Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[K_girl]

I think much can be said on either side of the coin in terms of questioning the prosecution's moves. It would appear that there were two different prosecution teams involved. The original police prosecution team who spent years investigating the case and felt they had a strong case and the Director of Prosecutions who examined the case for three weeks and decided they did not have a strong enough case for conviction. Why the difference?

Because there are two types of cases - one may be called a "slam dunk" case where you have direct evidence, such as a picture or a witness who says they saw Gabe Watson turn off Tina's air. We do not have such a case. I believe this is why the Director of Prosecutions decided they did not have a strong enough case. The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict. So the circumstantial evidence must be: 1) numerous; and 2) strong. As the Director of Prosecutions stated, it is a complex case. And a complex circumstantial case is costly.

So, my guess is that Gabe Watson took the deal because they did they did have a strong circumstantial case. I don't know what the statistics would be, but I believe there are probably more people who would be willing to convict on a strong circumstantial case, than not.

 

[livinoz]

I think much can be said on either side of the coin in terms of questioning the prosecution's moves. It would appear that there were two different prosecution teams involved. The original police prosecution team who spent years investigating the case and felt they had a strong case and the Director of Prosecutions who examined the case for three weeks and decided they did not have a strong enough case for conviction. Why the difference?

Because there are two types of cases - one may be called a "slam dunk" case where you have direct evidence, such as a picture or a witness who says they saw Gabe Watson turn off Tina's air. We do not have such a case. I believe this is why the Director of Prosecutions decided they did not have a strong enough case. The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict. So the circumstantial evidence must be: 1) numerous; and 2) strong. As the Director of Prosecutions stated, it is a complex case. And a complex circumstantial case is costly.

So, my guess is that Gabe Watson took the deal because they did they did have a strong circumstantial case. I don't know what the statistics would be, but I believe there are probably more people who would be willing to convict on a strong circumstantial case, than not.

Police Prosecutors are not legal practitioners generally and are not subject to the same rigorous professional code as lawyers but are seen as "ministers of justice". The problem arises when they are both investigator and prosecutor as there may be a conflict of interest. The DPP is responsible for overseeing all cases relating to criminal prosecutions within the state, and the decision to continue based on the evidence is usually up to the Director. So there were not "two different teams".

We have not been privy to all the evidence available, so I think if the A-G for Queensland and the Director of the DPP say there was not enough to convict Watson of murder we need to accept that and move on.

 

[K_girl]

So the prosecution says they don't have a strong enough case, more than likely because they do not have direct evidence. So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do. He did not rescue his wife when he could have - is the clear indication I am getting from the manslaughter guilty plea.

So, in order to prove a circumstantial case, you have to begin the process of elimination, which for this case, is where the complexity starts. The elimination of "accident" or "coincidence" out of the equation will reveal "intent."

1) Accident or Intent: Watson had a hold of his wife, she was not moving and he let her go and allowed her to sink.

The Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence of a video tape where you can see Watson is swimming away from Tina. We also have the testimony of eye-witness, Dr. Stutz who said Watson had a hold of Tina, then just let her go, as she was not moving or breathing and stunned that Watson simply just swam away from her. So, you would have a video and eye-witness who says Tina is slowly sinking away from him as he swims away. I believe the video could show she was not "heavy" and sinking faster than him as he claimed. And there would not be a strong current as he claimed. Would you say it was accidental or intentional?

The assertion for accidental panic on Watson's part as for the reason he left Tina, then there should have been no case for him to plea to manslaughter to. If you say this was a dumb-ass move, aren't you trying to say that he essentially panicked and it was an accident? This is why this plea is so confusing, he was convicted of intentionally not rescuing his wife, so you have to say, there is some intent here and it was not an accident.

However, the sentencing on this plea gave the lightest sentence possible for an accidental (involutary) manslaughter, like getting drunk and accidentally killing someone with your car. But Watson has no such excuse, and the prosecution clearly stated he left her to die. So why isn't the punishment more in line with voluntary manslaughter? Such as, he saw an opportunity to let his wife die because he got mad at her and his rage got the better of him? Problem with this is, how do you have an underwater fight of that magnitude?

2) Coincidence or Intent: Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence that Watson went into Tina's workplace and tried to up her insurance before they were married without Tina's knowledge. Is this the reasonable, conincidental action of an innocent man with no itent? Or does it show planning?

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.

BTW - I'm on a dive vacation in Florida!

 

[livinoz]

So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do

How do you conclude that? Do you have a direct line to the DPP? What he did was " manslaughter" and that's why he pleaded guilty to that and not guilty to murder. If a deal was done as the conspiratory theorists seem to think then please, show evidence of that or I can continue to happily dismiss those speculations.

If there is suddenly all this new evidence, why is it only now it is being revealed? And is that also "media talk" yet again? If there is a video that has unexpectedly appeared and it shows Watson swimming away is that proof of murder or negligence as stated?

He was convicted of intentionally not rescuing his wife, so you have to say, there is some intent here and it was not an accident..

No, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter which by definition is unintentional. The length of the sentence may be reviewed though, but we have yet to hear whether that will actually take place.

Alabama prosecutor says he has (what appears to be) new evidence that Watson went into Tina's workplace and tried to up her insurance before they were married without Tina's knowledge. Is this the reasonable, conincidental action of an innocent man with no itent? Or does it show planning?

Again strange that this is only being discussed now after years of investigation. I think basing a criminal case on such evidence could be fraught with problems. And again, is this a direct quote or only "reported" in the media?

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.


I think if the Alabama prosecutors want to go ahead with trying him (again), then that speaks volumes for a legal system that seems totally focused on convicting him (again) no matter what. As Dadvocate said far more succinctly than me:

"Winning a conviction on bombastic proclamations and emotional rabble rousing might get Gabe in the end, but at a significant cost to the rest of us and to our collective image as a fair-minded and rational people..."

I agree. I might add also, based on media reports and some highly subjective reporting.

And I believe that you, K-Girl, have decided long ago that he was guilty of murder, and nothing will ever change your mind. That is your prerogative, as it is mine to believe otherwise.

 

[Dadvocate]

K-Girl

So the prosecution says they don't have a strong enough case, more than likely because they do not have direct evidence. So they don't have evidence of what he did do, but got him to plead guilty to manslaughter for what he did not do. He did not rescue his wife when he could have - is the clear indication I am getting from the manslaughter guilty plea.

It is important to note that it is entirely possible that Gabe Watson took this plea to manslaughter in part knowing that it constitutes a conviction for Tina’s death in both Australian and US courts of law. If what others have said is true (including support provided by Under Exposed’s professional opinion), the Alabama A-G will have a tougher time getting the case off the ground provided that Gabe has been convicted for her death.

If Gabe doesn’t opt for this conviction, or if he opts to go to trial and is acquitted, then he stands a better chance of being tried twice.

Innocent or not, this has to look like a pretty good option for him under the circumstances.
I am still amazed that the US can even assert this authority in the first place, and ultimately that other countries with extradition agreements with the States would accept this overarching scope.

I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesn’t want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!

 

[livinoz]

K-Girl




It is important to note that it is entirely possible that Gabe Watson took this plea to manslaughter in part knowing that it constitutes a conviction for TinaÃÔ death in both Australian and US courts of law. If what others have said is true (including support provided by Under ExposedÃÔ professional opinion), the Alabama A-G will have a tougher time getting the case off the ground provided that Gabe has been convicted for her death.

If Gabe doesnÃÕ opt for this conviction, or if he opts to go to trial and is acquitted, then he stands a better chance of being tried twice.

Innocent or not, this has to look like a pretty good option for him under the circumstances.
I am still amazed that the US can even assert this authority in the first place, and ultimately that other countries with extradition agreements with the States would accept this overarching scope.

I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesnÃÕ want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!

I don't think he'd meet the criteria for an asylum seeker, unless he is in fear of his life. And once his gaol term is completed I believe he'd be deported as he is not an Australian citizen; his conviction would also preclude permanent immigrant status I would think. But our learned friend Under-Exposed may be able to answer that better than I!

 

[Under-Exposed]

K-Girl



I am curious if an extradition would necessarily follow in this case once Gabe is released. He flew to Australia voluntarily to face the charges. Does that mean he might have a fighting chance to say that he doesnÃÕ want to go back to the US once he is free, this as opposed to having been extradited and forced to fly back on that account?

Does anyone have any details on that contingency?

Cheers!

I won't pretend to know the precise details of Watson's visa situation. But I can inform you of the possibilities known to me. There is a scheme called the Criminal Justice Visa scheme Under the Criminal Justice Visa (CJV) scheme under which people who are unlawful non-citizens and liable for removal from Australia are able
to remain temporarily in Australia if their presence is required for the administration of criminal justice. The scheme also provides for the entry into Australia of people who are required to be extradited here to face criminal charges or brought to Australia by a law enforcement agency as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

These visas are usually cancelled once the purpose for which they were originally granted has run its course.

Having been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 12 months, even if his entitlement to remain does not automatically expire at the conclusion of his custodial sentence, he remains liable to be deported under section 200 of the Migration Act.

 

[Dadvocate]

K-Girl

Apparently, the Alabama prosecutor believes he can make a very strong circumstantial case and would not dismiss on the premise that he did not have direct evidence. Circumstantial cases take a lot of money, resources, time and lengthy trials - but they have been won in the past. It depends on the resolve of the prosecutor to go through with it.

Yes, that is right on a couple of accounts. I think you hit the hammer on the head here:

The second type of case is a circumstantial case, more difficult to prove, but if you have enough surrounding circumstantial evidence, you can make the case, but with no guarantee of conviction. No guarantee because you may wind-up with people on the jury who say they must have direct evidence of some kind in order to convict.

This is quite a remarkable statement in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is because you and I have had our disagreements on this topic or if there is an inherent suggestion in this statement that suggests that having these types of people on a jury is somehow undesirable. I would think, as a society, that we would want to have people like this on a jury to make sure that the prosecutors don’t take things for granted.

Winning a circumstantial case relies (more or less) on an emotional appeal to people sitting on a jury. The degree to which that emotion can be adequately used in a court of law determines the risk one has of being convicted falsely. It also relies on the educational level of the people on the jury. Someone well versed in philosophical memes, for example, would be less impressed with a dichotomy painted in “either or” language, a pet tactic of the prosecutor and a few people in this thread for that matter. It goes like this: “Either… or Gabe is guilty” with the proponent adding as many or as few conditionals to the scenario as they please. It looks well and good at the first glance, until that is someone like Under Exposed or others with loads of dive experience come along with the relevant knowledge and shows that the dichotomy isn’t apt at all. And what happens if there is no one like this sitting on the jury, well, any number of emotional derivatives spun neatly by the prosecution take their place. This is dangerous and not worthy of a system of justice that is fair and impartial.

I understand the desire to want to make sure guilty people don’t go free. I think the advancements in DNA evidence is remarkable, especially in the wonderful ability this evidence has for obliterating reasonable doubt. But as Boulder John showed us earlier in his post, a reliance on circumstantial evidence means that innocent people go to jail, sometimes for a very long time. A reliance on circumstantial convictions also sets the stage for other abuses. The Florida cases that Boulder John cited in the same post demonstrate this nicely as well.

I think any circumstantial case ought to have a very, very high standard for evidence, and even more so for a case that asks us to reconsider double jeopardy.

Cheers!

 

[Dadvocate]

Under Exposed

Having been sentenced to imprisonment for more than 12 months, even if his entitlement to remain does not automatically expire at the conclusion of his custodial sentence, he remains liable to be deported under section 200 of the Migration Act.

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question. And by deportation in this case, Gabe would have to be sent back to the USA, right?

This might be a stretch, but I would like to play the thought experiment out if for no other reason than learning something new.

Refugees can often ask not to be sent back to their home countries for fear of persecution or even death. I understand that Gabe is hardly a refugee under conventional wisdom. If, however, he argues that the pending court case that the Alabama A-G wants to go forward with constitutes undue persecution because of double jeopardy considerations, does that that give him room to argue that he should be deported elsewhere?

Cheers!

 

[Under-Exposed]

Under Exposed

[/COLOR]

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question. And by deportation in this case, Gabe would have to be sent back to the USA, right?

This might be a stretch, but I would like to play the thought experiment out if for no other reason than learning something new.

Refugees can often ask not to be sent back to their home countries for fear of persecution or even death. I understand that Gabe is hardly a refugee under conventional wisdom. If, however, he argues that the pending court case that the Alabama A-G wants to go forward with constitutes undue persecution because of double jeopardy considerations, does that that give him room to argue that he should be deported elsewhere?

Cheers!

I am no expert on refugee law, but the grounds for claiming refugee status require persecution on certain specified grounds. Persecution generally is insufficient. I think in practical terms deportation to the US will be the only option...it is unlikely any other country would take him with that criminal record. The persecution argument runs into the difficulty that there if there is in fact a double jeopardy consideration, then that can be dealt with by the US legal system, or there isn't in which case there is no ground to consider him unduly persecuted.