Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ShakaZulu]

Maybe he wanted to get away from his current wife, since the previous trick didn't work too well, pleading guilty will do the job

 

[livinoz]

K_girl, I don't disagree with your intentions; as I've stated before everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion, based on incomplete information. None of us can know what happened to make Watson decide to plead guilty to manslaughter, none of us can know what evidence was available to the prosecution or the Judge when he sentenced Watson, as we aren't privy to any of that. All I'm saying is that people are surmising about this and making up their minds without recourse to the facts of the case. It's okay to have an opinion, but let's not presume that the entire legal system has failed because we don't agree with the decision made.

And unlike alohagal, I have to agree with Its Bruce there. I think that even if Watson had been sent to trial, found guilty and jailed for say 10 years, some people will still have found that unacceptable. Let me ask a question; if he was sent to trial and found not guilty, would that have satisfied everyone? I think not. If you look at some of the comments even on here, people have already long ago decided on his guilt based on nothing more than media reports. That's what I have a problem with and always will have. For myself personally, I'll leave it up to the Judicial system to decide the best course of action, imperfect as it can be, but without it all we would have is anarchy.

I agree that Watson made conflicting statements at times, but the Judge in his sentencing remarks stated that though there were:

inconsistencies and some attempts to put blame on other people....[t]here does not seem to be any persistence in your attempt to put blame on anyone else and I accept that the responsibility for this loss is yours alone. The inconsistencies and those attempts, to me, while they do not speak particularly well of you, should be looked at in the circumstances in which they occurred. That is, they occurred
shortly after the dive and at a time when you, no doubt, were deeply upset by the events which have occurred.

The Judge has given him benefit of the doubt in this situation because of Watson's distress. Can we not do the same?

As I've said, Watson is guilty of manslaughter, he's in jail and an appeal is before the courts to increase the length of his sentence; for myself, I'll accept the court's decision.

 

[alohagal]

K_girl, I don't disagree with your intentions; as I've stated before everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion, based on incomplete information. None of us can know what happened to make Watson decide to plead guilty to manslaughter, none of us can know what evidence was available to the prosecution or the Judge when he sentenced Watson, as we aren't privy to any of that. All I'm saying is that people are surmising about this and making up their minds without recourse to the facts of the case. It's okay to have an opinion, but let's not presume that the entire legal system has failed because we don't agree with the decision made.

And unlike alohagal, I have to agree with Its Bruce there. I think that even if Watson had been sent to trial, found guilty and jailed for say 10 years, some people will still have found that unacceptable. Let me ask a question; if he was sent to trial and found not guilty, would that have satisfied everyone? I think not. If you look at some of the comments even on here, people have already long ago decided on his guilt based on nothing more than media reports. That's what I have a problem with and always will have. For myself personally, I'll leave it up to the Judicial system to decide the best course of action, imperfect as it can be, but without it all we would have is anarchy.

I agree that Watson made conflicting statements at times, but the Judge in his sentencing remarks stated that though there were:

inconsistencies and some attempts to put blame on other people....[t]here does not seem to be any persistence in your attempt to put blame on anyone else and I accept that the responsibility for this loss is yours alone. The inconsistencies and those attempts, to me, while they do not speak particularly well of you, should be looked at in the circumstances in which they occurred. That is, they occurred
shortly after the dive and at a time when you, no doubt, were deeply upset by the events which have occurred.

The Judge has given him benefit of the doubt in this situation because of Watson's distress. Can we not do the same?

As I've said, Watson is guilty of manslaughter, he's in jail and an appeal is before the courts to increase the length of his sentence; for myself, I'll accept the court's decision.

I should have qualified my statement, certainly there are always going to be some people who think he is guilty for whatever reason. I don't think there is a MOB here on this thread that thinks so. When I read the words MOB and MEDIA and EVERYONE and MOST, I find it to be a little much sometimes.

I think all of us agree that we would rather see the wheels of justice turn in the direction of following law. So, I think we can dispense with the MOB and MEDIA rhetoric here.

I don't think the media would have given one sniff to this story if it wasn't for the fact that the investigators were going after an indictment and got one.

But, none of that explains the possible precedent being set with this case and conviction and now argued on this thread that RESCUE divers or mere diving buddies may now be held liable due to this case. I think most reasonable people on this thread think it is very unreasonalbe for Gabe Watson to spend one minute in prison based on the judges statements. I personally don't think he should.

 

[livinoz]

I should have qualified my statement, certainly there are always going to be some people who think he is guilty for whatever reason. I don't think there is a MOB here on this thread that thinks so. When I read the words MOB and MEDIA and EVERYONE and MOST, I find it to be a little much sometimes.

I think all of us agree that we would rather see the wheels of justice turn in the direction of following law. So, I think we can dispense with the MOB and MEDIA rhetoric here.

I don't think the media would have given one sniff to this story if it wasn't for the fact that the investigators were going after an indictment and got one.

But, none of that explains the precedent being set and argued on this thread that RESCUE divers or mere diving buddies may now be held liable due to this case. I think most reasonable people on this thread think it is very unreasonalbe for Gabe Watson to spend one minute in prison based on the judges statements. I personally don't think he should.

I certainly was not just referring to this forum; this type of "rhetoric" as you call it is all over the internet, on various sites set up by people who have an axe to grind. He was tried and convicted long before he returned to Australia. And by the way I wasn't the first person to use the word "mob".

And as I have said many times, I totally agree that this judgment has serious connotations for us all as divers, I have never disputed that. But when I read all the suppositions I think we need to step back and look at the facts, not the "media" hype. And the truth is we don't have any "evidence" other than the (incomplete) Coroner's report and the Judge's sentencing remarks.

As I said, I'll await the appeal decision and I for one am happy to leave it with the courts. I have nothing further to add until that day.

 

[K_girl]

K_girl, I don't disagree with your intentions; as I've stated before everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion, based on incomplete information. None of us can know what happened to make Watson decide to plead guilty to manslaughter, none of us can know what evidence was available to the prosecution or the Judge when he sentenced Watson, as we aren't privy to any of that. All I'm saying is that people are surmising about this and making up their minds without recourse to the facts of the case. It's okay to have an opinion, but let's not presume that the entire legal system has failed because we don't agree with the decision made.

I still strongly believe that the prosecution and the judge in this case owe divers who could potentially be prosecuted in the future under the precedence in this case, exactly what about this case constitutes the obligation of a dive buddy to rescue. The judge and prosecution in this case have left a huge gaping hole and the Australian legal system has failed to give a proper opinion in either the prosecution's acceptance of the plea nor the judge's sentencing remarks to provide future guidance. I'm saying those elements should have included an examination of means, opportunity, mental capacity and potential harm to self. The way this case is left now leaves too much open for interpretation when trying to apply this case to any future case. If you disagree that this was a failure and believe the legal system worked properly, then why have you expressed concerned with the outcome? I don't understand your logic. Exactly what is your concern and how do you think your concern should be addressed? And don't you think your concern is shared by other divers and therefore should be addressed?

And unlike alohagal, I have to agree with Its Bruce there. I think that even if Watson had been sent to trial, found guilty and jailed for say 10 years, some people will still have found that unacceptable. Let me ask a question; if he was sent to trial and found not guilty, would that have satisfied everyone? I think not. If you look at some of the comments even on here, people have already long ago decided on his guilt based on nothing more than media reports. That's what I have a problem with and always will have. For myself personally, I'll leave it up to the Judicial system to decide the best course of action, imperfect as it can be, but without it all we would have is anarchy.

If there had been a trial and Watson was found not guilty, I would have been satisfied that justice had been served. Even though I discussed what elements I thought could potentially lead to a guilty verdict, I would never advocate for anarchy. I would never advocate that anyone take the law into their own hands either as an individual or as a group. Any actions taken in the future should all be done within the purview of the law. I would never advocate for anything else.

I agree with Alohagal in that based on the judge's statements, it really sounded like Watson was completely innocent in his eyes and I don't understand why he accepted any kind of guilty plea. I think the judge must have been worried about what kind of precendent they are setting here. He really should not have accepted the plea and I think some of his statements expresses his reluctance. Getting Watson to serve some kind of time took priority over the potential future consequences. Maybe the prosecution thought some time was better than no time, but I don't think they thought this through.

 

[K_girl]

And as I have said many times, I totally agree that this judgment has serious connotations for us all as divers, I have never disputed that. But when I read all the suppositions I think we need to step back and look at the facts, not the "media" hype. And the truth is we don't have any "evidence" other than the (incomplete) Coroner's report and the Judge's sentencing remarks.

A judge's sentencing remarks is not "evidence" in a case. Since there was no trial, there were no facts argued and presented. There was no "trier of fact" either by judge or jury. There was no advocate for the victim to argue that side of the case. There were no witnesses that testified in front of this judge. There was no physical evidence presented at a trial. Plea deals are usually quick, short and to the point. The judge is not going to take the time to pour over months of transcripts of the Coroner's Inquest to determine Watson's guilt or innocence. The judge will rely on what the prosecution decides to include in their plea agreement. It makes no sense that the plea agreement would argue elements of guilt for a murder case when that is not its purpose. Basically, the judge is going to do what the prosecution wants. If they don't want to go to trial, they aren't going to go to trial.

The evidence would be more than just the Coroner's Report, it would have been Watson's statements and the complete transcript of the Coroner's Inquest which included the testimony of more than 65 prosecution witnesses over a period of months. All we have access to is the Coroner's Report which is a relatively very short conclusion of the Coroner.

 

[livinoz]

A judge's sentencing remarks is not "evidence" in a case. Since there was no trial, there were no facts argued and presented. There was no "trier of fact" either by judge or jury. There was no advocate for the victim to argue that side of the case. There were no witnesses that testified in front of this judge. There was no physical evidence presented at a trial. Plea deals are usually quick, short and to the point. The judge is not going to take the time to pour over months of transcripts of the Coroner's Inquest to determine Watson's guilt or innocence. The judge will rely on what the prosecution decides to include in their plea agreement. It makes no sense that the plea agreement would argue elements of guilt for a murder case when that is not its purpose. Basically, the judge is going to do what the prosecution wants. If they don't want to go to trial, they aren't going to go to trial.

The evidence would be more than just the Coroner's Report, it would have been Watson's statements and the complete transcript of the Coroner's Inquest which included the testimony of more than 65 prosecution witnesses over a period of months. All we have access to is the Coroner's Report which is a relatively very short conclusion of the Coroner.

That's why I used "evidence" in quotation marks; I know it is not evidence per se. What I am saying is that we are not privy to everything so we are making assumptions based on not very much in my opinion. I don't want to say anymore at present. I need a break from this.

 

[K_girl]

Livinoz - I understand what you are saying, but I think you also made some assumptions that the judge made a thorough review of all the existing evidence in the case and I don't believe that happened. The plea agreement was struck without any legal argument being presented on behalf of the victim for the murder charge that the Coroner had determined. The prosecutors and law enforcement involved in presenting the evidence at the Coroner's Inquest for a murder charge had no say in this plea agreement. So I don't think you can make the argument that the judge knew everything there was to know about the case.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Livinoz - I understand what you are saying, but I think you also made some assumptions that the judge made a thorough review of all the existing evidence in the case and I don't believe that happened. The plea agreement was struck without any legal argument being presented on behalf of the victim for the murder charge that the Coroner had determined. The prosecutors and law enforcement involved in presenting the evidence at the Coroner's Inquest for a murder charge had no say in this plea agreement. So I don't think you can make the argument that the judge knew everything there was to know about the case.

Interesting. On what do you base this conclusion? UnderExposed is this the process? Would the Judge spend time reviewing information before rendering his decision on the sentence? I don't know the procedures here .... this would be very interesting to know..

 

[livinoz]

Livinoz - I understand what you are saying, but I think you also made some assumptions that the judge made a thorough review of all the existing evidence in the case and I don't believe that happened. The plea agreement was struck without any legal argument being presented on behalf of the victim for the murder charge that the Coroner had determined. The prosecutors and law enforcement involved in presenting the evidence at the Coroner's Inquest for a murder charge had no say in this plea agreement. So I don't think you can make the argument that the judge knew everything there was to know about the case.

But in that case doesn't that mean you are presuming all the Judge knew was basically whatever the Crown wanted him to know?

Watson was in Australia for three weeks, in custody, before he made his guilty plea, or should I say his guilty plea was made public. The Judge had access not only to the complete Coroner's report but to all the witness statements, the tapes recorded by the police and every report from the protracted investigation. He would also have had a pre-sentence report which can include victim statements (or family in this case) as well as any other relevant information. From your post, are you suggesting he would have made up his mind basically on the spot regarding the sentence? Reading through his sentencing remarks I think not; he had obviously read and prepared his statement and then sentenced accordingly. Yes, there was no trial and no chance to cross-examine the witnesses but do you think after six years they would have had much to add, other than what was in their original statements?

Yes, I agree that the guilty plea and sentencing remarks pose a problem for divers. Until that precedent is tested though we have no way of knowing how it will impact on us all. Bear in mind that many other cases also set precedents, and as far as I'm aware it doesn't necessarily follow that people will be found guilty on precedent alone. Speaking personally I have no real problem with the way this particular case has been handled by the Judiciary here, and any concerns I have can be addressed by recourse to the legal system itself. We have an adversarial system which presumes innocence until proven otherwise, and I have to believe that will be sufficient. Some may view that as naive, I do not.