Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Under-Exposed]

Bruce...what exactly is your "knowledge, experience and training"?

 

[ItsBruce]

I still fail to see why some people think that even if all Watson did was fail to effect a rescue, he is guilty of a crime, but do not feel the same way about the DM in the Bahamas who also failed to effect a rescue.

Note, Watson may have had a "rescue" certification. But, heaven knows, that does not mean he was REALLY qualified to effect a rescue. In contrast, the DM in the Bahamas was a DM and while that does not mean she was qualified to effect a rescue, there is a better be of it.

 

[ItsBruce]

Bruce...what exactly is your "knowledge, experience and training"?

I am an attorney and litigator. I spent time as a legal assistant (law clerk) to a United States Magistrate Judge in Federal Court. where I assisted the Magistrate Judge in deciding cases. I have also served as a Judge Pro Tem in the Los Angeles Superior Court. And, I act as a mediator for the Court of Appeal. In those capacities, I have personal experience in how deals are made and decisions are rendered.

As a litigator who actually tries cases, if I were the prosecutor in the Watson case, and if I had nothing better than the evidence that was available to the public (big "ifs"), I would have taken the case against Watson to trial ONLY if I had no other choice, i.e. he would not plead guilty to anything more serious than peeing in the ocean.

And, if I were Watson's defense attorney, I would have recommended against pleading to manslaughter ONLY if I had evidence Watson was with the Judge at the time of Tina's death.

As far as the sentence, I have seen many instances where the judge does not think the defendant is guilty of a crime, but is unwilling to reject a guilty plea (and I have had the good fortune to be able to discuss the matter with the judge.) All the judge can do is impose the minimum sentence.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Under-Exposed]

It certainly does. I don't know whether you've followed my posts on this topic, but you will see that I am broadly in agreement with much of what you say.

 

[ItsBruce]

It certainly does. I don't know whether you've followed my posts on this topic, but you will see that I am broadly in agreement with much of what you say.

I am following your posts rather intently. You have good insight on the matter.

 

[Cacia]

I am an attorney and litigator. I spent time as a legal assistant (law clerk) to a United States Magistrate Judge in Federal Court. where I assisted the Magistrate Judge in deciding cases. I have also served as a Judge Pro Tem in the Los Angeles Superior Court. And, I act as a mediator for the Court of Appeal. In those capacities, I have personal experience in how deals are made and decisions are rendered.

As a litigator who actually tries cases, if I were the prosecutor in the Watson case, and if I had nothing better than the evidence that was available to the public (big "ifs"), I would have taken the case against Watson to trial ONLY if I had no other choice, i.e. he would not plead guilty to anything more serious than peeing in the ocean.

And, if I were Watson's defense attorney, I would have recommended against pleading to manslaughter ONLY if I had evidence Watson was with the Judge at the time of Tina's death.

As far as the sentence, I have seen many instances where the judge does not think the defendant is guilty of a crime, but is unwilling to reject a guilty plea (and I have had the good fortune to be able to discuss the matter with the judge.) All the judge can do is impose the minimum sentence.

I hope that answers your question.

...and a very smart, honest guy.

 

[K_girl]

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?

Agreed that there has been a lot of opinion expressed as to guilt, but to me, a mob mentality goes further than that and takes justice into their own hands. I don't think that will happen here as it never happened in the O.J. case - that had far more publicity than this case will ever have. You cannot stop people from forming opinions, but that doesn't mean they are all going to band together and take justice into their own hands. If you want to define people having the opinion that he could be guilty as a mob mentality, then that is your right. As far as I am concerned the judge made a mistake in saying that to Watson "for which you are not guilty", when he should have said "for which you have not been found guilty." Without a trial to try the facts, I don't think the judge should say that. Without a trial to try the facts, even the judge cannot be "the trier of fact."

You did not read what I said about the "crazy manslaughter conviction." I did NOT talk about this in terms of trying to say Watson was guilty of murder, I talked about it in terms of this plea setting precedence to expose divers to criminal liability. Many others on this board the same point I have - that the manslaughter conviction makes no sense. I don't understand why you are trying to make what I said mean something completely different in a totally different context.

 

[livinoz]

Mob mentality is not just taking things into your own hands; then it is not "justice" but a lynch mob and far from what we perceive as just. It is also a mindset, an assumption that you, as a group, are right and everyone else is wrong no matter what the evidence.

I don't think I've said anywhere that the manslaughter conviction makes no sense. If others have a different opinion, fine, that's their prerogative but I don't have to concur. To me, not having access to the thought processes of Watson's legal team or the Judge or the whole plea bargaining process that occurred means you are groping in the dark. I am aware there are people here who have legal expertise and I won't dispute their knowledge; all the same I am yet to be convinced by their arguments. What I have said, in agreement with you, is that a manslaughter conviction for Watson leaving his dive buddy sets a precedent that also concerns me.

 

[K_girl]

livinoz - I'm glad we could find something to agree upon.

I do think he was guilty of something and indeed he did plea guilty to manslaughter, so I do believe he had culpability in her death. Defining exactly what that culpability was is tricky and not very well defined by the manslaughter conviction.

I understand this manslaughter conviction to mean that:

Watson had the means, the opportunity and mental capacity to rescue Tina without harm to himself and simply chose not to do so.

Means = enough air, equipment working properly. Opportunity = victim is visible and accessible. Mental capacity = capable of correctly evaluating the situation to make a correct decision, even in an emergency. Without harm to self = victim is not panicking and combative, victim has not entered into an area that presents a danger to the buddy.

I think these elements needed to be presented by the prosecution as part of the plea deal and stated during the sentencing to establish the legal precedence of convicting someone for the first time of not fulfilling a dive buddy's obligation to rescue. This afterall, does affect all of us as divers and we have a right to know how our actions could be interpreted in the future. So the thought processes by the prosecution and the judge that brought this case to the manslaughter plea are indeed very important to us and I don't think we should just let it go.

The Australian authorities only said a few things like, he left her, he didn't drop her weights, he didn't share air with her - all with no recognition of his means, opportunity, mental capacity or harm to self. Horrible way to leave this case open for so much future interpretation and potential for abuse, most especially in civil cases, just horrible.

 

[alohagal]

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.

Your statements above hit the nail on the head. Well stated. However your last paragraph...not so much. I think there are many people who do think that if there was enough cause in the first place to charge someone with murder...and then there is NO trial...it just leaves a lot of unanswered questions. I do feel that Gabe Watson's interview with the police was a big part of questioning his truthfullness and that cannot be denied. It is on tape. Batteries in backwards yet computer beeping at him, is just one example. There are so many other examples to go along with that one that make people doubt his truthfullness altogether. HIS WORDS. Not the media or the "mob"