Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Ayisha]

He did plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter though. If pleading guilty to a lesser charge means you can then still be tried and convicted on the more serious charge after serving time for the lesser one would surely mean no sane defence laywer should ever recomend their client take a plea? Under the same logic he could have been charged of murder in QLD on release from prison?

bold added

Agree that if this could be a precedent, then it would be very risky to accept a plea bargain, especially if jurisdiction could be established elsewhere.

It also threatens the sanctity of the plea bargain, which is apparently usually held in high regard.

We have our famous case here of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Bernardo was the Guildwood rapist (where I lived and my older sister and brother went to school with Bernardo), then the Scarborough rapist, where he became even more violent, then he and his wife kidnapped and raped women together, finally murdering two young girls (plus Homolka's sister). One of the early rapes was of Homolka's 15 year old sister, who Karla "gave" to him as a xmas present, drugged, raped with him and accidentally killed with the amount of halothane (stolen from her work) that she smothered her little sister with. The prosecution made what is widely known as the "Deal with the Devil" with Karla in exchange for testimony that put Paul away for life on the rapes and murders. She claimed that she was a victim and was forced to participate and was disgusted by it. Paul took full responsibility for everything except that he claimed that she murdered the two young girls while he was out, but he was not believed. Karla made a plea bargain for 12 years with a chance to be paroled much sooner, but I believe she did serve the full 12 years and was released a couple of years ago. After the police had combed through their house, Paul asked his lawyer to get something from a hidden area in his house. His lawyer waited a long time (a year?) to retrieve it (the lawyer was charged) and then handed over the evidence, which was videos of most of the rapes, including Karla's little sister, and the two young girls who were later murdered. The videos showed Karla was an active "enthusiastic" participant in the rapes and included a murder the crown was previously not aware of - Karla's little sister. Karla's plea bargain stated that she could be charged if she did not tell the whole truth or if new evidence was discovered, which was the "extra" murder and her participation level, but the crown stated that they could not renege on the plea bargain as it threatened the sanctity of the plea bargaining system and the justice system. That was even with the clause in her plea bargain allowing them to go after her again and the evidence of another rape and murder she didn't mention, plus other rapes of Jane Does on video that were previously unmentioned. If that plea bargain couldn't be revisited, I don't know what can!!

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise this rule, under Article 14 (7): No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

bold added

What constitutes "offence"? Is it the entire situation or specific to the conviction?
For example is it:
manslaughter --> can't be tried for manslaughter again or
manslaughter --> can't be tried for any other related crime, such as murder?

 

[myscubastory.com]

OK thanks for that. Yea id say this whole story with Gabe has put a lot of our wives off diving - or ever starting to dive!

 

[DandyDon]

OK thanks for that. Yea id say this whole story with Gabe has put a lot of our wives off diving - or ever starting to dive!

You're kidding?! They don't trust their spouses? Let them dive with each other as buds.

I do know of a couple who narrowly survived a CO hit. They've recovered physically, but she avoids diving - yet he hasn't obtained a CO tank tester. Duh.

 

[ItsBruce]

OK thanks for that. Yea id say this whole story with Gabe has put a lot of our wives off diving - or ever starting to dive!

I hope this is just good natured humor. Wives who are concerned about being killed by their husbands if they go diving together should leave them right away because there are lots of ways one spouse could kill another, none of which involve scuba diving.

Indeed, as we all know, there are lots of ways of dying while diving without any hint of foul play.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yeah the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka case was sickening to the extreme! Horrible to know she is out and got away with so much!

Is Clifford Olsen still around? I must admit those two cases come as close as anything ever would to getting me to support the Death penalty! (sorry for the hijack)

The thing that concerns me on the double jeopardy issue is. A person gets tried or pleas on one charge related to an incident. Next they find themselves charged with a slightly different crime for the same incident based on information found as part of the plea.

I understand the clause in the Homolka situation.. but sure don't understand why they didn't use it when the evidence was found. IMHO that would have been honoring the "deal" but that situation was different from the Watson Case!

Right on the money... any person who is too afraid for their safety to participate in an activity with their partner should get as far away as possible immediatley. I do want to point out that it isn't only females that are abused by partners.. males are as well and have even less support that women...

 

[Ayisha]

Yes, even with the clause in Homolka's plea bargain stating that if she withheld evidence or they found evidence of her involvement in other crimes, they still refused to make good on that when the videotaped evidence of her involvement in more rapes and another murder were found. There was a huge public uproar at the time, but they insisted they could not threaten the "sanctity" of the plea bargaining and justice system and that it could prevent others from accepting plea agreements in the future. So even with a "withholding evidence" or "lying" clause, Homolka remains uncharged with other crimes.

I mentioned this because it alludes to what Bruce and sydney-diver were saying: If a plea agreement is not honoured and a person can face the same or different criminal charges again for the same incident, lawyers would be very reluctant to advise their clients to accept a plea bargain. So sometimes individual criminals are absolved of other crimes in order to preserve the basis of the justice system. The individual vs. the group, I guess.

Yes, Clifford Olsen is still in prison. He applies for parole every 2 years on the "faint hope clause" but he is a dangerous offender and will most likely never be released. He is in his 70's now.

 

[K_girl]

It hurts the prosecution if the jury has questions that the prosecution has not answered.

Unless its the defense who has the answers and refuses to respond.

 

[K_girl]

I look forward to the trial. I want to hear the arguments on double jeopardy given that Watson has already served time. I want to hear the arguments on whether his plea will be admissible against him and if so whether the court will allow evidence as to why he pled to it. I want to hear the argument on the admissibility of evidence on the insurance issue. I want to hear argument on Alabama's jurisdiction. And, I want to hear what the actual admissible evidence is.

I am hoping that Watson's family or some reporter will be good enough to take notes and post them here.

I'll second that. Although I think much of this will be in pre-trial motions which may mean it may not actually get to trial if the defense wins.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Yes, even with the clause in Homolka's plea bargain stating that if she withheld evidence or they found evidence of her involvement in other crimes, they still refused to make good on that when the videotaped evidence of her involvement in more rapes and another murder were found. There was a huge public uproar at the time, but they insisted they could not threaten the "sanctity" of the plea bargaining and justice system and that it could prevent others from accepting plea agreements in the future. So even with a "withholding evidence" or "lying" clause, Homolka remains uncharged with other crimes.

I mentioned this because it alludes to what Bruce and sydney-diver were saying: If a plea agreement is not honoured and a person can face the same or different criminal charges again for the same incident, lawyers would be very reluctant to advise their clients to accept a plea bargain. So sometimes individual criminals are absolved of other crimes in order to preserve the basis of the justice system. The individual vs. the group, I guess.

Yes, Clifford Olsen is still in prison. He applies for parole every 2 years on the "faint hope clause" but he is a dangerous offender and will most likely never be released. He is in his 70's now.

Olsen is a waste of air! I had access to "inside information" that was and should never be released to the public. There are no words to describe how horrific!

Yes the sad reality is that all Judicial Systems are flawed .. have to be because all the people involved are flawed. Best we can hope for is efforts for the largest good for the largest part of the population. Justice is elusive indeed!

Plea Bargaining not a wonderful process but IMHO certainly a valuable and necessary evil:depressed:

 

[boulderjohn]

OK thanks for that. Yea id say this whole story with Gabe has put a lot of our wives off diving - or ever starting to dive!

You're kidding?! They don't trust their spouses? Let them dive with each other as buds.

You are apparently unaware of the role myscubastory has in threads like this. He does not actually read them. He sometimes reads only the first post, perhaps a couple of the last, and then makes a really quick post which may or may not have something remotely to to with the discussion. His purpose is to get his signature line in public view.

I guess it is an effective marketing strategy, but as for me, I will never visit the site because of those tactics.