Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

1. So much for my kid!

2.

Bruce, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Gabe should have remained silent. He wasn't even on the radar until his stories weren't adding up and people then became suspicous.

He had to have been on the radar. It was his wife and she was dead and he was in close proximity to her. Any law enforcement officer who didn't at least have some notion of foul play should find another profession.

Even if Watson wasn't on the radar until his stories weren't adding up, the fact that he opened his mouth got him there. He should have kept his mouth shut, hired a lawyer and let the lawyer do the talking. People may have become suspicious, but they would not have had much material with which to work and most importantly, there would not have been stories that didn't add up.

Keep in mind:

1. No one has ever talked themselves out of trouble. Many have talked themselves into it.
2. Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you. Nothing you say will or even can be used FOR you.
3. If you say anything, you can be misquoted, at which point, you may need to take the witness stand to deny having said it. Then, once you take the witness stand, all's fair. If you say nothing, you can't be misquoted. (BTW: If you take the witness stand to deny having said it, you won't be believed anyway.)
4. If you say anything that turns out to be wrong, you can be held for obstruction of justice even if you are cleared of the primary charge.

 

[Ayisha]

All excellent advice, councillor.

2. He had to have been on the radar. It was his wife and she was dead and he was in close proximity to her. Any law enforcement officer who didn't at least have some notion of foul play should find another profession.

Even if Watson wasn't on the radar until his stories weren't adding up, the fact that he opened his mouth got him there...

One of the investigators in Queensland had stated that they did not begin to suspect Gabe until he came into the police station (without being asked - in the days after Tina's death) after doing research on currents armed with charts of the exact currents for that area and day. He had previously stated that there wasn't much current, but now he was saying that there was a lot of current and her body drifted off the wreck, he couldn't find her, etc. The investigator said that when Gabe showed up at the station with a new story and research to back it, essentially the bells went off about Gabe. The investigation turned into a homicide investigation at that point. Until then, it was considered a terrible accident. That interview with the investigator was in one or more of the articles in the original thread.

 

[ItsBruce]

BTW: If you are ever pulled over by the police while driving, the officer will probably ask you: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The officer hopes you will admit to speeding, etc. by saying "Because I was speeding." All he or she then has to say is "That's right." GAME OVER; YOU LOSE. Better is to say "No" or "No; is something wrong?"

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Good advice Bruce.

I remember reading something that indicated the police thought he had done research but not that he arrived with charts in hand!

His "research" and visit to the Police station could also be explained by:
naive blind trust many people have before they experience the system.
someone feeling guilty for failing to perform in a way they believe they should have (perhaps trying to justify their reaction to themselves as much anything)
someone concerned about being seen as lacking.. trying to regain a positive image (Gabe had certainly displayed a concern about the impression people had of him in the past)
someone who might have watched enough crime shows to figure the husband is always a suspect.
someone guilty of a crime

I am not qualified based on available information to conclude which of these is the closest to the truth or if there is some other reason I have missed. I for one am trying to avoid the pitfalls of Tunnel Vision that Bruce has pointed out!

 

[2 Big 2 Fail]

BTW: If you are ever pulled over by the police while driving, the officer will probably ask you: "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The officer hopes you will admit to speeding, etc. by saying "Because I was speeding." All he or she then has to say is "That's right." GAME OVER; YOU LOSE. Better is to say "No" or "No; is something wrong?"

How silly. It doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not you say you know you were speeding or not. Proof of your knowledge is not required. (Couldn't be required, really, if you think about it.) It's just as likely that claiming you don't know why you were stopped because you can't manage to maintain any awareness of your speed will prompt a citation rather than a warning. And at any rate, the best practice training for traffic stops is to announce the officer's name and agency and the reason for the stop. The game was over when the radar and video got you.

It's no more accurate than the claim that no one ever talked themselves out of trouble. Few guilty people ever can, but I have had a number of people in my custody in bad sorts of trouble - on account of unfortunate circumstances or being well set up by someone else - who would have been a very long time trying to get free (and in one case almost certainly going back to prison) if they hadn't openly told their story and made it possible for me to establish that they weren't guilty. The one gentleman would absolutely have gone back to prison (parole violation) and would very likely have been convicted of a heinous crime and maybe even sentenced to life, because the go-getter appointed attorney who travels around investigating to disprove the lies against his client is so rare as to be a fantasy. We - the police - saved his butt, and only because he made it possible before memories faded and store videos were erased. (His accuser, who had done a pretty good job on him, for reasons we discovered but the guy wasn't even aware of, got the jail time.) You just have to decide carefully.

But it's true that the guilty generally make prosecution easy when they talk and that the more elaborate the scheme to appear innocent, the more likely it is to get caught. Happily, even the smartest tend to be stupid that way and will themselves provide enough leads and enough provable lies to swing a case that could have gone either way over to a probable conviction. It's good advice to the guilty (assuming you wish to help the guilty) to just shrug, think happy thoughts, and say nothing, but not many of them will follow it.

 

[Tortuga68]

I have had a number of people in my custody in bad sorts of trouble - on account of unfortunate circumstances or being well set up by someone else - who would have been a very long time trying to get free (and in one case almost certainly going back to prison) if they hadn't openly told their story and made it possible for me to establish that they weren't guilty

Are you a judge, juror or a police officer?

 

[ItsBruce]

I agree that the guilty do tend to want to talk their way out of trouble and only incriminate themselves. And, that is just find.

There are instances in which one can provide enough information to exculpate themselves. In my experience, that is rare. And, when they can do so, they can do so with the advice and assistance of counsel, through counsel as effectively as they could do it themselves. They can do so in a couple of hours as easily as they could do it right now.

Far more often, a suspect, will inadvertently say something, that will make matters worse. For example, an innocent person might subconsciously "puff" in order to prove his or her innocence and that "puff" might all it takes to persuade the authorities he or she lied and did so because he or she was guilty. Likewise, an innocent person might offer an alibi, though truthful, that could not be corroborated (e.g. I was doing a solo beach dive after lobsters) and that could focus suspicion on him or her. And, in this case, if there is a witness who contradicts them, even if falsely, there is now an inconsistency that will incriminate them.

Similarly, I've heard and seen many instances in which because someone misheard what was actually said, they were either arrested or prosecuted or both. I'm reminded of the fellow, who called the telephone company (by dialing "0" for operator) to report his phone was dead. The operator heard it as "my son is dead;" and the police arrived very shortly afterward. When they found no body ...

As far as traffic stops, if I answer the "do you know why I pulled you over" question with "because I was speeding," that is an admission. It is admissible against me in a traffic trial. All of my protestations to the contrary will do me no good. Neither will an officer's inability to establish the radar unit was working properly or was aimed at the right car. However, without the confession, if the officer does not prove speeding, the case is over.

I do not advocate gaming the system. The federal and state constitutions and any number of other laws give people certain rights and protections. If it were not fundamental to our system of justice to have them available, they would not be there. Doing what the law provides is not gaming the system. (Incidentally, I among the first to question the continued viability of the right against self-incrimination.)

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I still think a lot of people think they have to answer questions the police ask them!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Wow I am super tired and I think I better log of before I get myself into trouble....

 

[2 Big 2 Fail]

Are you a judge, juror or a police officer?

That in reference to:

Originally Posted by 2 Big 2 Fail
I have had a number of people in my custody in bad sorts of trouble - on account of unfortunate circumstances or being well set up by someone else - who would have been a very long time trying to get free (and in one case almost certainly going back to prison) if they hadn't openly told their story and made it possible for me to establish that they weren't guilty

Rhetorical question, perhaps, since neither judges nor jurors have custody of anyone. If you mean to question whether an officer properly is establishing if a person is factually guilty of a crime, it is not only proper but obligatory to, whenever possible, make that determination. It's not a matter of the "innocent until proven guilty" that operates at trial and obliges the jury to not convict unless guilt is proven. When an officer arrests or obtains a warrant, he swears to his belief that the person committed the offense. While the standard of proof for forming that belief is a lesser standard than the undefined "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof at trial, it is not conditional, nor is it a matter of "might have."

It can happen that after having formed that belief and arresting the person, you can discover new information that dispels that belief. While an officer does not have the authority in law to himself dismiss a charge and turn someone out of jail, there are several mechanisms that you can use to relieve them of the worse of it, which is the loss of liberty. And of course, you can insure that there is no prosecution.

There's nothing in the law or even in an officer's presumed duty to do those things, and it would be perfectly legal to allow the person to labor under the charges for months, etc., you're really bound to make it as right as you can, when you come to belief in someone's factual innocence.

I know, perhaps better than most, that the decision to explain one's innocence should not be made lightly and that there are circumstances and jurisdictions where I would wait it out in jail and depend on the pretrial system, but the statement that it's always best to say nothing is simply incorrect.