Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ScubaSteve]

So did I read that correctly that Gabe will only have to serve 12 months less 23 days in jail?

 

[Under-Exposed]

I have been doing some more background reading, and it never ceases to amaze me how inaccurate media reporting of legal proceedings is. For example, an MNBC report on the coronial inquest said: "The Coroner concluded that during the dive, Watson held his 26-year-old wife in a bear hug while he cut off her air supply until she was dead or nearly dead, then turned the air back on and let her sink to the bottom while he surfaced and called for help." But if you reads the Coroner's report, it contains no such finding. In fact, it contains no finding whatever as to the mechanism of her drowning, other that to record that he is satisfied that is sufficient evidence to satisfy him that a properly instructed jury "could" (ie low threshold) find Watson guilty of murder. That's it.

 

[Dadvocate]

Well, the affect that the media has played in this case has been a hot topic indeed. Thanks for pinpointing one glaring example of where this lack of integrity is. One has to wonder how much further this bias goes in this case.

Cheers!

 

[livinoz]

I have been doing some more background reading, and it never ceases to amaze me how inaccurate media reporting of legal proceedings is. For example, an MNBC report on the coronial inquest said: "The Coroner concluded that during the dive, Watson held his 26-year-old wife in a bear hug while he cut off her air supply until she was dead or nearly dead, then turned the air back on and let her sink to the bottom while he surfaced and called for help." But if you reads the Coroner's report, it contains no such finding. In fact, it contains no finding whatever as to the mechanism of her drowning, other that to record that he is satisfied that is sufficient evidence to satisfy him that a properly instructed jury "could" (ie low threshold) find Watson guilty of murder. That's it.

Yes, in fact the Judge made reference to the impact of the media in his sentencing remarks:

"....you have carried the burden of these events for a substantial period. That is a matter to which I am prepared to give weight. I consider that that burden has been increased by the very extensive publicity which these events have occasioned. That is demonstrated, to some extent, by the obvious presence of a significant number of representatives of the media in the court today. I also accept that in that period you have been subject to accusations of matters of which you are not guilty. "

 

[Dadvocate]

Bowlofpetunias

The way I see it is you do have a say over an insta buddy ... you can decline to be their buddy.

By agreeing to be their buddy, you establish a relationship that by the certifying agencies definition means you will aid them if necessary.

It is hard to say that on the one hand we are a social sport, and thus we are meant to be supportive of new members to our fold and then turn around and say that one has the right to decline to dive with someone based on their low level of experience. How does one reconcile the inclusiveness of diving with the burdensome worry that liability is always looming on each dive with a newbie? This is a scary way to look at our sport, and like it or not attaching this kind of liability to these otherwise social situations is a dangerous precedence in my opinion.

And this isn’t really the whole scope of the issue as I see it. If you take a passionate diver who has become avid enough to want to improve her skills, she might look to the rescue diver course as a way to go about doing that. This is a logical course for someone to consider when time and experience warrant such an improvement in skills. This is something our sport benefits from in the long run.

If liability in this “insta-buddy” scenario can be codified in terms of the training each diver brings to each diving situation, this buddy relationship becomes more of an issue the more training someone has. So if I, as new rescue diver, am “buddied up” with a novice OW diver, the liability is more mine than his in the buddy relationship because he is not as “qualified” as I am. And what if my insta-buddy is also a rescue diver but has loads more experience than I do, does the qualification mean the same thing in the end? As Under Exposed said earlier, clouding the issue between obligation and duty only makes things worse for a person who is driven by a moral instinct to help but then is held responsible in a way that should only be considered for professionals.

That kind of scenario sends a resounding message in my opinion that people who tend to dive with strangers and buddy up at the shop are better off in a legal sense not getting “too certified” in this sport. This would be an unfortunate consequence if a court decision like this had that effect.

Livinoz

Yes, in fact the Judge made reference to the impact of the media in his sentencing remarks:

"....you have carried the burden of these events for a substantial period. That is a matter to which I am prepared to give weight. I consider that that burden has been increased by the very extensive publicity which these events have occasioned. That is demonstrated, to some extent, by the obvious presence of a significant number of representatives of the media in the court today. I also accept that in that period you have been subject to accusations of matters of which you are not guilty. "

Indeed. In looking at that statement again, the judge seems to be somewhat critical of the dog and pony show that has taken place in the media, and he seems to feel that Gabe's choosing to come to Australia despite this smear campaign and despite not having any guarantees from the authorities that his word would be believed are mitigating circumstances in his sentencing, lenient by many people’s standards, harsh by others.

What is it that the prosecutors/ judge heard in those tapes that others didn’t?

What took place when Gabe returned that made this case seem less “slam dunk” than the media portrayed everything to be?

There is so much we still don’t know, including the scope of what this decision means for diving in Australia.

Cheers!

 

[Under-Exposed]

Bowlofpetunias



It is hard to say that on the one hand we are a social sport, and thus we are meant to be supportive of new members to our fold and then turn around and say that one has the right to decline to dive with someone based on their low level of experience. How does one reconcile the inclusiveness of diving with the burdensome worry that liability is always looming on each dive with a newbie? This is a scary way to look at our sport, and like it or not attaching this kind of liability to these otherwise social situations is a dangerous precedence in my opinion.

And this isnÃÕ really the whole scope of the issue as I see it. If you take a passionate diver who has become avid enough to want to improve her skills, she might look to the rescue diver course as a way to go about doing that. This is a logical course for someone to consider when time and experience warrant such an improvement in skills. This is something our sport benefits from in the long run.

If liability in this ÅÊnsta-buddy scenario can be codified in terms of the training each diver brings to each diving situation, this buddy relationship becomes more of an issue the more training someone has. So if I, as new rescue diver, am ÅÃuddied up with a novice OW diver, the liability is more mine than his in the buddy relationship because he is not as ÅÒualified as I am. And what if my insta-buddy is also a rescue diver but has loads more experience than I do, does the qualification mean the same thing in the end? As Under Exposed said earlier, clouding the issue between obligation and duty only makes things worse for a person who is driven by a moral instinct to help but then is held responsible in a way that should only be considered for professionals.

That kind of scenario sends a resounding message in my opinion that people who tend to dive with strangers and buddy up at the shop are better off in a legal sense not getting ÅÕoo certified in this sport. This would be an unfortunate consequence if a court decision like this had that effect.

Livinoz



[/SIZE]

Cheers!

Excellently well-made points (if I may respectfully say so) and very good reasons why there should not be a legal duty to rescue simply because you are certified to do so.

 

[Dadvocate]

This makes sense on so many levels. Where it is easy to make clear lines of distinction in terms of how we look at liability (moral vs duty-bound) in discussions on SB or in legal thought experiments, the line is cloudy when dangerous situations come up in reality. It isn’t as though a person who must decide to try a rescue has the time or the inclination to weigh all of these factors in before taking some course of action to save a life.

It is entirely possible that she might well vacillate just a bit or completely stall if she thinks that her actions could come to her being held liable in some sense later on. This consideration would become just another added stress to what would already be a scary situation. I, for one, already feel unsure of my skills. I passed the PADI rescue course back in August 2008. I reviewed some skills in December in Thailand but haven’t really looked back since then (too much work and no diving).

I’ll get back to the business of recalling my skills training before we do the live-aboard trip in Cairns in July, but I know that I am nowhere near the ideal rescue diver that so many other people are, not by a long shot. Would that reality check, coupled with the notion that any mistake I make, panic I undergo, or indecisiveness I display be enough to make me fear a rescue attempt that I might otherwise try?

I hope not, and I hope never to have to find out. I’d hate to think that I would fail someone in need because I feared consequences later on, that as opposed to risking danger for myself.

Cheers!

 

[alohagal]

Story posted today. STRICTLY FYI
Dive killer Gabe Watson's empty look haunts witness
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,25626922-3102,00.html?from=public_rss

 

[alohagal]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,25622849-3102,00.html?from=public_rss
By Melanie Christiansen
June 12, 2009 12:00am
QUEENSLAND prosecutors negotiated a manslaughter plea for American honeymooner Gabe Watson to avoid the cost of pursuing a murder trial, the victim's father has claimed.
Watson will spend less than a year in jail, after last week pleading guilty to the manslaughter of his wife of 11 days, Tina, during a honeymoon diving trip on the Great Barrier Reef in 2003.
After a public outcry over the sentence, the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan, SC, said his office did not pursue a murder charge against Watson because it was a "complex circumstantial" case with "no reasonable prospect" of proving the charge.
Pictures: Dive-trip death horror

Gabe Watson's police interview
But preparing to leave Brisbane yesterday, Tina's bitterly disappointed father Tommy Thomas said the decision to accept a plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter was driven by financial considerations.
Editorial view
"That was based on . . . making a good business budget decision," Mr Watson said. "It was . . . about money."
Mr Thomas said he only learned prosecutor Brendan Campbell planned to accept a manslaughter plea from Watson two days before his court appearance.
But he said that at that same meeting, Mr Campbell had admitted he had provided information to Watson's defence about how any manslaughter plea might be structured, even before Watson's voluntary return to Australia to face court.
"They can say they didn't make a deal. They may not have firmed it up, accepted it, but it was discussed," he said.
Barrister and former judge Angelo Vasta yesterday backed the family's concerns.
"From what I can gather, there was a fair amount of money associated with the prosecution of this matter and it may well be that that was one of the considerations," he said.
Mr Vasta said the lack of transparency in the prosecution's handling of the case was also a concern.
He said Watson's sentencing took into account his voluntary return to Australia, so the court should have been told if his appearance in court was the result of a deal to drop the murder charge.
The Thomas family is awaiting a decision from Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick on a possible appeal against the sentence.
Mr Moynihan yesterday declined to comment further on the case.

 

[bsee65]

What does Australia care? They're going to feed him for 11 months and then kick him out of the country for good. Why should they pay to fix what will apparently be the US's problem? Even if they appeal the sentence, what is the most severe thing they can do to him at this point? Do they throw out the plea, or give him the max sentence for what he pled to?

Also, I was dismayed when the judge referred to Tina's "deregulator" in the sentencing comments. It would seem that maybe he knows nothing of diving and is therefore in under-qualified to judge the likelihood of Watson's panic defense.