One thing all of the media fails to mention is that he didn't need the $45k life insurance money (so I am not sure how that is a motive???). He and his family are loaded. It says he is a bubble wrap salesman and that may not sound lucrative, but his family owns a cardboard box stamping plant and they are worth millions. 45 thousand bucks is pocket change to them. Anyway, I just thought I would answer Brian's question...

 

[djanni]

What a mess this all is. I'd already hung him but now I'm starting to feel empathy. Think I'll focus on other threads.

 

[Cacia]

You're worried JB is going to off you :huh: j/k

I don't do cruise ships either

I am incredulous that so many people would convict a guy with so little evidence (there is the argument for solo 0k with a partner)

Thinking he probably did it, even 75% would not be enough for me.

people always discuss insurance right before they marry.....

these group charters and the group judgement is very dangerous

 

[K_girl]

So far he has... I talked to his brother yesterday (the family lives near me) and he did get to keep the $$ (but that may change after his plea). One thing all of the media fails to mention is that he didn't need the $45k life insurance money (so I am not sure how that is a motive???). He and his family are loaded. It says he is a bubble wrap salesman and that may not sound lucrative, but his family owns a cardboard box stamping plant and they are worth millions. 45 thousand bucks is pocket change to them. Anyway, I just thought I would answer Brian's question...

If this is true - why did Watson try so hard to collect the insurance by suing the insurance company? He actually gave a deposition in the case. The final amount he was trying to get was $75K to include his own mental anguish.

I'm not trying to say that this is evidence of guilt. Just stating the fact that he did try to collect by suing, so he obviously wanted the money badly enough for some reason.

He dropped the law suit because he did not want to incriminate himself. His lawyer also claimed at the inquest that because Watson did not receive any money, there was no motive. Now you are saying that he did receive money? Really? From whom? All I can say is - that is news to probably just about everyone.

Source: Husband claimed insurance

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23730851-401,00.html

 

[jeepbrew]

If this is true - why did Watson try so hard to collect the insurance by suing the insurance company? He actually gave a deposition in the case. You know he dropped the law suit because he did not want to incriminate himself. The final amount he was trying to get was $75K to include his own mental anguish.

I'm not trying to say that this is evidence of guilt. Just stating the fact that he did try to collect by suing, so he obviously wanted the money badly enough for some reason.

Source: Husband claimed insurance

Beats me. I guess he figured they had the insurance policy for a reason, so why not collect.

I am not friends with David nor do I know him by any means other than aquaintance. I do know a few of the other family members and they are all stand-up people. As to why he would want the money so badly... I know he has had a habit of making dumb $$ decisions in the past but daddy has always been there to bail him out. Either way, what's done is done (and its tragic to say the least) and the guy is going to jail. His lawyer expects him to be out in a year or so FWIW (according to his father).

And like someone else mentioned... where is the evidence that he did anything wrong (other than being a dumba$$)?

 

[K_girl]

As for the issue of "consulting" with the family. I did not mean to imply that the prosecution should have asked the family's permission to make a deal. After seeing interviews with Tina's father, he said something to the effect of - when we learned of the proceeding today, we had a bad feeling that something was up. I think it would have been at least good courtesy for the prosecution to speak to the family and let them know their reasons for the plea and try to explain it in a way to help them accept it. Instead, the family learned about the plea the same way the rest of the world did.

Because of victim family outcries over the last decade, prosecutors in the U.S. have become more sensitive to this and it has become common practice to help the victim's family through a difficult process of being terribly disappointed. Obviously, Tina's family feels like they have been slapped in the face and not received justice. I think this could have been avoided and it is not good publicity for Australia. Hopefully, Australian prosecutors can learn from this and avoid this in the future. It is really to their benefit to give such consideration.

 

[alohagal]

Beats me. I guess he figured they had the insurance policy for a reason, so why not collect.

I am not friends with David nor do I know him by any means other than aquaintance. I do know a few of the other family members and they are all stand-up people. As to why he would want the money so badly... I know he has had a habit of making dumb $$ decisions in the past but daddy has always been there to bail him out. Either way, what's done is done (and its tragic to say the least) and the guy is going to jail. His lawyer expects him to be out in a year or so FWIW (according to his father).

And like someone else mentioned... where is the evidence that he did anything wrong (other than being a dumba$$)?

Well...for me the evidence that he did something wrong is that he is going to prison for at least a year. Seems a pretty harsh sentence for being a "dumba$$." I would think that a grieving husband losing his wife on their honeymoon would be punishment enough. How many people on Scubaboard, myself included, could be in prison right now for doing something "dumba$$" while scuba diving. Of course no one has died under my watch...but at what point are we now culpable? Now we have created a slippery slope of defining "dumba$$" I am sure the prosecution had no intent of setting precedent on this case and convicting future divers of unintended negligence under water. More likely it was the best they could do. I certainly would like to know more details of what went into their decision.

I think many of us are disappointed that the "evidence" that was good enough to indict him for murder, was not good enough to take to trial. I know many of us wanted to hear/see/examine the "evidence" in this case via trial. Now that will never happen, unless there is a civil trial.

I think at the very least the family should have been told not to bother to fly all the way to Australia since a "plea deal" or whatever you want to call it, was in the making.