Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[alohagal]

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

Trish,

Hello to France!


I think most of us on this thread are debating whether we should be concerned with the precedent that could come forth for divers, rescue certified or otherwise, based on the sentencing remarks by the judge in the manslaughter agreement.
For me, I would like it more clearly defined whether Gabe was found guilty of manslaughter because he "let his wife drown" (which implies a purposeful action) or "failed to rescue" which in my mind seems a more passive action. I guess I am thinking in terms of voluntary manslaughter versus non-voluntary manslaughter.

I believe this thread is continuing...only due to the fact that there is an appeal pending for the sentencing portion of Gabe Watson's charge of manslaughter.

When and if there are ever charges leveled in the USA, which I find doubtful, (unless it is a civil trial) there will certainly be torrid and heated debate on those matters, once again.

In the meantime, I believe many of us are waiting to hear what comes from the appeal of the actual sentence.

I must say, I do enjoy a forum that can bring together people from the USA, Australia and France, among others, to discuss this topic.

Note: To the professionals here...barristers and lawyers...forgive me for sounding like such a layman.

Best wishes,
Mary

 

[Under-Exposed]

Mary, we love laypeople. IT is only through the involvement of laypeople, and confidence in the system by laypeople, that enables it to work in the first place! And of course the perspective of laypeople is always a useful reality check on the health of the system, often indicating that it is not meeting expectations OR (more commonly, in my experience) that it is not adequately communicating the way it operates and the various (often conflicting) ends it is designed to achieve.

Particularly is that so in this case, where both criminal and civil (if any) liability are firmly grounded in notions of reasonableness.

 

[alohagal]

Mary, we love laypeople. IT is only through the involvement of laypeople, and confidence in the system by laypeople, that enables it to work in the first place! And of course the perspective of laypeople is always a useful reality check on the health of the system, often indicating that it is not meeting expectations OR (more commonly, in my experience) that it is not adequately communicating the way it operates and the various (often conflicting) ends it is designed to achieve.

Particularly is that so in this case, where both criminal and civil (if any) liability are firmly grounded in notions of reasonableness.

Yes, the bolded part of your statement is key for me in this case. I never really did understand what was being communicated in the sentencing remarks...and therefore as a layperson, decided to accept that the judge knows best. Based on further commentary on this thread I have developed questions about that assumption. But, really just seeking more clarity. I would love to sit and have tea with the judge and get his thoughts directly.

I have noticed that your comments, as barrister in Australia, and the judges sentencing remarks, appear much more formal and couched in a type of legalease that I am not used to. Certainly American jurisprudence has its own language as well...but it is language I am certainly more familiar with (yet, still difficult at times to understand) than Australian legal jargon and phraseology! Makes it that much harder to work out.

Mary

 

[Under-Exposed]

I suspect that whatever the outcome of the appeal we will get a more detailed analysis of the facts before the court and the relevant factors to be taken into account in sentencing.

I am sorry about my legalese...my only excuse (then, not even) is that I do civil trials only, and we do not really have many juries in civil trials in Australia (certainly in NSW) and so I am generally trying to explain myself to judges and other legal practitioners. But perhaps that is why my clients look at me so quizzically when I am explaining the merits of their case to them!

 

[jester1226]

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!

This is due to the fact that laws are always open to interpretation. Think about it, you get two opposing sides, both using attorneys that see the same case as being completely different. THis is futher left to the interpretation of a judge who may or may not see it exactly the same as one of the attorneys. He may see it a completely different way.

 

[ItsBruce]

For everyone who thinks that Watson's decision to plead guilty to manslaughter is evidence he is actually guilty of murder, answer me this: Why isn't the prosecution's offer to accept a plea to anything less than murder evidence that the prosecutor knows it wasn't murder?

And for that same group, would you be willing to agree that if you are ever in a civil case, if you offer to settle, it proves you have no case; i.e. if you are a defendant, you are at fault, and if you are a plaintiff, that you really are not entitled to anything?

There are lots of reasons to offer to compromise, whether in a civil or criminal case. Most have very little to do with guilt.

While I cannot think of any specific example at the moment, I know there are lots of instances in which people were wrongly convicted of murder and spent many years in prison only to be vindicated by DNA evidence. So, we know those people were NOT guilty. But, does anyone think that if any of them knew what would happen and had the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter and served only a few years, they wouldn't have done so?

 

[Under-Exposed]

This is due to the fact that laws are always open to interpretation. Think about it, you get two opposing sides, both using attorneys that see the same case as being completely different. THis is futher left to the interpretation of a judge who may or may not see it exactly the same as one of the attorneys. He may see it a completely different way.

The difficulty in this case is not so much the laws, which are fairly clear, but their application to the facts, and of course the determination of the facts to which the laws in this case are to be applied. The determination of the facts is a matter of inference. Certainly, there is a significant degree of correspondence between the processes of inferential reasoning in law and in science. But in both there are impermissible reasoning processes, some of which have been evident in some of the posts in this thread.

 

[bsee65]

For everyone who thinks that Watson's decision to plead guilty to manslaughter is evidence he is actually guilty of murder, answer me this: Why isn't the prosecution's offer to accept a plea to anything less than murder evidence that the prosecutor knows it wasn't murder?

And for that same group, would you be willing to agree that if you are ever in a civil case, if you offer to settle, it proves you have no case; i.e. if you are a defendant, you are at fault, and if you are a plaintiff, that you really are not entitled to anything?

There are lots of reasons to offer to compromise, whether in a civil or criminal case. Most have very little to do with guilt.

While I cannot think of any specific example at the moment, I know there are lots of instances in which people were wrongly convicted of murder and spent many years in prison only to be vindicated by DNA evidence. So, we know those people were NOT guilty. But, does anyone think that if any of them knew what would happen and had the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter and served only a few years, they wouldn't have done so?

It seems like you're arguing both sides of this question here, I can't figure out from this context which you are promoting. I'll answer you anyway...

With regard to the first question, I believe that an honorable prosecution that didn't believe this was a murder wouldn't file a case at all. They wouldn't (shouldn't?) want a manslaughter conviction for a man who failed to save his wife when he should have been able to. There have been a few theories posed for why the prosecution offered and accepted the plea. One is that there was significant risk of a "Not Guilty" verdict at trial, a second was that they didn't want to bear the high cost of an international trial, and third was this concept of protecting the family from all the evils of a trial. If there was no evidence of foul play, this would have been written off as a mishap in which a rescuer failed to save the victim and there would be no criminal case.

With regard to your second question, an offer to settle is always based upon some evaluation of costs, effort, time, publicity, precedent, and likelihood of success.

As you seem to be pointing out, no agreement, and in fact no trial, can actually tell us where fault lies with 100% accuracy. I'd like to believe that, almost always, the outcome represents the truth, or at least some approximation of justice.

With regard to Watson's plea, I don't believe that it tells us he absolutely killed his wife as a matter of pure truth. However, in the world of law, I do believe it should have some impact on the ability of the family to win a wrongful death suit. When one pleads to a crime, doesn't the law require them to admit that they did it, and thereafter act as though they had?

There are too many arenas involved here, and it can confuse discussion at times. We have the truth, the perception, the criminal outcome and the civil outcome. In an ideal world, they'd all be in agreement.

 

[K_girl]

Mary, we love laypeople. IT is only through the involvement of laypeople, and confidence in the system by laypeople, that enables it to work in the first place! And of course the perspective of laypeople is always a useful reality check on the health of the system, often indicating that it is not meeting expectations OR (more commonly, in my experience) that it is not adequately communicating the way it operates and the various (often conflicting) ends it is designed to achieve.

Particularly is that so in this case, where both criminal and civil (if any) liability are firmly grounded in notions of reasonableness.

In other words, laypeople tend to think like jurors which lawyers seem to forget how, simply because they have been taught to think differently and things you would think should be simple become incredibly complex. I sometimes participate as a potential juror for mock criminal trials in my office. Lawyers seem to always find it an enlightening process.

 

[K_girl]

For everyone who thinks that Watson's decision to plead guilty to manslaughter is evidence he is actually guilty of murder, answer me this: Why isn't the prosecution's offer to accept a plea to anything less than murder evidence that the prosecutor knows it wasn't murder?

I would just ignore those people who come on here and say he's guilty of murder due to the manslaughter conviction. As far as many of us here are concerned, the deal is done and you can't change it. The question now is the sentencing appeal. If there happens to be a civil or criminal trial in the U.S., perhaps we can take up those issues once again at that time. But to do so now really serves no purpose. And I have to be honest, I have no idea what it is you are trying to ask. I'm a bit confused by the double negatives.

Regarding the settlement of civil cases. I think it would depend on the settlement amount, which I am no expert at. But we know a lot of cases are settled as "nuisance" cases because the cost of settling is lower than going to trial, even if you win. However, if it is a large amount with a no-talk, non-disclosure agreement, it would certain raise an more of an eyebrow and would make the defendant possibly more vulnerable to future lawsuits, whether they were liable or not. You're right, "guilt" is not the word that applies in civil cases, the more appropriate word would be "liable."