Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[Cacia]

Oh boy.

 

[Under-Exposed]

...and puh-lease!!!

 

[Under-Exposed]

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

That's the $64 question...at least one of them. As someone who spends their lief inferring things from evidence, it is not apparent to me why this question is so obviously answered "no".

Perhaps I am due for a career change anyway

 

[Dan Ziegner]

As someone who spends their lief (sic) inferring things from evidence, it is not apparent to me why this question is so obviously answered "no".

Fair enough.

But, I also infer for a living (trained scientist), and I have been scuba diving for 35 years. In this case: what can be inferred from the evidence at hand? What could be inferred from the evidence that might be admitted in a trial is another issue.

In my mind, the fact that Mr. Watson admitted guilt to manslaughter (whether with, or without, malice aforethought) adds support the to "the evidence at hand" that he, did in fact, kill his wife. I fully understand that his plea of "guilty of manslaughter" (and hence no trial) for a one-year sentence in prison may mitgate the chance of ever knowing what actually happened.

 

[Under-Exposed]

Fair enough.

But, I also infer for a living (trained scientist), and I have been scuba diving for 35 years. In this case: what can be inferred from the evidence at hand? What could be inferred from the evidence that might be admitted in a trial is another issue.

In my mind, the fact that Mr. Watson admitted guilt to manslaughter (whether with, or without, malice aforethought) adds support the to "the evidence at hand" that he, did in fact, kill his wife. I fully understand that his plea of "guilty of manslaughter" (and hence no trial) for a one-year sentence in prison may mitgate the chance of ever knowing what actually happened.

But you can only infer he deliberately killed her if you infer from the fact of there being a witnessed "embrace" (the ONLY direct evidence)that the embrace was him turning off her air, and ignore myriad other possible ways that people get into trouble underwater and drown. That's how the earth was the centre of the universe, was only 90,000 years old, and electrons studded atoms like a christmas pudding!

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Fair enough.

But, I also infer for a living (trained scientist), and I have been scuba diving for 35 years. In this case: what can be inferred from the evidence at hand? What could be inferred from the evidence that might be admitted in a trial is another issue.

In my mind, the fact that Mr. Watson admitted guilt to manslaughter (whether with, or without, malice aforethought) adds support the to "the evidence at hand" that he, did in fact, kill his wife. I fully understand that his plea of "guilty of manslaughter" (and hence no trial) for a one-year sentence in prison may mitgate the chance of ever knowing what actually happened.

Here I thought The Law and Science were different studies. It amazes me how many people feel qualified to argue with Barristers, Lawyers and Judges on points of Law! Perhaps we should reconsider education requirements and award the qualifications to any who claim them?

 

[bsee65]

Here I thought The Law and Science were different studies. It amazes me how many people feel qualified to argue with Barristers, Lawyers and Judges on points of Law! Perhaps we should reconsider education requirements and award the qualifications to any who claim them?

Law tends to be full of technicalities intended to protect us from excess zeal on the part of the authorities. These can also make it more of a challenge to find the truth. I have no problem with analytical persons arguing the facts. Lawyers et al may know how it would likely turn out in a courtroom, but they are no better judges of the truth than the rest of us. As far as protecting the family goes, I think that call should have been up to them. If the father was willing to endure the abuse to say what he felt needed saying, then protecting him gives him no justice.

From my perspective, his answer would have been that he hd no meaningfujl financial incentive to lie. Watson is not, to my knowledge, a wealthy man. What money might be seen in a wrongful death case? Probably not much, and even less if Watson spends years behind bars rather than earning moneys that could be paid toward a settlement. He stands a better chance of a larger financial award with this outcome as responsibility for her death has already been admitted and Watson will still have earning capacity, no?

 

[alohagal]

Law tends to be full of technicalities intended to protect us from excess zeal on the part of the authorities. These can also make it more of a challenge to find the truth. I have no problem with analytical persons arguing the facts. Lawyers et al may know how it would likely turn out in a courtroom, but they are no better judges of the truth than the rest of us. As far as protecting the family goes, I think that call should have been up to them. If the father was willing to endure the abuse to say what he felt needed saying, then protecting him gives him no justice.

From my perspective, his answer would have been that he hd no meaningfujl financial incentive to lie. Watson is not, to my knowledge, a wealthy man. What money might be seen in a wrongful death case? Probably not much, and even less if Watson spends years behind bars rather than earning moneys that could be paid toward a settlement. He stands a better chance of a larger financial award with this outcome as responsibility for her death has already been admitted and Watson will still have earning capacity, no?

Agreed...none of us in our chosen profession are infallable or necessarily the grand authorities. Oftentimes, we may become complacent, jaded or incapable of seeing through a different set of eyes.

Law, medicine, diving what have you. No one is immune from being taught new things. I have a real problem in our court system with so called "paid experts" seems it can have an intrinsic result of gearing the so called "expert" testimony to whomever the payer may be. One time the expert is siding with the prosecution. In another case with the defense.

In medicine we have long ago abandoned the practice of being the expert in deciding what the patient should be told. We now practice informed consent...no matter how bleak and harrowing the news may be. The patient has a right to decide for themselves. And why should the "family" be spared the horrors of court if that is their only recourse to hear the 'evidence' that they felt was going to be forthcoming. It is paternalistic to spare the family this pain, by bringing it forth in the sentencing statements. It still rubs me the wrong way and I am not a family member.

The family likely retained a lawyer who would have been just as capable of advising them of upcoming events in the court just as ItsBruce was so aptly able to do a few posts ago.

 

[Tricia]

From my perspective, his answer would have been that he hd no meaningfujl financial incentive to lie. Watson is not, to my knowledge, a wealthy man. What money might be seen in a wrongful death case? Probably not much, and even less if Watson spends years behind bars rather than earning moneys that could be paid toward a settlement. He stands a better chance of a larger financial award with this outcome as responsibility for her death has already been admitted and Watson will still have earning capacity, no?

If you have read (and been able to remember - fair enough!) all the posts here and on the other thread, you would remember that Gabe Watson was a controlling S.O.B. with his wife (remember the engagement ring he kept in the box on top of the TV for six months, telling her if she touched it, he wouldn't ask her to marry him?). Money was not likely the motive here. What irritates me with this case (and it has never been answered) is what happened during the first 4 days of their honeymoon in Sydney. I suspect the police didn't have the resources to do a thorough check of the events there. Because this is the kind of man for whom all it takes is his wife chatting with another man to set him off. And in that case, this poorly executed murder would make sense because it would be a "crime of passion", hastily carried out while in anger.

Trish

 

[bsee65]

If you have read (and been able to remember - fair enough!) all the posts here and on the other thread, you would remember that Gabe Watson was a controlling S.O.B. with his wife (remember the engagement ring he kept in the box on top of the TV for six months, telling her if she touched it, he wouldn't ask her to marry him?). Money was not likely the motive here. What irritates me with this case (and it has never been answered) is what happened during the first 4 days of their honeymoon in Sydney. I suspect the police didn't have the resources to do a thorough check of the events there. Because this is the kind of man for whom all it takes is his wife chatting with another man to set him off. And in that case, this poorly executed murder would make sense because it would be a "crime of passion", hastily carried out while in anger.

Trish

The comments relate to what might have happened during Tina's father's testimony, not to Watson's motives.