Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[livinoz]

The Court of Appeal in Brisbane has heard the sentence handed to American Gabe Watson should be increased over the honeymoon manslaughter of his wife.

In June, Supreme Court Justice Peter Lyons sentenced 32-year-old David Gabriel 'Gabe' Watson to four-and-a-half-years in jail, to be suspended after 12 months, after Watson pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Gabe Watson admitted to letting his 26-year-old wife Tina Mae Watson drown while on a scuba diving trip at Yongala wrecks off Townsville in north Queensland in 2003.

The sentence sparked outcry from her family and Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick announced earlier last month he would appeal against it.

The notice filed in June said the judge gave too much weight to mitigating factors, and failed to take into account general deterrence and the gravity of the offence.

Walter Sofronoff QC, for the Queensland Attorney-General, told the court the sentencing Judge Peter Lyons did not take into account the gravity of the offence.

He said the sentence should reflect the gravity of Watson's abandonment of his duty as a diver, as well as to his wife.

The defence has argued the increased sentence is too high and inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision.

Watson sentence should increase, court told - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

There should therefore be a judgment in writing at some stage, probably next week, but the A-G's department is asking for the maximum 7 years with a minimum of 2 1/2 to be served.

 

[ItsBruce]

I am perplexed.

There is another threat in the forums regarding a woman who died while diving in the Bahamas. Based on witness statements, it could be argued that the victim's dive buddy, a DM, abandoned her or at least failed to fulfill her duties as the victim's dive buddy. How long a prison sentence do people on this forum believe the buddy should receive?

Keep in mind that Watson pled guilty and therefore was convicted only of manslaughter based on the theory he failed to fulfill his duties as his wife's dive buddy. I recognize that there are any number of people who, though not witnesses or forensics experts firmly believe that Watson somehow turned off his wife's air long enough for her to die and then turned it back on before letting her sink to the bottom. However, Watson was sentenced based on manslaughter, not on murder.

Therefore, anyone who believes Watson should face a stiffer sentence should advocate a stiff sentence for the DM in the Bahamas.

And, for those who want to see Watson receive a stiffer sentence on the manslaughter charge because you think he murdered his wife, I do not have adequate words to express my disdain for you. Yours is the mentality of a lynch mob. Whether Watson murdered his wife or not, his conviction was for failing to execute his duties as a dive buddy and the sentence should be based on that plus appropriate mitigating factors, not on a crime for which he was not convicted.

Now, personally, I would like to see the appellate court rule that the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the plea and order that Watson be tried on a single count of murder in the first degree, on the theory he killed his wife by intentionally turning off her air. Let the State then try to prove its case. Either it will or it won't. If it does, then a sentence commensurate with a first degree murder charge is appropriate. If it doesn't, he walks.

Let's see what the ADMISSIBLE evidence shows and what a jury charged with making a finding of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT comes up with!

But, to impose a long sentence on a manslaughter charge because people (who are not jurors and who have not heard admissible evidence in a duly constituted trial) think Watson is guilty of murder is contrary to the rule of law and I would hope that no court in a civilized society would do so.

Note: I have no axe to grind here. I really do not care if Watson is convicted of murder or not. In fact, while I do not think it likely, I'd be just fine if a jury, considering the admissible evidence and applying the proper burden of proof convicted him of murder. My only axe is that I want to see that the rule of law is applied. (Further note: following the law and getting justice are not necessarily the same thing. I go with the law, because in making laws, lawmakers decide what s just.)

 

[K_girl]

ItsBruce - actually I agree with you for the most part. I would have preferred to see a fair trial and not this crazy manslaughter conviction for the very reasons you state. Even as rescue divers, we are taught to stay away from divers who are panicking because they can cause the diver attempting rescue to drown by grabbing at regulators and masks. The manslaughter conviction is confusing because the sentencing judge seemed to believe that Tina knocked-off Watson's face mask and knocked his reg out of his mouth. Although it was not articulated, you have to make the assumption that Watson could have rescued her without harm to himself in order to get any kind of conviction, manslaughter or otherwise. So none of it, as far as I am concerned, makes any sense whatsoever.

The appeal of the sentencing in the manslaughter charges are not being brought-up on the premisis that Watson murdered Tina. It is being brought on the basis that it was the lightest sentence possible and that other manslaughter cases have brought higher sentences. Clearly, I think the sentencing judge believed Watson, that he was endangered by his wife's panic and gave the lightest sentence possible. However, if it is true that Watson had plenty of opportunity to rescue his wife with no harm to himself, especially after successfully managing his own "dire" situation with his reg and his mask being knocked off his face, which, by his own admission, he was able to do, then perhaps the manslaughter maximum should be imposed.

It doesn't matter what anyone else says - it only matters how the justice system handles it. I don't see law enforcement going after the DM in the Bahamas. The woman diver was clearly combative, symptoms of a stroke, which had only a month before. I think the people who are trying to say differently do not represent the majority and therefore do not constitute a "mob mentality."

I know there is a lot of hateful speech against Watson, not so much on this board, but I think the majority of us would have preferred to see a trial and let a jury decide. A "mob mentality" moves to appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner - I am not seeing that here. If someone argues a point that they believe shows guilt, that does not make them part of some "mob mentality." I just hope you can distinguish the difference.

 

[livinoz]

K_girl, so you believe that the comments here and elsewhere on the 'net that state Watson is guilty of murder no matter what the court has decided based on the evidence, and the fact the Alabama Governor has said that he will try Watson for murder when he returns to the US, after serving his sentence I might add, plus the fact extensive and negative publicity has placed pressure on the Queensland A-G to appeal the sentence, is not evidence of a mob mentality? I beg to differ. Appeals can also be politically motivated, and are not necessarily based solely on legal argument. I seem to remember that the judge's comments in sentencing Watson stated that he considered:

"the burden [Watson carried] 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 [Watson has] been subject to accusations of matters of which [he is] not guilty." (emphasis added).

Making statements like "crazy manslaughter conviction" also demonstrate bias; no matter what the outcome has been, obviously some people would have only been satisfied with Watson being found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly. But Watson was not convicted of murder and the appeal is to increase his sentence for manslaughter of which he was found guilty. Don't forget that the Court of Appeal can also decrease his sentence, not that I personally believe they will. As for the statement "arguing a point that shows guilt" may I say again, he has been found guilty of manslaughter, so any further arguments and assumptions regarding "murder" are purely specious.

Please, let's move on. The man has been found guilty of manslaughter, he is in jail, and the sentence appeal is before the courts; what more do you want?

 

[Docc]

Please, let's move on. The man has been found guilty of manslaughter, he is in jail, and the sentence appeal is before the courts; what more do you want?

If it had been MY daughter he married and then killed/let drown/failed to attempt to save......... I'd want his sorry ass hung from the closet available tree.

 

[livinoz]

If it had been MY daughter he married and then killed/let drown/failed to attempt to save......... I'd want his sorry ass hung from the closet available tree.

So failure "to attempt to save" means you deserve death?

Great.

That has serious connotations for us all as divers then doesn't it?

 

[Docc]

So failure "to attempt to save" means you deserve death?

Great.

That has serious connotations for us all as divers then doesn't it?

I only gave my humble opinion in regards to if MY family had been involved in the situation. Notice in my post I said MY daughter. I in no way expect the rest of the world to agree with me. Obama getting elected already showed that the United States populace doesn't agree me.

 

[NJ to FLA]

I only gave my humble opinion in regards to if MY family had been involved in the situation. Notice in my post I said MY daughter. I in no way expect the rest of the world to agree with me. Obama getting elected already showed that the United States populace doesn't agree me.

Well I, and my family, (and many people I know) agree with you! On both issues.

 

[burnsfamily382]

there is a significant difference between the two cases quoted however and that is that none of us is yet aware of the comments of the dm in the bahamas case whereas we have all been able to read and re-read Watson's comments and reactions to the events in his case.

Watson has, rightly or wrongly, been tried in the court of public opinion but the only court that really matters is the one that he looked like avoiding. if the public reaction to his plea bargain is that he is forced to stand before 12 jurors i am good with that.

if he walks after due process people will still have their opinions but justice WILL have been served and we will all have to accept the outcome.....whatever that may be.

 

[ItsBruce]

IMHO, the manslaughter plea makes no sense. Assuming Watson did not actively imperil Tina, even if he decided not to effectuate a rescue that he could have performed, I do not see that as rising as high as manslaughter. So, why would the prosecutor offer manslaughter? And, why would Watson plead guilty to it? And, why did the judge accept the plea and impose the sentence he did?

Based on my knowledge, experience and training, my opinion is that the prosecutor suspected Watson of murder, as do many people, but the prosecutor recognized that he could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, he was willing to make a deal that would at least guarantee some jail time. (I've seen it many times.)

Based on my knowledge, experience and training, my opinion is that Watson pled guilty to manslaughter because he wanted to avoid the risk of being found guilty of murder. (I've seen that even more times.)

Based on my knowledge, experience and training, my opinion is that the judge had doubts about criminal liability based on Watson's failure to effect a rescue, but was unwilling to disregard both the prosecutor's desire to be sure of at least some jail time and Watson's desire to avoid a possible murder conviction. As a result, the judge imposed the minimum possible sentence. I suspect that if given the opportunity to do so, the judge would have set even a shorter sentence.

A final thought: I suspect that even if there was uncontrovertable evidence that Tina died of natural causes, wholly unrelated to anything having to do with Watson, there would be many people, including some on SB, that would not let go of their belief that he was guilty of murder.