Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[ItsBruce]

Having been through many trials, both as counsel, a witness and as a judge, and has having attended many mediations as counsel for a litigant and also as the Court's designated mediator, my take is that a settlement without the need for a trial is almost always better for everyone than a trial.

In my view, nearly all cases that go to trial do so because one side or the other has made a mistake of some sort. On the civil side, either one side or the other has overrated their chance of winning or the plaintiff has overrated the recoverable damages or even the defendant's ability to pay them or the defendant has underrated the recoverable damages. Sometimes it is the lawyer who has misevaluated his or her client's reasonableness. On the criminal side, either the prosecutor has overrated the chances of a conviction and has not offered a deal with which the defendant can live or the defendant has overrated the chance of a defense verdict and is not satisfied with the prosecutor's deal.

Had the case against Watson gone to trial, Tina's family would have been put through the ringer. For example, does anyone think the defense would have just laid down for testimony about Watson wanting Tina's insurance to be changed? My recollection is that her father would have testified that that's what Watson wanted. I'm pretty sure the defense would have challenged him for being biased. The defense would likely have questioned him about the apparent vendetta on which the family went. I could imagine some of the following:

* You despise Gabe, don't you?
* You despise him because you think he murdered your daughter, don't you?
* You think that, even though you don't have any real evidence, don't you?
* If Gabe is found guilty, that gives you an edge in suing him civilly, right?
* If he is found guilty, you may get a lot of money in a civil case, right?
* Whether you're lying or not, wouldn't you agree you have an incentive to lie?

How about the bit about Watson taking flowers from the grave:

* Given the way you were treating Gabe, do you blame him for disposing of your flowers?
* Assuming he was innocent and had lost his beloved wife in a diving accident and then had you trying to destroy him with what he felt were lies, wouldn't you have lashed out at you?

(And this is without giving the examination much thought.)

It would not have been pretty. Whether Tina's family thinks it or not, they would have gone through a lot of stress and trauma. And, if then Watson had been acquitted, they would have had to second guess their testimony and worry that something they said or didn't say led to his acquittal.

To anyone who has not gone through a major trial, either as a litigant, witness or counsel, it is hard to imagine what it does to you.

I think the Judge made a good point about the plea saving Tina's family going through a trial.

 

[ItsBruce]

Bruce, There is another relevant aspect of emergency first response in Ontario that may apply to other areas as well. Once anyone BEGINS first aid, even those without a duty of care, they are required to continue until a more qualified person takes over. If they become extremely exhausted in their efforts and take a little break or the situation becomes dangerous for the responder, that will mitigate the requirement, as long as they don't "abandon" the patient, flee the scene or be unavailable for information. In Ontario, we are protected by the Good Samaritan Act as long as we act reasonably in accordance with our knowledge and circumstances. No one to date has been successfully sued in Canada for offering first aid assistance.

I absolutely agree that once you begin to act, you are on the hook.

I can't comment on how much your Good Samaritan Act may protect you.

In California, we were recently surprised to find that our Good Samaritan Act did not necessarily protect a motorist who pulled another motorist from a car that she thought was about to catch fire after a crash. Our court said the Act applied to the rendering of emergency medical care, not to pulling someone from a burning car. The court did not say the motorist was negligent or liable, it simply said that it was for a jury to decide.

 

[K_girl]

1. I am troubled by there being a duty (in terms of legal obligation, punishable by some criminal or civil sanction) upon one diver to rescue their buddy when their buddy gets into trouble. The High Court of Australia has on many occasions said that the very fact that it is difficult to articulate what the duty requires and the circumstances in which it is required itself is a powerful indicator there is in fact no duty.

This is why we need to define means, opportunity, mental capacity and personal safety when it comes to the underwater environment, which is completely unique than any other situation. There is no other risk sport that relys on a buddy system for safety.

2. As a result of 1, I would be troubled if a trial had gone ahead and if findings had been made such as those recounted in the sentencing remarks (ie failure to come to Tina's aid), that those findings would result in a verdict of guilt of manslaughter by reason of criminal negligence. MY own view is that those findings ought not result in such a verdict.

That is because the jury would have to accept that the situation started as an accident, but turned into something else, but exactly what and at what point did it stop becoming an accident and an intentional walk-away to form negligence? The sentencing remarks did not address this at all.

6. I am not so troubled by the judge's comments (other than the reference to there being a failure to act, which I address in 1, but which is a necessary element of the offence of which he pleaded guilty and therefore has to be assumed for the purposes of sentencing). In particular, like it or not, those factors that seem to trouble others such as sparing the community the expense of a trial etc, ARE relevant factors that AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST be taken into account.

Although I have mentioned that the court did take the cost into account, as well as it was one of their movitves for the plea agreement, I would not say that they did not have the right to do so. In my discussion with Livinoz, she was stressing the point that the judge reviewed all the evidence, proclaimed Watson not guilty and made his ruling based on that. I would disagree with that assertion.

7. In mt experience trials of any kind (criminal or civil) are traumatic experiences, which many frequently regret being involved in, and whether or not it is a good or bad experience is something that is rarely capable of prediction beforehand, which is why in my own view, based on my experience, little weight should be given to the desire of family members of victims to proceed to a trial.

I understand what you are saying, that the judge probably knows what is better for the family in the long-run. And in most cases, you may be right. However, in this particular case, the family had already endured months of testimony of 65 witnesses for the Coroner's Inquest. I would say they had a pretty good idea of what to expect at a trial and were prepared for it.

Caveat - after reading ItsBruce's post on this matter regarding cross-examination of Tina's father, he makes a good point. However, the family's testimony in this case would have really been minimal. Just the inurance point and the flowers point, I don't think that would have been enough to put them over the edge compared to all the other testimony that would have been presented in the case.

 

[K_girl]

But if you want specifics, you did say elsewhere in regard to the sentencing remarks: "[This] gives a lot of insight into the decision rendered. I prefer to think the judge knew best under the circumstances." And yet you say above, ".. it makes the Guilty plea of Manslaughter and the judges statements seem that much more off kilter" Is that not quite a shift though? Everyone is allowed to change their mind, but for myself I would prefer to have it reasoned out than what appears to me to be an about-face.

I took alohagal's meaning to be more like "I would like to believe that the judge knew best.." - not that she necessarily did.

You have also stated: "The prosecution has said, there was not enough evidence to prove murder (which means they probably thought he was guilty, just couldn't prove it)", again a supposition and yet now you are arguing that he is being unjustly punished for manslaughter. I don't get it. You say also," This sentence was too harsh for the reasons set forth," but again, you initially said that the Judge knew best.

I think Alohagal was simply stating how she thought it happened, and many others on this board have said the same thing. It does not necessarily mean that she endorsed what the prosecution did. Fact is, Watson would not have entered any kind of guilty plea, manslaughter or otherwise if he did not think there was a chance to convict on the murder charge. I think that is an assumption you can safely make here. Otherwise it would make no sense for Watson to accept the plea.

 

[K_girl]

From the first post of this thread:

Quote:
In mid-2008, coroner David Glasgow found that it was likely Mr Watson killed his 26-year-old wife by holding her under water and turning off her air supply.



I'm sorry, but the Coroner made no such finding at all. In fact he is precluded from making any such finding. That is just media nonsense. I am not being critical of others for perpetuating it, but it is simply not the fact.

The only thing we know is that there was a video presentation by police diving experts at the inquest that was a re-enactment of how Watson could have turned Tina's air off. So there was probably some reference to it in the transcripts of the Coroner's Inquest which was never produced to the public and lasted over a period of months. Under-Exposed is correct in that this theory was never discussed in the Coroner's report which was made public.

There is another potential theory, that to my knowledge was never discussed, that perhaps Watson could have removed the regulator from Tina's mouth, which, if somehow proved, would have resulted in a murder charge as well. Why this theory was never presented intrigues me. I'm thinking that it is because several people, including Watson, described Tina as having the regulator in her mouth at the last moment he saw her.

Seeing how there was not an alternate theory presented at the inquest, the media took the liberty of assuming that the Coroner based his decision to arrest Watson for murder was the theory that was presented at the inquest. I have a link to a few seconds of the police re-enactment video, but really, this is a moot point because there will be no trial. At least not at this point.

 

[Dan Ziegner]

The point is: this man deliberately killed his wife.

 

[Under-Exposed]

This is why we need to define means, opportunity, mental capacity and personal safety when it comes to the underwater environment, which is completely unique than any other situation. There is no other risk sport that relys on a buddy system for safety.



That is because the jury would have to accept that the situation started as an accident, but turned into something else, but exactly what and at what point did it stop becoming an accident and an intentional walk-away to form negligence? The sentencing remarks did not address this at all.



Although I have mentioned that the court did take the cost into account, as well as it was one of their movitves for the plea agreement, I would not say that they did not have the right to do so. In my discussion with Livinoz, she was stressing the point that the judge reviewed all the evidence, proclaimed Watson not guilty and made his ruling based on that. I would disagree with that assertion.



I understand what you are saying, that the judge probably knows what is better for the family in the long-run. And in most cases, you may be right. However, in this particular case, the family had already endured months of testimony of 65 witnesses for the Coroner's Inquest. I would say they had a pretty good idea of what to expect at a trial and were prepared for it.

Caveat - after reading ItsBruce's post on this matter regarding cross-examination of Tina's father, he makes a good point. However, the family's testimony in this case would have really been minimal. Just the inurance point and the flowers point, I don't think that would have been enough to put them over the edge compared to all the other testimony that would have been presented in the case.

For what its worth, in Australia a coronial inquest is a rather more gentle affair than a criminal trial. I don't knew whether Tina's father was xx in the inquest, but I agree wholeheartedly with Bruce...it would not have been a pretty sight.

 

[Under-Exposed]

The point is: this man deliberately killed his wife.

I forgot you were there Dan!

 

[Under-Exposed]

The only thing we know is that there was a video presentation by police diving experts at the inquest that was a re-enactment of how Watson could have turned Tina's air off. So there was probably some reference to it in the transcripts of the Coroner's Inquest which was never produced to the public and lasted over a period of months. Under-Exposed is correct in that this theory was never discussed in the Coroner's report which was made public.

The purpose of this re-enactment was to demonstrate how the "embrace" that Dr stutz (the only witness) says he saw could have enabled Watson to turn off (and then presumably back on) Tina's air. It is highly problematic. First, it was done in a vertical position whereas Dr Stutz said they were both horizontal. Second, he was xx by video which in my experience (and I'm sure Bruce will agree) is far from ideal in terms of testing the veracity of the evidence, particularly where it is evidence about the physical position of two objects (in this case, Gabe and Tina). Thirdly, there was no testing by xx of alternative physical scenarios consistent with Gabe's version of events that may have looked the same or similar to Dr Stutz as the "embrace" that he described. As I understand it, Dr Stutz's various versions were not entirely consistent with each other, and no doubt under full xx in person those inconsistencies could have been well exploited.

 

[Dan Ziegner]

"veracity of the evidence"

Woman dies scuba diving; can one infer from the "evidence" that she died accidentally? No. Well...